[cmeisenzahl]

"Rare, mother-of-pearl colored clouds caused by extreme weather conditions above Antarctica are a possible indication of global warming, Australian scientists said on Tuesday.
...
Nacreous clouds can only form in temperatures lower than minus 112 Fahrenheit.

Meteorologist Renae Baker said a weather balloon in the vicinity of the clouds in the stratosphere about 12 miles above the Earth's surface measured temperatures as low as minus 124.6 F.

"That's about as cold as the lowest temperatures ever recorded on the surface of the Earth," Baker, who photographed the clouds, said in a statement."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You've already given more-than-sufficient demonstration that you are almost completely ignorant about global warming and climate change. There's really no need to keep providing examples, thanks.

greg

[NYCFarmboy]

it was politically popular on the left to screach about the coming ice age in the 1970's..then in the 80's and 90's it was going to burn us all up in global warming..now they are going back to freezing us again.

[evfish84]

It's all crap anyway. There isn't any use debating, as there isn't enough historical evidence for any conclusions.

[tie]

I think you are just showing your ignorance here. Everybody has said that global warming will cause more extreme weather conditions. A much better example of how global warming can cause cooling is if the current across and up the Atlantic shuts down -- Europe would get much cooler.

NYCFarmboy: The idea that scientists were concerned about an imminent ice age in the 1970s is a myth.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

"Now Global Warming Causes Cold Weather?"

You voted Bush, didn't you?


EDIT: Just checked your blog. Looks like you were PAID by Bush, never mind voted for him.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You've already given more-than-sufficient demonstration that you are almost completely ignorant about global warming and climate change. There's really no need to keep providing examples, thanks.

greg

Well, at least YOU see yourself as all knowing.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by tie

I think you are just showing your ignorance here. Everybody has said that global warming will cause more extreme weather conditions. A much better example of how global warming can cause cooling is if the current across and up the Atlantic shuts down -- Europe would get much cooler.

NYCFarmboy: The idea that scientists were concerned about an imminent ice age in the 1970s is a myth.

MYTH??? LOL I REMEMBER the Ice Age nonsense being discussed in 'science' class. They WERE serious back then. Just as serious and wrong as they are now to assume they have all the answers because they've studied all the DERIVED DATA. You can be as SURE as you wanna be, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Discussed, ad naseum.

This is so boring. Seriously. The same old useless arguments from you people, every single time.

Sigh.

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Discussed, ad naseum.

This is so boring. Seriously. The same old useless arguments from you people, every single time.

Sigh.

greg

Yeah, that's why you posted here…because of your lack of interest.…or was it so that you could grace us with your smugness…

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by tie

NYCFarmboy: The idea that scientists were concerned about an imminent ice age in the 1970s is a myth.

uh... you need so do some research, there were two bad winters , 76/77 and 77/78 that had some long blizzard so based on that everyone screached the sky was fallling and we'd all freeze to death... i was a kid then and remember getting out of school for over a month so I thought it was quite "cool".

of course now its the other extreme.

The globalwarmmongers are only interested in screaching to scare people into paying for their political cause du jour... its quite silly but then a fool and his/her money are soon parted thus the industry supporting the globalwarming myth.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

it was politically popular on the left to screach about the coming ice age in the 1970's...

were politicians making stump speeches about the encroaching glaciers from canada???

no.

were the scientists???

no.

because if you had read the few articles about the coming ice age, like i have*, you would know that the postulated ice age was 20,000 years in the coming.

but props (i guess) for introducing a new level of rhetoric to the debate.

(*i've posted the text here so presumably you have too.)

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by tie

I think you are just showing your ignorance here. Everybody has said that global warming will cause more extreme weather conditions. A much better example of how global warming can cause cooling is if the current across and up the Atlantic shuts down -- Europe would get much cooler.

hence the reason "climate change" is a better term than "global warming" though i bet globally, temps will continue to rise despite local areas of cooling.

[ironknee]

again i ask what global warming?

the country is melting and this is just the begining.

11:45 pm nyc 89 degrees and it feels like 96

[placebo1969]

Newsweek article from 1975 and here's a PDF of the article

[Wiskedjak]

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Newsweek article from 1975 and here's a PDF of the article

wow. somebody just got handed their ass.

Also, check 'Scientific American' magazine and 'National Geographic' for similar articles.

I was old enough in the mid-70's to remember watching news programs that foretold a fast-approaching "ice age". In school, we were taught that "scientists were in agreement" that 'global cooling' was a very real threat that we would have to deal with as we got older.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

wow. somebody just got handed their ass.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions.

yup. totally in agreement. ice age - no disagreement whatsoever.

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

damning.

though, no quotes from politicians? odd. i thought they were all over this.

i would wash your hands if i were you spliffdaddy.

[Spliffdaddy]

I was there, dude.

You aren't old enough to know what happened in 1975.

I can believe what I saw and heard - or I can believe some young punk that has little life experience.

hmm. what to choose?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I was there, dude.

You aren't old enough to know what happened in 1975.

I can believe what I saw and heard - or I can believe some young punk that has little life experience.

hmm. what to choose?

don't believe what i'm telling you. you can read it yrself.

i like the quote from the national geographic article you brought up:

It may seem that there are as many theories on climate as there are climatologists, but experts agree on one point: They cannot yet predict climate change with any assurance.

the disingenuity of these 'omg global cooling in the '70's'-types is that, while global cooling was hypothesized, it was contrasted with a competing hypothesis, global warming. and in all cases no consensus was ever formed - as, plainly admitted at the time, very little info on the veracity of any possible trend was available.

case in point, this scan from the 1976 nat'l geographic shows two speculative extreme trends labled "warmer?" and "colder?"

anyone who reads that and hyperbolically embraces one theory and fails to even acknowldege the other, moreover, emphatically states that their was no objections, obviously has an agenda.

i'm sorry if the info you got as a kid turned out not to be true (maybe you should have read more? the words were there then as they are now) or overly conflated. but there's no point in being bitter about it. well, maybe it's too late for that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I was there, dude.

You aren't old enough to know what happened in 1975.

I can believe what I saw and heard - or I can believe some young punk that has little life experience.

hmm. what to choose?

Eyewitness accounts are are fairly unreliable, particularly from somebody with a demonstrated bias. People have sworn to me they saw things that they didn't because their memories changed over the years.

[tie]

Wow. I've made similar posts in three or four threads now, trying to figure out what the real story was about the mid-70's global cooling hypothesis. But I never got any hard evidence, except an article (in Science, IIRC) which the Wall Street Journal misquoted. I guess my posts weren't aggressive enough, because now I see several links. Thanks, guys.

The Newsweek story is certainly sensationalist. Very interesting. The National Geographic story is much more moderated. It's too bad the old scientific journals aren't all available online.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I recommend this docu-drama. Never leave home without your ski-doo.

Anyway, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that global warming is indeed happening is just displaying their ignorance.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why don’t I save everyone a lot of time and just boil the 7 or 8 page suck-fest this thread will eventually become down to one post? Here goes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PompusWindbag: Clearly you demonstrate you know nothing and are beneath the notice of I, one who knows all.

SomeoneElse: Global Warming is a hoax.

Notherguy: No it’s not.

SomeoneElse: Yes it is.

Notherguy: No it’s not.

SomeoneElse: Yes it is.

Notherguy: No it’s not.

SomeoneElse: Yes it is.

PompusWindbag: Bah! Once more you foolishly prove you know nothing. But keep humoring me with your demonstrations that you are so far beneath me and my superior self. I’m too good to take notice of this thread.

yetanotherperson: but you’re posting in it.

PompusWindbag: Bah! Clearly you know not of which you speak!

AnotherPoster: You idiots were wrong before.

Notherguy: No! We never said what you said we said even though you link to sites where we said it!

AnotherPoster: Yes you did.

Notherguy: Did not!

AnotherPoster: Did too.

Notherguy: Did not!

AnotherPoster: Did too.

Notherguy: Did not!

AnotherPoster: Did too.

yetanotherperson:

Global Warming is teh scienz!

Notherguy: Nuh uh!

AnotherPoster: Yes huh!

PlotThickenr2004: My stats prove nuh uh!


Notherguy: Oh no he di’nt!

Whoozit343432232: The debate is over! http://www.wx-host.com/sun000.png

AnotherPoster: You’re wrong again!


PompusWindbag: Bah! You’ve proven nothing foolish fool. My superiorness trumps you once again because I say so with the most conviction. You’ve proven yourself my inferior once again! Ha! I deem this thread unworthy of my superior superiorness!

yetanotherperson: um, but… you’re still posting here.

PompusWindbag: Lies! Lies damn you all to the firey global warming brimstone hell!

FraidyKat2945: Oh my god! We’re all gonna die! IEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Oh my! Global warming is real! Who could doubt it! It’s real! It’s REAAAAAALLL!!!!!! Oh my god! Oh my god! Wait a minute, I don’t believe in god. Oh my earth! Oh my earth! Global warming! It’s real! The debate is over! There is no debate! We’re all gonna burn up! EEEEEKKK!!!!

AnotherPoster:

Notherguy: Shutup Global Warming doubter!

AnotherPoster: no, you shut up.

Notherguy: No, you.

AnotherPoster: no, you.

Notherguy: No, you.

AnotherPoster: no, you.

Notherguy: No. You.

Aguyconvincedhesright: Only a retard would doubt my overwhelming evidence!!



Anotherguyconvincedhesmoreright: Oh yeah, retard? Well only a pretard would doubt the irrefutable scientist I’m quoting!

So much evidence exists already about everything on the list that there is no longer a need to try and adapt to the scientific world view as if it were the only valid one. (Or as if the alternative is superstition, magical thinking, and fantasy.) The problem about living a connected life isn't the opposition of science or skepticism. The problem is that the subtle level of Nature, being invisible and explored one person at a time, has not revealed itself in a very organized way. Consciousness is still a cottage industry. As such, there is a wild mixture of truth and speculation, projection and verification. Anyone's experience could be real or imaginary. Anyone's explanation could be valid or eccentric.

Even in the East, where higher states of consciousness are revered, the knowledge of subtle reality feels confused and disorganized. There are specialists in isolated fields like acupuncture, there are martial arts schools and various gurus and sages, but making specialized connections isn't the same as providing an understanding to the world at large.

For a new world view to emerge it must be coherent. It cannot be built up from entirely personal experiences, because sometimes these experiences are so intense that we can't see beyond them. Imagine being in a room where a clairvoyant medium, a channeler, a faith healer, and an acupuncturist are trying to reach agreement while all around them radios blare messages about UFOs, alien abductions, reincarnation, near-death experiences, etc. The Babel of voices is so intense as to be unintelligible.

The first steps have to be taken, however, despite this welter of confusion. A culture of consciousness is possible. In fact, present-day science is such a culture, although it is based, ironically enough, on the premise that consciousness has no validity except as an emergent property of matter. One can foresee the next culture of consciousness based on connections, which would overturn the whole scientific prejudice against the subtle body, invisible realities, and the primacy of consciousness in general.

Ahippiewhoquoteslyrics:

Don't go near the water
Don't you think it's saaaaaaad
What's happened to the water
Our water's going baaaaaaaaaaaad

Oceans, rivers, lakes and streams
Have all been touched by maaaaaan
The poison floating out to sea
Now threatens life on laaaaaaaaaand

Don't go near the water
Ain't it saaaaaaaaaaad
What's happened to the water
It's going baaaaaaaaaad...........

SomeoneElse: Global Warming is a hoax.

Notherguy: No it’s not.

SomeoneElse: Yes it is.

Notherguy: No it’s not.

SomeoneElse: Jupiter is warmer.

AnotherPoster: Word.

PompusWindbag: Bah! I’ve decided to declare this thread beneath my superior notice!

yetanotherperson: um, then why are you still posting in it?

PompusWindbag: Thanks for proving you know nothing! Nothing! Nothing!!!




Repeat on like that for seven, maybe eight pages…

[Nicko]

Thank-you crash, that was a very creative post. Want a cookie?

Still, anyone who doubts globalwarming is a chump.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

don't believe what i'm telling you. you can read it yrself.

i like the quote from the national geographic article you brought up:



the disingenuity of these 'omg global cooling in the '70's'-types is that, while global cooling was hypothesized, it was contrasted with a competing hypothesis, global warming. and in all cases no consensus was ever formed - as, plainly admitted at the time, very little info on the veracity of any possible trend was available.

case in point, this scan from the 1976 nat'l geographic shows two speculative extreme trends labled "warmer?" and "colder?"

anyone who reads that and hyperbolically embraces one theory and fails to even acknowldege the other, moreover, emphatically states that their was no objections, obviously has an agenda.

And writing style and general ignorance of the writers hasn't changed? The Global Ice age crap was in the pop science news from as early as 1971 and as late as 1979 as I remember.

Originally Posted by black bear theory

i'm sorry if the info you got as a kid turned out not to be true (maybe you should have read more? the words were there then as they are now) or overly conflated. but there's no point in being bitter about it. well, maybe it's too late for that.

i'm sorry if the info you're getting as a kid turn out not to be true (maybe you should have read more? the words were there then as they are now) or overly conflated. but there's no point in being bitter about it. well, maybe it's too late for that.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Y3a

And writing style and general ignorance of the writers hasn't changed? The Global Ice age crap was in the pop science news from as early as 1971 and as late as 1979 as I remember.

it's simple. i'm not denying it wasn't there. but none of the examples brought up wholly embraced global cooling over the two other possibilities, no change, or global warming. nor, do they even attempt to show any kind of unity in the scientific field about the topic.

though you wouldn't know it from posts on the topic here.

got any more articles to bring up?

i'm sorry if the info you're getting as a kid turn out not to be true (maybe you should have read more? the words were there then as they are now) or overly conflated. but there's no point in being bitter about it. well, maybe it's too late for that.

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. and you didn't even capitalize it! straight copy and paste. i'm touched.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Newsweek article from 1975 and here's a PDF of the article

exactly.

what is so sad is how dilusional the left has become over this issue to the point where the reality is indiscernible... it only proves that the myth of the warmmongers is to be used for politcal ends and not scientific.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

AFAIK, the only places on Earth where significant negative temperature trends are occuring are over the highest parts of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice domes. Be thankful this is a trend.

As has been said before, climate science - especially on a global scale and prediction models were in their infancy during the 1970s. However, as early as 1975 scientists at the US Weather Bureau had used computers to investigate the effects of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, and came out with predictions of a 2.4 C increase - very similar to what we have today.

Despite increasing levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, global temps declined during the mid-20th century, until the 70s. Why? The current theory is aerosols, a significant portion (25 to 50%) of which seem to stem directly from human production. They are the tiny particles that drift in the atmosphere, and can be anything from volcanic dust to coal-fired smokestack emissions. Incidently, sulfur dioxide - which used to be a significant emission from those coal plants, and was behind the increase in acid rain at this time - was a large contributer to the problem.

It looks like they significantly contributed to "global dimming." Aerosols of sulphate are particularly effective at reflecting sunlight back into space, and thus act to cool the planet. However, they last just a few weeks in the atmosphere, so when smokestack scrubbers and other forms of pollution containment started becoming mandatory in the 70s, Earth temperatures resumed their resumed their upward trend.

Incidently, scientists believe that global dimming is one reason why earth temperatures are still as low as they are. Aerosols such as soot change the reflective properties of clouds by fostering the formation of many small water droplets instead of fewer, larger ones; these reflect more sunlight back into space that would otherwise be absorbed. Secondly, an interesting point is the contrails made by jets, which create a persistent cloud cover in high-traffic areas which seems to reflect more sunlight out into space. In those few days after 9/11 when all US air fleets were grounded, climatologists noticed an unprecedented increase in daytime temps relative to nighttime temps, which they attributed to more sunlight reaching the ground in the absence of those contrails.

Anyways, yeah, smactintosh, I can display my smugness here when people act as ignorant as they do. Spliffdaddy and the rest of them are still yammering on about the 70s Newsweek article, even though their time-frames or reasons don't match up half the time (NYC quotes '76-78 blizzards, even though by the end of that timeframe the "global cooling" proponents were almost completely silent).

The thing is, none of you people have arguments. You're avoiding the issue, and that's what gets me. Spliffdaddy and Y3a and NYC talk about what his grade-school teachers were telling them in the 70s; ev mumbles about no historical evidence (whatever that means); some people point out I'm a smartass; CRASH posts a funny post that suggests we just ignore the whole debate; yadda yadda yadda. Not one argument. Plenty of excuses, yes; but as my daddy loves to say, "excuses are just a reason" (and here he takes his hand and mimes putting it in the other one) "...stuffed into a lie." That pretty much sums up the non-informed posters in this thread.

Originally Posted by Y3a

And writing style and general ignorance of the writers hasn't changed? The Global Ice age crap was in the pop science news from as early as 1971 and as late as 1979 as I remember.

Not sure what your point is, but yes, they've changed greatly. Just like our knowledge of genetics, or AIDS, or computers, or chemistry, or our environment around us: our writers now know more, and far more than they did even 10 years ago. That you keep bringing up what climate scientists thought as they first began to collect world data as some sort of opposing argument makes me scratch my head in disbelief.

greg

[lpkmckenna]

CRASH, that post was awesome.

BTW: http://desmogblog.com/

[Ghoser777]

Guys, the debate is over - Pat Robertson believes in global warming.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Guys, the debate is over - Pat Robertson believes in global warming.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

-snip-

Yup my son...

The melting of the Greenland Ice cap would seriously disrupt the warm gulf stream that keeps Europe warm and temperate. Could become frigid.

Educate yourself.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Despite increasing levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, global temps declined during the mid-20th century, until the 70s. Why?"

Because there's no such event as man-made climate change.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"Despite increasing levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, global temps declined during the mid-20th century, until the 70s. Why?"

Because there's no such event as man-made climate change.

Except that there is no climatologist in the world who will agree with you on that - because you can find it over and downwind of almost all of the major cities in the world.

You're a sad, sad person when you act like such a petulant child.

greg

[Sky Captain]

Yet the Earth is nearing the end of it's 26,000 year precession cycle.
Of course it's orbit and precession wobble has nothing to do with the climate change. Mars is warming also. Any explinations? As is Pluto. SUVs no doubt.


Deforestation and suburban sprawl reflects heat back into the atmosphere. As do airconditioners(condenser unit) and the engines of machinery.

Blaming global warming solely on fossil fuel consumption is nothing more than a way of punishing the "wealthy" and an attempt to impose socialist will upon us.
Nothing more then class warfare.

[Y3a]

The computer models, and the methods of extrapolating data are still in question.
Just because you notice that it's gotten a WHOLE DEGREE WARMER IN A CENTURY, you can't say that the equipment, rounding of numeric data, etc has all been done correctly, as you haven't been able to prove anything yet. The reasons for the change may be due to other influences that are outside our control. So far, all their has been is guessing.

The formulas used to prove whether GW exists may be right,
but you could still be plugging in BS data.

does the suns wavering infrared output have anything to do with it?
does the amount of dust in space between the sun and earth have anything to do with it?
why is Mars warming? Could it be the same reason Earth really is?
if the glaciers and caps melt, and the oceans rise, wouldn't THAT also create a larger water mass which has to do with cooling the earth down?


if you go to school to learn science that you have no clue about,
and the teachers give you inccorrect info, and political BS instead of factual true science,
and then you go out into the world and practice the BS (pop science)
wouldn't you just end up being another voice saying that GW is true, even though it isn't?
And you can't say that liberals don't do this in many educational institutions!

[Dakar]

I was always under impression global warming caused more extreme patterns of weather. (Hotter hots, colder cold, bigger storms, etc.)

[Y3a]

A Bit of History for Global Warmers: Look at 1930

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 04, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - People sweltering from a heat wave in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. might find cold comfort in the fact that the temperatures of the past few days are not the hottest on record. That "honor" belongs to a summer 76 years ago -- decades before the controversy over "man-made global warming" began.

"From June 1 to August 31, 1930, 21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above" in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, Patrick Michaels, senior fellow for environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year."

Between July 19 and Aug. 9 of that year, heat records were set on nine days and they remain unbroken more than three-quarters of a century later. "That's hot," added Michaels, who also serves as professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va.

The summer of 1930 also marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th century. In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California. A "dust bowl" covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-1936.

However, the first six months of this year were the hottest across the nation since the federal government began keeping records in 1890, according to Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told NBC News that about 50 all-time high-temperature records were broken during the month of July.

But Michaels noted that high temperatures are common in the middle of the summer.

"Climatologically, the last week in July is the warmest week of the year on average, and when the atmospheric flow patterns get into anomalously warm configurations during this time of the year, temperatures will skyrocket," he said.

Along with an unusual upper-air pattern, the Washington, D.C., area "was exceedingly dry" during the summer of 1930, Michaels stated.

"Generally speaking, when the ground is moist here, temperatures cap out in the high 90s," he noted. "That's because the sun's energy is divided into evaporating water and directly heating the surface. If the surface is dry, then everything goes into heating the surface, and you get exceedingly hot temperatures like you saw in 1930.

"Big cities are getting warmer -- with or without global warming -- because the bricks and the buildings and the pavement retain heat," Michaels added. For that reason, he prefers to compare temperatures in nearby rural areas. "There's been very little change" in those areas, "so we trust the record to be a reliable indicator of base climate."

Residents of the nation's capital can look forward to some relief, as weather forecasts for the weekend call for a cooling trend. "If we were going to go into the 100s -- the 103 and 104 degree range -- we would have done it, but there's just a little bit too much moisture in the surface to allow that to happen," Michaels said. He noted, however, that temperatures are expected to rise again next week.

The mid-summer temperatures have provided more opportunities for environmentalists subscribing to the theory that man is responsible for the current global warming.

Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow for science and impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told NBC News on Wednesday that "this heat wave and other extreme events we've seen in recent years are completely consistent with what we expect to become more common as a result of global warming, even though we can't be definitive on any single event."

Michaels acknowledged that "global temperatures have been warming slightly for several decades" and noted that the surface of the world "is a little bit warmer than it was in the 1930s" even though "temperatures dropped between 1940 and 1975."

"Usually, the way the jet stream breaks out is very hot in the East and relatively cool in the West or vice versa," he said. "This time around, it looks more like the summers of the 1930s," but he dismissed the idea that the extreme temperatures of that time were caused by man-made "global warming" since "it wasn't around then."

Although the recent heat wave have not convinced Michaels that "global warming" is a severe problem, it was apparently enough to make a "convert" out of conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060804c.html

[Chuckit]

Thanks for that, Y3a. I was just looking for an article along those lines.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Y3a

"Usually, the way the jet stream breaks out is very hot in the East and relatively cool in the West or vice versa," he said. "This time around, it looks more like the summers of the 1930s," but he dismissed the idea that the extreme temperatures of that time were caused by man-made "global warming" since "it wasn't around then."

Although the recent heat wave have not convinced Michaels that "global warming" is a severe problem, it was apparently enough to make a "convert" out of conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson.

The Pat Robertson dude is a joke - it gets a bit hotter out East, and suddenly "it's the best evidence I've seen for global warming"?!?!?! Give me a break.

And man-made global warming was most certainly around in the 1930s - all our temperature records indicate so, anyways. What a curious thing to say. This statement makes me scratch my head. I've been doing a lot of head-scratching lately.

greg

[medicineman]

[QUOTE=CRASH HARDDRIVE]Why don’t I save everyone a lot of time and just boil the 7 or 8 page suck-fest this thread will eventually become down to one post? Here goes:

Excellent! Gave me a good laugh.

[medicineman]

[QUOTE=medicineman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Why don’t I save everyone a lot of time and just boil the 7 or 8 page suck-fest this thread will eventually become down to one post? Here goes:

Excellent! Gave me a good laugh.

In all seriousness, though, it's egotistical of us to believe we can alter the earth's atmosphere to a great extent. Volcanic eruptions around the globe do far more damage than we can ever hope to achieve. Does that mean we shouldn't care? No. We should. We should try to do as little damage as possible. But to believe that's man's folly alone has caused weather patterns to change is silly.

[BRussell]

Since this thread, as well as the mainstream media, shows there are differing opinions on man-made global warming, I come down in the middle because I'm a fair-minded person not taken by either side's extremists. It's also why I believe in intelligent design, which splits the difference between the extreme darwinists and the extreme creationists.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Since this thread, as well as the mainstream media, shows there are differing opinions on man-made global warming, I come down in the middle because I'm a fair-minded person not taken by either side's extremists. It's also why I believe in intelligent design, which splits the difference between the extreme darwinists and the extreme creationists.

I agree with that, BRussell. I have to say, I've disagreed with other things you have said, but this is cool.

[BRussell]

[edit] Sorry placebo, it's too bad that's the only thing you agree with me about, because I was being sarcastic. I don't believe truth has two sides, and I don't believe that just because some politicians, some people on the internet, and some moneyed interests can take a position, that the position they take weighs evenly against empirical evidence.

The truth is out there.™ It is not relative or subjective.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Since this thread, as well as the mainstream media, shows there are differing opinions on man-made global warming, I come down in the middle because I'm a fair-minded person not taken by either side's extremists. It's also why I believe in intelligent design, which splits the difference between the extreme darwinists and the extreme creationists.

Good one.

[smacintush]

So what the hell is wrong with continuing this argument? EVERY SINGLE THREAD on this forum is pointless. They are all just for fun and none of them accomplish anything. So, if you are interested in this subject then pitch in, if not then kindly STFU.

Greg, first if all it's smacinTUSH. Second of all, I was there too, in the 70's. You know, BEFORE YOU WERE ALIVE. I don't really KNOW what the scientific community was saying about global cooling in at the time of the blizzard of '78. It is irrelevant because regardless of that I too was told that the blizzard was a part of that. This to me is the point. I was taught garbage science in school and so were millions of us. In 1970 we were told that we had 10 years until the fish supplies in the ocean would disappear. Ever hear of the Population Bomb? Here's a quote:

he battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

It doesn't matter whether or not Paul Ehrlich was qualified and knew what he was talking about. Many, many people bought his retarded predictions and I was taught that in school too.

Well, many of these same people who were taught this crap are now in charge of climate research programs, are teachers, are journalists, and are politicians. They were raised on junk science and now they are pursuing it. There are plenty of reasonable ideas on GW. The problem is that people like you don't want to hear them. You would rather swallow what your idealistic betters' want to tell you about the evils of mankind.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by BRussell

[edit] Sorry placebo, it's too bad that's the only thing you agree with me about, because I was being sarcastic. I don't believe truth has two sides, and I don't believe that just because some politicians, some people on the internet, and some moneyed interests can take a position, that the position they take weighs evenly against empirical evidence.

The truth is out there.™ It is not relative or subjective.

Damn. And I was so happy.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

[edit] Sorry placebo, it's too bad that's the only thing you agree with me about, because I was being sarcastic. I don't believe truth has two sides, and I don't believe that just because some politicians, some people on the internet, and some moneyed interests can take a position, that the position they take weighs evenly against empirical evidence.

The truth is out there.™ It is not relative or subjective.

I hope this is sarcasm too, because it is awefully subjective.