[Y3a]

Found this on Drudge this Morning...

STREISAND DECLARES 'GLOBAL WARMING EMERGENCY'
THE SUPERSTAR SONGSTRESS SERENADED SAWYER WITH STORM SEASON ASSERTIONS. BUT TO SOME SHE'LL SOUND MORE LIKE A WINDSOCK SINGING LIBERALISM'S GOLDEN OLDIES!
NEW YORK -- This summer's back to back superstorms are proof positive we have entered a new period of "global warming emergency," artist/citizen Barbra Streisand warns.
Streisand is back on the scene to promote her reunion disc with Barry Gibb.
As hellstorm "Rita" churned in the Gulf, Streisand sat down for a promotional interview with ABCNEWS's Diane Sawyer.
"We are in a global warming emergency state, and these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense," Streisand urgently declares.
But Sawyer did not remind Streisand that a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas with 160 mph winds -- when the singer was five years old, in 1947!
And when Streisand was 8 years old, a Cat 5 hurricane -- named "Dog" -- packing 185 mph churned-away in the Atlantic.
When she was 9, a Cat 5 storm named "Easy" ripped the seas with 160 mph sustained winds.
Streisand was 13 years old when "Janet" hit Mexico with 150 mph winds.
Streisand was celebrating her sweet sixteen as "Cleo" formed with 140 mph.
At 18, Streisand read news about "Donna" AND "Ethel" -- both storms carried 140 mph winds and formed 9 days apart in 1960!
One year later, when Streisand was 19, it happened again: Two Category 5 storms scared the world: "Carla" and "Hattie!"
"Carla" maxed out at 175 mph winds the year Streisand made her television debut on "The Jack Paar Show."
And who could forget Hurricane "Camille" -- which smashed into the United States with 190 mph, just as "Funny Girl" garners eight Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture and one for Barbra as Best Actress.
Up next on the weather warning watch, Streisand says to ABC: "There could be more droughts, dust bowls. You know, it's amazing to hear these facts."
Developing...

==========================================

Is it just me or is she clueless, and just parroting whatever liberal BS she can almost remember??

As an aside, who checks her spelling and facts on her website??

[mojo2]

Hmmm...

The water in the Gulf of Mexico was reported to be warmer than comfortable swimming pool temperature.

I don't know, but I think babs MIGHT have a point this time. If global warming is responsible for the warmer water and the warmer water is responsible for the two killer canes, then we'd just be cutting our own throats by attacking those who are trying to save our lives here.

I think we need to look harder at this one. As wrong as she often is, every dog has it's day. Could this be hers? Don't know, but I'm holding off before slamming her on this one.

[Dork.]

Why does anyone listen to her, or any "celebrity" for that matter? What credentials does she have to analyze the situation? Does she think that just because she can hold a tune, she's an expert on every topic? I'd listen to Dr. Louis Turi over her.

[Spliffdaddy]

or even Dr Seuss

[Chuckit]

I wish Dr. Seuss would advise us on this matter. He always had all the answers for everything from grinches to paternity disputes.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Why does anyone listen to her, or any "celebrity" for that matter? What credentials does she have to analyze the situation? Does she think that just because she can hold a tune, she's an expert on every topic? I'd listen to Dr. Louis Turi over her.

She's probably more educated on the subject than many of the armchair quarterbacks here. Some people assume, erroneously, that because a person is a celebrity, they know nothing about anything else.

[Y3a]

yeah, most pop icons could be brain surgeons...

[Doofy]

I declared a whiney, boring, middle-of-the-road love song emergency some years ago.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Why does anyone listen to her, or any "celebrity" for that matter? What credentials does she have to analyze the situation? Does she think that just because she can hold a tune, she's an expert on every topic? I'd listen to Dr. Louis Turi over her.

What do credentials matter? Science is irrelevant to the Republicans on this issue. The science is pretty conclusive, but the oil industry doesn't like it, so the Republican party is locked into a nonsensical position by special interests.

The same people who are making fun of Streisand now were quoting the novelist Michael Crichton a year ago. They're afraid of the scientists, so they stick with the celebrities.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

yeah, most pop icons could be brain surgeons...

Most pop icons probably couldn't be brain surgeons, but that doesn't mean that they don't have any intellect. Sweeping generalizations often don't hold water.

[rambo47]

I vote for Dr. Seuss over Babs.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by tie

What do credentials matter? Science is irrelevant to the Republicans on this issue. The science is pretty conclusive, but the oil industry doesn't like it, so the Republican party is locked into a nonsensical position by special interests.

The same people who are making fun of Streisand now were quoting the novelist Michael Crichton a year ago. They're afraid of the scientists, so they stick with the celebrities.

If the "evidence" was pretty conclusive then there would be no debate about it. there is still enough debate about it to make it pretty in conclusive. How do we know that what is happening is not an natural occurance? People talk about man made CFC's and Other such gases that cause the depletion of the ozone layer which is causing global warming. what about Natural things like Volcanos? the produce MORE than mankind can ever produce in our lifetime. Last time I checked there was at least one if not more volcanos spewing stuff for a while now.

On the flip side the liberals are lock step into nonsensical positions by special interests as well. the door swings both ways.

I'm not saying that there isn't global warming I just don't think the environmentalists position that it is ONLY caused by mankind is accurate.

[sminch]

Most pop icons probably couldn't be brain surgeons, but that doesn't mean that they don't have any intellect.

surely the point isn't whether the person giving us their opinion is smart or not, but whether they know what they're talking about -

if a climatologist tells me something about global warming i am likely to believe them, but if he tells me something about immunology i'm likely to rank his ideas alongside any other layman. smart does not equal knowledgable, right? if ms streisand has a phd in climatology that i don't know about then by all means defend her assertions re: global warming, but otherwise she's doing nothing more than repeating what others have said, making her version at best second hand, and at worst misinterpreted and wrong.

sminch (who does believe that global warming may well be happening, but doesn't think a singer or any other non-experts have anything to offer on the subject)

[Wiskedjak]

We all know that warm water feeds hurricanes. Also, most climatologists agree that global temperatures are increasing. What they disagree on is why those temperatures are increasing ... some say the causes are natural while others say the causes are man made.

[mojo2]

dp dammit. why is this happening to me all day today???

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I'd listen to Dr. Louis Turi over her.

There's hope for you yet! Dr, Turi has THREE documented spot-on predictions!

[tie]

Originally Posted by typoon

If the "evidence" was pretty conclusive then there would be no debate about it. there is still enough debate about it to make it pretty in conclusive. How do we know that what is happening is not an natural occurance? People talk about man made CFC's and Other such gases that cause the depletion of the ozone layer which is causing global warming. what about Natural things like Volcanos? the produce MORE than mankind can ever produce in our lifetime. Last time I checked there was at least one if not more volcanos spewing stuff for a while now.

On the flip side the liberals are lock step into nonsensical positions by special interests as well. the door swings both ways.

I'm not saying that there isn't global warming I just don't think the environmentalists position that it is ONLY caused by mankind is accurate.

Nonsense, the debate is over money not science. The Republican party is pushing this idea that there is a scientific controversy, but this controversy is imaginary, just like the imaginary controversy the Republican party is promoting between evolution and "intelligent design." I guess you are just following the party line here, since you don't seem to have done any research (the ozone layer is unrelated). But that's a mistake, since you are just supporting the energy industry against responsible environmentalism and national security. Do your own research. Ignore sensationalist celebrities like Streisand or Crichton, ignore the scientists the Republican party puts forward as experts (who are often specialized in completely unrelated areas, and unqualified for climate science), and pay attention to the real scientists.

[RAILhead]

Thank goodness she understands that the disparity of atmosphere and ocean temperature is what brews extremely violent storms. This scientific fact being commonly known, everyone knows that the warmer the ocean gets (closer to the atmospheric temperature), the LESS violent these storms will be.

Oh wait — she must not grasp that simple, scientific principle.

Good thing she's only a "performer."

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by tie

Nonsense, the debate is over money not science. The Republican party is pushing this idea that there is a scientific controversy, but this controversy is imaginary, just like the imaginary controversy the Republican party is promoting between evolution and "intelligent design." I guess you are just following the party line here, since you don't seem to have done any research (the ozone layer is unrelated). But that's a mistake, since you are just supporting the energy industry against responsible environmentalism and national security. Do your own research. Ignore sensationalist celebrities like Streisand or Crichton, ignore the scientists the Republican party puts forward as experts (who are often specialized in completely unrelated areas, and unqualified for climate science), and pay attention to the real scientists.

While YOUR party line seems rather obvious... I think you will find that few legitimate climate scientists will definitively say that global warming could NOT be natural. I'm NOT saying that we aren't accelerating the problem [dramatically]... but most scientists agree that we simply don't have proof either way.

I find it a little silly to blame either the Republicans or Democrats for global warming... considering neither has done all that much to fundamentally change things.

[sminch]

I think you will find that few legitimate climate scientists will definitively say that global warming could NOT be natural.

i think that this is an important point, but one which has been exploited in some quarters.

the thing is that it's all but impossible to prove that current / future global warming is not natural, just as it's impossible to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. anyone can refute a correlation, even if the correlation is ridiculously strong, so long as there are other factors which theoretically could be having an effect.

of course, the difference is in how you react to this lack of proof either way - some people will say that we shouldn't do anything until it has been proven (knowing full well that this will likely never happen or indeed be possible), while others say that we don't know for sure but should play it safe, assume the worst, and do what we can to minimise any effect that we might be having. surely the latter is a sensible option in many cases.

if you insisted on absolutely proof before acting then vioxx (sp?) would still be on the market as there would need to be a ten year study done to prove it was dangerous, ditto for any number of agrochemicals, drugs etc. very few things are able to be irrefutably proved - it just comes down to where you draw your limit for accepting this lack of certainty.

sminch

[Wiskedjak]

I suspect global warming is resulting from a combination of both man-made and natural causes.

[Kerrigan]

This is not to be taken lightly, apparently 4 out of 5 celebrities agree that this is a serious issue. If we can't trust celebrities about things like climate change and psychiatric drugs, who can we trust?

[demograph68]

I don't understand the controversy of it either. If the environment mattered to people so much as it should, wouldn't they do what they could, regardless if global warming was a direct result of human causes?

[sminch]

If we can't trust celebrities about things like climate change and psychiatric drugs, who can we trust?

damn skippy. here in new zealand a few years ago there was a royal commision into genetic modification, which came back saying that it wasn't anything to worry about. a few weeks later there was an anti g.e. campaign by pop singers.

who do you reckon the nz public trusted more about this issue - the scientists who understand it thoroughly, or the singers who saw a couple of reports about it on the news?

sminch

[busterhide]

Last I saw, The weather service can predict out about 5 days and they get it about 80% of the time. It is refreshing to see even the most arrogant people get humbled when storms this powerful happen. We are constantly reminded that we small little creatures can't influence it. Still don't know more then 10% about it and still jump when lighting strikes.

Kind of amusing to hear people talking about all this power and influence we supposedly have over our planet. We as a species know just about enough to be dangerous. Our science is fairly young in understanding the world around us.

Basing predictions to the year 2100 on computer models is like standing on the mountain top yelling at storm clouds. It might get you excited but your actions will change nothing.

I see our knowledge on this subject at about the first grade level. When we get to the PHD. level we can at least say we profess to know what we are talking about.

But for those of you out there that just know that mankind has all this power to change the world and you already know just what will save us. Please get off that mountain top. Don't you know you gotta lay low when lightning strikes.

[Doofy]

You dudes whining about global warming had better be veggie, 'coz you know where most of the methane and excess CO2 comes from, don't you?

[sminch]

er...



sminch

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sminch

er...

Not what I heard. I'll see if I can find source.

[sminch]

yeah, i thought the figures would be quite different too. i guess pie charts nicked from random websites don't lie, though...

sminch

[tie]

Originally Posted by busterhide

Last I saw, The weather service can predict out about 5 days and they get it about 80% of the time. It is refreshing to see even the most arrogant people get humbled when storms this powerful happen. We are constantly reminded that we small little creatures can't influence it. Still don't know more then 10% about it and still jump when lighting strikes.

Kind of amusing to hear people talking about all this power and influence we supposedly have over our planet. We as a species know just about enough to be dangerous. Our science is fairly young in understanding the world around us.

Basing predictions to the year 2100 on computer models is like standing on the mountain top yelling at storm clouds. It might get you excited but your actions will change nothing.

I see our knowledge on this subject at about the first grade level. When we get to the PHD. level we can at least say we profess to know what we are talking about.

But for those of you out there that just know that mankind has all this power to change the world and you already know just what will save us. Please get off that mountain top. Don't you know you gotta lay low when lightning strikes.

You don't understand the science is all. This is just like typoon confusing global warming with the ozone hole; don't blame the scientists for what you yourself don't understand. But since you apparently love bad metaphors (standing on a mountain top yelling at clouds?! ), here's another one: Our understanding of the weather is like our understanding of boiling water; we can say for certain when the water will boil, but how it will boil — where the bubbles will form and go — will stump any scientist even with the most powerful computers. There's complexity at different levels.

Mankind has already changed the world in many different ways (e.g., ozone hole, driving species extinct, deforestation, introduction of pollutants like mercury, etc.). I think any one of these — say the ozone hole — should be more than enough to contradict your "lay low for lightning" theory. Humans have emitted enough carbon dioxide over the last 150 years to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere 60% (numbers approximate, from memory). One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that this kind of significant atmospheric change might have some big effects. It's common sense.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by demograph68

I don't understand the controversy of it either. If the environment mattered to people so much as it should, wouldn't they do what they could, regardless if global warming was a direct result of human causes?

It's ideas like this that have destroyed the balance of animal life in various locations. We've reduced the wolf population in certain locations and the elk/moose over-populate and start to starve. Kill too many bugs and the bird population drops.

If we figure out a way to cool a warming cycle and act on it, and then later find out that the cycle is natural, we risk doing more damage than if we didn't interfere.

Let the Earth take it's course.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by tie

You don't understand the science is all. This is just like typoon confusing global warming with the ozone hole; don't blame the scientists for what you yourself don't understand. But since you apparently love bad metaphors (standing on a mountain top yelling at clouds?! ), here's another one: Our understanding of the weather is like our understanding of boiling water; we can say for certain when the water will boil, but how it will boil — where the bubbles will form and go — will stump any scientist even with the most powerful computers. There's complexity at different levels.

Mankind has already changed the world in many different ways (e.g., ozone hole, driving species extinct, deforestation, introduction of pollutants like mercury, etc.). I think any one of these — say the ozone hole — should be more than enough to contradict your "lay low for lightning" theory. Humans have emitted enough carbon dioxide over the last 150 years to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere 60% (numbers approximate, from memory). One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that this kind of significant atmospheric change might have some big effects. It's common sense.

The boiling water analogy is a very good one to make, as it also pertains to the sun. Scientists are still trying to learn about sunspots, mass ejections, the sun's magnetic field, etc. and how they are related. The outside 3000 km of the sun is basically boiling plasma rising to the surface releasing heat.

I doubt anyone would argue that the sun has a direct effect on climate. Climatology models usually assume solar output is constant simply because there isn't enough data to make predictions using the sun's output as a variable. This link http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad...ssn_yearly.jpg shows the yearly average number of sunspots over the last 400+ years. Note that there were mini-ice ages in the late 1600's and early 1800's, at times when sunspot activity was low. Many scientists think we're in a warm period of an ice-age and the avg. global temperature will actually drop back down within the next few decades or centuries.

If anyone has any good links for quantifiable data about the sun's output fluctuations, I'd love to see them. It would be kind of ironic if all of these greenhouse gases actually helped us if an ice age were to happen instead of continued warming.

Personally, I'm waiting to hear Jessica Alba's take on global warming. I'll do anything she says.

[Moderator]

Hilarious...another example of the right's unhealthy obsession with individuals who disagree with them. Who gives a sh!t about barbara streisand?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If we figure out a way to cool a warming cycle and act on it, and then later find out that the cycle is natural, we risk doing more damage than if we didn't interfere.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Hilarious...another example of the right's unhealthy obsession with individuals who disagree with them. Who gives a sh!t about barbara streisand?

You do. Enough to open this thread, read the contents and proceed to type her name anyways.

[Spliffdaddy]

Since temperature measurements have only been recorded for the past 100 years, I seriously doubt that anybody can predict what will happen in the next 100 years. Besides, I won't be alive then.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Since temperature measurements have only been recorded for the past 100 years, I seriously doubt that anybody can predict what will happen in the next 100 years. Besides, I won't be alive then.

That's the spirit; who give a sh!t about what our kids and grandkids have to go through.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I suspect global warming is resulting from a combination of both man-made and natural causes.

I have to agree here. Probably about 75/25 (75% natural, 25% man made).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Hilarious...another example of the right's unhealthy obsession with individuals who disagree with them. Who gives a sh!t about barbara streisand?

Just like the idiot Lefties who start all the Bush topics?

[smacintush]

As usual, Babs is left of the truth.

It's just

part of a

normal cycle.

[busterhide]

Originally Posted by tie

You don't understand the science is all. This is just like typoon confusing global warming with the ozone hole; don't blame the scientists for what you yourself don't understand. But since you apparently love bad metaphors (standing on a mountain top yelling at clouds?! ), here's another one: Our understanding of the weather is like our understanding of boiling water; we can say for certain when the water will boil, but how it will boil — where the bubbles will form and go — will stump any scientist even with the most powerful computers. There's complexity at different levels.

Mankind has already changed the world in many different ways (e.g., ozone hole, driving species extinct, deforestation, introduction of pollutants like mercury, etc.). I think any one of these — say the ozone hole — should be more than enough to contradict your "lay low for lightning" theory. Humans have emitted enough carbon dioxide over the last 150 years to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere 60% (numbers approximate, from memory). One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that this kind of significant atmospheric change might have some big effects. It's common sense.

My point exactly. Thank you. We know so little but some think we know so much. Oh but I do love that CO2 number. 60% increase in levels as significant. CO2 levels in relation to the overall atmosphere is around 1\4th of 1%. Like I stated earlier. We know just enough to be dangerous. Common sense is not so common. we have come up with all kinds of plans to manage our environment and to use you example we have not come to an understanding of boiling water. Running around and yelling "We have to do something!" is a bit premature. We just might do more harm with a misinformed fix then with a better understanding of the situation.

[smacintush]

I know…THESE scientists don't count, right?

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KarlG

That's the spirit; who give a sh!t about what our kids and grandkids have to go through.

I'm concerned about the environment and fear that what happens to most organisms that are hostile or toxic to their host will happen to us.

The Earth MAY be taking action to rid itself of us and return to it's natural stasis.

[sminch]

Oh but I do love that CO2 number. 60% increase in levels as significant. CO2 levels in relation to the overall atmosphere is around 1\4th of 1%.

that's completely retarded, arrogant logic. you're saying that because it sounds like a small number to you it couldn't possibly have any effect - "i don't understand it so it can't be true". hell, it might not be having an effect, but when the people who understand the data tell me something i'll often believe them rather than scoff simply because i think i'm smarter than them.

We just might do more harm with a misinformed fix then with a better understanding of the situation.

you could be right, or you could be like a doctor watching his patient's seizures and saying "well, we're not entirely sure what the problem is so we won't do anything as it may do more harm than good. we'll know what the problem is once we get the autopsy results."

The Earth MAY be taking action to rid itself of us and return to it's natural stasis.

are you honestly suggesting that this lump of rock is sentient???

sminch

[tie]

Originally Posted by busterhide

My point exactly. Thank you. We know so little but some think we know so much. Oh but I do love that CO2 number. 60% increase in levels as significant. CO2 levels in relation to the overall atmosphere is around 1\4th of 1%. Like I stated earlier. We know just enough to be dangerous. Common sense is not so common. we have come up with all kinds of plans to manage our environment and to use you example we have not come to an understanding of boiling water. Running around and yelling "We have to do something!" is a bit premature. We just might do more harm with a misinformed fix then with a better understanding of the situation.

This wasn't your point at all. Do you concede my point that the ozone hole proves that humans can significantly affect the earth?

You don't think a 60% increase is significant? (Again, the 60% number was from memory, and could be off.) How much would it have to increase due to human activity before it qualified as significant in your informed opinion? A 60% increase in an important greenhouse gas is pretty obviously significant, even to a layman.

How can we do more harm with a misinformed fix than with no fix at all? If the fix is "reduce carbon emissions," then there is no way it can do more harm than good. If the fix is "sequester carbon dioxide deep in the ocean" — or any other mess with the environment in a different way and hope that the effects cancel out — then sure there could be unintended consequences.

Why do you use the word "premature"? When would you be willing to do something to reduce our effects on the environment? I can tell you now that there is no way within the next hundred years we'll be able to predict weather perfectly; even with more computing power to run simulations, it is impossible to obtain initial conditions accurately enough. And yet climate changes are occuring right now, today, not 100 years from now. Do you agree with spliffdaddy that you don't care about the future because you'll be dead, or do you think we should leave the earth for our kids as good or better than we found it?

The floating cap of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank this summer to what is probably its smallest size in a century, continuing a trend toward less summer ice that is hard to explain without attributing it in part to human-caused global warming, various experts on the region said today. (link)

[smacintush]

Graph of solar activity versus climate:

Some solar scientists are considering whether some part of global warming may be caused, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Stanford U.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

yeah, most pop icons could be brain surgeons...

To get into our minds to make us buy their crap I'd say... yes!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sminch

are you honestly suggesting that this lump of rock is sentient???

sminch

I have come to understand I don't understand how this earth actually works but if it has the ability to return to a healthy state, this lump of rock ALONG WITH all of it's natural inhabitants, the lowly inhabitants who aren't able to exercise 'mastery' over the world, might bring it about.

[sminch]

but if it has the ability to return to a healthy state, this lump of rock ALONG WITH all of it's natural inhabitants, the lowly inhabitants who aren't able to exercise 'mastery' over the world, might bring it about.

yeah, i was just being feisty but you could well be right.

increased temperature + increased co2 -> increased plant growth -> increased co2 uptake -> self regulation of athmospheric co2 levels.

i don't think a planet could retain a life-sustaining environent for long if the ecology wasn't reasonably robust in its self-regulation, with negative feedback to deal with fluctuations where necessary. of course, we have no idea how far you can push those feedback loops before they fail, or how much of the ecology you can destroy before it's significantly weakened, or what repercusions the feedback might have on organism outside of the loop (eg. us)...

sminch

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sminch

yeah, i was just being feisty but you could well be right.

increased temperature + increased co2 -> increased plant growth -> increased co2 uptake -> self regulation of athmospheric co2 levels.

i don't think a planet could retain a life-sustaining environent for long if the ecology wasn't reasonably robust in its self-regulation, with negative feedback to deal with fluctuations where necessary. of course, we have no idea how far you can push those feedback loops before they fail, or how much of the ecology you can destroy before it's significantly weakened, or what repercusions the feedback might have on organism outside of the loop (eg. us)...

sminch

There's a saying, "Men plan and God laughs." Well, here I'm thinking "Men despoil the Earth and Mother Nature frowns."

And rather than stop or slow down we just keep going along, oblivious to the possible warning signs.

We don't know for sure and that should suggest we slow down until we do. But that would hurt business and so I'm just going to sit back and watch a movie.