[Gee4orce]

Not in any way to suggest that the hurricane was cause by global warming (although, it's intensity might have been increased by it), but it's a taste of things to come. It's also a very clear demonstration that even a superpower can be taken aback by mother nature - I'm just watching the scenes now, and it's incredible how difficult it is to get the aid to people who need it.

So, will Bush realise the error (and the danger) of ignoring the threat of global warming ?

I doubt it.

If he doesn't, these sort of scenes will be repeated all across the world as the climate spins out of control...

[PacHead]

No, because global warming theories are for idiots.

[as2]

No, because he's a jackass.

[ironknee]

no because idiots don't understand global warming

[starman]

The hurricane in 1900 was worse. Explain that.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by as2

No, because he's a jackass.

The jackasses are silly people who believe in hysterical fairytales.

These people should join a Jim Jones like cult and get done with it. Good riddance.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by as2

No, because he's a jackass.

Well, that was constructive and helpful.

Will he take "it" seriously? Which greenhouse theory are we talking about? There are so many...

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by starman

The hurricane in 1900 was worse. Explain that.

You silly person, that was Bush's great grandfathers fault.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by PacHead

You silly person, that was Bush's great grandfathers fault.

Nope. Pretty sure it was W's fault.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by starman

The hurricane in 1900 was worse. Explain that.

Almost every week this summer in the UK we've had a record for the hottest, the wettest, the driest, the windiest something or other. Explain that. Spain and Portugal have the worst droughts for years. Germany and Switzerland have had some of the worst flooding in memory. Explain that.

Global warming talks about average temperatures - not the extremes. It means, however, that those extremes will become more common. Ironically, the UK should really have a climate like Canada, but the gulf stream keeps us warm (and wet ). Global warming could shut that off almost overnight.

What people fail to realise is that there are things called Tipping Points. When you cross a tipping point, a new equilibrium will be sought. The Earth in the past has had much warmer and much colder, stable, climates. Theres no doubt in my mind that we are going to cross a tipping point sooner rather than later. When we do, well, we're in the **** and no mistake.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

So, will Bush realise the error (and the danger) of ignoring the threat of global warming?

Pfffy. Fat chance. The douche is probably already thinking about how he can capitalize on it.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by starman

The hurricane in 1900 was worse. Explain that.

Hurricanes, as we should all know by know, are cyclical. However, the warmer the temperature of the ocean, the higher the likelihood of similar storms reoccurring. And ocean temperatures are rising steadily. No theory needed there, the data is freely available.

If I'd be owning property on the gulf coast I'd be selling while I still could.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Almost every week this summer in the UK we've had a record for the hottest, the wettest, the driest, the windiest something or other.

We have?



Dang. I need to pay more attention.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

When you cross a tipping point, a new equilibrium will be sought. The Earth in the past has had much warmer and much colder, stable, climates.

Well, that's exactly right. The earth will not be destroyed by global warming, but our biosphere might be altered to such a degree and at such a speed that it will be extremely difficult for humanity to adapt.
Living in cities we tend to forget that at the end of the day we depend on nature to provide us with the essentials that keep us alive.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No, because global warming theories are for idiots.

Whereas statements like the above are from...

[Dale Sorel]

This thread gets my vote for Thread of the Week

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Whereas statements like the above are from...

Whereas statements like the above are from... educated people who have looked into the matter and know that a theory is just a theory. It wasn't that long ago that many of the same morons were whining about global cooling. A few years worth of collecting data isn't enough to have a valid sampling inorder to reach any conclusions. The global warming morons are just trying to politicize a hurricane inorder to advance their evil goals.

[PacHead]

FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.



Can we put all of the global warming morons and all of the global cooling morons and dump them on the same island ? They just might cancel each other out me thinks.



http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

[Agasthya]

I was the only person to read this thread without responding (16 replies, 17 views). I just didn't want to feel left out.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Agasthya

I was the only person to read this thread without responding (16 replies, 17 views). I just didn't want to feel left out.

Actually MacNN's updating system lags behind, and those numbers are not accurate, but I'm sure you knew that already.

[smacintush]

There's already a Global Warming thread.

[spacefreak]

It's not that there's not widespread understanding that the earth is warming... it's the notion that Americans are causing it that is asinine. Americans are nowhere near Mars (whose ice caps are melting), nowhere near Saturn or Venus (which are also warming), and nowhere near Jupiter, Pluto or Neptune (yup... warming as well). Solar flares and warming cycles, folks. Bitch at the Sun.

And for the Kyoto-crowd, the "projected" greenhouse warming that would increase the earth's temperature by 3 degrees (Celsius) over the next 100 years would at best only be reduced by .14 - to a 2.86 degrees increase. 14/100 of a degree is so miniscule, and there's no way the US is going to stifle all development, destroy its economy, and pay trillions of dollars in fines (ie. income redistribution) to "maybe" acheive a 14/100 of a degree reduced increase in earth temperatures over the next 100 years.

There's no friggin way.

[RAILhead]

It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
And I feel fine.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by PacHead

A few years worth of collecting data isn't enough to have a valid sampling inorder to reach any conclusions. The global warming morons are just trying to politicize a hurricane inorder to advance their evil goals.

oops.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Moderator

oops.

1961 ?



Puhleaze.......

[Millennium]

There is no science linking Katrina to global warming. In fact, the fallout from this is proving interesting: nine major oil refineries were in Louisiana, and gas prices worldwide are expected to rise worldwide very quickly as a result: some are saying $4/gallon by this weekend. Germany is blaming the US partly for the increase in oil prices, because it hasn't expanded its refining capabilities in a long time, and suggests that it start doing so now.

Of course, expanding the refining capabilities brings many issues with it, most of them environmental. Of course, it was catering to environmentalism which got us into this problem, because we didn't have enough refining capability and were therefore too dependent on foreign oil, which itself could arguably be linked to many of our current political problems. Our attempt to cut down on fossil fuel consumption has now led to a situation where we may actually need to increase it.

I am not trying to pass judgment on environmentalism, at least as far as whether or not it is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Certainly some level of concern for the environment is good, and even the staunchest industrialist would agree with that; the real question is what priority it should take. Using the best knowledge we had several decades ago, we believed we were doing a good thing by leaving our refining capacity where it was, but now we are facing unintended and strongly negative consequences of that decision. My biggest problem with the modern environmentalist movement is that it continues this tradition of rushing headlong into grand plans of action, often either not considering all of the possible consequences or dismissing them as less important than the environmental issue being solved. I wouldn't have thought there was such a thing as reckless environmentalism -intuitively, it seems like one of the safest philosophies in the world- but there you have it.

So it is with global warming. That global temperatures have risen over the past hundred or so years is a fact; it is directly-observable data. Even the Bush Administration admits this. The real question -and the real controversy- is why global temperatures are rising. We know enough to know that there is a natural global temperature cycle, and the planet is due for an upswing, but are we accelerating that upswing beyond what it would naturally be? If we are, then by how much? Is it possible to slow it down, or even reverse it? What would the consequences of slowing it down be, and not just from an anthropocentric perspective? Given those consequences, is it actually desirable to slow it down?

Right now, science is only scratching the surface of these questions, and it really hasn't even gotten past the third one yet (nor can it, as each of these questions builds on the last). There are many hypotheses, but experimenting with things like this is very difficult, and so actual theories (that is to say, hypotheses which stand up under current testing methods) are rare. There are many who insist that we should "play it safe", but with so little data we can't even really be all sure what "safe" is. We need more data and better testing methods, and we should be making an effort to gather that data and develop those methods. Once we have those, we might be able to truly plot a safe course of action. Until then, everything is speculation, with even the best guesses being only slightly more educated than the worst.

Then again, I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that environmentalism can be reckless. As we live in increased harmony with the environment, we also live in increased dependence on nature. Nature does not always act in ways that are beneficial to humans, and when it doesn't -such as by striking a city with a hurricane- we suffer the consequences. Some of this is inescapable, some some of it isn't even a Bad Thing. But the only ways to avoid it are never beneficial to both; either Man or Nature must suffer if Man is to be safe. I think one of the biggest questions that the environmentalist movement is going to have to face is this: where do we strike the balance? How much of a right do we as humans have to live on this planet, and how much danger will we accept in exchange for that right? That's not something I claim to know the answer for. I think it's going to be the subject of a lot of debate.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

oops.

"ooops" is right.

Claims that man-made pollution has caused unprecedented global warming have been undermined by research that shows the Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late-1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures were rising faster than before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations were causing record temperatures.

Last year, scientists on the UK climate impacts program said that global temperatures were the hottest on record. "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating," they said.

This followed research, published in 1998, in which scientists at the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia said the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1000 years.

These claims have been sharply contradicted now by a comprehensive study of world temperatures over the past 1000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

Professor Stott said the evidence also undermined doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher temperatures.

"During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone," he said.

Severe famine and economic collapse followed the little Ice Age. "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth," he said.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Moderator

oops.

From `61-`90? We have no idea what temps were 500 years ago, and no matter what a few crackpot scientists say, we have no accurate way of knowing. Sheesh.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Moderator

oops.

The OOPS is actually on you. Did you bother to read the article where you pulled that JPG from ?

They're saying it's innacurate.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Your link is debunking the graph.

Oops indeed.



http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...101504.asp?p=1

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

From `61-`90? We have no idea what temps were 500 years ago, and no matter what a few crackpot scientists say, we have no accurate way of knowing. Sheesh.

He actually pulled that fraudulent graph from a site that is debunking the graph. The irony.

[RAILhead]

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect". Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?

This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).

Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".

....and so on and so forth and so on and so forth....

Holy crap, this "argument" gets tiresome.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee

no because idiots don't understand global warming

I agree. I don't know why they are still shelling out that GB crap.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by PacHead

He actually pulled that fraudulent graph from a site that is debunking the graph. The irony.

And none of these TEH END IS TEH NEARZORZ!!11 people seem to know anything about the Holocene Maximum.

I :heart: environmental wackos!

Maury

[smacintush]

Besides all the "oopsing", there was a drastic rise in temperature from 1900-1940 too (and BTW, ocean levels LOWERED during this time), too early to blame on us EEEEEEEVIL humans. After 1940 average global temperatures dropped again. Now it's rising again. See a pattern? It's called CLIMATE. It changes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Besides all the "oopsing", there was a drastic rise in temperature from 1900-1940 too (and BTW, ocean levels LOWERED during this time), too early to blame on us EEEEEEEVIL humans. After 1940 average global temperatures dropped again. Now it's rising again. See a pattern? It's called CLIMATE. It changes.

I think now is a good time we have a meeting.

See how we can tie this to some ancestor of Bush.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/...edgelbspan.php

The hurricane that struck Louisiana and Mississippi on Monday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

When the year began with a 2-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.

When winds of 124 miles an hour shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and Britain, the driver was global warming.

When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.

Unfortunately, few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.

The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.

In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.

In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when George W. Bush was elected president - and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.

And there you have it. There's never been bad weather before, and now that there is, it's all global warming, which is a conspiracy of 'big oil' which is all Bush's fault. This from a "mainstream source" the Boston Globe.

Tell me there's no leftwing enviro-religious cult. They've absolutely gone off the deep end with Katrina- no pun intended.

I live in Los Angeles. Maybe some others here do to. Can someone PLEASE tell me what the hell 2-foot snowfall the city supposedly had?

[ironknee]

-science
+faith
=dark ages
=good news for fundies

[derail] btw, where are all the army reserves helping out new orleans? oh yes, they are all in iraq [/derail]

[Moderator]

oopsy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4197566.stm

New readings from the European satellite Envisat suggest that this year's southern hemisphere ozone hole may be one of the largest on record.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/...edgelbspan.php



And there you have it. There's never been bad weather before, and now that there is, it's all global warming, which is a conspiracy of 'big oil' which is all Bush's fault. This from a "mainstream source" the Boston Globe.

Tell me there's no leftwing enviro-religious cult. They've absolutely gone off the deep end with Katrina- no pun intended.

I live in Los Angeles. Maybe some others here do to. Can someone PLEASE tell me what the hell 2-foot snowfall the city supposedly had?

That guy's an idiot.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Moderator

oopsy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4197566.stm

Yep, oops

And the "terrifying" Antarctic ozone hole? It was first detected in 1956, long before the widespread use of CFCs. Mt. Erebus, a volcano located 6 miles from the sensors at McMurdo base, dumps up to 1000 tons of chlorine a day into the polar atmosphere. The actual data (as opposed to theories and computer models) indicates that the "hole" is a seasonal phenomena, caused by the austral polar vortex and which has been occurring naturally for some 50 million years.

[Artful Dodger]

What's your take on global warming?

i'm for it!

mitch hedberg RIP

[iREZ]

fantastic reference dodger!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

From `61-`90? We have no idea what temps were 500 years ago, and no matter what a few crackpot scientists say, we have no accurate way of knowing. Sheesh.

Sorry to disagree, but we do have excellent data on temperatures ranging back far further than the middle ages.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Sorry to disagree, but we do have excellent data on temperatures ranging back far further than the middle ages.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And?

IT WAS "WARMER" BACK THEN!

[davesimondotcom]

I'm totally in favor of Local Warming. My house is actually really cold today. The wife had all the windows open and fans going last night and the temp was pretty low. It's like 58 degrees in here!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Sorry to disagree, but we do have excellent data on temperatures ranging back far further than the middle ages.

not within .25 of a degree, that's just silly. I've seen the data from this, and it's conjecture and fabrication.

[turtle777]

Ok, time for a new timeline



-t

[Moderator]

oopsy daisy..guess Bush disagrees with you guys

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

July 06, 2005: During the Group of Eight meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush acknowledged -- for the first time -- that pollution generated by humans is contributing to global warming.

[Moderator]

hmmm..interesting.

The Bush Administration Agrees: Global Warming is Real
A new report from the Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is real, and warns that serious problems like rising sea levels are likely to worsen during the next century.

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability," the report reads.

[sek929]

Something warmed the earth and receded giant walls of ice, and I can tell you for a fact it wasn't the invention of the V8.