[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

hmmm..interesting.

It's interesting that Bush all-of-a-sudden isn't a liar when it serves certain agendas.

[spacefreak]

Doublepost for President.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's interesting that Bush all-of-a-sudden isn't a liar when it serves certain agendas.

I don't think he's pathological...he denied as long as he could..until he simply began to look silly..he then relented. i suggest you follow his lead.

[spacefreak]

DId Bush sign Kyoto? How about Clinton?

I'll follow that lead.

[ironknee]

if u love him so much why don't ya marry him

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ironknee

if u love him so much why don't ya marry him

Maybe because he and Bush are not gay ?

-t

[analogika]

I posted here.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

DId Bush sign Kyoto? How about Clinton?

I'll follow that lead.

good one

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogika

I posted here.

Boah ey, echt der Hammer !

-t

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Maybe because he and Bush are not gay ?

-t

because they chose not to be gay right

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No, because global warming theories are for idiots.

No, because religion is for idiots.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ironknee

because they chose not to be gay right

That's right.

-t

[saddino]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

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?

Link

It was in the mountains, Riverside, etc. One foot in the desert areas of San Bernadino.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

No, because religion is for idiots.

Yet another example of secularists that have no self control.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yet another example of secularists that have no self control.

I was showing how silly PacHead's statement was.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I was showing how silly PacHead's statement was.

And I was just showing how silly the opening post was, so there.



Why the hell should anybody take global warming more seriously just because of one hurricane ? That's not being reasonable, it's being hysterical and totally non-scientific.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777

That's right.

-t

so at any moment, if they decided to, they can-by your logic- be gay...if they chose to?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Why the hell should anybody take global warming more seriously just because of one hurricane ? That's not being reasonable, it's being hysterical and totally non-scientific.

And I'd agree, but that's not what you said.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by PacHead

snip

Why the hell should anybody take global warming more seriously just because of one hurricane ? That's not being reasonable, it's being hysterical and totally non-scientific.

yet some people dismiss the science when it conflicts with their own emotional problems like stem cell research, terri shiavo, pollution, global warming, etc

[Hawkeye_a]

I started a thread earlier about the weather changes we have witnessed just this past year. They have been on the increase every since i started keeping an eye on them. (ever since those looney U.N. scientists predicted the global warming phenomenon). I haven’t researched the past 200 years on weather patterns, etc. But just the fact that it's only been around a hundred years since humans started burning oil and gas for anything and everything should lead one to believe that it will have a change on our environment. imagine a balanced mathematical equation if you will, that represents our environment. if you change something.....the equation will change(without our control mind you) to balance out.

Now when it comes to global warming....you have deforestation and the release of green house gases increasing pretty darn rapidly over the past 100 years. there's bound to be a 'balancing effect'. the question is not 'if' but 'when' and 'how'.

As far as Bush's policies go...uve heard my opinion on him in the past. So there's no point getting into that argument again.

Lets analyze:
Now we have....
-a much greater population than ever before 6+ billion
-we're burning heck of a lot more fuel because of industry and personal usage....multiply that by the increasing population
-We're chopping down a huge amount of trees in the process to cater to the increasing population, and trees have been know to regulate the climate.
-we have much better scientific knowledge, instruments and data than anytime in our past.
-Much better media coverage on a global scale.

So...from that...one could conclude that the effects of weather changes could be....
-more dramatic because there are a lot more people being effected due to population growth.
-they could be covered more by the media now, since media is a global thing. As opposed to a natural disaster occurring in some remote region in the past and no one getting effected by it, and no one bothering to cover it.(possibility).

We could rely on scientists (such as those in the U.N.)...who have been monitoring temperatures of the oceans, polar ice caps, weather patterns, etc.... lets face it. many predictions they made have been coming true. Just in the last 10 years we had el-nino. And more recently.....
-friggon huge tsunami in the indian ocean
-drought in portugual & spain & Australia....which include forest and bush fires
-immense flooding in Italy and the UK
-snow in Jordan and Israel
-earthquakes in Indonesia and Japan
-And there are obviously the hurricanes/tornadoes in the U.S. that seem to be increasing in frequency and severity.

If anyone was surprised by any of the above for more than 10 seconds. theyre idiots. It's being balanced out by nature. What part did Bush have to play ? The U.S. is the single largest emitter of green house gases in the world. Not committing to a policy to try and reduce those numbers reveals a level of naiveté and greed that’s unprecedented. Just because it's financially/economically sound, doesn’t make it 'right'...obviously, u have those why think ignoring it is the right decision. changes are these are the people who feel that having heavier wallets is more important that conserving our rather delicate balance with mother nature. What can i say....different people have different priorities. some good....others evil.

The point about Bush, that needs to be made is.... forget Kyoto...As leader of the nation that is responsible for the most damage, he hasn’t done ANYTHING about it...no policies put in place to try and handle or reduce pollution. You may argue that Clinton didn’t do enough either.... and i agree....but NOW....we have better and more information and data, and if you want to bicker about the past go ahead...but i think the current leadership(of the entire world) needs to do something(instead of maintaining healthy relationships with their corporate sponsors).

When Bush leaves the presidency(that time cant come soon enough imo)...I will hold the next leader responsible for handling the issue, whoever it is and from whatever party...it doesn’t matter. Something needs to be done in terms of policies to limit the change in our environment.

Cheers

[Helmling]

This is so absurd...a couple of laymen armed with one or two anomalous studies think they're sitting pretty to challenge an indisputable majority of the scientific community. Pachead, I've heard this nonsensical "global cooling" argument before, so I congratulate you on properly absorbing anti-environmentalist propaganda. The fact is, though, there was never any consensus about global cooling, in fact, it was hardly a blip on the scientific radar. The theory of anthropogenic global climate change has been gaining steam and support for nearly two decades. Nearly every scientist on the planet now believes it is a cause for concern, particularly as we look toward billion-strong nations like China and India undergoing massive gains in energy consumption, and hence CO2 production.

Is it the end of the world? No. But it probably does have profound implications for places like New Orleans. If coastlines do move, then you're talking about massive relocation. A disproportionately high number of people around the world live within a few miles of the coasts.

It's a sound theory, with loads of evidence.

I swear, next thing you know we'll be questioning the Theory of Evolution...

[ambush]

I swear, next thing you know we'll be questioning the Theory of Evolution...

Wow... you don't come here, do ya

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by saddino

Link

It was in the mountains, Riverside, etc. One foot in the desert areas of San Bernadino.

#1, that's not Los Angeles, stating it as just LA is designed to mislead.

#2, it clearly states in the article: "This happens about once every 10 years, and when it does, it's bad," said Ivory Small, chief science officer for the National Weather Service in San Diego. "You get about every type of weather ... These systems are tricky to predict.

#3- another enviro-cultist calling it 'global warming' as per the original Boston Globe article just proves it's another nitwit exploiting weather conditions to make another lame ass global warming charge.

And the global warming fanatics who are constantly caught telling blatant lies to support their psycho enviro-religion wonder why no one takes them seriously.

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No, because global warming theories are for idiots.

That's why the time period of Madison's lakes being frozen has been steadily decreasing for the past few decades. Read the issue of National Geographic on global warming. I used to be a skeptic also.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

#3- another enviro-cultist calling it 'global warming' as per the original Boston Globe article just proves it's another nitwit exploiting weather conditions to make another lame ass global warming charge.

And the global warming fanatics who are constantly caught telling blatant lies to support their psycho enviro-religion wonder why no one takes them seriously.

LOL, fewer ad hominems might allow others to take your own comments more seriously as well. There certainly is a sane and literate method to debating global warming, but this isn't one of them.

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

#1, that's not Los Angeles, stating it as just LA is designed to mislead.

#2, it clearly states in the article: "This happens about once every 10 years, and when it does, it's bad," said Ivory Small, chief science officer for the National Weather Service in San Diego. "You get about every type of weather ... These systems are tricky to predict.

#3- another enviro-cultist calling it 'global warming' as per the original Boston Globe article just proves it's another nitwit exploiting weather conditions to make another lame ass global warming charge.

And the global warming fanatics who are constantly caught telling blatant lies to support their psycho enviro-religion wonder why no one takes them seriously.

You really need to read National Geographic. They aren't into ********, and they don't jump to conclusions.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by saddino

LOL, fewer ad hominems might allow others to take your own comments more seriously as well. There certainly is a sane and literate method to debating global warming, but this isn't one of them.

If the global warming cultists were sane and literate, they wouldn't do things like try to exploit hurricanes and other natural disasters to push their rediculous poltical beliefs.

Why should anyone pull punches with them? I’d say the same for anyone who says Katrina or snowfall in the San Bernardino Mountains or whatever else was caused by God hating gay people or whatever nonsense.

Just as traditional religious loonies distort otherwise legitimate religious dogma to make their dippy pronouncements, so too do the enviro-religious loonies exploit otherwise legitimate science to make theirs. They don’t deserve any slack for their craziness.

A cultist nitwit is someone who tells a blatant lie in the pages of a large newspaper that a snowstorm in the San Bernardino Mountains that's unusal, but not unheard of, is a “snowstorm in LA caused by global warming”. (Among his list of other lies). A cultist nitwit floats the idea that Katrina was caused by global warming, while ignoring worse storms of the past.

If the global warming cultists stop acting like complete loonies, maybe I’ll stop calling them out as loonies. But it doesn’t seem to be in their shameless nature to do so.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I was showing how silly PacHead's statement was.

I guess that is if you are saying global warming requires faith to believe in.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Helmling

This is so absurd...a couple of laymen armed with one or two anomalous studies think they're sitting pretty to challenge an indisputable majority of the scientific community.

Let the pretension begin!

BTW Helmling, the majority of the scientific community argue and disagree with each other at almost everything.

So enough of this silliness.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

That's why the time period of Madison's lakes being frozen has been steadily decreasing for the past few decades. Read the issue of National Geographic on global warming. I used to be a skeptic also.

I personally am not saying nothing is happening. But what I say is BS, is what they are blaming it on.

[shabbasuraj]

Climate change is occurring.

[TailsToo]

Originally Posted by shabbasuraj

Climate change is occurring.

Post 0f the Week!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

That's why the time period of Madison's lakes being frozen has been steadily decreasing for the past few decades. Read the issue of National Geographic on global warming. I used to be a skeptic also.

I am sure that has nothing to do with the large amounts of chemical run-off and salt used in the winters. Or the fact that Madison has grown and paved over a lot of former farmland allowing the concrete and asphalt to retain heat around the lakes.

Take a stroll down Park Street at night from Mendota to just across 18 towards Oregon – there’s a 10-15 degree temperature drop at times. That is maybe a 4 mile span of land from urban to rural. And I am sure Madison has grown since the last time I did that drive.

It is not global warming that’s causing those lakes to thaw.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

So...from that...one could conclude

Just in the last 10 years we had el-nino.

Actually, no you can not conclude. You can conjecture. It is not an absolute proven conclusion with regaurds to "global warming"

And el nino returned, it didn't just happen for the first time. Its a regularly occurring phenomenon first discovered about 1500

[JoshuaZ]

If I was a magic 8 ball, I would say `all signs point to no`.

[Gee4orce]

Some people seem to be confused over what the word 'theory' means. A theory is a model that explains the observable data. Just because something is called a 'theory' does not mean that it is not - to all intents and purposes - a reality. Gravity is explained by a theory, one which holds up extremely well. But it is only a theory.

Now, you can jump of a building and say ' I will not fall because gravity is only a theory' - but I'm pretty sure that you will hit the ground. Because the theory of gravity accurately predicts and explains the observed behaviour.

It's the same with global warming.

We have climate models - we know that certain gasses in the atmosphere trap heat. It's a theory, yes, but that does not mean you can just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Want to hear something really scary ? : Global dimming.

This theory states that particulates, and jet contrails in the atmosphere act to shield the earth from sunlight by reflecting it into space. What this means is that the true effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses has ben UNDERESTIMATED, because of the reflection of heat by the contrails and other pollution.

After 911, when air traffic over the US was shut down, there was an immediate rise in average temperatures observed in America. Global Dimming is a reality.

BUT, the thing is that we are cleaning up our act. We are pumping less smoke and particulates into the air. This means the effect of global dimming is being reduced - the brakes are being taken off global warming.

Nobody is blaming America - but America must help reduce CO2 emissions because it remains the biggest producer of them.

I was amazed that Bush said to people to reduce their petrol consumption. Maybe he's learning ?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And more recently.....

-immense flooding the UK

Don't talk wet. We've have nothing of the sort. We've had a little bit of flooding and that was mostly caused by the government not spending any money on dredging the rivers. Until the 90's we dredged rivers on a regular basis. Our current government doesn't seem to think that it's worth the money.

And that's the only reason the UK has been seeing flooding events recently.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And that's the only reason the UK has been seeing flooding events recently.

Woah...that totally sucks. i guess global climate change dosent effect the U.K. .

Cheers

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Don't talk wet. We've have nothing of the sort. We've had a little bit of flooding and that was mostly caused by the government not spending any money on dredging the rivers. Until the 90's we dredged rivers on a regular basis. Our current government doesn't seem to think that it's worth the money.

And that's the only reason the UK has been seeing flooding events recently.

Not quite. A lot of it's due to building on flood plains that in the past would have been left as, well, flood plains.

(anyway, there's not been any serious floods in the UK this year. Or did I miss something ?)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Not quite. A lot of it's due to building on flood plains that in the past would have been left as, well, flood plains.

I forgot about that. However, most of those flood plains aren't usually needed when the rivers are dredged.

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

(anyway, there's not been any serious floods in the UK this year. Or did I miss something ?)

Seemd to me like he was on about Boscastle and maybe Yorkshire - neither of which was anything to do with global warming. In fact, I can't actually remember any flooding here which I'd class as "serious" (I don't class having to replace one's downstairs carpets as "serious").

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess that is if you are saying global warming requires faith to believe in.

No, it doesn't. But people let their personal and relgious beliefs get in the way of cold, hard, scientific data.

There are at least a few people on here that believe that there is an unlimited amount of resources on this planet, that we couldn't possibly use up any one of them, or destroy our own habitat or the species that live in it, because God wouldn't put us on a planet in which we could.

Not all observed data is accurate, some of it may flat out be wrong. But when you have a general conesus, world-wide, with some of the smartest people on the entire freakin' planet, telling us that -- while they may disagree on some of the specifics on how it's happening -- humans are having a direct impact on global warming and it is a threat ot our environment.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

But when you have a general conesus, world-wide, with some of the smartest people on the entire freakin' planet

2,500 scientists agree on global warming and it's a "consensus". What do you call it when 17,200 don't agree?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

I am sure that has nothing to do with the large amounts of chemical run-off and salt used in the winters. Or the fact that Madison has grown and paved over a lot of former farmland allowing the concrete and asphalt to retain heat around the lakes.

Take a stroll down Park Street at night from Mendota to just across 18 towards Oregon – there’s a 10-15 degree temperature drop at times. That is maybe a 4 mile span of land from urban to rural. And I am sure Madison has grown since the last time I did that drive.

It is not global warming that’s causing those lakes to thaw.

...does this explain why you can no longer find glaciers at Glacier National Park in Montana?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by smacintush

What do you call it when 17,200 don't agree?

Silence.

[Y3a]

Show me an accurate 10 day weather forcast. Ya can't because they can't accurately predict THAT FAR into the future. WHY? because they do not have accurate weather models. Why would you trust these same folks to tell you about the climate in 100 years? The assumptions they are using to estimate the temperatures 1500 years ago are filled with just as much hogwash.

Anyone who is SURE about global warming-and that it's not part of a bigger natural cycle-is an idiot.

NASA is currently providing weather observations from Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn. WHY? because it might give them insight into our own weather. Why do you think?

[besson3c]

I think that you guys should stop with the insults of people who believe in global warming, and stop haranguing people who don't.

As is often the case, there is a lot of information out there, it can be hard to sift through it and find information you believe to be credible. In addition to this, there is a barrier of Science and associated lingo which may require experience or enough familiarity to connect with, which many of us on both sides likely lack.

Nobody here is stupid, calling each other names is not enhancing this conversation, nor is it a terribly effective tool of persuasion. Please cut it out.

Also, I'm not terribly religious myself, but calling somebody's religion stupid is VERY uncool. Religion is a deeply personal subject, if you attack it, you potentially attack the very core of somebody. Be respectful of each other's religious beliefs, please! Like I said, attacking somebody's religion is extremely insensitive and obnoxious. How would you react if somebody were to treat something close and dear to you this way?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush

2,500 scientists agree on global warming and it's a "consensus". What do you call it when 17,200 don't agree?

"Skewed statistics"?

[Y3a]

In 1300AD, just about everybody "Knew the world was flat" . they had it wrong.

Same goes for Global warming now because the models are wrong, and the concepts of how weather works is still a guess.

I guess the same lack of decent info would get you into a war,
but it seems it's OK to jump the gun as far as the environment.

Jeez!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I guess the same lack of decent info would get you into a war,
but it seems it's OK to jump the gun as far as the environment.

Exactly.

I realize that this is an alien concept to you, but "morality" dictates that, when in doubt, we always at least TRY to err in favor of life over death.

[Y3a]

First, Show me a truly "moral" person.
No such thing.
People say they are but they are lying.

It's agendas and perspectives above facts.
Sometimes you don't understand what could NOT be a fact, thanks to the schools, and the internet.
People can believe anything.
Facts remain facts, but theories and opinions change.