Author Topic: Global Warming  (Read 15871 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Global Warming
« Reply #645 on: March 19, 2007, 08:56:44 AM »
don't get touchy... wasn't referring to you but... except for the part about the hand wringing.. you fit the rest of the bill fairly well.   You are a much bigger polluter than me overall.   You do seem to be more on the leftie side than the debunkers tho.

lazs

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Global Warming
« Reply #646 on: March 19, 2007, 10:38:59 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
.............Hobbies? You mean hobbies such as frequent air travel , transporting goods and supplies to the public , the production of just about everything , construction of roads , highways , housing development..............or just the use of such things.
Those kind of "hobbies"? :D


fstfwd(beat1e) has two hobbies, beating girls up and air travel. Sleeze and hypocrit come to mind when I think of him.

Offline FastFwd

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Global Warming
« Reply #647 on: March 19, 2007, 10:39:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
.............Hobbies? You mean hobbies such as frequent air travel , transporting goods and supplies to the public , the production of just about everything , construction of roads , highways , housing development..............or just the use of such things.
Those kind of "hobbies"? :D
LOL No! Those are clearly not hobbies. I was referring to personal "toys" which consume large quantities of gasoline.

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Global Warming
« Reply #648 on: March 19, 2007, 10:47:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by FastFwd
LOL No! Those are clearly not hobbies. I was referring to personal "toys" which consume large quantities of gasoline.


So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline WilldCrd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2565
      • http://www.wildaces.org
Global Warming
« Reply #649 on: March 19, 2007, 10:58:29 AM »
Quote
Coldest winter we've had here in Texas in the last few years.



you must have just moved here then.
I work ALOT outside and this winter has been pretty mild. Had a few bad days but overall I've only had to put my insulated coveralls on for maybe a week to a week and a half total.
Crap now I gotta redo my cool sig.....crap!!! I cant remeber how to do it all !!!!!

Offline FastFwd

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Global Warming
« Reply #650 on: March 19, 2007, 11:24:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.
I never suggested "limiting hobbies". Read again!

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Global Warming
« Reply #651 on: March 19, 2007, 11:29:59 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by WilldCrd
you must have just moved here then.
I work ALOT outside and this winter has been pretty mild. Had a few bad days but overall I've only had to put my insulated coveralls on for maybe a week to a week and a half total.


I grew up here and after being away for 20 years have lived here for the last 12 years. It's been pretty mild the last few years but this winter has been colder. At least it seems that way to me. Shouldn't be too hard to confirm for anyone inclined to review the stats.

Offline mietla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
Global Warming
« Reply #652 on: March 19, 2007, 11:46:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by FastFwd
All I did was make an observation - that people whose hobbies involve consumption of large quantities of fossil fuels are among the quickest to deny global warming.


I do not deny anything. My limited access to real data and a complete lack of expertise to interpret them myself precludes me from having a firm position either way (just like the rest of you guys). Global warming may or may not be happening, but this is not a main question.


The real questions are
Is the current GB a cyclic event or a permanent run away process?
What causes it?
Can we do anything about it?

I would be real careful though with spending trillions before we know the answer. It's a "war on poverty" all over again. First we piss away trillions and then after 40 years you ask the spenders what did we buy? why the poverty levels did not go down?, and the only thing they can say is

"Had we not spend all these money, the poverty would be even worse"

Does not get any smarter than that. How can you argue with this kind of logic?


QUOTE]Originally posted by FastFwd
ooh! testy, testy! [/QUOTE]

well, yeah. It bugs the hell out of me if some religious zealot is making plans with my money. I don't care what their religion/cult is.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2007, 11:49:47 AM by mietla »

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Global Warming
« Reply #653 on: March 19, 2007, 12:36:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mietla
I do not deny anything. My limited access to real data and a complete lack of expertise to interpret them myself precludes me from having a firm position either way (just like the rest of you guys).


.


I agree.
Im not an expert. and I'd be pretty willign to bet that 99.9% of the people here. Both yay and naysers are either.

If I were to pose the question of how many here have years of experience stuydying this phenomonon from either side. We wouldnt get alot of affirmative answers.

My feeling is.
Is GW happening? Yes
Is it in large part a natural phenomenon? Yes
Are we a contributor? Yes
Are we a main contributor? Unknown or uncertain.
Are our activities upsetting the natural balance of this
phenomenon? Possibly

Should we do something about our activity? Without question YES even if its not a major contributing factor. None of this stuff we are doing is any good for us.

A cleaner world with less man made pollutants is better for all of us. The only ones who stand to gain by our coninued habits are the owners and stockholders of the corporations producing  and producing the products that create the pollutants.

And last but not least there is the question.
If the nay sayers are right all well and good But....

What if the nay sayers are wrong?

cleaning up our act just makes more sense then saying everythign is fine and natural and no need to change. If for no other reason then our own health

Even if that does mean limiting your driving "privileges" to using large vehicles for legitimate purposes and not letting everyone drive them to do thar hunt'n of daere and putting down occasional wild injun upris'n
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline FastFwd

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Global Warming
« Reply #654 on: March 19, 2007, 01:07:51 PM »
Mietla, drediock - I pretty much agree with the last post each of you made.



gtora2 said
Quote
fstfwd(beat1e) has two hobbies, beating girls up and air travel.
Maybe we'd have more in common if I took up eating donuts as a hobby.

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Global Warming
« Reply #655 on: March 19, 2007, 01:16:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I agree.
Im not an expert. and I'd be pretty willign to bet that 99.9% of the people here. Both yay and naysers are either.

If I were to pose the question of how many here have years of experience stuydying this phenomonon from either side. We wouldnt get alot of affirmative answers.

My feeling is.
Is GW happening? Yes
Is it in large part a natural phenomenon? Yes
Are we a contributor? Yes
Are we a main contributor? Unknown or uncertain.
Are our activities upsetting the natural balance of this
phenomenon? Possibly

Should we do something about our activity? Without question YES even if its not a major contributing factor. None of this stuff we are doing is any good for us.

A cleaner world with less man made pollutants is better for all of us. The only ones who stand to gain by our coninued habits are the owners and stockholders of the corporations producing  and producing the products that create the pollutants.

And last but not least there is the question.
If the nay sayers are right all well and good But....

What if the nay sayers are wrong?

cleaning up our act just makes more sense then saying everythign is fine and natural and no need to change. If for no other reason then our own health

Even if that does mean limiting your driving "privileges" to using large vehicles for legitimate purposes and not letting everyone drive them to do thar hunt'n of daere and putting down occasional wild injun upris'n


Good post.  :aok
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline WilldCrd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2565
      • http://www.wildaces.org
Global Warming
« Reply #656 on: March 19, 2007, 01:28:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
I grew up here and after being away for 20 years have lived here for the last 12 years. It's been pretty mild the last few years but this winter has been colder. At least it seems that way to me. Shouldn't be too hard to confirm for anyone inclined to review the stats.



as you wish:

Mar 16, 7:19 PM EDT

Winter Warmest on Record Worldwide

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
AP Science Writer
Science Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints
PHOTO GALLERY
AP Photo

Winter Blast
Multimedia
   Witness Mount Washington's Weather
   Northeast Blizzard
Latest Weather News
Cleanup Continues After Northeast Storm

Winter Warmest on Record Worldwide

Hurricane Chief Warns of Old Satellite

Ga. Hospital Undaunted by Tornado Damage

Ala. Students Back After Deadly Tornado

Latest Airline News
Passenger Urinated in Air-Sickness Bag

FBI Raids N.American HQ of Japan Airline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse.

Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January - the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.

The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest.

The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.

For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.

---

On the Net:

NCDC Climate Report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/feb07.html

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Crap now I gotta redo my cool sig.....crap!!! I cant remeber how to do it all !!!!!

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Global Warming
« Reply #657 on: March 19, 2007, 01:43:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by FastFwd
Mietla, drediock - I pretty much agree with the last post each of you made.



gtora2 said
 Maybe we'd have more in common if I took up eating donuts as a hobby.



You are a big poo poo head, see I can respond like a 8 year old as well. I may be fat, but I am glad I am not needy little sleeze ball who has to keep coming back to a forum after he has been banned what 6 times now for being a loser. ;)

Have a nice day and just remeber even little girls here are more of man then you are.:rofl
« Last Edit: March 19, 2007, 01:45:58 PM by GtoRA2 »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Global Warming
« Reply #658 on: March 19, 2007, 02:35:43 PM »
dred... I have no problem with your post until you get to the end...

When you come up with a solution to this "problem".    You would ban certain vehicles for people unless strictly legeslated....  You realize of course that one vacation in a jet will burn a lifetimes worth of fuel for an SUV driver and... SUV's are getting better mileage while jets are not..

Why not just ban all jet travel that is not for legitimate business reasons?   Why not just make every developing country get smog devices and checks on all their vehicles that are as strict as the US?

Do no harm?  do you think there might be some impact?   or... would getting rid of the imperceptible amount of co2 that SUV's make over other vehicles in order to test a theory that is largely debunked.... would that make more sense?

I think you are much like fstwfwd in this regard (and the lefties) in that you are perfectly willing to "do something" so long as it only affects the other guy... one you percieve as having a useless preference.   I find your reasoning pretty disgusting when it comes to "doing something" about a problem that may not even be affected by your solution.

wildcrd...  the temp dropped from 1940 to 1976 much faster than it is rising now... this was at the peak of industry... how could it happen if we are making global warming?   It started to go up when we were in recession...  less industry..

the oceans are vast and what is happening today was caused decades or centuries ago.   they don't heat and cool every year depending on global temp.

The suns activity matches the global cooling and heating...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

Much more so than co2 matches...  

The good news?  these minor heating and cooling events (of which we are in a minor heating event) last about 37 years in cycle... we are headed for a global cooling (minor) event...  and.. we really won't have to do a thing.

We should try to protect the air quality in areas that have poor circulation tho and not pee in the water.

you can ban SUV's if you are not real bright and get a feel good woody over telling people what to do but it won't really matter in the grand scheme of things much more than telling a few people not to pee in the ocean.

one african in a clapped out toyota will undo all your work and... go ahead... tell him he has to buy a $60,000 prius.

hell... you already killed most of his relatives with the DDT ban anyway.  

lazs

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Global Warming
« Reply #659 on: March 19, 2007, 02:56:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 11 March 2007
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."

Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.

The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".

Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".

Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.

A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."

* David Cameron will tomorrow unveil three schemes to tax air travel in order to combat global warming. He is to consult on whether to impose VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights, institute a flight tax targeted at the most polluting engines, or to set up a "green miles scheme" to tax frequent flyers at a higher rate. The revenue raised would be used for tax cuts to help families.

The cold, hard facts about global warming

What do most scientists believe caused global warming?

The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide. It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze. Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer.

Has the world warmed before?

Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels; changes in solar activity are more likely. Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one goes up the other follows. This time it is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans.

What about more recent history?

There was a warm period in Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar activity, but it does not seem to have been a worldwide phenomenon, although records are scanty.

So is the sun responsible now?

Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century.

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

Big screen TV - $2,500
Ammunition making equipment and supplies - $500
Refreshments - $15

Watching a British (*gasp*) documentary about swindlers apparently MADE by swindlers and claiming it as fact - Priceless



That's interesting, I would love to see what they edited, but having watched it to see who this guy was it doesnt change much.

He apears 3 times and has maybe about 5 minutes air time, maybe 10 at most and only really talks about oceans and how the news media picks up on racy stories over the better science at times.

All in all you could remove him from the film and it would have the same impact.

Still I would love to see a longer interview with him and hear his claims. His part was pretty mild.