Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)

[Aaron J Williams]

"My point is MAN caused anything on this planet is a pretty interesting theory indeed. We are not the largest bio mass here by any means. (I belive the ranking of mobile species has the insects outweighing the humans my a huge margin....) Just termites alone have more bio mass than humans, and they are just ONE of many millions of types of insects on this planet."

above is the most idiotic thing you have said thus far. obviously, crickets and beetles don't construct houses and cut down trees etc... humans are the only species that actually leave a trace of their existence. sure, bees leave hives, but if you can't see the difference between hives and Hummers, you are the dumbest person i know.

Actually, if you did a little research, you would see who's dumb.

Science Daily
December 14, 2004
NASA Scientists Link Greenhouse Gases To Insects And Trees

Here's a liitle clip from the article:

A second study involved large-scale disturbances to greenhouse gases detected using global satellite data. "A historical picture is emerging of periodic droughts and heat waves, possibly coupled with herbivorous insect outbreaks, as among the most important causes of ecosystem disturbances in North America," Potter said.

Here is a link in case you want to get educated .

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/climate_bugs.html

As a general rule of debate, when you have to call your adversary names to win an arguement, you need to find a stronger arguement.

 

[Joel W.]

As a general rule of debate, when you have to call your adversary names to win an arguement, you need to find a stronger arguement

Good point, But if "someone" chooses to ignore current information and "they" only look at old, out of date information, "they" are stupid in my opinion....

Here is a current link for you. It is from 2006 and not from 2004
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

 

[bonus12]

Good point, But if "someone" chooses to ignore current information and "they" only look at old, out of date information, "they" are stupid in my opinion....

Here is a current link for you. It is from 2006 and not from 2004
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

:word8kn:

 

[Adjuster]

So, one report talks about insects, and the other talks about possible causes of our warming planet..

Yet these "scientists" play with the words, and other hype.

Ok, how long are the NASA people going to hang on to Fossil fuels? (In light of new evidence, anyone who works in the oil and gas industry and the science around it knows that coal, gas and crude oil are not fossil fuels, but hydrocarbons that are JUST PART OF THE PLANET.) The oil companies must be laughing their asses off because the Liberals, and many others throughout the world can't let go of the "fossil fuels" misnomer.

This quote makes me laugh. (It could be written by Earth First! or some other LEE organization.)
"The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation."

It then says that a small number of scientists belive we are full of shit.. (Paraphrase a little there.) Talks about the sun, and it being a natural process....

But your quotes fail to note that C02 is a minor gas in the whole scheme of things, a small player in the total composition of our atmosphere, and miniscule compared to water vapor, the most common, and highest insulating of the "greenhouse" gases. (Oh, that's right, it's a "good" gas... blah blah.)

And these same writers pooh pooh the sun data, and corrisponding changes in tempature.. (Wow, leave it to NASA to ignore the obvious corrleation between our source of heat, light and life if you want to get right down to it... They don't think the sun has anything to do with our weather and climate change? Just a small number of scientists.. the vast majority of climate scientists think C02 is the cause, and only C02 created by man using automobiles, factories and power production... )

Anyone that can't see that this theory of man caused global warming is being blown out of proportion to the actual effect, if any, that Man has on the environment on a global scale has to be pretty dang determined to ignore the obvious evidence that points to natural climate shifts over time, sun based climate change based on solar intensity and the fact that as Humans, we have been WRONG so many times before when we "Knew" we were right just a few hundred years ago. (Not even an eyeblink in time for this planet which will continue on getting warmer or cooler depending on the Sun and the cycle of where we are in history.)

If you think I'm stuipid for not following you blindly down the LEE road to seek Oz, well that's fine with me man.

I was hoping some folks would actually read these links, and realize what fools they are to support idiots like Gore, Greenpeace and others like Earth First! (I agree, Earth First! We can mine and log the other planets later....)

 

[Joel W.]

OK guys, Let me try this again..:evil2:

I was not saying you or any one here is or was stupid Greg (Adjuster)... You mis-read me yet again. I said "If" and "someone"
(1) It has not happened yet, and (2) it could be anyone here...

NASA of course knows all about your "The sun influences our weather theory" because they wrote it 10+ years ago... The problem is that the suns level of influence "appears" to now be on a decline or in a down swing on the sun's solar cycle and yet our temp and CO2 rates are increasing faster and faster at alarming rates. 1+1+1+1=4

The key words in that article are "A majority of climatologists" (believe it to be a fact) and "A small number of scientists" (not climatologists believe they are wrong.) Your job, is to determine who is more credible, how and when did they get their facts and or from who. Also and most important I think is were they motivated with cash, grants, books or fame (on both sides)??

I will admit right now that trying to save the planet (if it really needs saving) so we can all make more money and grow food, get drunk and screw, is some what of a motive. It's called survival...

I have proven/linked most of the skeptics that say that "MMGW is a hoax" are funded by the oil companies/government (not all of them but most) and they are ignoring some of the data. (not all of it, but again, some of it)

I personally am not willing to take the chance on a minority "sell out opinions" based on the evidence that I have posted here and read/seen elsewhere. This risk is too great to ignore it any longer.. "If" it is a natural cycle, we better figure out something soon to feed our selves and stay cool..

One more thing...The gasses are not good and evil, Dude... :biglaugh: They are beneficial and harmful to us...(no emotions what so ever) but I know, you know this... lol

OK I am confused again......What does it matter what gas/coal/oil is really made from? Even EXXON says they are made from fossils?? What is your point??
http://www.exxonmobileurope.com/Europe-English/news/eu_news_environmentalmgmt.asp

Fossil fuels critical for next 20 years – at least

ExxonMobil’s Energy Outlook says that by 2020 the world will consume around 40 percent more energy than today. Oil and gas are expected to at least maintain their current 60% share of total energy demand, with oil remaining the dominant fuel. In other words, whatever aggressive growth takes place in other energy sources, such as renewables, fossil fuels remain critical to energy needs in the foreseeable future.

I am not saying they are not hydrocarbons, I just don't get why you keep bringing this up? The earth "supposably" has never had so many "hydrocarbons" burned at such an incredible rate by "humans" or at any point in history before now and the temp is rising because of it according to many climatologists based on evidence and facts..

Please read the entire story... They explain how they came to their conclusions based on several factors. Including old and new information together, most of which can be read below.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

There is some good news. Scientists are now trying to figure a way to scrub the air of CO2 and bury the harmful CO2 gasses forever under ground... That sound ok to me...:icon_bigg It means Jobs and maybe a way to reverse the problem.. (if it exists at all)..:icon_razz

Again, I don't see any harm in trying to find alternatives to oil and coal just incase they are right. If they are wrong, then no big deal.. Bring the gas back and I will send you a letter saying we fucked up and we suck and we are very sorry for trying to save you all..(sounds fair to me.):biglaugh:

Ask yourself why Bush this year has taken out the "To study and protect the planet" line from the NASA mission statement that has been in place for nearly 50 years???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIDE NOTE and some what off topic...I saw a show on Discovery called "Addicted to Oil" and it made an interesting point. It was, that in all other wars that we (the USA) have fought in, we have always cut the supply lines of our enemies in order to defeat them....(This is just common sense here)

In this war on terror, we are actually funding our enemies by purchasing oil from the middle east, from some of the very people we are still fighting. :3d_frown: (WTF is going on here??)

I know you and I both hate communism with a passion,,, Lenon once said >>> "let the capitalist pigs sell us the "rope" that we will hang them with..."

In this case (the middle east), we are actually funding the "rope" for the hanging of our selves.. :cry: I know this has nothing to do with "MMGW is a hoax" but it is something else to think about when we gas up..... Our leaders are freaking ass hats, either way..:runaway:

 

[Adjuster]

Joel, you said water vapor was a good gas. (And so do many other's in the LEE establishment, but they fail to notice it has more effect on climate than the dreaded C02 ever will.)

I totally agree the oil companies don't publicly talk about oil, gas and coal not being fossil fuels. Why would they want to? (IT would hurt their perception that we will soon run out of this stuff when just the opposite is true. We will not run out for many, many thousands of years.)

I'm not against doing something to reduce what we use either. I like paying for less gas as much as the next guy, but I'm not willing to have government or a LEE organization regulate how much I use with taxes or other laws.

I use solar power every day. (It's in my sunroof, and keeps my battery charged up, and fresh air blowing inside the car when it's parked outside. A very nice option BTW.) I also have a few panels that were supposed to have been thrown away when I worked at ARCO Solar. (We would take the blemished ones with debis or dust inbetween the layers of plastic, and break them into the trash dumpsters. I liberated a few that I've used over the years with no ill effects of the debris by any means.) I've also lived in a house with solar hot water, and I used to sell solar hot water systems back in the 80's when Regan had a tax break that pretty much payed for the cost of installing one on your house. (Very cool system, uses heat to pump/move the water, and it was a very robust build and insulated well, so freezeing at least in Southern California was not too much of a problem. (You had two large tanks of water up on your roof encased in foam insulation above the collectors, so as the water heated up in the sun, it would rise up and draw cooler water from the tanks to the bottem of the collector grids. Normal water pressure was all that was needed, and a drain valve to shut off the water and dump the panels/tanks if they got too cold. You don't want your 5000.00 solar panels to freeze and split right?) We would plumb them into the existing hot water system, so basicly your "hot" water tank was fed water already heated up from the roof mounted panels, and it would never turn on the gas as long as the water tempature in the tank was higher than about 130f. (Or less if you had kids, but you get the point.)

Do I think Man is causing the warming of this planet? Absolutely not. This is just one more cycle in many cycles of warming and cooling that the Earth will continue doing for many millions of years, then our sun will supernova and it will not matter any more.

People's political reasoning behind what they belive at the core is very interesting however. I can see there are many people who have to belive we are evil, and should be curbed, or controlled, and unless we are, we will destroy the earth.... Typical LEE attitude. Problem is, most Liberal Elite Environmentalists (LEE's) are flaming communists. (So if you hate communism, why do you belive what they are spinning?)

 

[Joel W.]

I guess I did say "good" and "bad" gasses..My bad....This was a poor choice of words on my part. We have already covered why CO2 is worse than water vapor.. Or at least we tried to any ways..CO2 seems to stay around a lot longer and it traps a ton of heat even in small quantities..

Water vapor does trap heat also, but again it also blocks the suns rays at the same time while keeping us cooler and removing CO2 when it condenses into droplets (clouds) and rains..

BTW...Good Job on the solar salvage. I wish I had more also..

From some of the news/vids/shows I have seen. The oil companies seem to be saying it is getting harder and harder to find all that oil? That is why they are forced to do all the deep offshore drilling in the oceans in areas that were in the past, not economically viable to drill for oil. Now due to shortages, they are attempting the harder drill sites..

Oil well pumps that used to put out 100 barrels a day in Texas now only produce about 7 barrels a day? Less oil in the ground = less well head pressure = not very productive.

I don't think taxing you more or anyone for driving a gas car is really needed imo... I think we just need to produce cleaner cars and people will buy them all on their own...I sure would if I could afford one.. I really want one too..

I don't think "we" as the consumers are evil at all. We are just recently understanding and proving these issues might be a real threat to us. I did not even know what caused GW 7 months ago.. I had a clue/suspicions but lacked the evidence/data to prove it...

Now I know, and now, I choose to alter my ways.. I replaced all my light bulbs with low watt florescent, I turn off everything when I am not using them. I try and use a fan instead of the AC when possible, I will carpool if I can with others. It will take some efforts but I think they will be worth while.. It all should make a small difference I hope any ways.. If they are wrong about MMGW, then I will just be saving money for nothing...

I can live with that I think!

Edit: I just disagree that all the scientists are communists, They are saying that we need to make some changes in how we operate if we want to stay in business...

This does not mean they are shutting us down, but they are telling us that there is a real issue that should be delt with, the sooner the better.

I am sure there are always going to be the "left wing eliteist" out there that may be trying to shut you down, but that is not me here or how I see it all happening over time..

I hope you understand that because I am being truthful with you here... I don't want to take anything from you, I would like to give something better than the current standard to use that may be cleaner, if you want it. That will always be your choice though..

 

[Nick M]

I haven't contributed in a while.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191826.o0mynclv.html

This story is about how Greenland glaciers have been shrinking since 1880's, with the greatest amount from about 64 to 85, when temps were dropping rapidly.

Of course, Antarctica is getting colder, and their glaciers are growing.

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

Of course, wether others admit it or not, on both sides, most of the debate is interpretation of data, and what does it mean.

edit: Last years warming oceans caused extra hurricanes and storms with more energy. This year is even warmer, yet...http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

 

[Joel W.]

I missed ya Nick...

Of course, Antarctica is getting colder, and their glaciers are growing.

Who says that?? I'd like a link to it, so I don't have to just take your word for it.. (no offence) :icon_razz Sorry Nick, but I have several problems with your fist link so far already...:cry:

1) The site that your link is posted on, is not a news site, but a conservitive rightwing web site. made by Andrew Breitbart

2) The website and search engine that it is powered by is "Infocious" and a finance channel powered by Financial Content which offers a free stock quote widget,,, and yet the link you posted can not be found from Google or MSNBC at all..

3) When I do search for "global warming" on your links site, I get a different looking URL than yours here.. The top one is yours and the botton one is the most recent link shown on their site for GW that I found from them... See if you can spot the differences between them when they are clicked on in the addy bar??? LMAO...:naughty:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191826.o0mynclv.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/06/D8JB4E800.html

Notice that my bottom link is the first on their list when searching for "global warming" yet it is from Sept 6th 2006..

4) What is really funny now is that second link is about my home town area and I just read it the other day on MSNBC. ( It is originally from the Associated Press but I am not a member). Here is the full story from MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14152678/

If we continue like we are now, we could see some ecological shifts," Barth said. "It all depends on what happens with the warming and the greenhouse gases."

Both stories are a bit different but nothing seems to be wrong with them yet.. Sounds like MMGW to me.. :dunno:

5) Look at how misleading it is with the time stamp under the headline..
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study
Aug 21 3:18 PM US/Eastern.

It sure does make it look like that story was from todays news huh? It's not though.... That site is just trying to mislead us on purpose....:naughty:



That Andrew guy, got the news story in your first link from The Austrailian Newspaper.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20211652-1702,00.html

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said."

Both sites say the same thing.. Sounds like MMGW to me... :dunno: Thanks for the support..

Ok, now on to your web blogger Andy man..

Andrew Breitbart himself.. (from the Wiki)

Breitbart's highest profile venue to date is the Drudge Report. Breitbart does not author stories on the website, but simply links to other mainstream news wire sources. ( Like Fox News, The Drudge Report, and other right wingers)

He now runs his own news site at breitbart.com, with the motto "Just The News." The site is now frequently linked to by the Drudge Report and other independently run websites. See the Drudge Report for more information.

It's not looking good Nick...:nono:

Now on to the "drudge man" LMAO

Critics argue that the only stories Matt Drudge actually breaks are completely conceived, researched, funded, and written by other reporters. In 1998, Federal Judge Paul Friedman noted in a judgment on a libel lawsuit, which ended in Drudge's favor, that Drudge is not a "reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer" (this case is covered in more detail below). Many times, Drudge Report will feature a headline with a link back to Drudge. However, most claims are eventually confirmed with an article link to the website of a traditional news outlet. (like Fox News)

Drudge's politics are considered to be neo-conservative. Some critics argue, for example, that he has not been as aggressive in pursuing potential scandals during the George W. Bush administration as during the Clinton administration.

During the 1990s, the Drudge Report gained a strong conservative following for Drudge's heavy coverage of alleged scandals during President Bill Clinton's administration He has cultivated this following by often highlighting stories that appeal to conservatives, praise prominent conservatives, or criticize prominent liberals. This has led some critics to call him a mouthpiece of the conservative establishment in the United States.

August 10, 1997 when Drudge published a report saying that incoming White House assistant Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife and was covering it up. Drudge retracted the story the next day, saying he was given bad information, but Blumenthal filed a $30 million libel lawsuit against Drudge. [13] Drudge told Salon magazine that "I seemed to have about 80 percent of the facts" about the Blumenthal report.

Man this guy is a piece of shit dude..:3d_frown: ...

The Report was the source of a sensational rumor (a "World Exclusive") in February 2004, about presidential candidate John Kerry, alleging that he had an affair with a young intern named Alexandra Polier. [17] The woman, who in fact was never an intern for Kerry, denied the claim. In June 2004, Drudge apologized for the story, saying "In retrospect, I should have had a sentence saying, 'There is no evidence to tie Alex to John Kerry.' I should have put that in there..." [18]. Yet the story remained available on his website up to a year after its publication.

Because the Drudge Report is not part of the mainstream media and is published electronically, and not in print, such inaccuracies and errors are often forgotten. Archives of older reports are generally not easy to find, and Drudge does not systematically archive any of his reports. A number of reports from 1995 to early 1997 are available in the Usenet archive provided by Google Groups. LMAO.. The search engine he uses makes anything new, not searchable from off of his site.. WTF???


I think I just discredited your first link, and I am done with both of them goofballers now. :wave:

Your second link looks promising, except for the fact that it also says everything is warmer than last year and we still do not understand all of the things that have to be in order for a hurricane to form yet??

Take a good look at the second page of your second link with the actual recorded ocean temp increases. :aigo: The orange to red areas are warm enough to support the formation of tropical storms and hurricanes. It is plenty warmer, but there just may be other factors that are not working right now to form hurricanes properly. It is something like 85 degrees all the way down to 150 ft that triggers hurricane activity. (so I read somewhere)

Temps..
http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2005/sea-surface-temperature-atl.htm

What can cause hurricanes?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_hurricanes.htm

 

[bluemyst]

Data accumulation and analysis improves every year. We don't have enough data to confirm or deny 100% whether or not the current tropical storm trend (Atlantic focus only) is on a steady rise or, instead, is part of a lengthy cycle. Aren't statistics a pain? =) Weather statistics especially because there are so many factors involved and so much data to digest and study. This goes for general climate change, as well... we can see the changes in the size of glaciers, and we can see the increase in greenhouse gases, but what we can't see (very well) is when and how this type of climate activity occurred in the past. I can't say I'd go against attempts to decrease the burning of coal and gasoline and other fuels, but I also can't shout to the world that we're destroying ourselves and we'll all die from flooding when all the ice melts. =)

For hurricanes to develop, ONE of the major conditions necessary is 80+ degrees Fahrenheit (26.5 degrees Celsius) water to a depth of 150 ft (50m) or more. Wind shear (the way wind speed and direction changes as altitude changes) is another major factor. Ideally, wind shear needs to be low. Location is also huge, as the origin often (but not always) dictates where the storm will end up and whether or not it will continue to cross these warm waters. For a surprisingly informative, in-depth look at hurricanes, check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

If anyone's not aware of this, the 2006 Atlantic tropical storm forecast was initially greater, but current trends in the season (June 1 to November 30 officially) have caused the researchers at Colorado State University to revise the forecast, decreasing the number of storms, which includes the number of expected hurricane-strength storms and "major" hurricanes. This means that the record-breaking season last summer likely will not repeat itself, which is not only great news for hurricane-prone regions but is also a sign that the media should stop looking to global warming as THE cause for the season's storms. (I'm really, -really- against the media's way of presenting global warming, and the petty squabbling in the scientific world over the subject, too... but that's an entirely different rant. =P)

(If you're wondering why I'm bothering to put my two cents in, I'm in school working toward becoming a tropical meteorologist. It's my goal to be a so-called hurricane expert. =) I also apologize for any incoherencies in this post, as I've had a long day and not enough sleep for it.)

 

[Joel W.]

Of course, Antarctica is getting colder, and their glaciers are growing.

See post 48

Here is an interesting/sad story about the skewed ice pack data and your guy Patrick Michaels "the skeptic"

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/07/a_bad_week_for.html
A bad week for climate change skeptics

First up came an essay from University of Illinois climate scientist Peter Doran, who claims that his research has been perverted by climate change skeptics. Four years ago he published a paper suggesting that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000, while the remainder warmed. Doran writes:

Our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel "State of Fear" and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."
Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents -- all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming.

One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that "the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle." I have never thought such a thing either.

In fact, Doran says his research team's observations may be explained by the human-induced ozone hole over the continent. Ozone is a greenhouse gas, and as its levels rise, so too should temperatures over nearly all of Antarctica, he said.

Then, DeSmogBlog obtained a memo in which the coal industry essentially lays out a plan to fight public perceptions of global warming. Among the revelations is that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association paid $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a long-time skeptic, to support his activities. I don't have a problem with someone getting paid. But if anyone thinks the money comes without strings attached, well, I don't know what to say.

Perhaps the funniest thing I have found is a transcript of an interview in which Michaels cites Doran's work as a reason to be skeptical about climate change, and arguing that Antarctica is really gaining ice. (It's not, it's losing ice, say British scientists.)

Here is that story.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/07/a_bad_week_for.html
Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'
Guide to Climate Change
Hunting climate evidence
A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.


And another.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060711004957data_trunc_sys.shtml

Recent observations of the WAIS, a marine ice sheet with a base below sea level, show that vast quantities of ice are melting at a faster rate than previously recorded. Many observers consider this and an increase in calving icebergs along the Antarctic's margins to be evidence of global warming. The team's findings also counter climate-change skeptics who consider a thickening of Antarctica's enormous ice sheets has stemmed the gradual rise in global sea levels.

 

[Supracentral]

This thread is still going?!?!?

Done ::dead horse:: yet guys?

 

[Nick M]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm

 

[Joel W.]

That is an interesting link Nick.. That is odd... I don't really understand how it all works but I will do more looking into glacier melt.. Most seem to be melting at a faster rate than previously believed..

Here is another link on that. It also says that warmer winters and cooler summers, with more rain and snow for higher glaciers may be why...Other lower glaciers are shrinking..

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0824-himalayas.html

 

[Adjuster]

You can't just wrap your brain around the fact that MAN has little or nothing to do with our planet's warming and cooling cycles can you?

It has to be caused by us. We have to be the culprit. (Insert chanting here and you'd be close to how it sounds.)

These "scientists" you keep quoting are rabid LEE's but you ignore that, and anyone at all that has a dissenting opinion is a Neo-Con in the pocket of "Big Oil" who's funding their work or research... blah blah blah...

Entire areas of this planet have been deforested before, and it had no effect that I can see. (Other than we have more food to eat now...)
Look at the way the USA was settled. They cut down HUGE areas of forrest, and tilled the land and grew stuff there. (And we are still doing it all over the East coast and parts of the Midwest where trees normally would cover the land except for the fact that most of them were cleared off and it's now farmland...)
How about parts of Asia? There are entire countries that used to have forrests, but now have none. The trees were cut down and never replanted, and yet the LEE's can only talk about the Amazon basin, and they spread fear and complete bull shit that the loss of these "forrests" are causing MMGW! Fear! Hate! Anger! It all brings in money from idiots all over the world who think they need to do something to slow down, or stop MMGW.. (As if it even exists.... Right, it does not exist, but it's sure a great way to generate funds, so let's go "reasearch" some data we can pollute the world's opinion with...)

The most accurate data we have on the actual temps of the earth's atmosphere indicate it's flat, and possibly going down. (This is from NASA's own hyper accurate space based platforms.)

If you remove the urban heat island effect from the data, the reality is we are not very different temp wise. (Cities are warmer than the surrounding areas with no buildings/pavement and crowded living space.)

What is interesting is that the NASA data supports this fact that the actual air temps are flat, or trending down, but the LEE scientists can't let it go, so they do more studies, reasearch and cling to some hope that this hurricane season will go nuts and prove to the world that MMGW is the C02 breathing man made plauge they have all been screaming about for the past few years.

Lastly, if you think MSNBC is a unbiased source of any news, your beyond hope my friend.

Don't let the Liberal Elite Environmentalists (Lee's) put you into a state of fear... Afraid to use very commonplace fuels, willing to give up your personal freedoms to "save the planet" (All while they fly around in their private lear jets, drive SUV's and live in huge ass homes with the AC blasting all the time...On your donation dollar no less! Don't you feel just the slightest bit let down by these goons?

I do not because I don't give my hard earned money to any LEE organization. And I never will I hope.

 

[Joel W.]

You can't just wrap your brain around the fact that MAN has little or nothing to do with our planet's warming and cooling cycles can you?

Not when the evidence says otherwise. No..

It has to be caused by us. We have to be the culprit. (Insert chanting here and you'd be close to how it sounds.)

No but it appears to be the case to me when I look at all the data..

These "scientists" you keep quoting are rabid LEE's but you ignore that, and anyone at all that has a dissenting opinion is a Neo-Con in the pocket of "Big Oil" who's funding their work or research... blah blah blah...

That's your opinion, but at least they have not been proven to be in the pocket of big oil, like your guys... :dunno:

Entire areas of this planet have been deforested before, and it had no effect that I can see. (Other than we have more food to eat now...)
Look at the way the USA was settled. They cut down HUGE areas of forrest, and tilled the land and grew stuff there. (And we are still doing it all over the East coast and parts of the Midwest where trees normally would cover the land except for the fact that most of them were cleared off and it's now farmland...)

Part of the problem imo...

How about parts of Asia?

Here is an Asian smog map?

The most accurate data we have on the actual temps of the earth's atmosphere indicate it's flat, and possibly going down. (This is from NASA's own hyper accurate space based platforms.)

You sure about that?http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06432.html

If you remove the urban heat island effect from the data, the reality is we are not very different temp wise. (Cities are warmer than the surrounding areas with no buildings/pavement and crowded living space.)

uhhh..

What is interesting is that the NASA data supports this fact that the actual air temps are flat, or trending down, but the LEE scientists can't let it go, so they do more studies, reasearch and cling to some hope that this hurricane season will go nuts and prove to the world that MMGW is the C02 breathing man made plauge they have all been screaming about for the past few years.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=17438
In early 2006, James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, pointed out that five of the warmest years over the last century were in the previous eight years: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Moreover, the GISS team states, “It is no longer correct to say that ‘most global warming occurred before 1940,’ ” an argument sometimes made by those who are skeptical of the link between human-produced greenhouse gases and global warming. Instead, the GISS team says, global warming over the last century up until 1975 was slow, with large fluctuations. Since 1975, there has been a “rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.”

Lastly, if you think MSNBC is a unbiased source of any news, your beyond hope my friend.

I watch both sides. MSNBC is harsh on bush for sure. No agruement.

Don't let the Liberal Elite Environmentalists (Lee's) put you into a state of fear... Afraid to use very commonplace fuels, willing to give up your personal freedoms to "save the planet" (All while they fly around in their private lear jets, drive SUV's and live in huge ass homes with the AC blasting all the time...On your donation dollar no less! Don't you feel just the slightest bit let down by these goons?

You started this thread, I felt like you at the start of it. Now I feel differently.. Please do not hate me. :icon_razz

I do not because I don't give my hard earned money to any LEE organization. And I never will I hope.

ok...

 

[PROJECT N00b]

omg. the only way this thread will die if someone assassinates it...(mods you feelin' me?).

 

[Joel W.]

(mods you feelin' me?).

There is no flame war here so why does it bother you so much?

Is it an inconvenient thread???

 

[PROJECT N00b]

*vanish* you cant see me. i was just agreeing with SC thats all *commence puppy eyes!*

 

[Joel W.]

It's cool MKIII N00b: But try to understand, when he makes bold statements like "NASA says", I want current proof of it, I may just change my mind, if he produces it...