[tenaja]

There is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Global temperatures go in trends... just look at some of the photos of glaciers from the early 1900's... many were smaller then than they are now! Those who cry "the sky is falling" are just looking at pictures from a different era, after the glaciers grew again. Just because they got big in the mid twentieth century doesn't mean we caused them to melt in the late twentieth century. Heck, a scientist in the late 1800's theorized about global warming, long before industry got huge. He even showed the glaciers in Greenland were melting, and this was well over 100 years ago.

As far as our contribution goes, it's negligible. One volcano eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses in one day than all of the automobiles combined, for the whole year. And that happens thousands of times every year. Anybody that thinks the tiny amount of polution we put out is the cause of global warming has one thing in mind, and real data isn't it.

[Rekd]

Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate – and, yes, there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al Gore and the mainstream media.

[tenaja]

This is hilarious... I just heard this on Discovery Channel yesterday--a liberal, evolution preaching, global warming subscribing tv network:

Ephesus (yes, where the Biblical Ephesians lived) was a "thriving seaport," back in the first century.

Ephesus--yes, the same one--is now 5 miles from the ocean.

Even IF there is global warming now, then it's just restoring the global cooling that caused the glaciers to build up in the first place, which caused Ephesus to lose its "seaport" status. Who's to say the so-called global warming that we are supposedly causing it's actually restoring the climate???

Just something to make you go "hmmm."

[fizzissist]

I watched two shows, almost back-to-back, one on the Formerly Credible National Geographic channel and the other on the Miscovery channel about the impending doom of AGW.

The Discovery presentation had some awesome graphics, and showed where the sea level used to be 20ft higher about 130k yrs ago.....but oddly never mentioned how it got to that point back then...

Oh, the poor eskymohs, "....this is the only home they've ever known." The land they're on is being continuously eroded......But, where were they when the ocean's levels were higher??? You build your house in a river bed and are surprised when things get wet?

It reminds me of the people in Malibu who's houses get trashed in the storms. What the hell did you expect? Or the houses in the Hollyweird Hills that slide down the side of the hill after a good soaking.

Throughout history animals and man migrated in response to climate change. Just like gooses, and butterflies, and elk herds do today.

The classic line in one was this Inuit sitting on his ATV saying 'the pollution isn't here, it's in the big cities.' ..... You mean like where they built the ATV you're sitting on???

How have they coped with the warming and cooling over thousands of years?

[nine6]

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing
the temp to rise.

regarding ephesus. same thing happened to all of the aegean penninsula.

back in homer's day (the original homer that is) many wars were fought.
wars back then required trees. trees held down dirt. no trees=loose dirt.
loose dirt blows from the ground into the ocean filling it up and increasing
the size of the coastline.
the area was once well endowed with forests. anybody that lives in the
area now can tell you thats not the case.

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form
of government is having other people decide things for them.

[Geof]

......Ephesus--yes, the same one--is now 5 miles from the ocean....Just something to make you go "hmmm."

"hmmm"? No not really; Ephesus is in the Eastern Mediterranean which is a region that is getting squished between the European continent and the African continent. Volcanoes, earthquakes and vertical ground shifts are not unusual around the Mediterranean. It is not a good region to use as a baseline for judging what global ocean levels are doing because it is a shifting baseline.

[tenaja]

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form of government is having other people decide things for them.

Actually, you have that exactly backwards. A "liberal" is someone who wants to steal my money and give it to someone else. Yes, it's stealing; I, personally, did not give them permission. A liberal is someone who says the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, therefore, the government needs to be making these decisions. Examples of decisions that liberals think I'm too stupid to make are decisions such as if I want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet; how I choose to save for retirement; how to budget my money so I can purchase health insurance [or find a job that provides it], etc....extreme liberals want to take these choices away from me, take my money away from me, and give me a fraction of the leftovers.)

An extreme "Conservative" is someone who believes the only job of the government is to protect the citizens, and nothing more.

And yes, most conservatives put "unborn babies" in the "citizen" category. (You can be charged with murder for killing an unborn on the street, in your home or in a bathroom, but not in an "operating room"??? What difference does it make to the baby how its killed?

Edit Added: And if an unborn baby is just "fetal tissue" then why is the murder of an unborn baby even possible? Why is it not just assault? To the mother, if it's just tissue, and a criminal kills her unborn baby (i.e. by assaulting her), it should be no different than having a wart or a mole removed involuntarily. But I digress...

[fizzissist]

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing
the temp to rise.

btw, a "liberal", is literally, a person who enjoys freedom.
and literally speaking a "republican" is some one whose form
of government is having other people decide things for them.

But only "liberal" climatologists, right?

[tenaja]

But only "liberal" climatologists, right?

:cheers:

You know, Dan Rather was SHOCKED that Bush won... he was quoted as saying he didn't even know one person who voted for him. Yet those news-types claim they aren't biased... when in reality, they are so far out of touch with the real US Citizens.

Put your head in the sand, and you'll stay in the dark.

[fizzissist]

climatology should be left to climatoligists. i doubt anybody here has
the credentials to decide whether or not human beings are causing the temp to rise.

AlGore isn't a climatologist, and he's decided. In fact, he's deciding for you. He wants to impose legislation (evidence his behaviour as VP during Kyoto) that will force you to comply with what one side of the scientific isle wants.

On the other side of the isle are the "skeptics". Presumably funded by BigOil, or other Evil interests, they're more conservative on the issue, and most maintain that human influence on global climate is minimal.

Either way, each side will ONLY present it's side, and select which piece of the other side's argument to present in order to discredit the opposition.

What we have here is the opportunity to read, review, and discuss BOTH sides, so we can make our own informed decisions.

Now, isn't that really what a true "liberal" would want???

------------------------------
The transcript from the Larry King show, with Dick Lindzen kicking Bill Nye's butt....You get to hear EVERYBODY'S view!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...31/lkl.01.html

[nine6]

wow, i wasnt really expecting to get quite as much mileage over that.

if i'm not mistaken the aegean is between greece and turkey which qualifies
as the eastern med. although my geography is a bit shakey as is my climatology. and i imagine the same thing happened to ephesus that
happened to thermopyle. lots of dust into the ocean that is.
wasn't "big oil" that did it, it was "big internessine war"

point being. not a single person here actually knows, on their own, whether
global warming is real or a myth. it depends on their political leaning and
where they get their news.

just a thought. the ozone layer is only about a foot thick in most places.
this is its normal size. its not much actually and is a measurable thing
of a measurable thickness and of a measurable density. and in lab
tests it is possible to destroy and/or reduce it in density.

but, you know, i'm gonna be dead long before anything that matters happens
to this planet and i'm not planning on having kids. so i guess yours will just
have to deal with it.

liberal is not a dirty word even if some liberals are.

[fizzissist]

....."The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution...."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0

..Of course, there's a rebuttal by the RealClimate team....see Comments #s 37 and 49
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-for-emitting/

[Geof]

....."The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant....blah blah blah.....

fizzissist you are amusing, maybe unintentionally so. In a different thread I suggested you look into things like solar activity and cosmic rays and also hydroxyle radicals and atmospheric methane levels. Your response was to jump down my throat with a whole bunch of urls and questions. Now you present one side of a potential discussion that could have a significant amount of relevance to the warming question; in particular the apparently increased rate of warming during the last two or three decades.

But I still think you are bluffing; you don't really understand all the stuff you dig up and you are just trying to come across as more informed than other people who don't have the free time to roam looking for urls. However, before consigning you permanently to the class of people I don't waste time with I will give you another chance. You have found the solar activity/cosmic ray stuff...how about the other two; hydroxyl radicals and atmospheric methane. Also why not do a little bit of looking into historic wheat prices and observed (or not observed) sunspot activity. And one that is very obscure; the Seven Sisters and Peruvian mythology.

Almost forgot; also boron isotopes and dendrochronogy.

[nine6]

its funny to think that everyone believes that there is a raging debate
among climatologists as to whether or not human beings contribute
to global warming. its not like a 50/50 split here. its more like a
98/2 split and half that 2 is financed by people who have a direct
interest in global warming not being caused by humans.

personally i dont care, i like warm winters and have never had
a particular affection for penguins.

however, i cant see the stars in the sky cause there is so much
friggin pollution that i can only make out venus and the brighter
planets. i can go out to the desert and see what it was like before
man put his two cents worth in. and this is in tulsa, well away from
the light infested eastern seaboard.

in the end i think pollution will be done away with the "free economy" way.
free electric from the sun is cheaper in the long run. i predict in the
next ten years a full solar power setup will cost less than one years
worth of coal powered electric.

gas is only going to get more expensive. so people will use less.
things on a macro scale generally have a way of working themselves out.

and hey, if the planet gets really tired of it, she'll just kill us off and
start over. no loss in the cosmic scale of things to her. just
an itchy flea that got scratched.

[AMCTony]

Follow the Money, you may just end up in china which happens to be one of the only industrialized nations to BENIFIT from the Kyoto Protocol. Under this treaty that we thankfully will not sign,(Clinton or Bush 2), China is allowed to increase their greenhouse gas emmisions. WTF!!!!!!

[AMCTony]

BTW, CO2 is plant food. Now what was that argument about the Rainforest?

[higgrobot]

Here today it was only 44 degrees celcius (111 F) whereas yesterday it was 45c (113 F) so clearly in my part of the world it's getting cooler. I'm worried that the ice is melting, so we're going to move the esky into the shade and buy a new bag

[CoolHand]

its funny to think that everyone believes that there is a raging debate
among climatologists as to whether or not human beings contribute
to global warming. its not like a 50/50 split here. its more like a
98/2 split and half that 2 is financed by people who have a direct
interest in global warming not being caused by humans...

You missed 17,198 folks when you did your "don't agree" count:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I think it's a lot closer to 50/50 or maybe even 40/60 than the greens and the fear mongers would like you to believe.

[nine6]

CO2 is a plant "food". they can only consume so much though. and
at the rate that the rainforests are coming down they will only be able
to take so much out of the air. anybody wanna argue that the rainforests
aren't coming down? wouldn't want you to lose your fox news merit badge.

17,000 of them against global warming? come on, do you really think there
are 17,000 climatoligists in this world. more likely they just polled people
at a monster truck rally.

you're being spoon fed what you want to hear.

[CoolHand]

CO2 is a plant "food". they can only consume so much though. and
at the rate that the rainforests are coming down they will only be able
to take so much out of the air. anybody wanna argue that the rainforests
aren't coming down? wouldn't want you to lose your fox news merit badge.

17,000 of them against global warming? come on, do you really think there
are 17,000 climatoligists in this world. more likely they just polled people
at a monster truck rally.

you're being spoon fed what you want to hear.

I love how it's OK to totally disregard the other side's proof because "it's obviously a lie", but your information, most of it of dubious origin to begin with, is the gospel, not to be questioned under any circumstances.

IF your theory can't stand up to rigorous questioning by skeptical people, it's not a theory at all, it's a fantasy.