# Global warming?



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I sure many of you saw this article in your local newspapers. I also believe that the global warming theory is blown way out of proportion by the media and extreme environmentalists. I can remember back to my junior high days (30+ years ago), they were predicting a new ice age from smog preventing the sun rays from reaching the earth!
What do you think?

Article published Feb 24, 2007

Global-warming hysterics strike again

WILLIAM RUSHER

The media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.

The global-warming controversy is powered by three mighty engines, which are almost never recognized. The first is the natural human impulse to fear allegedly forthcoming disasters, especially if they are clothed in the raiments of scientific certitude. The media can be depended on to ferret out and wildly overhype any potential negative development that any so-called scientist is willing to predict and deplore.

Remember "acid rain"? The factories of the American Midwest are supposedly belching enormous quantities of sulphurous gases into the air, which then drift eastward, pollute our pristine lakes and lay waste the Appalachian forests. We had barely had time to digest this awful news when the same media introduced us to the ghastly phenomenon called the "ozone hole," a gap in the Earth's protective layer of ozone that had developed (thanks to human pollutants) over the Antarctic and threatened to increase hugely the amount of deadly interstellar radiation reaching the planet's surface, causing millions of fatal skin cancers. The subsequent news that the ozone hole was actually diminishing was lost in the gratifying burst of terror over the discovery of global warming.

The second engine (which was also influential in the flaps over acid rain and the ozone hole) is the traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," which is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows. So the ancient cry has gone up, "Stop the corporations!"

The third and final engine is, as you might expect, money. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid "scientists" (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings.

The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says, "I hope this report will shock people."

Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

Part of the problem is that the earth's temperature is always in motion, up or down. At the moment, it is trending slightly up -- three-hundredths of a degree Celsius since 2001. Before that, in the midyears of the 20th century, it was actually falling -- providing grist for the media's hysterical predictions of a "new Ice Age" back in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, you can count on the liberals to demand savage cutbacks in the output of America's "greedy" corporations (never mind what that does to the economy) and on the opportunistic hacks in the science faculties of our universities to carve still bigger grants for themselves out of the federal and state budgets to finance more justifications for the panic.

William Rusher is a former publisher for the National Review and now writes for the Newspaper Enterprise Association.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

While I do think global climate change is difficult to model and predict, I don't think it is something that should be taken with a grain of salt. I try not to be an extremist or pessimist when it comes to climate change, but a recent talk given by Dr. John Magnuson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on fish and fisheries in a changing climate was a real eye opener.

Perhaps it is a cyclic phenomenon, but Dr. Magnuson provided data on ice cover dating back to the 1800s, showing a dramatic decrease in the number of ice on days for Lake Mendota in Wisconsin. I don't recall all of the numbers, but if my memory serves me correctly, from 1975-2006, there have been roughly 8-8.5 days per decade shorter ice duration. I don't want to guess at what the decrease has been since the 1800s, but I do remember it being a staggering number. Does this point to global climate change, not necessarily, but it is certainly something to consider.

Even though the talk was primarily related to global climate change and changing fish assemblages, he also presented some possible impacts on duck populations, given model predictions are accurate. Sadly, some models show North Dakota's prairie pothole region becoming dryer, perhaps resembling more of the western part of the state. The prediction, then, is that the "duck factory" will shift further East, into the far eastern Dakotas and Minnesota. Being from Minnesota, I think that would be a positive, but, unfortunately, "we" have either drained or destroyed most, if not all of wetlands that could serve as duck breeding habitat. So, the question then becomes, "What is going to happen to duck populations?"

Again, these are all predictions based on computer models. Will any of this happen? I hope to God it doesn't. I hope that the climatologists and other scientists are over-reacting, but I think people need to start looking to the future instead of living in the "now". Just my two cents worth. Let the criticisms begin. :beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Global Warming/Climate change whatever liberal buzz word you want to use for it, CAN NOT be fixed by humans. No matter how much money we throw at it, just like the Ice age and humans weren't even here yet, come on people think.... don't let the liberals pull the spotted owl routine on us again! :eyeroll:


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

The media is the biggest culprit, all they feed us a a constant stream of gloom and doom. They do this to attract viewers and that means more advertising revenue. It just kills me when the CBS Evening news reports on what happened in "Survivor" the night before. Is that news? Who cares about their TV show? It's just more advertising! I change the channel...to what, ABC, or NBC? They're just as bad.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

> come on people think....


Thinking also involves taking into consideration the possibility that we might be having an impact on the climate. Yes, in the absence of humans Earth would go through natural climate shifts. However, I think it's fairly clear that something unnatural is occuring. You can't put 6 billion+ people on the Earth and not expect us to have a major impact on the climate and natural resources, especially in the face of our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels. I agree, we can't throw money at it and expect to fix it, but we can change some of the ways we go about doing things.

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that we won't be alive to see the outcome. Future generations will have to live with choices we make today. I think it's better to at least acknowledge there might be a problem and err on the side of caution than to let future generations deal with our shortcomings. Again, just my two cents worth.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i totally agree. last year for the first time (in over 40 years of pheasant hunting) i had to pull my dog from a Kansas CRP field at 11:30 a.m. because the temps had reached 88 degrees! now you can say what you like, but having spent that many years in the outddors, i have seen many other climate changes and i can tell you they all point to a steady increase in temps and a steady decrease in moisture in the plains states. at the same time we are putting a record number of vehicles on the road worldwide and are burning more coal in more power plants than ever before. just my own observations and my own opinion. it's the real deal (global warming) and we better get a policy developed to get a handle on it very quickly.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I find that Rusher's column and its title "Global-warming hysterics strike again" to be a misnomer. A better title for his column should have been "Global warming opposition hysterics strike again". he states that "Remember "acid rain"? The factories of the American Midwest are supposedly belching enormous quantities of sulphurous gases into the air, which then drift eastward, pollute our pristine lakes and lay waste the Appalachian forests."
Well, guess what, after scientific study for the past 40 years, acid rain was real and has real effects. Next he states "The subsequent news that the ozone hole was actually diminishing was lost in the gratifying burst of terror over the discovery of global warming. " False statement again. The ozone hole was the largest ever last year.

Finally, and most revealing of his scientific ignorance is "But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third." 
Science works by refining hypothesis and models towards the goal of an ever increasing understanding of the process and the accuracy of the predictions. When the first models came out, and were quoted by Al Gore, those were the results of modelling at that time. Since then, models and their results have been refined in light of new information and better understanding. Most media, the public, as well as Mr Rusher, fail to understand this basic principle that science is not static and never has been. 
As to the billions of dollars spent on research, what is his source of information? Where are the facts? It also flies in the face of the fact that ever increasing amounts of money being spent by corporations on research, entirely of their own volition and not driven by liberal or conservative viewpoints.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Global warming?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Global warming is just a plot by liberals to spend more money. That is what they are saying in the political forum so if that is what they are saying in the political forum it has to be true!! So I guess that unless you are a liberal you should just roll the dice because sh-t happens.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

DJ, who let you out of your bubble?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

DJ, just as in the politics forum on this site, as evidenced by many of the posts, facts are not needed to discuss an issue. One single written article by non scientists from any side of the political spectrum that support one's personal point of view are all that is necessary to prove or disprove anything pertaining to science. Another shining example of the breakdown of the US educational system and the loss of critical thinking.


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

What does the breakdown of the educational system in america have to do with posting an opinion on a website? :roll:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Yup, if you want the sun to rise in the west you can find support on the internet and then they will be dumb enough to think that we will believe what they cut and paste.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

IMHO, having been a teacher at various times over the past 25 years at various colleges, the number of college students who can collect, evaluate and critically think about information is in sad decline. When opinion is accepted as fact, sole sources of information are believed without reviewing other sources of information and anything posted on the internet is accepted as a peer reviewed source, that is a symptom of clear decline in our educational system. While teaching my current course at college, I am discomfited by the lack of the current crop of students ability to critically think about sources of information. Posting an opinion on a website is not a problem. Posting an opinion without facts to back it up is the problem. In my example above, I am sure that William Rusher is well meaning and the people who read him are well meaning, but to assume his words are backed by facts is a failure to critically analyze the information and sift fact from opinion.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

Well said, indsport.


----------



## roostbuster (Oct 19, 2005)

indsport said:


> IMHO, having been a teacher at various times over the past 25 years at various colleges, the number of college students who can collect, evaluate and critically think about information is in sad decline. When opinion is accepted as fact, sole sources of information are believed without reviewing other sources of information and anything posted on the internet is accepted as a peer reviewed source, that is a symptom of clear decline in our educational system. While teaching my current course at college, I am discomfited by the lack of the current crop of students ability to critically think about sources of information. Posting an opinion on a website is not a problem. Posting an opinion without facts to back it up is the problem. In my example above, I am sure that William Rusher is well meaning and the people who read him are well meaning, but to assume his words are backed by facts is a failure to critically analyze the information and sift fact from opinion.


ok... just playing devils advocate here. can you please give us your sources for the claims you made in your first post? I saw statements presented as fact (ozone hole, acid rain), but were not backed up with any form of data... in MLA format please.

Maybe we should be looking at the teachers. I know in my 16 years of school, I have noticed a decline in my teachers in many different forms, specifically in college. Do college instructors just not care? (this is a serious question, not directed specifically at you, but college instructors in general).


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

For starters,

http://bqs.usgs.gov/acidrain/
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookin ... ecord.html
http://www.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-2 ... 105408.htm

As to education, it is a multifaceted problem. The test scores of US students compared to other countries are abysmal and we are losing ground starting even by grade four so unless all 1 - 4th grade teachers are falling down on the job.......... Just yesterday in the live interview with the CEO of Exxon Mobil on CNBC, he pointed out that the US is now 16th of 17 in the industrialized world in the number of scientists and engineers we graduate from college. But then again, consider the numbers over time. When I went to college in the 60's and 70's, I believe the % of high school students who went to college was around 15%. Today in North Dakota, it is something around 50% or more. Not everyone is from Lake Woebegon and is above average, so is there dilution of the available college students? Look at the number of students now attending college that need remedial reading and math.

Is it the teachers fault? My answer would be yes, no and maybe. I think that having certain minimum requirements for teachers is a good thing. I was lucky enough in my public high school in the 1960's that all my math and science teachers had Masters or PhD's which was very rare but they were paid well and paid above average salaries. I recall our school district never rejected a tax increase for schools. People complain taxes are too high, but today, even in college, you get what you pay for. Look at teacher's salaries compared to almost any other profession. Do we attract the best and brightest with salaries that average something like 25k per year in North Dakota? As to colleges, they are on the cheap also. I read recently that over half of the instructors at colleges are now part time hires so the schools can keep costs down. If the teacher is qualified and produces a product (students) that meet or exceed expectations (test scores or whatever) why not pay them what they are worth?

Based on my conversations with teachers, ability to maintain discipline in the classroom is overshadowed by lawyers, parents, school boards and the supposed self esteem of the poor little children. Who wants to be a teacher if you get sued when you want to tell that kid to sit down and shut up?

I am a firm believer in old fashioned readin, writin and rithmetic. Recent research shows the "fuzzy math" era has turned out to be a failure. In my current class of college students this semester, I find that they can't do long division without a calculator.

When I ask questions, I get answers like "I saw it on the Internet" but when I question them further, they can't tell me the veracity of the information or the background sources.

Enuf ranting and taking up bandwidth. If anyone wants to discuss further, PM me.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

agreed, i have a B.S. in Education, but never engaged in the profession as the rewards of a management position in a Fortune 500 company overtook the urge to help educate our children. as soon as a teacher's salary exceeds that of a plumber we may see some improvement. sad.


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

The most important thing you must remember about science is that it is guided by us as humans and what we percieve as being important. Science preys on the fear of the unknown, while science has provided many very valuable and useful things it has also provided as many if not more destructive and harmful things. Scientists are generally the most brilliant and talented people this earth has to offer and we tend to believe what they say, but they are people and people no matter who they are make mistakes.

Science can be very calcualted and precise but also very misleading. Realistically you can make the science say whatever you want it to as long as you arrange your experiment properly. Snowmobile groups dealt with this issue as enviromental groups rigged tests to make snowmobiles look worse than they really were.

One previous post said that it is unnatural to have 6 billion people on this planet, which I would have to agree it is. We as humans are able to multiply so extensively because of our manipulation of the environment. Global warming if it truly does exhist is the earth trying to fight its way into equilibrium, whatever that is. There have been many worse disasters in the earth's history than 6 billion people, and its still here, whats on it is whats always changing. The oddest thing about global warming when you thiink about the global warming problem is that global warming is the only natural part of the whole issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> One previous post said that it is unnatural to have 6 billion people on this planet


Why do people always set themselves apart from nature. We are one of the thousands of species, we just happen to be the dominant. If we did not exist would then the great apes not be natural? They are the next in line for intelligence. I suppose someone will change the argument to "no dolphins are more intelligent".
We are as much a part of nature as deer, fish, eagles, etc. We just happen to be able to control our destiny more than other species. We populate more ((than some species, less than others), then because of intelligence some nations have people that intentionally choose how many children they will have. If the human population goes to ten billion it is still natural. If it falls to several thousand it is still natural. 
To think we are not nature like every other creature is psycho babble. This perspective is not anti religious or pro evolution it is correct from either perspective. Anti hunters would like us all to believe that we are not part of nature. That's why they think it is ok for a cougar to kill and eat a deer, but not you.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i don't think you have to be a scientist to understand or perceive what is happening to our climate, as the change has been profound and cumlative over the past 10-20 years or so. simply put, temperature-wise, there are more record high temps vs. low temps set every year, over the past 5-10 yeras. drought is more common and when have you seen more western wildfires than has been common over the last few years? deforestation on the Alaksa pennisula has steadly moved north and the higher temps have set the stage for the destruction brought on by the pine beetles.

there is a direct correlation between these phenonmena and the significant melting of the polar ice caps and that of the huge increase in burning of fossil fuels. you can pretend this is all part of a natural warming phase or accept that it is time for us to care more for the enviornment before it is trashed. man is fastly posioning his enviornment in the interest of big oil.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> there are more record high temps vs. low temps set every year, over the past 5-10 yeras.


That's interesting................ what would you think if I told you that only one state out of the 50 in America has set a record high temperature in the last 10 years. On the other hand there were 4 states that set record low temperatures during the same period. Oh......... Alaska's last record high temperature was set in 1915.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

you can measure temps in many different ways. according to the meteorolgists that i get my information from, there simply is more record high averages (average temps, say for each month, a more true measurement of temp trends) for certain months of the year, not absolute highs every recorded, two very different measurements. the fact of the matter is that many months over the last few years have seen record new high averages as opposed to months setting new average low temps. spikes don't mean much, the trend for month over month, year over year, average temps is going up. not hard to understand.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

oh......and don't you think that a steady increase in average temps may have prompted the spread of the pine beetles into Alaska? ever heard of the Alaskan highway breaking up at a far more frequent rate, due to the melting of the perma frost? or maybe you would believe it if you had been bird hunting with me in Kansas last Nov. when the temps hit 88 at 11:00 a.m. and we called it a day? first time that ever happened in 40 years that i can remember. sorry, too many examples of an overall warm up year to year, going on here to ignore the facts.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I suspect NOAA has some pretty neat true temperature measuring devices compared to that mercury bulb hanging on the front porch. Spike or not it still stands as a record if it reaches a point that breaks an old temperature. Here, take a look for yourself.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_al ... s_by_state ... these are published by NOAA. If you didn't know, that is where your meteorologists most likely gets their numbers from. BTW, the record Kansas temperature as you will note shows 121 degrees-F set in 1936. I wonder what hunters thought about the temperature at 11:00 A.M. on that day.

Yes I've heard about the Pine Beetle and the attempts to tie it to global warming by some groups saying it is the warm climate that is allowing them to migrate. Well that is true but they forget to tell you that this happens when temperatures are warmer than normal and beetle outbreaks have occurred many times in the past. It takes several weeks of sub zero temperatures to kill out the Bark and Pine Beetle larva or at least form a land barrier they won't migrate through, but surprise, surprise......... this is not the first time a beetle outbreak has occurred in Alaska and British Columbia and it won't be the last. Hell about the only thing left is for someone to claim global warming is Bush's fault&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. oh wait&#8230;&#8230;.. I think someone already did that.

Look, global warming/climate change exists today but it has also existed in the past but you can't go around blaming everything on global warming. It is becoming clear each and every day that mans contribution is extremely small and probable not controllable to any extend without world cooperation and you know that is never going to happen . However I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't try something to better ourselves and our way of life but what, and how much is possible. I like the way some people throw out these magic solutions as if they are available down at WalMart or some place. Insect outbreaks occur all the time all over the world and are caused by many different things. An unusually hot day in Kansas is no more of a link to global warming than a unusually cold day in Arizona or the flooding in London. If you want to blame western wildfires on something try the logging bans that have restricted the removal of old growth trees and underbrush, coupled with strong El Nino winds that were peaked in 2006. That stuff is like gasoline waiting for a match.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, i guess we could banter over this forever, but the fact remains changes are occuring and you are correct, there is no easy solution, BUT ignoring the problem or pretending there is no problem won't make it go away.

i can tell you, my personal experience as a hunter has convinced me that the changes are long term and pretty constant. you can come up with all kinds of "reasoning" concerning beetle outbreaks, increasing record mean temps and increasingly dry cycles across the plains states, but the fact remains we are in a protracted period of drought and higher average temps, regardless of winter or summer seasons. Again, 88 degrees in Nov. 2006 in Kansas is highly unusual. Also many, many days of 70's in Nov. as well, tell me something has changed drastically over the years, as these temps were just not common 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.

I don't need a scientist to tell me what I have experienced myself. Even Bush was in denial, mainly because it would cost something economically, to support an agreement to deal with global warming, but has now reversed his view (god bless him, but most Texans are a little slow) and admits there is a problem. Until more of us decide "we" are the problem, it simply won't go away, no matter what we think.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Temperature / Dewpoint 
Location Record Type New Record Date New Record Old Record Old Record Date 
Lubbock, TX Daily max temp for the month;Latest 90 degree temp on record November 9, 2006 90°F N/A;90°F November 7, 1916;October 29, 2003

Phoenix (Sky Harbor Int'l Airport), AZ Latest monthly sub-50 degree temp on record November 29, 2006 49°F N/A November 28, 1995

Philadelphia, PA Six warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 51.2°F 51.3°F November, 1985;Warmest November mean temp occured in November, 1931 with 54.0°F

Wilmington, DE Tied-ninth warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 49.6°F 49.6°F November, 1979;Warmest mean temp occured in November, 1931 with 52.0°F

Allentown, NJ Fifth warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 47.6°F 47.2°F November, 1948;Warmest mean temp occured in November, 1931 with 48.9°F

Atlantic City, NJ Fifth warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 51.2°F 51.0°F November, 1941;Warmest mean temp occured in November, 1985 with 53.4°F

Trenton, NJ Seventh warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 50.5°F 50.1°F November, 1963;Warmest mean temp occured in November, 1896 with 52.8°F

here are a few facts for you, demonstrating the trend. obviously anyone with internet access can look up/gather these facts and make a case for either argument, but this is a phenomena that IS occuring. remember it is not about record highs and lows, it is about the averages, which are going up.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Sorry, but those are not trends. The simply represent a warmer year across the nation in 2006 during a high El Nino year. Example..... "Atlantic City, NJ Fifth warmest November mean temp on record November, 2006 51.2°F 51.0°F November, 1941;Warmest mean temp occured in November, 1985 with 53.4°F." To show a trend you need the temperatures and graph from 1941 to present. What were the temperatures in between these years.... up or down. Wasn't 1985 the year the west coast was blasted by floods, unusual high tides and record amounts of rain due to ocean current temperatures rising and moving farther south due to another El Nino? See what I mean. You're right, you do have to look at the big picture.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

last chance, why do you think water temps are rising? when did the el nina and el nino phonemna become prevalent? all these changes are recent trends, whatelse can i say? think as you wish. maybe you can do the research between 1941-2006? seems you are trying to make a point?
more solid info please.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> when did the el nina and el nino phonemna become prevalent? all these changes are recent trends


No they are not. That is where you are missing the boat. These thing have existed since time began. It is only in the last 50-60 years that modern technology has allowed us to see these things. Before that we didn't have a clue. At best everything was a educated guess. Wasn't that long ago everyone thought you could sail off the end of the earth. Same with the ozone hole in the atmosphere. When was the world first made aware of that? Point is that hole could have been opening and closing for hundreds of thousands of years. Who or what was to blame for the dust bowl years when drought and high temperatures virtually shifted most of your state of Kansas top soil down into Oklahoma. Back then they called it a act of God but I guess if computers and the term Global warming had of existed then&#8230;&#8230; well I guess it would have been added to the list. So the indicators you keep citing are not indicators to me. Will warming trends continue..... you don't know, I don't know and apparently a lot of scientist don't know or they wouldn't be fighting among themselves. We do need to know, maybe sooner than we think but I can assure you we will never really know until it is to late one way or the other with the likes of chicken little Gores running around muddying the water. So you continue on with your thoughts as that is your prerogative but me........ I want to know how deep the water is before I plunge in head first. You do as you wish&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

the scientific community has been pretty much in agreement on this and in case you didn't notice, they came out recently and complained about the Bush adminstration restricting their findings regarding hard evidence of man induced global warming.

this should not be a political argument (as you have chosen to make it) as it involves the environment and the legacy we chose to leave our children. i would prefer we not leave them gasping for clean air.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

We very well may be experiencing climate change on our planet. The reason(s) may fall within the variety of those quoted by our eminent scientific community. But for anyone to say that these current data are the only possibility for global climate change, and that this has not happened before, is ignoring past history. The evidence of past global climate change is recorded within the layers of sand, soil and rock that encases this planet. What is happening is new to us now, not new to the world. While I agree that taking steps to clean up the air we breathe is a good thing, to think you will be able to stop a global climate shift by doing so is ridiculous to the point of arrogance. There may be six million people on this planet, but can you say assurdly that there were not circumstances in the past which caused similar shifts in climate? You can not. Ethanol, hybrid vehicles and recycling plastic bottles will not stop climate change. Such efforts MAY clean up the air around our big cities, and that is good. In the long run, it will make no difference. Man will continue to propagate and profit until disease thins the population to what this big blue marble can handle. That's my opinion only, with no degree or cut and paste to back it up. Tell me what's wrong with my thinking. I enjoy reading the opinions of others, and am willing to have my mind changed by those who use rational reasoning to make their point.
Burl


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> this should not be a political argument (as you have chosen to make it


Then why did you choose to make such a ridiculous statement as "they came out recently and complained about the Bush administration restricting their findings regarding hard evidence of man induced global warming". You don't want to make Global warming political which if your were awake these last few years you would know it already is political. Now all you are doing is repeating left wind garbage that the Bush administration is restricting findings. Pray tell just how did he do that. Wake up and smell the coffee....... the President doesn't have that kind of authority or influence. The President doesn't make the laws and pass funding for such things, he can only sign or veto a bill and so far he hasn't vetoed none. And just who is *They*? And by the way......... I don't consider a debate a argument. If you feel this is a argument and not a debate then I'm out of here. Probable should have done that as soon as you tried to present mean temperatures as positive data to global warming. Take care now.........

Burly1, you're dead on right.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

holy cow man, i guess they don't sell newspapers in Oklahoma? the complaints filed by the scientific community against the Bush admin were made public weeks ago! just wake up??

as far as presenting mean temps as an indicator, it is by far more factual than anything you have brought to the discussion. as everything you have troted out in your posts is pure conjecture on your part.

and just a little tidbit more for you, according to the global scientific community the magnitude of this current meltdown of the polar caps is unprecedented in history, according to the studies conducted at the poles through core sampling of the ice.

and a debate IS an argument in anyones' book too. lawyers present arguments everyday in the courtroom and in briefs submitted for review by judges. if you are incensed by the word "argument" then it would be hard to have a debate.

SEE YA.


----------



## Labs_4_Life (Jun 22, 2006)

> Will warming trends continue..... you don't know, I don't know and apparently a lot of scientist don't know or they wouldn't be fighting among themselves. We do need to know, maybe sooner than we think but I can assure you we will never really know until it is to late one way or the other with the likes of chicken little Gores running around muddying the water.


Doesn't it make sense, then, to acknowledge there may be a human factor involved and try to do something about, no matter how trivial it might seem?



> One previous post said that it is unnatural to have 6 billion people on this planet, which I would have to agree it is.


I believe you're referring to my phrase that "You can't put 6 billion+ people on the Earth and not expect us to have a major impact on the climate and natural resources, especially in the face of our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels." First of all, I never said it was unnatural to have 6 billion+ people on the planet. What I do think is "unnatural", though, is how the population continues to boom and we continually use up resources at unsustainable rates.

Sure, we are a part of nature, as Plainsman argues, but I would argue that humans, as a whole, are no longer governed by the "laws of nature". Because of our intelligence, we have found ways to thwart the process of natural selection and, in doing so, we are able to (or will be able to) push the limits of Earth's carrying capacity. How large of a human population can the Earth sustain? In my opinion, it depends on how we use and manage our natural resources. Sadly, there are far too many social, economic and political barriers currently in place to guide things in the right direction. We may be a part of nature, but it is unnatural to have the intelligence to realize something may be, just may be, out of whack (for lack of a better term) and not take actions to correct it. I'd rather be wrong about human induced climate change and try to do something about it, than be right about it and choose to do nothing. What do we have to lose if we're wrong?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> holy cow man, i guess they don't sell newspapers in Oklahoma? the complaints filed by the scientific community against the Bush admin were made public weeks ago! just wake up??
> 
> as far as presenting mean temps as an indicator, it is by far more factual than anything you have brought to the discussion. as everything you have troted out in your posts is pure conjecture on your part.
> 
> ...


So if the scientific community said "studies show that if you cut 2 inches off the end of your penis you'd be 200% less likely to get prostate cancer" You'd just cut it off without doing your own research? WOW!
That's all I can say about that, is WOW! 
It's sad when people follow morons like sheep :eyeroll:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I see the discussion has drifted away again. First, I agree that looking at just the extremes as evidence of global warming is foolish, but continuing to monitor long term temperature trends is what is needed. Second, the upcoming reports from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is being discussed (or bashed) in the media, uses the correct terminology. We should be discussing climate change, not just global warming which is only part of climate change. Third, this thread has ignored the fact that much of the global warming debate is based on levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it, there are over 400,000 years of data on CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the data shows an increase in CO2 http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/
and that the increase in CO2 has occurred in the past 150 years. This begs the question, what are the possible causes of the increase? If it is not man, what alternative explanations does one propose? Fourth, much of the modelling by the various climate scientists is based on the increase in greenhouse gases. Models tell scientists that increased greenhouse gases lead to warming, and if there is warming, there are a second set of models that try to determine the outcomes from the warming. 
Fifth, when a large majority of atmospheric scientists,  who are probably much more knowledgeable than the posters on this thread, come to mutual consensus that climate change is occurring, I would tend to believe them. As far as I can determine from the scientists I worked with over my career, they tend to be divided along the political spectrum about the same as the general public so they do not have an ideology to support, but rather follow where the data leads them. Sixth, as I saw earlier on this thread "Realistically you can make the science say whatever you want it to as long as you arrange your experiment properly." I know this effect is rigourously challenged by the scientific community and should be. Scepticism is healthy and prompt. Seventh, I think all the posters to this thread would agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2 by releasing carbon that was previously stored prior to man. 
Finally, I do not know how much man may be a part of the climate change problem, but starting with the CO2 data, what alternative explanation can be proposed? For all the naysayers of the climate change/global warming, I would pose this question: What is the harm in attempting to evaluate the results of the increased CO2 on global climate and whether we can do something about it and more importantly, what will the naysayers tell their children and grandchildren if they are wrong? Isn't a little precaution better than the alternative of doing nothing and having the scientists predictions and models turn out to be right?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

finally, an intelligent, sensible post. persecution of scientists (by the uneducated masses) who tell us something we do not want to hear is common. and the good ones do not have an agenda, but as previously mentioned, they follow data where it leads them and draw their conclusions from there. i hope we are not right about this man-made induced warming, because too may seem uncommitted to dealing with it. we are sadly drunk with the accumulation of material things and excessive consumption of our limited natural resources.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

So if the scientific community said "studies show that if you cut 2 inches off the end of your penis you'd be 200% less likely to get prostate cancer" You'd just cut it off without doing your own research? WOW! 
That's all I can say about that, is WOW! 
It's sad when people follow morons like sheep

well now, that was an intelligent comparison. moving right along.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Yup, Gohon and Alaskan Brown Bear Killer. Two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather flock.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport

Good post. Through our career working together we debated politics passionately. We however both respected the science. We also know that some scientists may be swayed by their personal beliefs, but the majority bite the bullet and publish the data as collected if they like it or not. Some take heat for it, but they stand behind what the data says. You have to admire that. 
I especially like the part of your post about playing it safe. There are things we can do with great habitat opportunities that make the expense (very little) worth it for the habitat value alone. The problem is this thing has been so politicized that the people with sound judgment are suspected of having political motives. We have people like Al Gore and Jerry Fallwell on the other polarizing people. Both are OK people, but far to radical to convince anyone, moreover they turn people suspicious. I know that if Al Gore makes me believe that his global warming initiative is strictly politics how many other people must believe that. Don't get me wrong I am convinced that man has an effect on global change and may or may not be able to influence the direction it is going, but I suspect the motives of some of these people. I don't for a moment believe Al Gore gives two cents about global warming other than the political tactical advantage it gives him. I believe the same of most politicians. As you can tell, I have far more respect for scientists than politicians, but I think as time goes on our modern scientists are being swayed some by the idea that more funding for them will come from the left. We both know they believe that. 
Scientists started to loose credibility when many of the pot smoking hippies of the mid 1960's pronounced themselves environmentalists. It didn't take long until the word environmentalist became a nasty word. Science has suffered some ever since because that is when it all started to become politicized. It started to become politicized because these people marched in the streets and supported one political party over another. The result was the political pendulum began swinging towards more conservative ideals in the 1980's with the election of Ronald Reagan, and I don't think it has reached it's zenith just yet. 
The current conservatives are suspicious of the motivation of global warming because of past experiences, and they will not be convinced by being portrayed as intellectual dunces. That is where the liberals always fall short. Since the 1960's they have portrayed themselves as intellectual elite while portraying conservatives as dunces. Look at the fun they poked at vice president Dan Quayle while saying John Kerry's wife was just a genius. Mrs. Kerry was to stupid to keep her mouth shut, and no one could muzzle the fool. 
We need to convince people to take some small steps towards learning more about global change, and implementing some fiscally responsible measures that may slow it's progress. This will not happen if liberals can not be more convincing, and to do so they have to get their nose out of the air.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Yup, Gohon and Alaskan Brown Bear Killer. Two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather flock.....


DJRooster, I saw your other childish slap in another thread this morning. Why is it you are so consistent with the grade school tactics to start a pissing match in every thread. Have you ever gone through any thread on this forum without such moronic and childish acts. Course everyone know that is the usual tactic when someone has no substance to their debate. Please grow up...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In my mind the environmental movement has been infiltrated with anti american socialists that have done great damage to the true scientists.

Many of these same groups that claim carbon release is the reason for global warming steadfastly resist ( really go nuts over) the implementation of widespread use of nuclear power.

France currently makes something like 90% of their power with Nukes technolgy we developed and they tweaked and now use.

We could use nuclear power to clean up our carbon release problem in just a few short years.

I envision every state having them and commuters around large cities driving plug in hybrids or all electric vehicle. I would support taxes dedicated to subsizing their construct with the return promise of extremely inexpensive hookups made available in the Atlanta region.
Big cities are the problem, commuters there are more people living in Gwinnet county ( a bedroom county to Atlanta) than live in the entire state of North Dakota. If we eliminated their carbon based fuel usage and did the same in all the large population centers in the USA this would be a non issue.

Georgia has had nuclear power plants operating without any problems for the last thirty years yet we cannot build more of them due to the politically,and not scientifically, motivated opposition to them.

WE should build them and convert to a nuclear powered nation in the short run, say the next 50 years while attemping to perfect hydrogen or what ever else true science can some up with.

That way we would end this supposed carbon issue with the added benefit of taking the funding away from terrorist nations sitting on all the oil.

When the scientific community purges itself of leftists and starts to make all of us believe that its science and not politics we will start to listen to them.

I have never heard a real good argument when I ask this question on any board. Nuclear power is a safe, proven, non-polluting technolgy. And whats more its a technolgy we already have not something in the distant future.

The resistance to it proves to me that the anti american left controls the environmentalist movement.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Plainsman and I worked together for a number of years and I agree that the environmental movement has garnered a bad reputation. That being said however, and I do consider myself an environmentalist and belong to several organizations. I would suspect that both Plainsman and I agree that the politics of most of the environmental scientists actually doing science are as diverse and run the gamut from staunch conservative to staunch liberal. The so called environmentalist that gives the genre a bad rep is probably not a trained scientist and most of the public cannot make that distinction. Painting environmental scientists with a broad brush of leftists totally flies in the face of my experience in natural resource management and environmental scientists I have met over the past 30 years. Considering my current email address book includes over 600 "environmentalists" I wonder where the data comes from to paint environmentalists as leftist or liberal? 
As to the non scientist environmentalist, they tend to be no more or less misinformed than the public and of the various organizations I belong to, once again, they tend to be balanced between conservative and liberal but all have a passion for a clean environment.

As to nuclear power, I fully support nuclear power. As I see it, there are two items that need to be addressed . First, there is not a solution for the fear of the unknown by the uneducated public about the Three Mile Islands and Chernobyls. Most all public surveys show that the pro nuclear side has been unconvincing in their arguments. Second, the real problem of nuclear waste. Both transportation and storage need to be addressed. To play devil's advocate, if you support nuclear power, can we ship waste through your yard or store it in your back yard? The NIMBY effect is very strong in the public about nucs. Unless and until the nuclear industry gets their act together, it will be difficult.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> holy cow man, i guess they don't sell newspapers in Oklahoma? the complaints filed by the scientific community against the Bush admin were made public weeks ago! just wake up??


Then why the whinning about the subject being political. Thanks for correcting yourself.



> as far as presenting mean temps as an indicator, it is by far more factual than anything you have brought to the discussion. as everything you have troted out in your posts is pure conjecture on your part.


So it is conjecture on my part when I paste from other sources and give links to items of discussion to go along with my opinion.....



> and just a little tidbit more for you, according to the global scientific community the magnitude of this current meltdown of the polar caps is unprecedented in history, according to the studies conducted at the poles through core sampling of the ice.


Talk about conjecture.............. First you accuse someone of doing something then turn right around in the next sentence and do it yourself.



> and a debate IS an argument in anyones' book too. lawyers present arguments everyday in the courtroom and in briefs submitted for review by judges. if you are incensed by the word "argument" then it would be hard to have a debate.


Well, you may be right but I have always considered a debate as two parties trying to sway the other with facts and opinions while a argument is a debate out of control. So no, I'm not incensed but if you think our discussion has reached the point of a argument then it should probable end.

One thing is for certain, this whole thread is full of comments by those that simple read part of the thread or just read what the want to see in the thread. For example one person commented "Doesn't it make sense, then, to acknowledge there may be a human factor involved and try to do something about, no matter how trivial it might seem?" How many times does someone have to say we should be doing something and that global warming is very real. I know I've said it a dozen times as have others. The difference of opinion is I won't blame the entire cause on man and some want to do just that. I have no intention of rolling over and believing everything that is put out by either side of a debate and anyone that does is a fool. There are to many variables, to many unknowns for anyone, including the scientific community to lay the blame on any one thing. Then you mix in the politicians, the UN crooks, and the lime light seeking Al Gores into the mess with nothing more than trying to enrich themselves and you have a world of hysteria filled people that haven't a clue what is going on around them. We're all drowning here just because we've been led to believe there has to be a winning and a loosing side. There is only one side and if we fail to get to that side we all loose.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Global waming may well be real and it may well be man made but until the scientific environmentalist community purges of the leftist socialists the country and the world will suffer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een211.xml

As the story above shows the environment movement are radical they are leftists

Yes .. I said environmental left. The environmental movement has been hijacked by the anti-capitalist left. After the fall of communism and the associated discrediting of socialism leftist radicals needed a new home, a new base of operations from which to launch their attacks on capitalism and economic liberty. 
The environmental movement suited their purposes just fine. From the environmental pulpit the socialists could launch their broadsides against the capitalistic economy and the profit motive while accusing their detractors of wanting dirty air and water and desirous of wiping out various species of animals in their quest for obscene profits.

Heres another little story for you from Georgia that will help prove my point.

For years Georgia has produced a special issue license plate for environmentalists. Until now the plate has featured a quail in a pine tree.

However, two years ago they decided to offer a new plate. The plate features the bald eagle and the stars and stripes

I like the eagle with the flag in the background.

Environmentalists were outraged. Yes ... outraged.

One environmentalist says that he has many friends who refuse to buy the plate because it's too "rah-rah." Oh my God! Too "rah-rah?" Wow! The last thing we want to do is express any love for our country, right!

Comment in our paper included this one from Mike Moody says that "I'm a patriot, but I'm not a gun-toting, flag-waving, Bush-loving patriot!"

A story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed more of the leftist tilt of the environmentalists.

The AJC says that many environmentalists lean toward Green Party or Democratic candidates. If you ever read the Green Party platform you will see that it is clearly socialist in nature. The same can be said about much of the Democratic platform.

The AJC further reports that many environmentalists see a connection with the flag on the plate and George Bush. Bush, they say, favors big business over the environment. Oh ... and they also don't support the war in Iraq.

Jerry McCollum is the CEO of the Georgia Wildlife Federation. He doesn't like the tag because " .. it was feeding off the patriotic mood our country was in." Patriotism! Oh no!

What about the rest of Georgia? The eagle tag has sold more in the first two months it was available than the old quail tag sold in an entire year. It outsells another wildlife tag featuring a deer and a bobwhite by over two to one. I guess patriotism is still in fashion in Georgia, as long as you're not an leftist environmentalist.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Guess that must be the georgia environmentalists. I would be interested to know what you know about the Telegraph in the UK. Having visited there and my daughter currently lives there, it is considered a right wing rag, so the article comes as no surprise considering the bias of the source compared to the other 10 or so daily papers in London. 
As to the license plates, I would agree with the federation about the flag. How does the flag relate to non game wildlife programs, which is where that money goes? At least with the deer/quail plate "The General Assembly appropriates funds each year equal to the net proceeds from the sale of these tags to the Dept. of Natural Resources for their use in conducting programs designed to enhance the bobwhite quail population in Georgia." Since that plate is species specific, I can see why they wouldn't sell as many.

I would be interested to know how many of the eagle and flag plate buyers understand they are supporting?

But once again, the discussion has drifted off topic if we have to discuss patriotic eagles instead of climate change.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport, remember my comments in the past about how things appear right or left based on ones perspective. I see you think environmental scientists are equal conservative and liberal. From my perspective I would say environmental scientists are around 99 percent liberal. Therein lies the distrust. Personally I felt like the Lone Ranger being conservative. I wasn't just disagree with by some people, if I questioned their theory I was disagreed with verbally, but also with red faces, bulging neck veins, and not much respect. Until we know what's going on we should all ask questions, but when one does ask you would think we just dumped on royalty. Politics is a problem, but so are huge, huge egos and the struggle for funding. 
That brings up another problem. When people think they have all the answers they stop looking for anything beyond their belief. Scientists should always question, and always keep looking. I find those who think they have all the answers the poorest scientists. It's the mediocre who are offended. When you question theory it isn't personal, but some people sure take it personal. You know me indsport, I would question Einstein if he were alive, but I get the feeling a truly brilliant person like him wouldn't be offended. It's composure under questioning that make people believable.

That said I agree we need to persue better knowledge of global change. However, the hysteria leads one to believe it is just that hysteria. Gore has not helped promote science he has created a great amount of distrust among people, using global warming as a political club. Most Americans recognize there is global change and Gore baits people into opposing him by acting radical. He wants his opposition to take a stand against something 80% of people agree with. He bait through great exaggeration, and unfortunately many are taking that bait. 
I don't know, how does science purge itself from political agendas? Further, how does science disassociate itself from politics. Science doesn't try associate with politicians, but politicians try to associate themselves with science for credibility. 
Look at the debate we have here. Everyone agrees their is global change. Not everyone agrees to the percentage of human involvment. Still fewer agree on what we can do about it. With all that we agree on their is still a great deal of mistrust, and it is that mistrust created by politics that is the true endangering factor. If the environment goes to pot politics will be more to blame than the internal combustion engine.

I believe that we can influence global change. I don't know if we can influence it enough to make a difference, but I am willing to try. If however I distrust what some have to say, and suspect political motivation from some people, can you imagine the distrust the average citizen has? You and I indsport know a lot of what's going on, and I'll bet the politics involved makes you as apprehensive as I ---- just from a different perspectives. Perspective, perspective, perspective. Political agendas tarnish everything they touch. Can any of us imagine what could be accomplished ?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

There are people who have more paranoia from Gore than they have paranoia from global warming. These are the poor critters that have to suffer because of being possessed by a political agenda. I feel sorry for these poor souls because a political agenda should not control your thinking because if it does you are no longer a free man. People who only believe in a singular agenda have done dangerous things to other peoples throughout history.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ those who live in glasshouses..... :wink:

INDSPORT whats wrong with the yucca mountian storage facility for nuclear waste.If carbon release is such a pressing matter then we should use it. Supposedly its been thouroughly examined by scientists and approved.

I agree with nimby thing is aissue but thats because of the the very people I was talking about lieing about the issue.

I am advocating it as a stepping stone and believe in 50 years space travel will be possible to the extent that we could store in on the moon if we wanted to and move on to hydrogen and solar ect.

Or are you saying its not that pressing an issue??

This is what bugs me about this stuff nothing short of us going back to the stone age will satisfy the activists that have taken over the environmentalist movement.

Lastly if the news article in the Telegraph is reporting what actually happened its politics don't really matter. The article wasn't an editorial.

If you can give credence to anything in a newspaper anymore.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> There are people who have more paranoia from Gore than they have paranoia from global warming. These are the poor critters that have to suffer because of being possessed by a political agenda. I feel sorry for these poor souls because a political agenda should not control your thinking because if it does you are no longer a free man. People who only believe in a singular agenda have done dangerous things to other peoples throughout history.


I agree, isn't that kind of what I was eluding to? If you think about it that's my beef with Al Gore. That and all the other things he believes in. I guess I am diametrically opposed to his values. Is there something wrong with that? People have to stand up for what they believe right? I never was much of a sheep type, go along for popularity, type personality, but then everyone already knows that.   

I'll march to the drummer that plays a tune I like. I don't care if they are liberal, conservative, male, female, black, white, or hermaphrodite, stripped, Martians.

Rooster, we are all a product of our life's experience. Being around liberals has made me conservative. I'll give you a couple of quotes that just left me shaking my head.

From the most intolerant person I have ever met: "If there is one thing I will not tolerate it is intolerance". Say what???????  
Another: We should just get it over with and kill all the G*&% D*&^% people who are not pacifists like ourselves". Again say what ?????? 

Like Mr. Rogers said on his kids show: Can we say Hypocrisy boys and girls?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Indsport I missed this one



> As to the license plates, I would agree with the federation about the flag. How does the flag relate to non game wildlife programs, which is where that money goes? At least with the deer/quail plate "The General Assembly appropriates funds each year equal to the net proceeds from the sale of these tags to the Dept. of Natural Resources for their use in conducting programs designed to enhance the bobwhite quail population in Georgia." Since that plate is species specific, I can see why they wouldn't sell as many.


Duh, what diffference does it make, who cares if the people that purchased the plates really were interested in the environment or just liked the patriotic theme??

The bottom line is it greatly added to the money available for environmental concerns, which was its purpose. Many many more people bought them for the patriotic theme and the animals benefitted. Yet so called environmentalists resented it because they fact is they aren't truly interested the animals well being if they were sincere they would apreciate the added funding but no their politics are obvious.

Indsport your response is no suprise.

You make my point well though, beautifully in fact, liberals like you resent patriotic themes just kind of surprised you were dumb enough to admit it in writing.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I do not resent patriotic themes. As a veteran, as well as having relatives in every war going back to the civil war which includes but is not limited to, relatives gassed at the Argonne in WW1, another in the Normandy landing, another a graduate of the air force academy who at one time was the missile commander in the state of North Dakota and currently two relatives serving in Iraq including my nephew, I strongly resent the insinuation that liberals are not patriotic. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you would like to compare patriotism, we can do so at any time and at any place. Every generation of my family going back to my great great grandparents has had someone in the military.

Moderators, I would be interested to know if personal denunciations of another poster who obviously doesn't know the facts is allowed on this forum.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You apparently resent a lot of things the flag on a liscense plate for one, that says it all. uke:

I don't care if you uncle was genral McArthur, there lots of unpatriotic libs that served, you and kerry have a lot in common.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

You can question my positions and question my facts, but do not ever ever question my or my families patriotism. Since personal attacks appear to be allowed on this website, I would call you a member of the Nazi party and the KKK as well as an a$$hole who shoots his big mouth off and believes that waving a flag is all one needs to be patriotic. I will gladly meet you any time any place to settle this man to man.

Last message. Signing off for good.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:lol: you admit to agreeing with someone that resents a patriotic theme on a govt issued liscense plate and you like all flaming liberals cannot even see the truth or maybe you just can't admit it to yourself.

Can't say I blame you I would be ashamed to have admitted that on here to. Uh Oh you accidentally showed your true colors didn't you :lol: :lol:

You can call me anything you want because unlike my statement pointing out your hypocrisy, there are no posts by me confirming your assertions :lol: :lol: :lol: .

I never questioned your families patriotism either, every family has one in the closet, guess your it.

Too funny....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport, lets break this down. The comment about dumb enough to write it was a bit much, and the word dumb could have been left out, but Bob's logic was:
Plate with Quail pic sells 1,000 plates
Plate with patriotic theme sells 10,000 plates
People raising money complain about patriotic theme

As Bob says Duh, if they truly care shut up and sell patriotic plates next year also. When you agreed with them I think a lot of people would scratch their head and ask why. Bob has his theory, I have mine.

I think you haven't had your caffeine yet. I support that with the following sentence you wrote:



> Moderators, I would be interested to know if personal denunciations of another poster who obviously doesn't know the facts is allowed on this forum.


After all what you are saying is: is it right to denunciate a poster who doesn't know the facts.

Have a double latte and give it another shot.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago, the U.S. government agency that tracks weather reported on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since records began in 1880.

A record-warm January was responsible for pushing up the combined winter temperature, according to the agency's Web site, http://www.noaa.gov.

"Contributing factors were the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures as well as a moderate El Nino in the Pacific," Jay Lawrimore of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said in a telephone interview from Asheville, North Carolina.

The next-warmest winter on record was in 2004, and the third warmest winter was in 1998, Lawrimore said.

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

"We don't say this winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases," Lawrimore said.

However, he noted that his center's work is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change process, which released a report on global warming last month that found climate change is occurring and that human activities quite likely play a role in the change.

"So we know as a part of that, the conclusions have been reached and the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," Lawrimore said. "By looking at long-term trends and long-term changes, we are able to better understand natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change."

The combined temperature for the December-February period was 1.3 degrees F (0.72 degree C) above the 20th century mean, the agency said. Lawrimore did not give an absolute temperature for the three-month period, and said the deviation from the mean was what was important. He did not provide the 20th century mean temperature.

Temperatures were above average for these months in Europe, Asia, western Africa, southeastern Brazil and the northeast half of the United States, with cooler-than-average conditions in parts of Saudi Arabia and the central United States.

Global temperature on land surface during the northern hemisphere winter was also the warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest after the winter of 1997-98.

Over the past century, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.11 degree F (0.06 degree C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976 -- around 0.32 degree F (0.18 degree C) per decade, with some of the biggest temperature rises in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

some more proof, that yes, the climate is in a sustained period of warm up. we should all be concerned as water shortages will be eminent.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Wow, Indsport! And you too hunter# and some others. I wasn't going to even look at this thread as I thought I knew what I'd read. Glad we got more than the usual 'global warming bashing' going on.
I've studied a lot of the original research on the 'Global Warming Caused By Humans Theory', and don't get much of my information out of any web sites, most being either uselessly PRO or CON with no objective examination of both agreed upon and controversial "knowledge!" A lot of magazine articles are similarly biased, so I try to avoid em and go to the original stuff and try to decipher it all! 
You can spend days looking up original research done by reputable scientists, and in the end come away confused and still on the fence. Heck, I keep going back and forth on this. There's a lack of hard evidence on both sides of the argument but there's enough good stuff out there to at least give a person pause to think! If they are capable of it! And anyone with a brain large enough to think he deserves to reproduce should darned well think about it at least! Objectively, if possible.........If he can't think for himself he shouldn't be allowed to reproduce!  LOL
What dogma does tell me, though, is those people who unequivocably say "Global Warming caused or contributed by humans is BS" obviously haven't done their homework. 
But yes Indsport, what you said about students and too many other people today not doing any critical examination or thinking for themselves is all too true. Much simpler to go to the "Net" and find a website that takes stuff out of context to prove what they want to believe. And there's plenty of them out there on both sides of the argument. After all, as someone said, no one (including me) want any scientists to discover and tell me what I don't want to hear! 
Global Warming - yes! Cause or aggravated by humans or natural? Probably a little of both! But in any case it's time we cleaned up our act, stopped being the ultimate consumers, stopped wasting energy, limited our numbers, and many other things that make sense on a world wide ecological basis. Global Warming may or may not be one of the many reasons to take care of this "blue marble" (thanks Burley) but we'd darned well start taking care of it better or our generational heirs may all be sorry. What's bad or wrong about that??
Sure the world has been changing for eons, but only in the last couple of thousand years of man's existence has it changed at the rate it is doing so now! Especially the past 200 years the face of the world and its environment has changed dramatically and is changing at an ever increasing rate! 200 years, not even a blink of an eye in the history of the world! To not think we are potentially doing something long term harmful and looking for it and trying to prevent bad things is folly! 
DENIAL is not de river in Egypt!

I can't stand Al Gore and because it was Al Gore doing the film on Global Warming a tremendous number of otherwise well meaning people automatically tuned out what he was trying to say, especially as a lot of it was hype, exaggerated and taken out of context. Gore singlehandedly did more to blacken the legitimacy of the 'Climate Change Caused OR Exaggerated By Humans Theory' than any other person or thing I can think of! I find Gore repugnant, but remember the old saying "Even a blind pig can sniff out a truffle once in a while!" What he was trying to get across wasn't all wrong!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Habitat Hugger I am close to where your at.
I think the same about Al Gore, he did society a great disservice. I think he exaggerates it to bait people into an argument that a majority of society will agree with. 
I don't agree that we must stop being the ultimate consumer. Like you said we have to think. If we are not the ultimate consumer on this planet what species would be? We would really have to go down in lifestyle if we are going to consume less than the next species in line advanced species. Which would perhaps be the great apes.



> Sure the world has been changing for eons, but only in the last couple of thousand years of man's existence has it changed at the rate it is doing so now!


That's not right. Looking back 500,000 years through soil and ice records the earth has warmed more, quicker, and cooled rapidly also. We have gone from shallow seas, to tropical forests, to glaciers, and back.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

HH, the house I was working at had Al Gore testimony and hearing this week on a live feed. If all anyone knew about GW was derived from that hearing, they are in a lot of trouble. Nothing of substance or fact really brought out.

Which brings me back to what you posted. There is not enough data to say one if the world is warming,cooling. Is it a natural cycle,man made, or a combination of both. Doing things to clean up, and reduce waste is really a good idea period. Figuring out the way to do that and not cause a major economic collapse is really the tough part.

But today we are faced with the reality of no reality. Pure science is not what is being brought forth on this issue. Financial benefits of alarmism and catalytic doom are driving the agenda. Sheepple are following in line and are not doing any abstract thinking. Instead they try and shout down or cast stones to silence anyone who attempts to talk about this issue that has done some abstract thinking in regards to it.

My own feeling is we are warming, but is it all a bad thing. My gut and readings tell me that the Sun has more influence on this than anything else. One reason is the recent pictures of the Sun coming back from Japan's probe. Much of the beliefs and theory surrounding the Sun is being found to be wrong.

If the science and data being used is based on the old theory then much of the data is now incomplete or plain wrong. We do not have the technology to know for certain that the earth is overall warmer today than it was 50 years ago or a 100. What we have is a collection of collected data of recordings at set points that have shown a change in temp average and depending upon the scale of measurement used is reflecting different data!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

ONE problem is that there is financial gains (or at least no losses) on BOTH sides of the question, and political differences and financial incentive should be completely shelved when looking at the thing objectively! But it never is! Both sides are guilty here, accusing each side that they are in it for financial gains! Squabbling like kids doesn't solve anything last time I tried it!
I think there is getting to be enough hard data to believe that the globe is warming. As you pointed out Rod, this might be purely a natural phenomenon , or it may be at least partially either man made or man aggravated. I think that's the crux of the question! I sure don't have the answer - ask me in a couple hundred years, but by then you won't need to ask me. Everyone will know the final answer, one way or another.
I think we could cut our energy and resource consumption to a great degree without appreciably lowering our standard of living. Like do we really NEED 3 to 5000 sq. foot homes to heat and cool, a whole parking lot of vehicles per household, do we need to waste so much stuff, etc? (Best way to recycle something is to not use it in the first place unless it is necessary) 
We all get pretty complacent with our energy use. For example, we can drill the NWR for oil, and we will get exactly the same amount of oil that we would save IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD CHECK AND ADJUST THE PRESSURE IN THEIR TIRES?? (This isn't one of those passed along 'internet truths' either - a MA student somewhere went around randomly sampling air in tires on thousands of representative vehicles comparing them to the manufacturers recommendation and did the calculations) Anyway, I'm sure guilty - I haven't checked mine since the high fuel prices last summer. And I went for a walk tonight for a couple hours, came home, and found I had left several lights on! All kinds of stuff like this we could be doing if we had the incentive.........


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> (This isn't one of those passed along 'internet truths' either - a MA student somewhere went around randomly sampling air in tires on thousands of representative vehicles comparing them to the manufacturers recommendation and did the calculations)


Just out of curiosity, how did this MA student find out how much oil is under the NWR when there has never been any test drilling and even the experts in the oil industry are not sure. With all due respect HH, those kind of claims is exactly what causes distrust on both sides of the debate. The student may very well have been correct is his calculations of how much energy could have been saved if people properly aired their tires but there is no way he could know if it would equal what was under the NWR. The experts don't even know that for certain.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Al Gore is a crack pot who cannot stand the thought that he no longer in any position of rank and prestige.

He is really a kook, remember his claiming to be the inventor of the internet. :roll:

Why anyone would take him serious is beyond me.

If the global warming believers would find someone that was not such an extremeist they would get a lot more cooperation.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Some kind of reputable estimates I assume? I don't know! I can't remember. If I thought you really cared I could look up the original paper and send it to you. But I'm just using that as only one good example of how we COULD save a whole lot of energy if more people gave a damn. By the way I'm still guilty cause I haven't checked the air in my tires yet either. As I recall the guy didn't even mention increased longlivety of the tires leading to less of a consumption of raw materials for tires and the horrendous problem of disposal of hundreds of millions of tires per day-----and so on. 
But just making a point Gohon.
And yes, because Gore is so disreputable in a lot of ways makes a whole lot of people suspect of anything he comes up with. Just trying to make the point that even if he is a blowhard type of guy it doesn't necessarily mean everything he said was wrong! Heck, I listen to Rush just about every day, and some of his stuff is accurate and correct, and some of it is so stretched and downright wrong and spun around it is actually funny! A lot of the stuff he says I have no way of finding out its accuracy so I'm just commenting here on the accuracy of stuff he talks about that I KNOW is right or wrong! 
The guy saying it doesn't make what he is saying right or wrong - that's the point I'm trying to make.
I'm on the fence about global warming - just trying to knock the dogma out of some people and trying to encourage them to stay open minded and think for themselves, if possible. 
IMHO the world needs less dogma and more independent intelligent thinking......................


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No one that I have seen posting here denies that global warming is not occurring. Haven't seen anyone here say some changes wouldn't bee good for us all either. The debate is over how much is actually contributed by man. As an example how the alarmist such as Al Gore try to scare people the earth's temperature having a rise 1 degree Celsius is often throw out. But, that is a computer generated program output and hasn't even happened yet. I read where a group of scientist took know data such as ice core samples from the last several thousand years, plugged it into these same computers and not a single one of them predicted what the earth's climate actually is today. They can't be a accurate with know data fed to them but we are suppose to trust them with projected data plugged in. And, that is something I think most people are not even aware of and that is most if not all of the predictions out there are computer generated by programs people themselves generate. Weathermen use these computers when they give you a 5 day forecast. How many times do they come back on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th day and all you here is oops.

Just something on the side......."Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures".

Hmmmmm............. are we going to freeze or burn. Or according to big Al, drown. Didn't I catch a blimp of a report a few days ago about some Japanese satellite that was raising some serious questions about sun activity and it's effect on earth&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. got to see if I can find out about that one.

BTW, I once had 4 vehicles parked out front. But I still could never figure out how to drive all 4 at once. It's still just one at a time going down the road. Now I have only 2 but it is still just one at a time when I drive. Just making a point about the whole parking lot of vehicles per household and the air in the tires and as you said yourself probable was some kind of reputable estimates on the oil at the NWR. That to me is the problem with the entire debate of global warming. To many estimates and just plain fabrication guesses with very little scientific data input from all sides. Seems to me at least that most of the skepticism comes from Geologists who study the earth from it's beginning to now. Where as Climatologist and environmental scientists merrily look at shorts periods such as years and 100 year floods or droughts and even as little as just seasons. To me these are just blimps on the radar screen of the earth's life. Most reports I've read written by Geologists simply aren't buying into the theory that man is a major contributor to the climate change. Seems most of them don't believe mans contribution matters one way or the other and for this reason the Geologists are shunned by those ringing the alarm bell the loudest.

So I guess the bottom line for me is yes there is climate change going on. No, we do not know for certain what is the cause. Yes we should do all we can to clean our air, rivers, lakes, and land. No, we should not and do not have to take drastic steps that will harm our economy or reduce our way of life without in-depth study and we do have time, lots of it. Yes, all fields of science should be allowed to participate in any study without repercussions. No, congress should not be allowed to screw this one up which they inevitable will if they get the chance.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree Gohon!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I also agree. I believe we need to know what is going on, and we need scientists to leave their political agenda out of it. We don't need people like Al Gore dividing Americans, there are plenty of other politicians to do that. They talk about separation of church and state, but I think separation of science and politics is more important. Keep politicians out of science, and science out of politics.


----------

