- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #91
Al Gore
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
jerseyfinn
Senior
Delldude,
Was that French they were speaking on that link you provided?
Barry
Was that French they were speaking on that link you provided?
Barry
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #93
Suddenly the blind are begining to see......
I can see...I can see
Ice Age?
The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
Blind speaketh
"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."Its those damn cow farts!"
I can see...I can see
Ice Age?
The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
Blind speaketh
"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."Its those damn cow farts!"
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Well then, I am glad that the blind are leading the blind then.
Study: Southern Ocean saturated with CO2
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #95
You do realize back in the late 80's the mantra was we are heading for an ice age....well which is it?
Some things i've read tend to indicate two things:
The oceans have the biggest effect on climate change and have been shown to be warming - why?-Increased sunspot activity and undersea volcanic activity on the rise.Undersea volcanic activity also raises the CO2 level quite abit...also volcanic vents contribute temperature which is carried globally by currents.As for sunspots,recent global temerature change has been documented on Mars,Jupiter,Triton and Pluto...cause? SUV's
?...Can only be sunspot activity i'd say.Ocean Effect
CO2 cause or effect?
A collapse or diversion of the currents along the eastern US are claimed to precede an ice age by not heating the northern latitudes such as Great Britain,Eastern Europe and Russia....if you notice the last few years they all have had severely cold,snowy winters.
So I also have to wonder if the high concentration of CO2 in the southern hemisphere has anything to do with deforestation and the lack of absortion in the heaviest forested region on the planet?
Also consider that warm ocean currents in the extreme northern and southern latitudes will cause large condensation in the upper atmosphere which in turn cause heavy precipitation in the form of snow which in turn fuels the growth of glaciers....so if we've had a period of receding glaciers in some areas,maybe it is time once again to start the cycle for glacial growth?Maybe it all is a natural cycle of which man is a small part of.
You know this is kind of funny but this issue of cow farts and burps really has the global alarmists up in trees.
Still say way too many what if's to nail the coffin.
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Perhaps. Oddly enough, although the two sides are diametrically opposed, persuasive support can be found on both sides of the issue.
I prescribe to the "better safe than sorry" doctrine.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #97
I understand that quite well...but on the other hand,are you intune with some of the agendas behind this GW thing?And what it could cost economically if 'they' get their wishes?
You're looking at this carbon exchange crap which does nothing to cut GW except make richer people richer.
High taxation on 'stack emissions'...wanna bet a tailpipe and chiminey will fall in here?
The green aganda isn't all its cracked up to be....some want auto's to go away and move us back to the way it was hundreds of years ago..(reminds one of the fundamentalist islamic agenda somewhat).
Rectitude? WTF?
Must be related to this:
AnalAnomaly
QUESTION: What is the syndrome that
results from an anatomical development anomaly wherein
the optic nerves are attached to the major innervation
pathways of the rectum?
ANSWER: Optical rectitis!
MAJOR SYMPTOM: The individual has a shitty outlook
on life!
Twist it anyway you want GoreLover...even your link proves he said what he said.....
Depends what your definition of 'said' is
He's full of hot air anyway....
delldude....we may not agree on fasteners, but I think we have some commom ground here. If you or I tried to pull off this liberal bullshit we would be arrested for being a con artist.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
If you or I tried to pull off this liberal bullshit we would be arrested for being a con artist.
No you would be hailed as savior in todays society, snake oil salesmen are nothing new!
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #100
jerseyfinn
Senior
We can go round and round with so-called "scientific" data that argues for or against GW. Bottom line is that this "data" is in truth a bunch of numbers. And here in lies the problem.
I don't doubt the scientists who are actually trying to study this thing called planet Earth -- more specifically what we call climate. Science is out in the field trying to find the puzzle pieces and lacking the entire puzzle, they posit a guess, their best estimate, an assumption which is rolled out to the public as "science" and "certitude".
This GW thing is indeed a real phenomenon, an actual process. But what science has failed to answer precisely and with complete certitude, is what is the human role/contribution to the GW process?. At present there is no clear and definite answer to this quesion. And this question matters very much because it determines what governments can and can not/ should not do.
I do not see GW as a "crisis" at this moment, alhtough it is indeed an issue in need of our direct attention. The numbers that science collects and gathers become static references to a point in time around which scientists and now, politicians are building their own theories.
IMO, some scientists have succumbed to the lure of publicity and immedicacy which is fueled by politicians who have their own personal agendas in mind more than they do the realities of science and certitude. Science is a dynamic process which moves in spurts and sputters while mother Earth herself holds still for no one. Politicians eschew dynamism and prefer to work and argue from static visceral viewpoints which sway human emotions and frequently ignore fact -- it's the nature of the beast.
THIS in a nutshell, is what Al Gore and all of those other political assholes are all about. Ordinarily, I don't mind that they run their mouths off -- that's what politicians do. But when you go out and make a Michael Moorish movie about climate and try to substitute urgency for fact by suggesting changes costing billions upon billions of dollars of spending/costs to governments and people, then it's time to shut up with the hyperbole and put the cards of absolute irrefutable science on the table. And at this point in time, science does not have a handle upon the entire GW paradigm.
Yes indeed, human activity impacts climate. But precisely how it does so and what portion it contributes to GW is not yet fully understood. What I do know for a fact, is that in America, gasoline remains too cheap & Americans continue to place driving their car above clean air and environment, period ! ( though we are becoming more open minded to hybrid vehicles -- but only because we want to continue driving as we please ). CO2 credits are simply a gimmick of wealthy politicos trying to take advantage of public opinion which is reassuringly "green conscious". Al Gore's house is the best example of this political hypocricy by the wealthy elites ( make that wealthy liberal elites ) who have the audacity to speak for the rest of us.
I myself want very much to get this climate paradigm scientifically nailed down. In the interim, I favor reasonable policies which reduce energy consumption and pollution emmisions. But folks like Al Gore and all of his political allies are not the people who should be standing at the head of the environmental queue dictating important policy. They are out of their depth and living in their own Disneyland world of liberalism which does not reflect the real world that I've got to live ( and breath ) in.
Barry
I don't doubt the scientists who are actually trying to study this thing called planet Earth -- more specifically what we call climate. Science is out in the field trying to find the puzzle pieces and lacking the entire puzzle, they posit a guess, their best estimate, an assumption which is rolled out to the public as "science" and "certitude".
This GW thing is indeed a real phenomenon, an actual process. But what science has failed to answer precisely and with complete certitude, is what is the human role/contribution to the GW process?. At present there is no clear and definite answer to this quesion. And this question matters very much because it determines what governments can and can not/ should not do.
I do not see GW as a "crisis" at this moment, alhtough it is indeed an issue in need of our direct attention. The numbers that science collects and gathers become static references to a point in time around which scientists and now, politicians are building their own theories.
IMO, some scientists have succumbed to the lure of publicity and immedicacy which is fueled by politicians who have their own personal agendas in mind more than they do the realities of science and certitude. Science is a dynamic process which moves in spurts and sputters while mother Earth herself holds still for no one. Politicians eschew dynamism and prefer to work and argue from static visceral viewpoints which sway human emotions and frequently ignore fact -- it's the nature of the beast.
THIS in a nutshell, is what Al Gore and all of those other political assholes are all about. Ordinarily, I don't mind that they run their mouths off -- that's what politicians do. But when you go out and make a Michael Moorish movie about climate and try to substitute urgency for fact by suggesting changes costing billions upon billions of dollars of spending/costs to governments and people, then it's time to shut up with the hyperbole and put the cards of absolute irrefutable science on the table. And at this point in time, science does not have a handle upon the entire GW paradigm.
Yes indeed, human activity impacts climate. But precisely how it does so and what portion it contributes to GW is not yet fully understood. What I do know for a fact, is that in America, gasoline remains too cheap & Americans continue to place driving their car above clean air and environment, period ! ( though we are becoming more open minded to hybrid vehicles -- but only because we want to continue driving as we please ). CO2 credits are simply a gimmick of wealthy politicos trying to take advantage of public opinion which is reassuringly "green conscious". Al Gore's house is the best example of this political hypocricy by the wealthy elites ( make that wealthy liberal elites ) who have the audacity to speak for the rest of us.
I myself want very much to get this climate paradigm scientifically nailed down. In the interim, I favor reasonable policies which reduce energy consumption and pollution emmisions. But folks like Al Gore and all of his political allies are not the people who should be standing at the head of the environmental queue dictating important policy. They are out of their depth and living in their own Disneyland world of liberalism which does not reflect the real world that I've got to live ( and breath ) in.
Barry
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Since when are farmers rich people???
http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...NEWS09/70423005
Second, this program solves alot of the problems you mentioned above because it is in private hands... not controlled by the government!!
And yes, I understand that there is conflicting evidence about whether such a program will cut GW or if GW is even a problem. But like I said... it is CONFLICTING. Neither you nor I can say, with 100% certainty, that GW is/not a problem and can/not be solved.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #103
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
Have'nt heard much from the 'were melting' crowd lately!
whooops.....spoke to soon
Gore groupies
and more on the....Big Thaw
whooops.....spoke to soon
Gore groupies
and more on the....Big Thaw
Garfield1966
Veteran
I believe that the folks looking at global temperatures are looking at the average temp, not isolated examples of extreme temps. Here in TX we just had one of the most mild summers in the 10 years I have been here and we are now going through one of the most mid winters as well.
When you look at the global temperatures, if you see a variances of 1 degree as an average that is a huge change.
When you look at the global temperatures, if you see a variances of 1 degree as an average that is a huge change.
