Global Warming Update/s

[wa6ccw]

More proof of Earth's rising temp:

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/041808/loc_269856926.shtml

[KU0DM]

Global warming, more accurately Climate Change, does not just mean it gets hotter, it means more extreme weather overall, or more variable weather.

Hotter summer, harsher winters, stronger storms.

Cooler here, warmer there (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

What is it and what are the affects (http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Intro.asp)

[N4VGB]

Listen to me people, the sky is falling! :D

So maybe it's just time for the earth to purge itself of man, it has purged itself of many species in the past. ;)

[KV1M]

Global warming, more accurately Climate Change, does not just mean it gets hotter, it means more extreme weather overall, or more variable weather.

Hotter summer, harsher winters, stronger storms.

Cooler here, warmer there (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

What is it and what are the affects (http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Intro.asp)

Yet in a week the facts will be forgotten and the same misinformation will be posted again after another cool spell somewhere else.
Some people just won't hear the truth, it would mean their whole world would require reevaluation. That might mean their whole belief system was wrong, can't have that now can we?
:rolleyes:

[wa6ccw]

Yet in a week the facts will be forgotten and the same misinformation will be posted again after another cool spell somewhere else. Some people just won't hear the truth, it would mean their whole world would require reevaluation. That might mean their whole belief system was wrong, can't have that now can we?
:rolleyes:

Uh, excuse me, but what "misinformation" are you referring to?

[KU0DM]

That you think Global Warming ONLY means warming, and that any cooler or more severe winter is proof it's fake.

That misinformation, the one in your first post, the sarcasm followed by link.

Ya know.

[KV1M]

That you think Global Warming ONLY means warming, and that any cooler or more severe winter is proof it's fake.

That misinformation, the one in your first post, the sarcasm followed by link.

Ya know.

Yup, exactly what I meant.

[N4VGB]

That you think Global Warming ONLY means warming, and that any cooler or more severe winter is proof it's fake.

That misinformation, the one in your first post, the sarcasm followed by link.

Ya know.

Unfortunately many of us who fully understand this fact are still not 100% convinced that the evidence and the conclusions drawn are correct.

You "chicken little" types do understand that if the U.S. were to somehow reduce to zero all emissions in the U.S. tomorrow your perceived reason for panic would actually increase instantly? All consumer goods would flow from nations with little or no regulations, increasing emissions greatly.

Or is your plan to launch great armies against the world to stop their pollution also? :rolleyes:

[KU0DM]

No problem, you don't have to accept Global warming if you don't want to.

I wouldn't describe myself as a chicken little, just concerned about the future which I will encounter. You should be too. If you are just living what's easiest for you now, not caring how your habits will affect others in the future, then I am glad that not everyone else is the same.

I never said cutting emissions to 0, that is impossible without tearing down every shred of modern technology that we can't power by work. I don't see your connection between decreasing emissions and international free trade, don't see how that has any relevance to the debate of the legitimacy and existence of climate change.

No, my plan is to do what I can to help decrease carbon emissions and live a more eco-friendly life. In truth, doing so would also create a cheaper lifestyle in the long run.

[N4VGB]

No, my plan is to do what I can to help decrease carbon emissions and live a more eco-friendly life. In truth, doing so would also create a cheaper lifestyle in the long run.


The only approach that any individual can pursue. :):):)

[wa6ccw]

That you think Global Warming ONLY means warming, and that any cooler or more severe winter is proof it's fake.

That misinformation, the one in your first post, the sarcasm followed by link.

Ya know.

No, actually I don't.

Please show all of us out here the post in this thread that contains the words that you
attribute to me, specifically, that I...

think Global Warming ONLY means warming

and...

that any cooler or more severe winter is proof it's fake

We'll be waiting. :)

[wa6ccw]

Yup, exactly what I meant.

Well then, you must be just as confused as he is. ;)

[KV1M]

Well then, you must be just as confused as he is. ;)

Nope, your spin and grin doesn't confuse me at all.
Post something, make an inference then deny that is what you were inferring, classic Hannity.

[KU0DM]

No, actually I don't.

Please show all of us out here the post in this thread that contains the words that you
attribute to me, specifically, that I...



and...



We'll be waiting. :)


More proof of Earth's rising temp:

followed by the link that contained...

Juneau's snowfall record for April 17 was buried under more than a half-foot of snow Thursday.

The National Weather Service recorded 7.5 inches of snow Thursday at its Juneau International Airport weather station. The record had been only 1.1 inches, received on April 17 in 1948.

The storm that started Wednesday night dropped a total of 10.5 inches at the airport, 12.5 inches at the service's Juneau office on Mendenhall Loop Road, and 9 inches downtown.

Early Thursday morning, 10 inches of new snow was reported at the base of Eaglecrest Ski Area, which is closed for the season.

Seems pretty obvious to me. That is the same thing many conservatives say about Global Warming a.k.a. climate change.

[wa6ccw]

Nope, your spin and grin doesn't confuse me at all.
Post something, make an inference then deny that is what you were inferring, classic Hannity.

Again, if you have any proof of this broad assertion - then please post it.

Otherwise, you are merely engaging in a classic Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

[wa6ccw]

Seems pretty obvious to me. That is the same thing many conservatives say about Global Warming a.k.a. climate change.

Does it really?

Well now, you told us previously that Global warming is...

more accurately Climate Change

And, that it...

does not just mean it gets hotter, it means more extreme weather overall, or more variable weather.

And further, that it means...

Hotter summer, harsher winters, stronger storms.

So, with that in mind, it would appear that my link would tend to support your theory, now wouldn't it?

[KU0DM]

So why don't you tell us your position instead of leaving short and vague comments for us to draw our own conclusions on?

[KV1M]

Again, if you have any proof of this broad assertion - then please post it.

Otherwise, you are merely engaging in a classic Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Try again. You are out of your league on this one.
You made an inference did you not? That Global Warming was bunk by the content of the post, prefaced by a contrary lead in.
This is classic sarcasm, and easily identified as such.
Your little denial routine is classic troll, toss a bomb then deny it.
That fits the straw man mold far better than my posts, which in fact do NOT fit the straw man modus.

Your posting history places you square in the denier camp, so pretending otherwise now is just disingenuous trolling.

I don't play that game, you've been rebutted and your responses are flawed.
You'll have to try harder.

[KU0DM]

So, with that in mind, it would appear that my link would tend to support your theory, now wouldn't it?

It does, but that's not my point.

Your comment before it

More proof of Earth's rising temps:

That is what I am pointing out and disagreeing with, not the link.
You are taking a shot at climate change based on the phrase "Global Warming" which is far more than what it's name suggests it is.

So you saying "more proof of Earth's rising temps:" followed by a link of record April snowfall in Alaska would lead one to believe you are following the false belief that Global Warming ONLY means warming, and that snow in April proves Global Warming, again more accurately called climate change, is false.

[wa6ccw]

No, my plan is to do what I can to help decrease carbon emissions and live a more eco-friendly life. In truth, doing so would also create a cheaper lifestyle in the long run.

I assume that this "plan" is the result of your real-world adult experience/s - and that it isn't, say, the mere regurgitation of what some social studies teacher had to say... right?

[wa6ccw]

Try again. You are out of your league on this one.
You made an inference did you not? That Global Warming was bunk by the content of the post, prefaced by a contrary lead in.
This is classic sarcasm, and easily identified as such.
Your little denial routine is classic troll, toss a bomb then deny it.
That fits the straw man mold far better than my posts, which in fact do NOT fit the straw man modus.

Your posting history places you square in the denier camp, so pretending otherwise now is just disingenuous trolling.

I don't play that game, you've been rebutted and your responses are flawed.
You'll have to try harder.

Nice try, but no cigar...

You have no proof of your assertion here, thus, you resort to classic Straw Man argumentation.

[KU0DM]

Dude, I can think for myself.
I merely used what my social studies teacher taught us about the constitution A) I agreed with her interpretation of some of the language
and
B) To make a point that our school's are teaching this, so something has to be to it.

That was about the 2nd Amendment, not climate change.
She has talked about climate change, she thinks it's a load of BS.

Actually, you don't need experience to prove that living green is cheaper in the long run. The hybrid will pay for itself in fuel savings, fluorescent bulbs will also pay for themselves from savings from energy, fuel efficient appliances same, running less heat in winter and less cool in summer the same, less driving cheaper. It's pretty obvious how it is a cheaper lifestyle in the long run, "adult" experience or not.

I've noticed that when you, Dilmus, Steve, or anyone else who debates with me seem to run out of an argument, they resort to trying to say I have no credibility because of my age, because of who I quoted once, means I repeat what they say all the time.

Grow up.

[KV1M]

Nice try, but no cigar...

You have no proof of your assertion here, thus, you resort to classic Straw Man argumentation.

Nice setup, but again you'll have to try harder.

Later.

[KU0DM]

CCW--As I said above, if you don't like us making assertions based on your vague and short comments, why don't you tell us your opinion on your own?

[wa6ccw]

I've noticed that when you, Dilmus, Steve, or anyone else who debates with me seem to run out of an argument, they resort to trying to say I have no credibility because of my age, because of who I quoted once, means I repeat what they say all the time.

Grow up.

There you go again...

Please show all of us out here where I ever stated that you "have no credibility" due to your "age".

My point is the mere fact that if one relies upon acedemics alone - without real-world experience to go with it - one is doomed to failure.

Perhaps when you "grow up" this concept will finally take hold.

Good luck.

[N4VGB]

I've noticed that when you, Dilmus, Steve, or anyone else who debates with me seem to run out of an argument, they resort to trying to say I have no credibility because of my age, because of who I quoted once, means I repeat what they say all the time.


Your lack of real world experience is the only area where I doubt your abilities at this time.

It may indeed just be time for a drastic planetary climate change, geology proves has happened many times in earth's history. Man appeared on this planet during the most recent warming trend but only then when the atmospheric conditions became correct for him. So we're the very late arrivals to this party.

Some claim that a reversal of the earth's magnetic poles is due or overdue, according to which scientists you chose to believe. My own son was thoroughly convinced by his studies that this had happened many times in the past and would soon happen again because of the ever increasing appearance of gravitational and magnetic anomalies around the planet. It seemed logical to us that drastic increases in volcanic & earthquake activity and changes in the atmosphere would be completely indicative of this coming event.

Opinions and rectums, we all have our own. :)

[wa6ccw]

CCW--As I said above, if you don't like us making assertions based on your vague and short comments, why don't you tell us your opinion on your own?

My opinion?

Well, obviously, the earth has been warming and cooling since time began. Only a fool would "deny" that reality.

Does that suffice or do you need more?

[KU0DM]

Nope.

That was all I was looking for.

Thank you.

We will now stop making assertions.

[wa6ccw]

Nice setup, but again you'll have to try harder.

Later.

To recap:

You asserted that I "inferred" something. Couldn't prove it. Got caught. And now, you run away.

My favorite part was when you said:

Your posting history places you square in the denier camp, so pretending otherwise now is just disingenuous trolling.

Of course, we both know that you can't provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - but that fact doesn't stand in the way of you digging your hole deeper and deeper, now does it?

Bye.

[n2ize]

To recap:

You asserted that I "inferred" something. Couldn't prove it. Got caught. And now, you run away.

My favorite part was when you said:



Of course, we both know that you can't provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - but that fact doesn't stand in the way of you digging your hole deeper and deeper, now does it?

Bye.


It's hard to prove or disprove what thoughts or intent lie embeded in another humans brain. As a matter of fact the only way such a thing could be "proved" is if there were a set of concise rules of human thought upon which a logical argument could be deduced.

You original post said..


More proof of Earth's rising temp:

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/...69856926.shtml (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/041808/loc_269856926.shtml)



In other words you assert that the contents of the article (regarding a record snowfall) is proof of the earths warming.

Actually it's not proof of the earths rising temp because the actual proof of the earths rising temp lies in the thermometric measurements in which it has been factually determined that the temp is indeed rising.

So, what was the intent of your post ?

1) That you were being serious and you actually feel that rising temperatures are the cause of the record snowfall to which your article refers. ?

2) That you are applying sarcasm by stating that "here's proof the temp of the earth is warming" yet you present an article about an event that most people consider a cold weather phenomenon. ?

Now, which of the two was your actual intent ? Only you know for certain. Others will have to deduce what they feel your intent was.

Considering that many people who disagree with current climate change theory are often sarcastic in trying to get there point across, i.e. with comments like, "hey, I just got a foot of global warming dumped in my driveway", in which "global warming" is a reference to snow. Considering that such sarcasm and techniques are commonplace, and particularly commonplace here on QRZ one would be within reason to assume that you were applying sarcasm in your original message. Indeed, such an assumption is quite understandable under the prevalent circumstances.

On the other hand you could be seriously stating thet you feel that global warming is causing more extremes to occur, including cold weather events such as large snowfalls.

Which was the intent of your post is something only you know. Nobody can "prove" one or the other unless they can somehow read your mind.

Of course the proper way to resolve the entire issue would be to state what your intent was. Of course that is entirely up to you.

[wa6ccw]

Of course the proper way to resolve the entire issue would be to state what your intent was. Of course that is entirely up to you.

Yes, indeed it is...

So then, are you making a request, or, merely making an observation?

[n2ize]

Yes, indeed it is...

So then, are you making a request, or, merely making an observation?

Whats so hard about stating what you mean as opposed to criticizing people for making a viable assumption ?

[GM4BRB]

Uh, excuse me, but what "misinformation" are you referring to?
Perhaps the evidence as provided by many now establishment ostracised scientists? Global Climate Change is a pseudo-science aimed at, guess what, taking away more of your freedoms to make personal choices. But the decisions taken on your behalf by politician/scientists like Gore are based on bogus criteria.

Go look for 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' a 1hr documentary made for British C4 TV in 2007. In it, the whole scenario is clearly described by leading climate researchers now named 'heritics' by the the MainStream Media & scientists with their backscratching antics.

The establishment 'debunkers' are also more than happy to appease the ideas and implementations of surrepticious plans by secret elements whoever they are that erected 'The Georgia Guidestones' (http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm). This 'secret government’ Megalith proposes population control, quote:
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

Anyway, you want science talk. In February, the CorbettReport.com approached me.
CorbettReport.com had an interview with Tim Ball last year for his podcast (he was one of the scientists featured in the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary).
He had another one with the Professor Tim Ball on the 26th Feb and I (GM4BRB) was asked if I had any questions to pose. I did have and here are the results of our inquisition!

“I want to thank you for your suggestions for the interview. I have attempted to incorporate some of the spirit of those suggestions, if not the wording. You can check the results for yourself, as I have just finished editing and adding it to the website here:
TIM BALL CORBETT INTERVIEW (http://www.thecorbettreport.com/mp3/2008-02-26%20Tim%20Ball.mp3)
http://www.thecorbettreport.com/mp3/2008-02-26%20Tim%20Ball.mp3 (http://www.thecorbettreport.com/mp3/2008-02-26%20Tim%20Ball.mp3)
| Right Click » Save as:
Link: http://www.thecorbettreport.com/index.php?i=Interviews
”

[N4VGB]

Let me pose a serious question to the "hive mind" of QRZ.

Does anyone know what the number one greenhouse gas is in our atmosphere?

I'll even make this easier, it's NOT carbon dioxide, it's NOT methane, it's NOT nitrous oxide and it's NOT CFCs or any other of the miscellaneous gas that is normally addressed. :D

[K7JEM]

Water vapor.

[N4VGB]

Water vapor.

BINGO! We've got to get that water under control quickly. :)

[KV1M]

My opinion?

Well, obviously, the earth has been warming and cooling since time began. Only a fool would "deny" that reality.

Does that suffice or do you need more?

Of course not. It is prevarication and avoidance of the question.
You were asked if you were being serious or sarcastic, but you dance around the question instead using the confusion to continue to troll.

Like most of your posts. Yes, I did look up your posting history, you are a master at the ambiguous post and then using it as an opportunity to troll.

So what is it, sarcasm or no?

I'd bet you are about to give another non answer.

[n2ize]

Let me pose a serious question to the "hive mind" of QRZ.

Does anyone know what the number one greenhouse gas is in our atmosphere?

I'll even make this easier, it's NOT carbon dioxide, it's NOT methane, it's NOT nitrous oxide and it's NOT CFCs or any other of the miscellaneous gas that is normally addressed. :D


Yes it's water. The scientific community is well aware of the abundance of water vapor and it's effect on temperature. However, that still doesn't change the fact that there is a rather close and consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

The science behind climate change is not as simplistic and superfical as many would like to belive. It's rather complex and scientists have taken previous warming periods, cyclic patterns and water vapour into account.

[n2ize]

Perhaps the evidence as provided by many now establishment ostracised scientists? Global Climate Change is a pseudo-science aimed at, guess what, taking away more of your freedoms to make personal choices. But the decisions taken on your behalf by politician/scientists like Gore are based on bogus criteria.


So , what you are telling me is that the whole thing is a swindle created to take my freedom away from me ? And they need to spend years upon years setting up a global warming scenario just to take my freedom away ? Bush has done a great job of that without global warming.

Perhaps you can outline precisely what the bogus criteria is ? And exactly what rights do they want to take from me ? Who is the mastermind behind this conspiracy ? Are you telling me that they got such a large portion of the worlds leading and most reputable climate researchers working at some of the most reputable research institutes to stake their reputations and perpetrate one huge and enormous lie ? Just so thay can take away my rights ? Something sounds quite fishy. That is one heck of a big time conspiracy theory.

[KV1M]

Hey look, they have foil hats too! :eek:

[K3XR]

Oh well!!
http://newsbusters.org/node/20656/print

[N4VGB]

Yes it's water. The scientific community is well aware of the abundance of water vapor and it's effect on temperature. However, that still doesn't change the fact that there is a rather close and consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.


So the FACT that manmade CO2 accounts for only 3.225% of the total content of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere should be ignored? :confused:

MOST of the studies being used to support the "global warming" trend as being manmade never take water vapor into the equation and never mention it at all. :rolleyes:

That's some kind of science. :)

[n0ov]

Ok, sanity check. Could Global warning be nothing more than normal variance? Do some searches through history and you will find climate shifts that would back up this theory. Great Potato famine of Ireland is a good starting point -- if you research before the famine you will find the Irish started using potatos as a staple when unusually cold weather prevented them from growing crops. All across Europe there are examples of this.

So tell me, how does what we are seeing now seem to be man made? Especially when you consider conservation and pollution control measures have actually improved the environment over the past 30 years (check Lake Erie -- there was a time that great lake was at risk of turning into the greatest toxic waste dump)

Not saying we don't have a way to go or protecting the environment is bad, but really --- if Al Gore is so concerned, don't you think he could live in a smaller place?

[w6ire]

Our planet's environmental system is too complex for even scientists to fully grasp. I believe that there are natural variances, the environment swings this way and that, seeking a natural equilibrium. I remember 20 years ago Ted Danson (the actor) was sure the world would end in 10 years, obviously it didn't happen.

History is filled with such dire predictions and the one thing they all had in common is they never happened.

[W4DFW]

However, that still doesn't change the fact that there is a rather close and consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today, and BY GOLLY we're still here! It's also funny that we have had "global warming" for about the last 15,000 years. There were these things called glaciers that covered up much of North American and what is now the northern US.

For some very strange reason, these glaciers decided to recede, and BY GOLLY they did it without any help from man. At least, I don't *think* there was any industrial pollution from man back then, but I could be wrong.

I tell you what. Let's reset the "baseline" temperature to what it was in 1998. If we do that, BY GOLLY ( I kinda like saying that, you know, for affect!) the Earth has actually COOLED!! Yes-sir-ree BOB!! Over the past 10 years the temperature of the Earth as a whole has COOLED!!

BUT!! That's not the end of the story! You see, MAN MADE CO2 production has continued to increase!!

BY GOLLY!! Could it BE that the Earth's temperature is a factor of MULTIPLE variables and NOT directly correlated with man-made CO2 production!!??!!??

(a big GASP!!! - is heard coming from the audience!)

NO!!! CAN'T BE!!

But DON'T FRET, boys and girls!! Yes, even YOU can jump on the CARBON CREDIT BULLSH*T and make yourself some money!!

Just ask Al Gore! (Gawd, you just gotta love capitalism!! Even socialists get it!)

:D:D

[NL7W]

Corn Futures Jump Due To Late Spring

April 2nd, 2008
"Corn prices climbed to a record just below $6 a bushel Wednesday as cold, wet weather in the U.S. corn belt threatened to slow planting, adding to concerns over tight supplies. Other commodities traded broadly higher, with precious metals, wheat, soybeans and gasoline futures all gaining. Heavy rains and some snowfall in corn-growing states in the Midwest and the South are expected to continue into the weekend, raising the possibility that growers will have to postpone spring..."

Ref: http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/0...s_to_slow_pla/

Heavy Snow Falls With Cold Spring Storm

April 18, 2008
SEATTLE -- Wet snow, heavy at times, has been falling steadily in Everett and areas of southern Snohomish County for most of Friday.

KIRO 7 Chief Meteorologist Rebecca Stevenson says 1 to 3 inches of snow could fall in Snohomish County as temperatures will drop overnight.

Some lighting strikes and thunder were even heard amidst the snow in Everett and Lynnwood around 5 p.m. Friday.

Ref: http://www.kirotv.com/weather/159227...s=sea&psp=news


Weather changes gardening plans

April 11, 2008
While spring means planting for many in southeast Kansas, weather may postpone those thoughts for at least a weekend or two.

The National Weather Service is expecting a low Saturday night of 29. Also, high winds Thursday are expected to continue today.

Ref: http://morningsun.net/stories/041108...67355586.shtml




Meanwhile, Alaska's late Spring is projected to lower my garden's growing season to a really short 60 days.

All this makes me go, "Hmm..."

[KV1M]

This is going to be the first time in 50 million years that there will be an iceless north pole.

That is not a normal variance issue.

[NL7W]

Then Ice came back...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg

[n2ize]

So the FACT that manmade CO2 accounts for only 3.225% of the total content of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere should be ignored? :confused:

MOST of the studies being used to support the "global warming" trend as being manmade never take water vapor into the equation and never mention it at all. :rolleyes:

That's some kind of science. :)

No,it only shows that you are ignorant of the science that is being done and what researchers are saying about it. You obviously have gotten your information from little blurbs here and there and have not read into the research in any depth otherwise you would be quite aware that researchers do mention water vapor quite frequently and they do account for water vapour in their research.

[n2ize]

Corn Futures Jump Due To Late Spring

April 2nd, 2008
"Corn prices climbed to a record just below $6 a bushel Wednesday as cold, wet weather in the U.S. corn belt threatened to slow planting, adding to concerns over tight supplies. Other commodities traded broadly higher, with precious metals, wheat, soybeans and gasoline futures all gaining. Heavy rains and some snowfall in corn-growing states in the Midwest and the South are expected to continue into the weekend, raising the possibility that growers will have to postpone spring..."

Ref: http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/0...s_to_slow_pla/

Heavy Snow Falls With Cold Spring Storm

April 18, 2008
SEATTLE -- Wet snow, heavy at times, has been falling steadily in Everett and areas of southern Snohomish County for most of Friday.

KIRO 7 Chief Meteorologist Rebecca Stevenson says 1 to 3 inches of snow could fall in Snohomish County as temperatures will drop overnight.

Some lighting strikes and thunder were even heard amidst the snow in Everett and Lynnwood around 5 p.m. Friday.

Ref: http://www.kirotv.com/weather/159227...s=sea&psp=news


Weather changes gardening plans

April 11, 2008
While spring means planting for many in southeast Kansas, weather may postpone those thoughts for at least a weekend or two.

The National Weather Service is expecting a low Saturday night of 29. Also, high winds Thursday are expected to continue today.

Ref: http://morningsun.net/stories/041108...67355586.shtml




Meanwhile, Alaska's late Spring is projected to lower my garden's growing season to a really short 60 days.

All this makes me go, "Hmm..."

All the while missing the point that regional short term weather and global long term climate are two different things. While you point out late springs and late season snows I and many others can point to unseasonably warm winters. The whole issue regarding climate change is that you can have regional weather that is unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold. You can have a buildup of arctic ice and snow during the winter season. The issue is about global variation over the long term.

[KV1M]

So what Steve, that is a shot of the pole at the very first couple od weeks in spring. There was snow on the ground in London that week Steve..
Pretty disingenuous of you. Or ignorant. Probably both.
Post one after the September radar survey is completed.

In the meantime there has been open water on the pole now every summer for 5 years with no end in sight and less ice every season.

[NL7W]

So what Steve, that is a shot of the pole at the very first couple od weeks in spring. There was snow on the ground in London that week Steve..
Pretty disingenuous of you. Or ignorant. Probably both.
Post one after the September radar survey is completed.

In the meantime there has been open water on the pole now every summer for 5 years with no end in sight and less ice every season.

Sorry, Charlie...

There was more ice this season than last, and more than several in recent times. Granted, it is not multiyear sea ice, but the coverage bounced back considerably this 07/08 winter.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Don't be too quick to judge. Wait a few years... sunspot activity will lower the sun's output and Mother Earth will respond accordingly.

Toodles.

[N4VGB]

In the meantime there has been open water on the pole now every summer for 5 years with no end in sight and less ice every season.


So you're completely unaware that solid ice volume at the North Pole is something that has changed drastically many times over the history of this planet? Even before man existed on the planet.

[K3XR]

Eco-Nazis....Let them starve.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/no_starvation_for_fuel.html

[wa6ccw]

Whats so hard about stating what you mean as opposed to criticizing people for making a viable assumption ?

I don't know, really...

I suppose you'll have to ask whomever it was that engaged in such behavior.

[KV1M]

So you're completely unaware that solid ice volume at the North Pole is something that has changed drastically many times over the history of this planet? Even before man existed on the planet.

Read again and quote fully please, 50 million years.
As in has not happened for.

[KV1M]

I don't know, really...

I suppose you'll have to ask whomever it was that engaged in such behavior.

So when you gonna answer me?
I asked in a direct manner and you ignored it.

So it is as I thought until you answer with a direct answer.
And with every dodge you prove me right.

[wa6ccw]

Of course not. It is prevarication and avoidance of the question.
You were asked if you were being serious or sarcastic, but you dance around the question instead using the confusion to continue to troll.

Like most of your posts. Yes, I did look up your posting history, you are a master at the ambiguous post and then using it as an opportunity to troll.

So what is it, sarcasm or no?

I'd bet you are about to give another non answer.

Once again:

You asserted that I "inferred" something. Couldn't prove it. Got caught. Were asked to provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - can't do that either - and now are attempting to squirm your way out.

Stop wasting our time and scram.

[KV1M]

Once again:

You asserted that I "inferred" something. Couldn't prove it. Got caught. Were asked to provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - can't do that either - and now are attempting to squirm your way out.

Stop wasting our time and scram.

Really now?
I asked you if you were serious or if you were being sarcastic.
You continue to avoid it while trying to cast aspersions on me. Unsuccessfully I might add since with every weave bob and dodge you confirm my original hypothesis.

So which is it tough guy? Easy question with an easy answer.
Gonna dodge again? I bet you do.

[wa6ccw]

Really now?
I asked you if you were serious or if you were being sarcastic.
You continue to avoid it while trying to cast aspersions on me. Unsuccessfully I might add since with every weave bob and dodge you confirm my original hypothesis.

So which is it tough guy? Easy question with an easy answer.
Gonna dodge again? I bet you do.

I created this thread as a repository to discuss the good, bad, ugly - and humor - of the subject at hand. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now then...

Are you going to provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - or continue to wear the "aspersions" with pride?

[KV1M]

I created this thread as a repository to discuss the good, bad, ugly - and humor - of the subject at hand. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now then...

Are you going to provide a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp" - or continue to wear the "aspersions" with pride?

Nope, you are a slippery one. Didn't find that but did find where you played other games just like this one.

So let's try again, this came about because of what you claim is a misunderstanding. Clear it up and I'll apologize profusely.

Serious about severity of the changes involved in global warming or just making fun of it?

So which is it, I gave my answer. Where's yours?

[wa6ccw]

Nope, you are a slippery one. Didn't find that but did find where you played other games just like this one.

So let's try again, this came about because of what you claim is a misunderstanding. Clear it up and I'll apologize profusely.

Serious about severity of the changes involved in global warming or just making fun of it?

So which is it, I gave my answer. Where's yours?

Oh, so you CAN'T back YOUR claim by providing a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp", is THAT it?

And you wonder why you're the laughing stock.

[KV1M]

Oh, so you CAN'T back YOUR claim by providing a specific "posting history" that places me in a "denier camp", is THAT it?

And you wonder why you're the laughing stock.

Nice try at the disparaging comment troll boy. Not working.
That was YOUR issue, a side trip to avoid having to deal with the real question. You remember, the one you got so indignant about to start with. And you still refuse to answer the question EVERYONE has been asking you.

Proving me right every post.

[KV1M]

What's this Dick, a TECHNICIAN? For 6 YEARS?
I'm laughing Dick, laughing.

[wa6ccw]

Nice try at the disparaging comment troll boy. Not working
But you still refuse to answer the question EVERYONE has been asking you.

Proving me right every post.

Thanks - given the desperation of your situation, I'll take all of that as a compliment.

Again, to recap:

1).You lied, i.e:

Your posting history places you square in the denier camp

2). Got caught by not proving (see the above quote) your claim.

3). And now have "egg dripping off your face".

Doncha just love it? :D

[KV1M]

Thanks - given the desperation of your situation, I'll take all of that as a compliment.

Again, to recap:

1).You lied, i.e:



2). Got [i]caught.

3). And now have "egg dripping off your face".

:D

I misspoke. And retracted.

Unlike you, I am man enough to do so.
No egg on my face, must be yours since you continue to avoid the issue at hand.
The desperation is all yours, you are still prevaricating and avoiding the questions.
Now that you no longer have anything left to distract with except maybe juvenile name calling you can get to the matter at hand.
The reason you were whining in the first place about how misunderstood you were.
The thing you keep proving me right about.
The question you already know all so well.
The one you are trying so very hard not to answer.

That must be a replacement for your manhood in the avatar there Dick, you obviously don't have enough of your own left to answer the question.

[wa6ccw]

I misspoke. And retracted.

Unlike you, I am man enough to do so.
No egg on my face, must be yours since you continue to avoid the issue at hand.
The desperation is all yours, you are still prevaricating and avoiding the questions.
Now that you no longer have anything left to distract with except maybe juvenile name calling you can get to the matter at hand.
The reason you were whining in the first place about how misunderstood you were.
The thing you keep proving me right about.
The question you already know all so well.
The one you are trying so very hard not to answer.

That must be a replacement for your manhood in the avatar there Dick, you obviously don't have enough of your own left to answer the question.

Oh, I see...

Now that I've completely embarassed you by exposing your false statement about me, you're trying to save what little face you have left by trying to focus on my license class and QRZ avatar.

Again, you must really enjoy being the laughing stock - and I thank you for the non-stop humor that you continue to provide.

[KV1M]

Oh, I see...

Now that I've completely embarassed you by exposing your false statement about me, you're trying to save what little face you have left by trying to focus on my license class and QRZ avatar.

Again, you must really enjoy being the laughing stock - and I thank you for the non-stop humor that you continue to provide.

Still prevaricating?

Knew you would.
Such a little boy.

Sure is fun watching you squirm and try to find something else to distract with though.
Better start looking for the new distraction, you've played this one out by now.

As for liar, your protests of being misunderstood place that one right on your shoulders.
You weren't misuderstood, you were just pissed I figured you out so quickly.

Bye bye little boy, your not even very good as a troll.

[wa6ccw]

Still prevaricating?

Knew you would.
Such a little boy.

Yes, yes, when all else fails, go for the "little boy" angle, the "troll" angle, or any other desperate playground taunts you can dream up ...

If there were any "prevarication" in anything I've said, you would have shown it by now.

You've been exposed as a liar.

Now scram.

[N4VGB]

I misspoke. And retracted.

That must be a replacement for your manhood in the avatar there Dick, you obviously don't have enough of your own left to answer the question.

"Misspoke"? Now where do I keep hearing that one? :D

What's your avatar represent, an egg sucking fox!? You're going to need to find a chicken coup with no roosters present to play in egg sucker. :p

[KU0DM]

Yes, yes, when all else fails, go for the "little boy" angle...


Actually that's EXACTLY what Dilmus, Steve, and several other Conservatives resort to when I challenge their opinions. So from a few of you Conservatives all I ever get in response to my post is some remark about my being younger than they are.


Jealous much?

[KV1M]

Yes, yes, when all else fails, go for the "little boy" angle, the "troll" angle, or any other desperate playground taunts you can dream up ...

If there were any "prevarication" in anything I've said, you would have shown it by now.

You've been exposed as a liar.

Now scram.

No I haven't. I made a mistake and apologized for it. Unlike you.

You are a little boy because you taunt like one.
You are a little boy because you are not man enough to answer the question and instead prevaricate, lie and weasel your way into a confrontation to avoid telling the truth:

That you did indeed start this tread as a troll and that you were being sarcastic when you posted. That you were posting as ambiguously as possible to get a troll and you are milking it for all it is worth.

Called you on that way back at the beginning junior, and you cried like I was wrong.

But I'm not wrong am I?

Go ahead, squirm some more.

[KV1M]

"Misspoke"? Now where do I keep hearing that one? :D

What's your avatar represent, an egg sucking fox!? You're going to need to find a chicken coup with no roosters present to play in egg sucker. :p

Nice one Gomer. You must be getting tired of being wrong all the time yourself. Never going to hear you admit it though, not enough going on in the maturity department for that.

[KV1M]

Nighty night trolls, been fun making you all look bad.

[wa6ccw]

Actually that's EXACTLY what Dilmus, Steve, and several other Conservatives resort to when I challenge their opinions. So from a few of you Conservatives all I ever get in response to my post is some remark about my being younger than they are.


Jealous much?

Uh...

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I'm not "Dilmus" or "Steve" or "several other Conservatives".

If you're feeling some sort of resentment, I suggest you take it up with them. :)

[KU0DM]

No no, you are rather good at leaving age out of it. You seem to understand one has a right to an opinion no matter the age.

Was just pointing out that "the little boy angle" is a popular one among conservatives here on the Zed.

[KV1M]

No no, you are rather good at leaving age out of it. You seem to understand one has a right to an opinion no matter the age.

Was just pointing out that "the little boy angle" is a popular one among conservatives here on the Zed.

Don't bother with this one, he's an junior troll.
Still learning his chops, but he'll waste your time if you let him.

[wa6ccw]

No I haven't. I made a mistake and apologized for it. Unlike you.

You are a little boy because you taunt like one.
You are a little boy because you are not man enough to answer the question and instead prevaricate, lie and weasel your way into a confrontation to avoid telling the truth:

That you did indeed start this tread as a troll and that you were being sarcastic when you posted. That you were posting as ambiguously as possible to get a troll and you are milking it for all it is worth.

Called you on that way back at the beginning junior, and you cried like I was wrong.

But I'm not wrong am I?

Go ahead, squirm some more.

On the contrary...

You had your back rhetorically shoved against the wall, and were forced to face reality.

Again, if I've posted any "prevarications" then please post them for all to see - in other words: put up or shut up.

It's your call.

[N4VGB]

Don't bother with this one, he's an junior troll.
Still learning his chops, but he'll waste your time if you let him.

No problem for you, all your time is wasted time! :D

[wa6ccw]

No no, you are rather good at leaving age out of it. You seem to understand one has a right to an opinion no matter the age.

Thanks - and you are correct. :)

[wa6ccw]

Don't bother with this one, he's an junior troll.
Still learning his chops, but he'll waste your time if you let him.

Seems that I "wasted" your "time" long enough to force an admission out of you that you lied.

If your looking for a "troll", there should be a mirror in your bathroom. :D

[KC9IUX]

Why are other planets warming as well?

SUV's?

CFC's?

???????

[wa6ccw]

Why are other planets warming as well?

SUV's?

CFC's?

???????

EXCELLENT question! :)

Anyone?

[KU0DM]

Due to major differences between Earth and other planets, and how the numerous variables for each planet are different, you can not possibly compare Earth to another planet.

The argument about other planets means squat.

[KV1M]

Seems that I "wasted" your "time" long enough to force an admission out of you that you lied.

If your looking for a "troll", there should be a mirror in your bathroom. :D

I wasted enough time with you to prove that you are a prevaricating troll and to show your protests to be so much hot air.

You on the other hand proved nothing.

You don't even know what a troll is do you junior?

[KC9IUX]

Due to major differences between Earth and other planets, and how the numerous variables for each planet are different, you can not possibly compare Earth to another planet.

The argument about other planets means squat.


There is at least one similarity that does mean something.

Our common source of heat.

[KU0DM]

True.

However the distance from and amount of radiation each planet receives from that heat source on a daily and yearly basis all differ.

[wa6ccw]

I wasted enough time with you to prove that you are a prevaricating troll and to show your protests to be so much hot air.

You on the other hand proved nothing.

You don't even know what a troll is do you junior?

You just can't stop jacking your jaw, now can you?

What happened to the:

Nighty night

from above?

Yes, yes, I know... the embarassment of being exposed is just too much for you, isn't it?

[wa6ccw]

Due to major differences between Earth and other planets, and how the numerous variables for each planet are different, you can not possibly compare Earth to another planet.

The argument about other planets means squat.

Duncan:

With that in mind, what do you think the major source of "climate change" on earth is?

[KU0DM]

I think it can be blamed on Greenhouse gases (which include water vapor), carbon emissions from our hunger for power, and thirst for gas. As well as I think a small part of it is a cycle, but intensified due to the human factor of what we have done to our planet.

[KC9IUX]

I came across a Readers Digest the other day, from 1974.

The big scary topic of one of the articles?

Global Cooling; The Next Ice Age. LMAO

As far as the Earth is concerned 30 years is a very insignificant amount of time.

[N4VGB]

I came across a Readers Digest the other day, from 1974.

The big scary topic of one of the articles?

Global Cooling; The Next Ice Age. LMAO

As far as the Earth is concerned 30 years is a very insignificant amount of time.

You're wasting your time. The arrogant ones believe themselves to be masters of this world. It terrifies them to believe that thay don't control the earth, some are just misguided followers. :)

[wa6ccw]

I think it can be blamed on Greenhouse gases (which include water vapor), carbon emissions from our hunger for power, and thirst for gas. As well as I think a small part of it is a cycle, but intensified due to the human factor of what we have done to our planet.

Fair enough...

So what would be your pragmatic solution to the issue?

[n2ize]

I came across a Readers Digest the other day, from 1974.

The big scary topic of one of the articles?

Global Cooling; The Next Ice Age. LMAO

As far as the Earth is concerned 30 years is a very insignificant amount of time.

Readers Digest is one of two magazines where that article appeared. The global cooling idea was speculative and had neither the evidence, support, peer review nor widespread concensus that present day climate change has.

[KU0DM]

Fair enough...

So what would be your pragmatic solution to the issue?

Reduce Greenhouse gases, cut carbon emissions, reduce overall fuel consumption (or use it more efficiently and intelligently), and emphasize research and exploitation of renewable and clean energy.

I believe we should pass legislation to limit the growth of carbon emissions, as well as appropriate money for renewable energy research and implementation.

That is one reason I support Barack Obama, is his plan to invest in renewable energy, which would also create jobs in research, manufacturing, and servicing.

[KC9IUX]

The global cooling idea was speculative and had neither the evidence, support, peer review nor widespread concensus that present day climate change has.


It came from a short term trend, same as the new apocolyptic hysteria of today.

[N4VGB]

widespread concensus that present day climate change has.


Your idea of what constitutes a widespread concensus and mine are completely different. Too many scientists disagree with the manmade theory of global warming.

[n2ize]

You're wasting your time. The arrogant ones believe themselves to be masters of this world. It terrifies them to believe that thay don't control the earth, some are just misguided followers. :)

Actually climate science has nothing to do with being master of anything. It has to do with the application of an epistemology in which humans gather evidence and make logical conclusions. All you have shown is a complete ignorance of the research that has been done to date.

[KC9IUX]

I believe we should pass legislation to limit the growth of carbon emissions, as well as appropriate money for renewable energy research and implementation.


So we should use force to back a theroy?

[wa6ccw]

I came across a Readers Digest the other day, from 1974.

The big scary topic of one of the articles?

Global Cooling; The Next Ice Age. LMAO

As far as the Earth is concerned 30 years is a very insignificant amount of time.

THE COOLING WORLD (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf)

[N4VGB]

emphasize research and exploitation of renewable and clean energy.
appropriate money for renewable energy research and implementation.


What renewable energy source is it that you believe hasn't been thoroughly researched?

I've ask you this question before and you just keep posting the same line.

[KC9IUX]

Too many scientists disagree with the manmade theory of global warming.


Like the main scientist in the RD article.

Funny how some of the proponents of the man made warming theroy want to supress anyone who disagrees.

[n2ize]

Your idea of what constitutes a widespread concensus and mine are completely different. Too many scientists disagree with the manmade theory of global warming.

Wrong. The vast majority of reputable climate researchers agree that there is a definate and significant correlation between man made greenhousa gases and rising global temperature.

[KC9IUX]

Climate history isn't even fully understood, much less how to predict the future. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/17/worlds-oldest-tree-rewrites-climate-history-challenges-global-warming)

[KC9IUX]

The vast majority of reputable climate researchers agree

Reputable=support man made warming.

[n2ize]

So we should use force to back a theroy?

No, not force. But it would probably be wise to take steps to reduce carbon emissions in light of what is presently a well supported theory. Oh, and before someone jumps in and says "it's a theory but nobody has provided a proof yet", you don't "prove" theories in science, you support theories via evidence.

[KC9IUX]

definate and significant correlation between man made greenhousa gases and rising global temperature.

But no correlation of warming and solar output?

[KC9IUX]

you don't "prove" theories in science, you support theories via evidence.


When a theroy is proven, it's considered law.

[KC9IUX]

No, not force. But it would probably be wise to take steps to reduce carbon emissions in light of what is presently a well supported theory.

Well, how do you do it, if not by force?

[n2ize]

Reputable=support man made warming.

No, reputable means people who are well qualified and knowledgreable in their field of study. Usually this entails holding an advanced degree in the field along with many hours of intensive research which is collborated and peer reviewed by other reputable persons who work in the field.

Or put differently, when you have a tooth that is killing you with agonizing pain and you need a root canal done who do you go to ? A reputable dentist or a house painter ?

[KU0DM]

So we should use force to back a theroy?

No, we should pass regulations to improve a Nation. Climate change isn't a theory, there is science to prove it is happening, and yes there are cycles, but they have been intensifying since the industrial revolution.

What renewable energy source is it that you believe hasn't been thoroughly researched?

I've ask you this question before and you just keep posting the same line.

I have posted several reasons, you just choose to ignore them. There is more to be done on biodiesel, as well as improving the efficiency and ironing out the kinks in existing technology.

It's like asking "Why do we keep researching communications technology?" we already have internet and newly acquired (relatively) satellite. To make existing technology better and possibly find out another method.

We think we have discovered all renewable energy sources, but that's was the attitude about exploration in early A.D.
It was thought Europe, Asia, and Africa was it. By pushing the boundaries, Australia was soon found later followed by North and South America.

[N4VGB]

The vast majority of reputable climate researchers agree that there is a definate and significant correlation between man made greenhousa gases and rising global temperature.


Glad you pointed out the basic problem, "climate researchers" or more appropriately stated, glorified meteorologists, a vein of science that is very young. Sorry dude but this nonsense that your PhDs are reputable and mine are not is thin. Some of mine are also professors and on the NAS. Face it scared little one, the earth may be ready to purge us and there's not one thing we can do about it. :cool::cool::cool:

[n2ize]

Well, how do you do it, if not by force?

By functioning as a society of intelligent humans with minds. Of course I understand that is a profound concept on the ZED where il-logic reigns supreme.

[KC9IUX]

No, we should pass regulations to improve a Nation.

So what happens if one doesn't conform to the regulations?

Climate change isn't a theory, there is science to prove it is happening, and yes there are cycles, but they have been intensifying since the industrial revolution.


And mans part in it is a fact?

[wa6ccw]

I think it can be blamed on Greenhouse gases (which include water vapor), carbon emissions from our hunger for power, and thirst for gas. As well as I think a small part of it is a cycle, but intensified due to the human factor of what we have done to our planet.

So (in your opinion) are these carbon emissions warming the planet, cooling it, causing it to cycle between the two... or what?

[n2ize]

Glad you pointed out the basic problem, "climate researchers" or more appropriately stated, glorified meteorologists, a vein of science that is very young. Sorry dude but this nonsense that your PhDs are reputable and mine are not is thin. Some of mine are also professors and on the NAS. Face it scared little one, the earth may be ready to purge us and there's not one thing we can do about it. :cool::cool::cool:

As I stated, your ignorance of the subject is truly memorable. Now, I'll letyou go. You are a busy man with a busy QRZ night ahead of you. I have some other things to tend to. The il-logic game was fun.

Ta Ta.

[KC9IUX]

By functioning as a society of intelligent humans with minds.

Which we aren't now?

[KU0DM]

Glad you pointed out the basic problem, "climate researchers" or more appropriately stated, glorified meteorologists, a vein of science that is very young. Sorry dude but this nonsense that your PhDs are reputable and mine are not is thin. Some of mine are also professors and on the NAS. Face it scared little one, the earth may be ready to purge us and there's not one thing we can do about it. :cool::cool::cool:

The same people saying it is just a cycle are also self glorified meteorologists.

Many of "ours" our professors too, not just "yours" (I didn't know meteorologists belonged to individuals).

[N4VGB]

I have posted several reasons, you just choose to ignore them. There is more to be done on biodiesel, as well as improving the efficiency and ironing out the kinks in existing technology.


All the forms of energy that you mention have been around a long time. Honda is already offering a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for sale in the U.S. Biodiesel is old now, good grief my neighbor makes the stuff.

What is it that you want researched, what is it that you believe billions of my tax dollars will discover? Neutrino powered cars? Ain't gonna happen.

[wa6ccw]

By functioning as a society of intelligent humans with minds. Of course I understand that is a profound concept on the ZED where il-logic reigns supreme.

What "logic" is there in hugging a tree? :D

A proud liberal hippie tree hugger.
???

[KC9IUX]

The same people saying it is just a cycle are also self glorified meteorologists.


Yep.

And?

[KU0DM]

So what happens if one doesn't conform to the regulations?

Actually, they would be National regulations, not so much up to us. As in more efficient appliances and cars. The Bush administration has actually set dates to stop growing carbon emissions and have regulations on fuel efficiency.

Reduce and stop growth of carbon emissions (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9671.html)

So (in your opinion) are these carbon emissions warming the planet, cooling it, causing it to cycle between the two... or what?

Climate change isn't one or the other, rather it's intensified weather conditions. That may mean warmer summers, colder winters, and stronger storms. It has been proven that this will happen. During the summer, as temperatures climb due to intensifying weather conditions, hurricanes will become more severe.

Hurricans in relation to Climate Change (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html)

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/atlhur.gif

It's interesting, look at the severity and number of hurricanes during times of war and increased production, and the years following.

[N4VGB]

The same people saying it is just a cycle are also self glorified meteorologists.


No they're not. These are the guys that broaden their perspective and pull from several veins of scientific study. Physics, experts on the sun, chemists who can analyze the compositions being formed in the atmosphere, plate tectonics, geologists.

This new group of "climatologists" are no more than overrated "meteorologists", or weathermen!

[KU0DM]

All the forms of energy that you mention have been around a long time. Honda is already offering a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for sale in the U.S. Biodiesel is old now, good grief my neighbor makes the stuff.

What is it that you want researched, what is it that you believe billions of my tax dollars will discover? Neutrino powered cars? Ain't gonna happen.

Efficiency.

Read before you post.

Just because we have something doesn't mean we can't make it better.

THAT is FACT.

[KC9IUX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC9IUX
So what happens if one doesn't conform to the regulations?

Actually, they would be National regulations, not so much up to us. As in more efficient appliances and cars. The Bush administration has actually set dates to stop growing carbon emissions and have regulations on fuel efficiency.



That didn't answer the question.

[N4VGB]

Actually, they would be National regulations, not so much up to us. As in more efficient appliances and cars. The Bush administration has actually set dates to stop growing carbon emissions and have regulations on fuel efficiency.


1944-2004 is a blink of the eye in planetary history, absolutely nothing to draw conclusions from at all.

[KU0DM]

No they're not. These are the guys that broaden their perspective and pull from several veins of scientific study. Physics, experts on the sun, chemists who can analyze the compositions being formed in the atmosphere, plate tectonics, geologists.

This new group of "climatologists" are no more than overrated "meteorologists", or weathermen!

Wrong. They also pull from several veins of scientific study.

The difference is how they interpret the data. Right now the majority of scientists, and scientists from different backgrounds, understand Climate Change and know that it is real.

[KC9IUX]

Right now the majority of scientists, and scientists from different backgrounds, understand Climate Change and know that it is real.
__________________


Back it up.

Since when is science democratic?:confused:

[N4VGB]

Yep.

And?

Read post #123 please. :D

[KU0DM]

1944-2004 is a blink of the eye in planetary history, absolutely nothing to draw conclusions from at all.

Neither is the period before the Industrial Revolution when production was lower and waste from production was also lower in terms of energy use and released chemicals.

But that time period, you CAN draw conclusions from. The last 100 years the Earth's temperature was risen .6 Celsius, that time period is 60 of those 100 years and yes, .6 Celsius is a lot in a precariously balanced ecosystems of the world.

[N4VGB]

Back it up.

Since when is science democratic?:confused:

Do a search on the net and you might be surprised how many highly qualified scientists with very high ranking credentials don't agree with Al Gore.

[KC9IUX]

precariously balanced ecosystems of the world.


We live on the brink of doom constantly?

[N4VGB]

Efficiency.

Read before you post.

Just because we have something doesn't mean we can't make it better.

THAT is FACT.

Internal combustion engines have been being studied and vastly improved for many years by private companies. No government dollars needed.

[KU0DM]

Back it up.

Since when is science democratic?:confused:

Never said it was. But a majority doesn't happen based on opinions.

Program by Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/)

Look! Even the EPA! (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html)

[KC9IUX]

Do a search on the net and you might be surprised how many highly qualified scientists with very high ranking credentials don't agree with Al Gore.


I do know Al Gore is a hypocrite.

"Carbon Credits"? Whatta scam.

[KU0DM]

We live on the brink of doom constantly?

No. But each ecosystem consists of a balance.

Mess up one factor and several can come tumbling down.

Temperature is one of those factors.

[N4VGB]

Neither is the period before the Industrial Revolution when production was lower and waste from production was also lower in terms of energy use and released chemicals.

But that time period, you CAN draw conclusions from. The last 100 years the Earth's temperature was risen .6 Celsius, that time period is 60 of those 100 years and yes, .6 Celsius is a lot in a precariously balanced ecosystems of the world.

That temperature range has swung more than that in recorded history and recorded history is very short indeed.

[wa6ccw]

Climate change isn't one or the other, rather it's intensified weather conditions. That may mean warmer summers, colder winters, and stronger storms. It has been proven that this will happen. During the summer, as temperatures climb due to intensifying weather conditions, hurricanes will become more severe.

But the specific of my query has to do with carbon; what it does, and why you think it is the problem?

CHECK THIS OUT (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/26/fnc-accuweathers-bastardi-argues-against-blaming-global-warming-hurri)

[KC9IUX]

The same EPA that said the air was safe after 911?

[KU0DM]

Internal combustion engines have been being studied and vastly improved for many years by private companies. No government dollars needed.

That is true.

However investing Government dollars in this is in the Governments best interest, for being able to break free from the death grip fossil fuels have on our wallets and investing in it to help stimulate the economy.

If the Government put money into research and grants, manufacturing, and implementation, that would create many jobs. Many more than a private company's own work could.

[KU0DM]

The same EPA that said the air was safe after 911?

I think there is a difference between heavily researched and funded work and a quick (in comparison of how long it takes to gather 100% definitive that's all folks results) analysis of a certain area.

[N4VGB]

However investing Government dollars in this is in the Governments best interest, for being able to break free from the death grip fossil fuels have on our wallets and investing in it to help stimulate the economy.

If the Government put money into research and grants, manufacturing, and implementation, that would create many jobs. Many more than a private company's own work could.


I live in the area where the longest running electric vehicle test program in the world was run by TVA. The results were not great and even the government finally saw it was only a money pit, program cancelled. There are no new sources of energy that haven't been studied to death by private and government dollars.

What do you want the government to manufacture? What form of energy needs more research at this time?

[KC9IUX]

I think there is a difference between heavily researched and funded work and a quick (in comparison of how long it takes to gather 100% definitive that's all folks results) analysis of a certain area.


So you can pick and choose what you like and what you don't?

Thousands of lives were at stake. But they LIED.

[KU0DM]

But the specific of my query has to do with carbon; what it does, and why you think it is the problem?

CO2 and emissions from fossil fuels are insulating gases, it blankets the oceans and land raising temperatures during the summer by trapping the warm air, and cold winters by trapping the cold air.

Situation A causes melting ice caps, raising ocean levels, and the increased heat causes more evaporation of the oceans, intensifying tropical storms and hurricanes putting lives and economies at risk, as well as would cause MORE pollution from the oil spills that WILL happen in those events.

Then in Situation B, the cooler temperatures hurt the environment, as well as can be hard on the body. That causes us to use more energy to heat our homes, which releases MORE CO2 and carbon emissions. One reason it is important to use renewable energy.

It is a cause and effect cycle.

More about how climate change affects our weather and storms (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html)

[N4VGB]

CO2 and emissions from fossil fuels are insulating gases, it blankets the oceans and land raising temperatures during the summer by trapping the warm air, and cold winters by trapping the cold air.


The total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere created by man is 3.225%, the rest is from natural sources.

[KU0DM]

So you can pick and choose what you like and what you don't?

Thousands of lives were at stake. But they LIED.

Wow, I have no idea where you drew that conclusion.

I am saying that there is difference between research that is taking place over centuries, and research that was rushed by our own need to get back to our lives.

The EPA could and would have spent more time evaluating the air, but because everyone in New York wanted to get back to normal routine, they were forced to get in and get out, without the required time for accurate results. If patience had been exercised after 9/11, I am sure that wouldn't have happened.

[KC9IUX]

The EPA also has manipulated statistics to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion in second hand smoke.

They have zero credibility.

[KU0DM]

The total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere created by man is 3.225%, the rest is from natural sources.

CO2 isn't the only problem.

Plus, that 3.225% is a lot in reality. As well as the fact that percentage is constantly growing.

You should know by now, that nature is an awesome force that likes thing it's way. Minor changes cause big events.

[KC9IUX]

I am saying that there is difference between research that is taking place over centuries, and research that was rushed by our own need to get back to our lives.



What research has been taking place over centuries?

[KC9IUX]

The EPA could and would have spent more time evaluating the air, but because everyone in New York wanted to get back to normal routine, they were forced to get in and get out, without the required time for accurate results. If patience had been exercised after 9/11, I am sure that wouldn't have happened.


It WAS evaluated.

But they lied.

Look it up.

[KU0DM]

The EPA also has manipulated statistics to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion in second hand smoke.

They have zero credibility.

In your mind, that would mean Republicans also have zero credibility because of their lies. We all have zero credibility because of lies.

I ask you to site your source to how they manipulate statistics, and proof that the people that did that are DIRECTLY involved in climate research.

Good luck with that last one.

[wa6ccw]

CO2 and emissions from fossil fuels are insulating gases, it blankets the oceans and land raising temperatures during the summer by trapping the warm air, and cold winters by trapping the cold air.

Situation A causes melting ice caps, raising ocean levels, and the increased heat causes more evaporation of the oceans, intensifying tropical storms and hurricanes putting lives and economies at risk, as well as would cause MORE pollution from the oil spills that WILL happen in those events.

Then in Situation B, the cooler temperatures hurt the environment, as well as can be hard on the body. That causes us to use more energy to heat our homes, which releases MORE CO2 and carbon emissions. One reason it is important to use renewable energy.

It is a cause and effect cycle.

More about how climate change affects our weather and storms (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html)

I didn't notice anything about "Situation B" in your link...?

[KU0DM]

It WAS evaluated.

But they lied.

Look it up.

Do you honestly think the time they were given was enough to get accurate evaluations?

Take time to realize who it was who demanded the timetable for those evaluations.

Climate research has been going on for centuries. People have been recording and making notes on weather for centuries.

[KC9IUX]

"She conspired [with the White House] to convince people to go into an unsafe environment . . . For that, she ought to be prosecuted," Nadler said. "People are dead because of her."


Quote from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan), concerning Christine Todd Whitman.

[KC9IUX]

Climate research has been going on for centuries. People have been recording and making notes on weather for centuries.


There's a big difference between record keeping and research.

The man made warming craze isn't centuries old, just a few years.

[KU0DM]

I didn't notice anything much about "Situation B" in your link...?

That's because that link was talking about the effect on hurricanes.

Insulation keeps heat or cold in right?

CO2 and carbon gases act as insulation right?

They also hold in the cooler gases.

Like house insulation.

[KC9IUX]

In your mind, that would mean Republicans also have zero credibility because of their lies.

Yep.

Zero.

[KU0DM]

Quote from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan), concerning Christine Todd Whitman.

One person, "Conspired with Whitehouse", so she wasn't alone.

Do you think that should reflect upon the whole agency?

[KU0DM]

There's a big difference between record keeping and research.

The man made warming craze isn't centuries old, just a few years.

Since the industrial revolution, it isn't just a few years.

There is a difference, but there still isn't a whole lot of separation because those records were kept for research.

[KC9IUX]

I ask you to site your source to how they manipulate statistics, and proof that the people that did that are DIRECTLY involved in climate research.


I asked you the same.

You didn't respond.

I will.

The same AGENCY you posted as proof.

[KU0DM]

You asked me to site my sources proving they manipulated facts?

I'm just interested to see who you are getting it from.

I must have missed your request for sources.

However in almost all of my posts, I have been citing sources.

[KC9IUX]

Walter Williams

Reining in the EPA


LAST MONTH, a federal court of appeals held that the Environmental Protection Agency has been acting in an unconstitutional manner.

In a case brought by the American Trucking Association against the EPA, joined in an important amicus curie brief by C. Boyden Gray, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens for a Sound Economy, the court suspended EPA's 1997 air quality regulations. Part of EPA's 1997 edict required states to regulate microscopic particles, or soot, down to 2.5 microns. That's 28 times smaller than the width of a human hair.

The EPA is required to articulate the "intelligible principle" that shapes its definition of unacceptable levels of smog and soot when writing new rules. However, the court said in mandating its 1997 air-quality standards, the EPA arbitrarily was "picking numbers out of thin air" and that its standards were "arbitrary and capricious." EPA's new rules would have cost Americans at least $46 billion, destroyed business and not saved a single life.

Repudiation of EPA's wacko science was important, but more important was the Court's finding that the section of the 1990 Clean Air Act upon which the EPA relied in issuing its controversial regulations amounted to "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power." The court held that the EPA's actions violated the "nondelegation" doctrine that prohibits Congress from entrusting legislative power to government agencies without legal standards to guide the use of the delegated power.

In other words, the EPA was making laws rather than enforcing them. But other government agencies are guilty of the same thing, so the court's decision could have far-reaching implications. The decision also sends a message to Congress that it should do its job of legislating, rather than passing it off to politically unaccountable agencies and courts.

With their typical economics misunderstanding, the news media described the court's decision as a major victory for a broad range of industry groups from trucking companies to electric utilities, who fought the tougher air quality rules as too expensive and ill-conceived. We can label it a business victory for the trucking and utility industries only if the rest of us don't benefit from lower-cost trucking and electricity.

The decision is really a victory for Americans who expect environmental regulations to be based on non-bogus science, and expect Congress and federal agencies to behave constitutionally. But I'm afraid there is a large percentage of Americans who want just the opposite as a means to accomplish their agenda to control the lives of others.

The past year hasn't been a good one for the EPA -- they've faced another stunning rebuke. Last July, U.S. District Court Judge William L. Osteen found reason to nullify the EPA's 1992 report that claimed second-hand smoke to be a class A human carcinogen and cause of lung cancer. He found that the EPA knowingly, willfully and aggressively put out false and misleading information.

In fact, if a graduate student or a professor wrote a report similar to the EPA, he would face repudiation by his colleagues, charges of academic dishonesty and summary dismissal from the university.

But I don't know whether Americans want the EPA and Congress to be honest. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" There are numerous laws, restrictions and regulations based upon the EPA's fraudulent report on second-hand tobacco smoke. How many Americans do you think would say, "Hey, now that we know that EPA 1992 report was a fraud, let's repeal all those laws and regulations based upon it"? I'm guessing most would say, "I don't like the smell of cigarettes and if it takes government fraud and duping the public to get rid of it, so be it."


Walter Williams, Prof., Geo. Mason University.

Fair use.

[KU0DM]

Ok, how about proof that the people involved in that are DIRECTLY involved in the research on climate change?

If you don't, then that means nothing other than a few people in a HUGE agency made a mistake, but that doesn't mean everyone in that agency did.

[KC9IUX]

Ok, how about proof that the people involved in that are DIRECTLY involved in the research on climate change?

If you don't, then that means nothing other than a few people in a HUGE agency made a mistake, but that doesn't mean everyone in that agency did.


Aw jeeze, a tree is know by the fruit it bears.

Not mistakes, LIES!!!!!!!!!!

[KC9IUX]

I want you to know, I don't care about winning an argument.

I just want you to be exposed to ideas and facts I know about.

Ciu Bono is the first question to be answered in any discussion on legislation.

Look into that.

[KU0DM]

Aw jeeze, a tree is know by the fruit it bears.

But not one fruit is exactly alike.

[KC9IUX]

But not one fruit is exactly alike.

Huh?:confused:

[KU0DM]

I want you to know, I don't care about winning an argument.

I just want you to be exposed to ideas and facts I know about.

Ciu Bono is the first question to be answered in any discussion on legislation.

Look into that.

I respect that.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you right now, because you haven't gotten nasty or rude, and are continuing this debate/argument with thoughtful posts. Trust me, I have thought about what you are posting. I just don't agree 100%. I as well am just exposing you to ideas and facts that I have.

[KU0DM]

Huh?:confused:

A tree is known by the fruit it bears, but not one fruit is exactly alike.

I mean you can judge a tree by the fruit it bears, but is that fair to the tree and rest of the fruit?

:D

If one is bad, should that mean the whole thing is bad?

[KC9IUX]

Thank you.

you haven't gotten nasty or rude,

How can I expect to try to change someones mind by doing that?

Discource on issues such as this, are supposed to try to bring a person around to what another person belives to be the truth.

Insults and such cannot do that, they are used to demoralize and win a fight at the cost of the idea..

[KU0DM]

Exactly.

You said it better than I could have ever said it.

In the last month, the hot topics that I have my own opinion on, I get attacked and insulted for.

It is usually only 1 person, but I still feel that detracts from the spirit of debate.

[K3XR]

Do you remember??

http://newsbusters.org/node/20701/print

[KC9IUX]

the hot topics that I have my own opinion on

I gather that you're young.

Trust me, your opinions will change with time, as you learn more.

Maybe not to the extent of agreeing with me or others like me, but as your knowledge and experience grow, it will happen.

[KC9IUX]

Ethenol is a bad idea for more reasons than I care to list.

Anything that needs subsidies is a bad idea.

The market will decide.

Look at metal recycling. It's frenzied at the moment, AND helping our environment.

The time will come for fossil fuels to be cast aside, but not by legislation.

[N4VGB]

CO2 isn't the only problem.

Plus, that 3.225% is a lot in reality. As well as the fact that percentage is constantly growing.



BINGO! Thank you for making my case! We have reduced our output of CO2 in the U.S. greatly and the percentage is still rising. We can reduce to zero and the percentage will still keep rising. So either the rest of the world is topping our highest CO2 production years and/or there's a lot more coming up from underground. That nasty old molten core has always been the biggest producer of CO2 in the world.

[N4VGB]

Exactly.

You said it better than I could have ever said it.

In the last month, the hot topics that I have my own opinion on, I get attacked and insulted for.

It is usually only 1 person, but I still feel that detracts from the spirit of debate.

No you don't. You get disagreement and you react badly to it every time. :)

[wa6ccw]

That's because that link was talking about the effect on hurricanes.

Insulation keeps heat or cold in right?

CO2 and carbon gases act as insulation right?

They also hold in the cooler gases.

Like house insulation.

Fair enough (as far as your explanation goes) but, again, the focal point of the link was simply "warming".

Again, with respect to hurricanes and "warming", I ask you to check THIS (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/26/fnc-accuweathers-bastardi-argues-against-blaming-global-warming-hurri) out.

[W4DFW]

Exactly.

You said it better than I could have ever said it.

In the last month, the hot topics that I have my own opinion on, I get attacked and insulted for.

It is usually only 1 person, but I still feel that detracts from the spirit of debate.

Better get used to it. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, though we sometimes try to keep things civilized here on the web, with varying results.

I see you are around 13 years old. Good for you!! I'd love to be your age again, well . . . no!!

Actually, I'd like to be 18. When I was that age, I knew everything and had every answer. I couldn't figure out why those stupid adults didn't get it.

Then I became one.

There is a saying, to paraphrase, "one who is 30 and is not liberal, has no heart. One who is 60 and is not conservative, has no brain."

There is a lot of truth to that statement, Lib'rul loones here notwithstanding.

You will find that your liberal beliefs will undergo a major change once you get a job, start paying taxes and move out of mommy and daddy's home.

There is a LOT of money to be made by soothsayers, and a sucker is born every minute. Al Gore understands that better than anyone.

We can argue whether man-made CO2 production has anything to do with the current global warming till the cows come home. One thing NO ONE can show is that man can do anything about it. All estimates suggest that short of a complete destruction of industry, there is not much man can do about global warming, and even THAT guarantees nothing.

Rather than argue over something that we will never agree on, we should instead focus on adapting to changes that will inevitably come along.

That, of course, doesn't make soothsayers money . . .

You figure it out.

................Bob

[KC9IUX]

No you don't. You get disagreement and you react badly to it every time.


As far as this thread goes, I haven't noticed that.

He's 13?:eek:

Not the typical 13 y/o spelling, grammar and reasoning.

Pretty darn good, I think.

[N4VGB]

As far as this thread goes, I haven't noticed that.

He's 13?:eek:

Not the typical 13 y/o spelling, grammar and reasoning.

Pretty darn good, I think.

Fully aware of all, you have a point?

[KC9IUX]

Been reading? :D

[N9XR]

Exactly.

You said it better than I could have ever said it.

In the last month, the hot topics that I have my own opinion on, I get attacked and insulted for.

It is usually only 1 person, but I still feel that detracts from the spirit of debate.

These guys do make sense in that you do have to deal with those less fortunate in the brain capacity department on a regular basis in life. Proof means little to nothing to them, and when they are managers or company leaders, the company goes down and all you can do is stand there and watch the carnage and shake your head in wonderment that they had the information and refused to heed known good advise.

Do these guys want to debate the issue of man directly affecting GW? Not at all. They think that many of us do as they do and get all our information from one source. They think that source is Al Gore and they hate the man. Regardless the fact that Dubya has introduced initiatives which indicate that man is creating GW, and as he takes steps to reduce emissions, there is a massive silence about his efforts as the quotes roll in like "There is a LOT of money to be made by soothsayers, and a sucker is born every minute. Al Gore understands that better than anyone." Hatred is the only "ends" here through the "means".

Once this is understood, you will understand that the debate is time poorly spent because no one will look at real data. Hit and run attacks are the methods they take to assure that the issue remains clouded and I love the response. "Well I am too retarded to understand the issue to be convinced, so there is no global warming."

That says it all.

[KV1M]

Fair enough (as far as your explanation goes) but, again, the focal point of the link was simply "warming".

Again, with respect to hurricanes and "warming", I ask you to check THIS (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/26/fnc-accuweathers-bastardi-argues-against-blaming-global-warming-hurri) out.

And more proof I was right and that you were the first to lie (and keep right on doing it, bet your going to lie again in your next post just like most of the others).

Hey liar, meet the kettle.

[N4VGB]

Hey liar, meet the kettle.


The old pot & kettle analogy? I'm surprised you would tag yourself as a liar!? :D

[KV1M]

The old pot & kettle analogy? I'm surprised you would tag yourself as a liar!? :D


I didn't, you and he did.

I am surprised that you continue to put yourself up here to be shot down like this.
You haven't had a statement stand the scrutiny of day for quite some time now. Must get frustrating for you to keep being made a fool of.

[N4VGB]

Must get frustrating for you to keep being made a fool of.


Mass frustration is definitely showing here but it's not from me! :D:D:D

[wa6ccw]

And more proof I was right and that you were the first to lie (and keep right on doing it, bet your going to lie again in your next post just like most of the others).

Hey liar, meet the kettle.

Yes, yes, more bluster from the king of the playground taunt.

Doncha just love it? :cool:

[wa6ccw]

Mass frustration is definitely showing here but it's not from me! :D:D:D

Ain't life grand??

;):D

[wa6ccw]

Fair enough (as far as your explanation goes) but, again, the focal point of the link was simply "warming".

Again, with respect to hurricanes and "warming", I ask you to check THIS (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/26/fnc-accuweathers-bastardi-argues-against-blaming-global-warming-hurri) out.

How about it, Duncan?

Did you get a chance to look at that link - and what do you think? Is the meteorologist off base, in your opinion?

[N4VGB]

Ain't life grand??

;):D

The entertainment factor would be so low here without his sort. I wouldn't even bother to post here without his ilk. :D

[wa6ccw]

The entertainment factor would be so low here without his sort. I wouldn't even bother to post here without his ilk. :D

I hear ya, my friend...

The prime directive out here (in my opinion) is to have fun and enjoy the vast entertainment provided by foot-in-the-mouth stooges like that guy from "across the pond". ;)

[KV1M]

I hear ya, my friend...

The prime directive out here (in my opinion) is to have fun and enjoy the vast entertainment provided by foot-in-the-mouth stooges like that guy from "across the pond". ;)

Righto there liar. My foot was never near my mouth, but yours is still firmly stuck down your throat.

5 pages proving me right all along, how wonderful.

[N4VGB]

I hear ya, my friend...