Global Warming is the perfect issue for people that need a cause (usually has to do with the government gravy train) here's why: Global has not been proven, that it is caused by man. There's even debate as to whether we are in a heating cycle or not. This gives broad room for the Dicaprios and Ted Danson's of the world to be flat wrong yet nobody will call them out on it. It also gives those who supposedly want to study this, ample excuse to get further funding , because damnit we have to find out more about it. Take this years hurricane season. Lotty dotty EVERYONE was woefully WRONG. Politicians love this issue because it makes them sound like they care. Then they take off in their private jets to go to another speaking engagement somewhere else across the country. Basically, the idiots who taut this so-called crisis, do it because it is a safe issue and there's lots of money to be made.
Geez Valrod, you're going to get NorthPataki going again: "There mountains of germaine and German scientist that swear on a stack of grants from last year and proposals for grants for the next year that the problem is bad and getting virulent and serupticious as time goes on. The earth is flat and will get flatter if we don't spend more tax dollars and ...."
While submitting my last post my daughter exclaimed: "How come it's always so cold, daddy?" which reminded me that the Orange County Register showed a bank clock showing 32 F (freezing point) at a Yorba Linda bank which is at a transition point between beach and desert climate in southern California. I used to see 38F in the San Gabriel mountain foothills twenty years ago. 35 years ago I remember it being in the 70's in Michigan in January. Last year I watched snowflakes fall past my office window on the 9th floor of an Irvine California office building. Make sure you mention none of this if you want to get your funding perpetuated or if you want to look like a concern politician or reporter.
Oh, I get it, just like Algore and that freezing NY movie was saying - global warming brings cold, and global cooling brings warm air! The genious those guys are! They must have IQ's in the upper 90's
In fact, global warming brings so much cold that skyscrapers are frozen up to the roofs. Not only freeze them, but do so in a matter of moments. Of course, there isn't enough moisture on the planet to do so, but facts be damned. It looked cool! I guess they were right all along. First global warming, then global cooling. Almost like its happened on this planet before. Or has the planet been 72 degrees since it was first formed? I forget.
TBarr, I realize this is the best you can manage. You know those unfortunate day laborers that so drive you crazy? You may want to consider borrowing one of these from them for when you run into trouble, as you so often, and so tragically, do. All other folks, if a call for debate based on facts, and a legitimate desire to look into this important topic is simply too much to handle, that's fine. As I said, Lorien, I appreciate you posting some interesting scientific information with an opposing view to mine. It helps me to learn.
Since NorthPuttaki isn't interested in researching opposing views to his views, I thought I'd do a little looking around for him (I thought about hiring an illegal like he likes to do at the restaurant). I found this nice little quote: This is not from a anti-religious left percpective so it has to be 100% discounted. Entire piece is here. Another nice seasoned piece is over on KHouse.org. Look into the Heidelberg Appeal and then we can start the my thousands of scientist can beat up your thousands of (global warming grant seeking) scientists.
Good, god, man. I regret this is all so difficult for you. Please refer to the post immediately before yours, sit with the words "I appreciate," and "opposing views to mine" -awhile, and try again. Personally, I am not frightened by opposing views, and love to be proven wrong, as I, uh, said. I call this "learning." You appear to be limited to playing the same childish games with my username as you do with the day laborers you enjoy shooting with spit balls (on the sly).
Wow... where did that post go? Anyway, like I was saying, north, this guy, whoever he is, don't like you. I think he's full of hot air... Another effect, naturally, of global warming.
I assume this is a non-consideration of what was cited in the khouse.org article. I don't think you are willing to look at or acknowledge the other side. If you are, what are the best arguments against the extreme predictions of global warming? I look at the claims of the warmers, those with opposing views, my own observations over the last 40 years, use my the engineering and quantitative sciences acquired while earning my Bachelors of Science and Masters degrees, and look at temperature trends over the centuries and I am not persuaded. You will agree that there are arguments against global warming, which ones are the best?
Quotes from that: I remember reading that a while ago. I actually read the particulars of what was wrongly taken out....it was funny what they took out of it. They just defaced science and UN credibility. You can't really believe the UN, anyways. The methods supported by them aren't necessarily oriented towards solving the 'issue', they're more political. I remember researching the numbers of scientist throughout the world. Not many if you really think about it. I wish I had the numbers....kind-of hard to find on the net. I had the breakdown of each field. The number is extremely low for those that are qualified in that field. I remember finding a significant big organization (of scientists) that opposed the 'concesus' among scientist that we hear so often. Again, I wish I remembered the organization...it was specifically dealing with enviromental sciences. The numbers (I remember) displayed a rather divided field of scientists. Thus I put this issue to the side, because it seemed to be unimportant or perhaps not as completely acceptable as a science as I believe it should be. Alternatives are really something we need, no matter what the deal is.
Your assumption is incorrect. It is a statement of fact, namely, that the very post after I write: You ignorantly wrote: Again, So, again, I will look forward to reading the work you have brought forward, as I will that of Lorien, and others. You will apparently not recall that I did read the work you originally cited, in flippant response to Ferret: That article referred to the work of Dr. Kossin. I went to the work of Dr. Kossin and found it said nothing of the kind reported in the article you cited. Regarding 100 year trends, Dr. Kossin and his colleagues indicated their research showed a high probability that the SST warming trend was contributed to, significantly, by man-made, greenhouse gases. And that SST warming trend contributed significantly to a 100% increase in cyclone and other adverse weather pattern upsurges. Regarding trends from the 1950's on, as I said, Dr. Kossin and his colleagues conclude the data is too poor to reach any firm conclusions yet. So, to summarize, you originally provided some material. I went to the material. I went further, to the scientist that material cites as source. And found it said nothing of the kind you or the article you cite represented. Game playing, ridiculously playing with usernames, lying, all these things are for children, TBarr. While I do appreciate you providing some articles, and I very much look forward to reading this information in good faith, your aspersions are baseless and unwarranted.
Northpointaiki, My last post asked one question twice. Here it is a third time: Can you answer that simple question?
Your last post asked one question twice? And a third time within a brief period? Now, I realize you are anxious to get a reply, TBarr, but inasmuch as they are credible theories, they require honorable consideration. You will note that I posted: -Less than 2 hours ago. I guess your leash is shorter when you are prejudicially charged, but hell, hold on to your horses for more than a matter of minutes, is my suggestion. Please try to hear this in good faith: I have not had time to delve into them. Once I have, I will contribute as I always do - when I am wrong, I admit so, when I find otherwise, I post accordingly.
While I'm going through alternative theories, a couple of stories, I think, that are interesting at the very least. Curious what others think. BS? Something to them? Canadian arctic shelf global warming, ocean temps, and wildfire cycles
Why is the breaking off of the Canadian Arctic Shelf BS? If the "collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it." Why then did it take 16 months for anyone to notice? Hmmmm... Yep, this happened 16 months ago, and Scientists just noticed... Odd. BS
Why nobody noticed: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061228.wshelf1228/BNStory/National/home In other news, water was found to be dripping from melting icicles