Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Where's the Global Warming

GUEST,Crowbar 20 Dec 05 - 12:36 AM
Bev and Jerry 20 Dec 05 - 12:56 AM
GUEST 20 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 01:28 AM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM
Ebbie 20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM
GUEST,Noddy 20 Dec 05 - 04:59 AM
GUEST,Rumncoke 20 Dec 05 - 05:48 AM
Paul Burke 20 Dec 05 - 06:11 AM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 06:23 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 06:38 AM
Donuel 20 Dec 05 - 06:40 AM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Dec 05 - 06:41 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 06:49 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 05 - 06:53 AM
freda underhill 20 Dec 05 - 06:58 AM
Pied Piper 20 Dec 05 - 07:57 AM
kendall 20 Dec 05 - 08:43 AM
Rapparee 20 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM
kendall 20 Dec 05 - 10:35 AM
TIA 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM
MMario 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM
Barry Finn 20 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM
Amos 20 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,petr 20 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM
Amos 20 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM
Bill D 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM
Bobert 20 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM
Teribus 21 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM
GUEST,Redhorse at work 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM
GUEST,a 21 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 05 - 08:52 AM
Rapparee 21 Dec 05 - 08:55 AM
GUEST,A 21 Dec 05 - 09:08 AM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 AM
Raptor 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM
GUEST,petr 21 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM
GUEST,Crowbar 21 Dec 05 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,Obie 21 Dec 05 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM
GUEST,Obie 21 Dec 05 - 02:43 PM
patmc 21 Dec 05 - 03:22 PM
GUEST,Obie 21 Dec 05 - 05:09 PM
GUEST,Redhorse at work 22 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM
Paul Burke 22 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM
freda underhill 22 Dec 05 - 06:33 PM
GUEST,AR282 22 Dec 05 - 06:46 PM
pdq 22 Dec 05 - 06:49 PM
GUEST,TIA 22 Dec 05 - 07:37 PM
Bobert 22 Dec 05 - 08:00 PM
GUEST 22 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM
Metchosin 23 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM
GUEST,Crowbar 23 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM
Peace 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM
robomatic 23 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM
Peace 23 Dec 05 - 08:36 PM
dianavan 24 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM
Peace 24 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM
freda underhill 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 AM
Donuel 04 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM
Peace 04 Jan 06 - 07:35 PM
GUEST,just a guest 04 Jan 06 - 08:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 06 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,TIA 05 Jan 06 - 08:54 AM
GUEST,Crowbar 06 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM
Barry Finn 06 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM
GUEST,DB 06 Jan 06 - 05:55 AM
TIA 06 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM
Donuel 06 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM
freda underhill 07 Jan 06 - 10:13 AM
danensis 07 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM
pdq 07 Jan 06 - 01:01 PM
GUEST,Crowbar 07 Jan 06 - 04:43 PM
pdq 27 May 06 - 09:16 AM
Ron Davies 27 May 06 - 09:30 AM
pdq 27 May 06 - 09:37 AM
Bunnahabhain 27 May 06 - 10:18 AM
Little Hawk 27 May 06 - 11:06 AM
Bill D 27 May 06 - 11:08 AM
Ron Davies 27 May 06 - 12:22 PM
pdq 27 May 06 - 12:34 PM
Bill D 27 May 06 - 12:55 PM
Ron Davies 27 May 06 - 01:10 PM
The Fooles Troupe 27 May 06 - 05:47 PM
gnu 27 May 06 - 05:57 PM
The Fooles Troupe 27 May 06 - 06:30 PM
Grab 28 May 06 - 04:54 PM
Don Firth 28 May 06 - 05:03 PM
Bill D 28 May 06 - 05:45 PM
pdq 28 May 06 - 06:30 PM
freda underhill 28 May 06 - 06:50 PM
Peace 28 May 06 - 07:19 PM
Peace 28 May 06 - 07:22 PM
freda underhill 28 May 06 - 08:20 PM
The Fooles Troupe 29 May 06 - 08:50 AM
freda underhill 03 Jun 06 - 09:21 PM
GUEST,Frank 04 Jun 06 - 12:21 PM
Ebbie 04 Jun 06 - 01:57 PM
kendall 05 Jun 06 - 05:04 AM
The Fooles Troupe 05 Jun 06 - 07:08 AM
GUEST,Bart 05 Jun 06 - 10:51 PM
GUEST,TIA 05 Jun 06 - 11:20 PM
The Fooles Troupe 06 Jun 06 - 08:47 AM
Wolfgang 12 Jun 06 - 10:49 AM
pdq 12 Jun 06 - 11:03 AM
GUEST,Andy 13 Jun 06 - 12:16 AM
The Fooles Troupe 13 Jun 06 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,Andy 13 Jun 06 - 09:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM
GUEST,Andy 13 Jun 06 - 10:03 PM
Wolfgang 16 Jun 06 - 04:31 PM
Barry Finn 16 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Jun 06 - 06:18 PM
Bunnahabhain 16 Jun 06 - 06:22 PM
Bill D 16 Jun 06 - 09:06 PM
DougR 17 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM
Little Hawk 17 Jun 06 - 04:55 PM
GUEST,Obie 18 Jun 06 - 01:37 AM
Bunnahabhain 18 Jun 06 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,Andy 18 Jun 06 - 10:52 AM
Ron Davies 18 Jun 06 - 01:39 PM
Little Hawk 18 Jun 06 - 02:45 PM
Ron Davies 18 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM
Bill D 18 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM
Peace 18 Jun 06 - 05:02 PM
Amos 18 Jun 06 - 08:28 PM
Amos 18 Jun 06 - 08:44 PM
Bill D 18 Jun 06 - 08:55 PM
Amos 18 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM
Amos 18 Jun 06 - 09:03 PM
GUEST,Obie 19 Jun 06 - 05:53 AM
Amos 19 Jun 06 - 09:08 AM
Amos 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 AM
Bunnahabhain 19 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM
Little Hawk 19 Jun 06 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,Obie 19 Jun 06 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Jun 06 - 07:53 PM
GUEST,Obie 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM
Little Hawk 19 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM
Amos 20 Jun 06 - 12:11 AM
Donuel 20 Jun 06 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Andy 20 Jun 06 - 09:50 AM
Bunnahabhain 20 Jun 06 - 10:42 AM
GUEST,Andy 20 Jun 06 - 08:35 PM
Ebbie 20 Jun 06 - 08:49 PM
Amos 20 Jun 06 - 09:18 PM
Ebbie 20 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM
GUEST 20 Jun 06 - 10:06 PM
Amos 20 Jun 06 - 11:39 PM
Ebbie 21 Jun 06 - 02:30 AM
GUEST,Al 21 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM
freda underhill 22 Jun 06 - 11:34 AM
Bill D 22 Jun 06 - 07:44 PM
Amos 31 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM
The Fooles Troupe 31 Jul 06 - 08:51 PM
GUEST,TIA 31 Jul 06 - 10:46 PM
GUEST,Al 31 Jul 06 - 10:52 PM
The Fooles Troupe 01 Aug 06 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Aug 06 - 12:04 AM
DougR 02 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM
SINSULL 02 Aug 06 - 05:32 PM
TIA 02 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM
GUEST,Al 02 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM
Don Firth 02 Aug 06 - 06:55 PM
Don Firth 02 Aug 06 - 08:06 PM
Bill D 02 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM
GUEST,Al 02 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM
GUEST,TIA 03 Aug 06 - 10:31 AM
Amos 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Al 03 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM
Peace 03 Aug 06 - 06:29 PM
GUEST,Al 03 Aug 06 - 06:38 PM
GUEST,Al 03 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM
Bill D 03 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM
Don Firth 03 Aug 06 - 08:20 PM
Peace 03 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM
Don Firth 03 Aug 06 - 10:03 PM
Don Firth 03 Aug 06 - 10:26 PM
GUEST,Al 03 Aug 06 - 10:34 PM
Bill D 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM
GUEST,Al 03 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM
Bill D 03 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM
GUEST,Al 04 Aug 06 - 12:14 AM
Little Hawk 04 Aug 06 - 12:25 AM
Don Firth 04 Aug 06 - 01:09 AM
GUEST,Al 04 Aug 06 - 09:07 AM
The Fooles Troupe 04 Aug 06 - 09:19 AM
GUEST,Al 04 Aug 06 - 10:25 PM
freda underhill 11 Aug 06 - 08:48 AM
The Fooles Troupe 11 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM
Don Firth 11 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 04:18 AM
Don Firth 15 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM
Amos 15 Oct 06 - 01:41 PM
Don Firth 15 Oct 06 - 01:45 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 04:06 PM
Amos 15 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM
Bunnahabhain 15 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM
Greg F. 15 Oct 06 - 05:49 PM
Don Firth 15 Oct 06 - 08:35 PM
Ron Davies 15 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM
Don Firth 15 Oct 06 - 09:16 PM
GUEST,Old Fat Woody 15 Oct 06 - 09:20 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM
GUEST,Boab 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 10:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Oct 06 - 10:26 PM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 11:04 PM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 06 - 11:11 PM
Old Guy 15 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM
The Fooles Troupe 16 Oct 06 - 07:18 AM
Bunnahabhain 16 Oct 06 - 07:52 AM
Alice 16 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM
Wolfgang 16 Oct 06 - 11:14 AM
Don Firth 16 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM
Old Guy 16 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Oct 06 - 11:15 PM
Don Firth 16 Oct 06 - 11:21 PM
Old Guy 17 Oct 06 - 01:13 AM
Barry Finn 17 Oct 06 - 02:51 AM
Bunnahabhain 17 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM
GUEST,TIA 17 Oct 06 - 08:17 AM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM
GUEST 17 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM
Amos 17 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM
Don Firth 17 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM
Bill D 17 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM
Don Firth 17 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM
Old Guy 17 Oct 06 - 09:50 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM
Old Guy 17 Oct 06 - 11:05 PM
GUEST,TIA 17 Oct 06 - 11:18 PM
Old Guy 17 Oct 06 - 11:50 PM
Don Firth 18 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 AM
GUEST,TIA 18 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM
Bunnahabhain 18 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 01:17 PM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM
Don Firth 18 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,TIA 18 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM
Bill D 18 Oct 06 - 02:44 PM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM
Bill D 18 Oct 06 - 03:10 PM
GUEST,Al Gore 18 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,ibo 18 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM
Don Firth 18 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM
GUEST,TIA 18 Oct 06 - 09:12 PM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Oct 06 - 09:21 PM
Old Guy 18 Oct 06 - 10:48 PM
Don Firth 18 Oct 06 - 11:47 PM
Old Guy 19 Oct 06 - 12:12 AM
DougR 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 AM
Don Firth 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM
Greg F. 19 Oct 06 - 05:59 PM
DougR 19 Oct 06 - 07:54 PM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Oct 06 - 08:04 PM
Don Firth 19 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Oct 06 - 10:58 PM
Old Guy 20 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Oct 06 - 11:28 PM
TIA 21 Oct 06 - 12:17 AM
Greg F. 21 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM
Bunnahabhain 21 Oct 06 - 10:07 AM
Alice 21 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,Old Fat Woody 21 Oct 06 - 02:24 PM
TIA 21 Oct 06 - 04:26 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM
Sawzaw 05 Jul 09 - 09:26 AM
DougR 05 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM
pdq 05 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM
Alice 05 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM
Noreen 05 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM
Alice 05 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM
pdq 05 Jul 09 - 06:01 PM
pdq 05 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM
DougR 06 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM
Peace 06 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM
pdq 06 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM
Peace 06 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM
Zen 06 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Jul 09 - 06:30 PM
Bill D 06 Jul 09 - 06:40 PM
pdq 06 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM
Peace 06 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM
pdq 06 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM
Art Thieme 07 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM
Amos 07 Jul 09 - 11:34 PM
DougR 08 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM
TIA 08 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM
Amos 08 Jul 09 - 05:08 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 08 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 08 Jul 09 - 05:19 PM
TIA 08 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM
Bill D 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM
Bill D 08 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 08 Jul 09 - 08:34 PM
Peace 08 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM
Amos 08 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Jul 09 - 11:06 PM
DougR 09 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 06:38 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Jul 09 - 07:11 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Jul 09 - 08:11 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 09 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Jul 09 - 09:02 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 09:09 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM
gnu 09 Jul 09 - 09:41 PM
The Fooles Troupe 09 Jul 09 - 09:44 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM
Bill D 09 Jul 09 - 10:55 PM
Peace 09 Jul 09 - 11:03 PM
Amos 09 Jul 09 - 11:32 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM
GUEST 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM
Bill D 10 Jul 09 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 10 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM
TIA 10 Jul 09 - 01:42 PM
Bill D 10 Jul 09 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 PM
Amos 10 Jul 09 - 03:27 PM
pdq 10 Jul 09 - 04:30 PM
Bill D 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM
Midchuck 10 Jul 09 - 09:46 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM
Bill D 10 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM
Bill D 11 Jul 09 - 12:08 AM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 12:10 AM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 09 - 12:22 AM
Peace 11 Jul 09 - 02:09 AM
Peace 11 Jul 09 - 02:16 AM
Amos 11 Jul 09 - 03:15 PM
pdq 12 Jul 09 - 01:17 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM
Amos 12 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 09 - 02:48 PM
pdq 12 Jul 09 - 02:58 PM
Stringsinger 13 Jul 09 - 02:50 PM
TIA 13 Jul 09 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 08:44 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 08:55 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 09:01 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM
GUEST 13 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 10:16 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 10:33 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM
Amos 13 Jul 09 - 11:02 PM
Peace 13 Jul 09 - 11:10 PM
Peace 13 Jul 09 - 11:15 PM
Amos 14 Jul 09 - 11:24 PM
Little Hawk 15 Jul 09 - 02:27 AM
pdq 15 Jul 09 - 09:32 AM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 09:40 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 15 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM
Stringsinger 15 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM
Amos 15 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM
beardedbruce 15 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM
Bill D 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM
Amos 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,ken mellor 15 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM
Amos 15 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM
beardedbruce 15 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM
TIA 15 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM
Bill D 15 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM
beardedbruce 15 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM
Bill D 15 Jul 09 - 10:10 PM
beardedbruce 16 Jul 09 - 11:42 AM
Zen 16 Jul 09 - 12:10 PM
Bill D 16 Jul 09 - 12:14 PM
Amos 16 Jul 09 - 12:29 PM
Leadfingers 16 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM
TIA 17 Jul 09 - 07:02 AM
Stringsinger 17 Jul 09 - 10:40 AM
pdq 17 Jul 09 - 11:09 AM
Amos 17 Jul 09 - 11:48 AM
TIA 17 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM
beardedbruce 23 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM
Little Hawk 24 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 07:52 AM
TIA 27 Jul 09 - 12:43 PM
Bill D 27 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jul 09 - 01:50 PM
pdq 27 Jul 09 - 02:29 PM
Peace 27 Jul 09 - 02:32 PM
Bill D 27 Jul 09 - 02:42 PM
pdq 27 Jul 09 - 04:10 PM
TIA 27 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jul 09 - 05:10 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:17 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:23 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:38 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM
Bill D 27 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM
Little Hawk 27 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM
Bill D 27 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM
pdq 27 Jul 09 - 07:24 PM
DougR 27 Jul 09 - 09:54 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jul 09 - 12:14 AM
pdq 28 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM
beardedbruce 28 Jul 09 - 10:21 AM
TIA 28 Jul 09 - 10:28 AM
Peace 28 Jul 09 - 11:14 AM
pdq 28 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 12:28 PM
Ebbie 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM
Amos 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 01:19 PM
gnu 28 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM
pdq 28 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM
beardedbruce 28 Jul 09 - 01:57 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 02:25 PM
TIA 28 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM
pdq 28 Jul 09 - 03:22 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 03:28 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM
Amos 28 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM
Ebbie 28 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM
beardedbruce 28 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM
beardedbruce 28 Jul 09 - 04:42 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM
Amos 28 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jul 09 - 05:24 PM
TIA 28 Jul 09 - 05:42 PM
Amos 28 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM
Bill D 28 Jul 09 - 07:02 PM
Little Hawk 28 Jul 09 - 07:12 PM
Amos 28 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jul 09 - 03:02 AM
pdq 29 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM
Ebbie 29 Jul 09 - 12:12 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM
Riginslinger 29 Jul 09 - 12:25 PM
pdq 29 Jul 09 - 12:39 PM
gnu 29 Jul 09 - 01:40 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jul 09 - 02:07 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM
Little Hawk 29 Jul 09 - 03:53 PM
Don Firth 29 Jul 09 - 04:04 PM
TheSilentOne 29 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM
Peace 29 Jul 09 - 05:58 PM
TIA 30 Jul 09 - 08:52 AM
Amos 30 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM
Amos 30 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM
Amos 30 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM
Amos 30 Jul 09 - 01:12 PM
Amos 31 Jul 09 - 03:01 PM
Amos 03 Aug 09 - 11:24 AM
beardedbruce 07 Aug 09 - 04:10 PM
Amos 07 Aug 09 - 04:24 PM
beardedbruce 07 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM
Amos 16 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM
Amos 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Aug 09 - 09:02 PM
Amos 17 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Aug 09 - 10:13 PM
Bill D 17 Aug 09 - 10:17 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Aug 09 - 10:19 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Aug 09 - 10:23 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM
TIA 18 Aug 09 - 02:28 AM
Leadfingers 18 Aug 09 - 06:36 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 18 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM
Bill D 18 Aug 09 - 10:38 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 18 Aug 09 - 10:40 PM
Amos 18 Aug 09 - 10:59 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 18 Aug 09 - 11:15 PM
Amos 03 Sep 09 - 08:20 PM
Sawzaw 03 Sep 09 - 09:45 PM
Bill D 03 Sep 09 - 10:12 PM
Amos 03 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM
beardedbruce 04 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM
Bill D 04 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM
Ebbie 04 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 04 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM
Bill D 04 Sep 09 - 02:14 PM
Don Firth 04 Sep 09 - 02:56 PM
beardedbruce 04 Sep 09 - 03:00 PM
beardedbruce 04 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM
Don Firth 04 Sep 09 - 03:56 PM
Amos 04 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM
Don Firth 04 Sep 09 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,KP 04 Sep 09 - 06:42 PM
Ed T 04 Sep 09 - 07:38 PM
Amos 05 Sep 09 - 01:35 AM
Sawzaw 06 Dec 09 - 12:06 PM
GUEST,KP 06 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM
pdq 06 Dec 09 - 12:31 PM
Amos 06 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM
pdq 06 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM
Sawzaw 06 Dec 09 - 02:44 PM
Sawzaw 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM
Mavis Enderby 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM
Amos 06 Dec 09 - 03:57 PM
Sawzaw 06 Dec 09 - 04:04 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 04:32 PM
pdq 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM
Sawzaw 06 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM
GUEST,KP 06 Dec 09 - 06:31 PM
pdq 06 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM
Ed T 06 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM
Mavis Enderby 07 Dec 09 - 02:33 AM
GUEST,KP 07 Dec 09 - 06:47 AM
pdq 07 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM
Amos 07 Dec 09 - 11:45 AM
Amos 07 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,TIA 07 Dec 09 - 12:04 PM
GUEST,KP 07 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM
pdq 07 Dec 09 - 01:47 PM
Little Hawk 07 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM
Ed T 07 Dec 09 - 03:37 PM
Amos 07 Dec 09 - 04:01 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 04:05 PM
pdq 07 Dec 09 - 04:13 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 04:14 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM
pdq 07 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM
Little Hawk 07 Dec 09 - 04:59 PM
Ed T 07 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM
TIA 07 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM
Little Hawk 07 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM
GUEST,KP 07 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM
pdq 07 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM
Amos 07 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM
Ed T 08 Dec 09 - 09:26 AM
Amos 08 Dec 09 - 10:01 AM
Brian Peters 08 Dec 09 - 10:56 AM
Sawzaw 08 Dec 09 - 12:03 PM
Mavis Enderby 08 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Dec 09 - 12:50 PM
Amos 08 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM
Bill D 08 Dec 09 - 02:52 PM
Penny S. 08 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,Phallan 09 Dec 09 - 10:19 AM
Alice 09 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM
GUEST,TIA 09 Dec 09 - 11:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,bankley 09 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM
Penny S. 09 Dec 09 - 06:52 PM
Stringsinger 09 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM
Sawzaw 09 Dec 09 - 10:14 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Dec 09 - 10:22 PM
Sawzaw 09 Dec 09 - 11:41 PM
Sawzaw 09 Dec 09 - 11:50 PM
GUEST,KP 10 Dec 09 - 07:31 AM
Ed T 10 Dec 09 - 07:52 AM
Donuel 10 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,TIA 10 Dec 09 - 11:01 AM
GUEST,TIA 10 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM
Donuel 10 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Dec 09 - 01:30 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM
Penny S. 10 Dec 09 - 03:47 PM
Sawzaw 10 Dec 09 - 10:53 PM
GUEST,TIA 10 Dec 09 - 11:50 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Dec 09 - 12:03 AM
Donuel 11 Dec 09 - 12:13 AM
GUEST,thurg 11 Dec 09 - 08:47 AM
Ed T 11 Dec 09 - 09:45 AM
Ed T 11 Dec 09 - 09:47 AM
Amos 11 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Dec 09 - 01:51 PM
pdq 16 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM
Don Firth 16 Dec 09 - 01:40 PM
Bill D 16 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM
Sawzaw 18 Dec 09 - 12:35 PM
Sawzaw 18 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM
Bill D 18 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM
pdq 18 Dec 09 - 06:28 PM
Sawzaw 19 Dec 09 - 01:33 AM
Sawzaw 19 Dec 09 - 01:46 AM
TIA 19 Dec 09 - 07:53 AM
Sawzaw 19 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM
TIA 19 Dec 09 - 10:40 AM
Sawzaw 19 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM
TIA 19 Dec 09 - 12:19 PM
Bill D 19 Dec 09 - 12:49 PM
Bill D 19 Dec 09 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM
akenaton 20 Dec 09 - 06:37 AM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM
Amos 20 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 09 - 08:40 PM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM
Amos 20 Dec 09 - 09:26 PM
Sawzaw 20 Dec 09 - 10:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 09 - 05:30 AM
TheSnail 21 Dec 09 - 07:16 AM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 09 - 07:39 AM
GUEST,KP 21 Dec 09 - 12:09 PM
Amos 21 Dec 09 - 12:44 PM
pdq 21 Dec 09 - 01:57 PM
Amos 21 Dec 09 - 02:05 PM
TIA 21 Dec 09 - 02:33 PM
pdq 21 Dec 09 - 03:45 PM
TIA 21 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM
GUEST,KP 21 Dec 09 - 05:15 PM
pdq 21 Dec 09 - 05:21 PM
Amos 21 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 10:02 AM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 10:20 AM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM
Bill D 23 Dec 09 - 11:26 AM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM
Sawzaw 23 Dec 09 - 12:26 PM
Ringer 23 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM
Amos 23 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 09 - 10:48 AM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 09 - 11:16 AM
Bill D 24 Dec 09 - 11:32 AM
TheSnail 24 Dec 09 - 11:43 AM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM
Sawzaw 24 Dec 09 - 04:05 PM
Sawzaw 26 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM
Sawzaw 26 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM
Sawzaw 26 Dec 09 - 01:09 PM
Sawzaw 26 Dec 09 - 02:02 PM
Bill D 26 Dec 09 - 02:19 PM
TheSnail 28 Dec 09 - 07:45 AM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 11:51 AM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 12:32 PM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 09 - 01:18 PM
bobad 28 Dec 09 - 01:18 PM
Little Hawk 28 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 02:23 PM
Little Hawk 28 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 02:42 PM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 09 - 03:01 PM
Sawzaw 28 Dec 09 - 03:14 PM
Little Hawk 28 Dec 09 - 03:52 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 09 - 04:19 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM
gnu 28 Dec 09 - 05:23 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 05:34 PM
gnu 28 Dec 09 - 05:39 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 05:40 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 05:41 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 09 - 07:15 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 08:57 PM
Ed T 28 Dec 09 - 09:30 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 09 - 10:47 PM
Little Hawk 28 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 09:32 AM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 09:35 AM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 09:36 AM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 10:21 AM
Little Hawk 29 Dec 09 - 10:37 AM
Bill D 29 Dec 09 - 10:50 AM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 11:00 AM
Little Hawk 29 Dec 09 - 11:43 AM
Little Hawk 29 Dec 09 - 11:44 AM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 12:02 PM
Donuel 29 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM
GUEST,chaz brewer 29 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM
TheSnail 29 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM
Ed T 29 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM
Sawzaw 30 Dec 09 - 01:12 AM
TIA 30 Dec 09 - 10:04 AM
TIA 30 Dec 09 - 10:12 AM
Little Hawk 30 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM
Ed T 30 Dec 09 - 10:53 AM
pdq 30 Dec 09 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Dec 09 - 02:29 PM
Little Hawk 30 Dec 09 - 07:26 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Dec 09 - 11:51 PM
Ed T 31 Dec 09 - 09:56 AM
Sawzaw 11 Jan 10 - 12:14 PM
Sawzaw 11 Jan 10 - 12:20 PM
Sawzaw 11 Jan 10 - 12:38 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Jan 10 - 12:56 PM
Bill D 11 Jan 10 - 12:57 PM
Sawzaw 11 Jan 10 - 03:35 PM
Amos 11 Jan 10 - 03:51 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Jan 10 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM
Paul Burke 12 Jan 10 - 03:48 PM
Rumncoke 12 Jan 10 - 06:11 PM
Ed T 12 Jan 10 - 06:50 PM
Sawzaw 12 Jan 10 - 11:57 PM
Sawzaw 13 Jan 10 - 01:08 AM
GUEST,TIA 13 Jan 10 - 10:07 AM
Amos 13 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM
Ed T 13 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Jan 10 - 09:42 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jan 10 - 09:52 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM
Little Hawk 13 Jan 10 - 10:06 PM
Ed T 14 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM
Ringer 14 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,KP 14 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM
GUEST,KP 14 Jan 10 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Jan 10 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Jan 10 - 04:46 PM
Little Hawk 14 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM
mousethief 14 Jan 10 - 10:21 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM
Sawzaw 15 Jan 10 - 02:06 AM
Little Hawk 15 Jan 10 - 02:33 AM
Ringer 15 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM
beardedbruce 15 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Jan 10 - 05:03 PM
Sawzaw 15 Jan 10 - 11:20 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM
Donuel 16 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM
Bill D 16 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM
Sawzaw 18 Jan 10 - 11:08 AM
Bill D 18 Jan 10 - 12:13 PM
mousethief 18 Jan 10 - 12:47 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM
Sawzaw 18 Jan 10 - 01:56 PM
mousethief 18 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM
mousethief 18 Jan 10 - 02:12 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM
mousethief 18 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 10 - 04:02 PM
mousethief 18 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM
Bill D 18 Jan 10 - 10:31 PM
Sawzaw 18 Jan 10 - 11:38 PM
mousethief 19 Jan 10 - 12:20 AM
Amos 19 Jan 10 - 03:54 AM
Wolfgang 19 Jan 10 - 08:40 AM
Wolfgang 19 Jan 10 - 08:55 AM
Bill D 19 Jan 10 - 11:48 AM
beardedbruce 19 Jan 10 - 12:01 PM
beardedbruce 19 Jan 10 - 12:24 PM
Bill D 19 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM
DougR 19 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM
mousethief 19 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM
Sawzaw 20 Jan 10 - 12:22 AM
mousethief 20 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM
Sawzaw 20 Jan 10 - 01:31 AM
Sawzaw 20 Jan 10 - 02:00 AM
mousethief 20 Jan 10 - 02:13 AM
Bill D 20 Jan 10 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 Jan 10 - 10:18 PM
Sawzaw 20 Jan 10 - 11:08 PM
mousethief 20 Jan 10 - 11:18 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Jan 10 - 10:30 AM
Mr Happy 21 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM
Sawzaw 21 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM
Sawzaw 21 Jan 10 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM
Amos 22 Jan 10 - 10:20 AM
Ed T 22 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM
pdq 22 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM
Ebbie 22 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM
pdq 22 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM
Ebbie 22 Jan 10 - 05:26 PM
Ed T 22 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 09:57 AM
Ringer 25 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM
Ebbie 25 Jan 10 - 01:24 PM
mousethief 25 Jan 10 - 02:14 PM
DougR 25 Jan 10 - 02:26 PM
Amos 25 Jan 10 - 02:57 PM
Bill D 25 Jan 10 - 03:07 PM
Bill D 25 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM
pdq 25 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM
Bill D 25 Jan 10 - 05:38 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 06:03 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 06:08 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 09:46 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM
Ed T 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 10:05 PM
Bill D 25 Jan 10 - 10:07 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 11:15 PM
Sawzaw 25 Jan 10 - 11:48 PM
TheSnail 26 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM
Bill D 26 Jan 10 - 12:50 PM
Wolfgang 26 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM
Sawzaw 26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 10 - 02:19 PM
pdq 26 Jan 10 - 02:39 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM
Sawzaw 26 Jan 10 - 03:58 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM
Ed T 26 Jan 10 - 05:51 PM
Donuel 26 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM
Amos 26 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM
Ed T 26 Jan 10 - 08:48 PM
Bill D 26 Jan 10 - 10:10 PM
Donuel 26 Jan 10 - 10:15 PM
Sawzaw 26 Jan 10 - 10:34 PM
Sawzaw 26 Jan 10 - 11:14 PM
Bill D 27 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM
pdq 27 Jan 10 - 10:25 AM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 12:37 PM
Amos 27 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 02:56 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 03:42 PM
Amos 27 Jan 10 - 04:00 PM
Bill D 27 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 08:35 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 08:51 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 08:56 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 09:05 PM
Sawzaw 27 Jan 10 - 09:57 PM
GUEST,KP 28 Jan 10 - 05:41 PM
Sawzaw 28 Jan 10 - 11:07 PM
Sawzaw 28 Jan 10 - 11:29 PM
Sawzaw 29 Jan 10 - 08:55 PM
Sawzaw 29 Jan 10 - 09:15 PM
Sawzaw 31 Jan 10 - 10:03 PM
Sawzaw 04 Feb 10 - 04:15 PM
Sawzaw 04 Feb 10 - 04:58 PM
Sawzaw 05 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM
Sawzaw 06 Feb 10 - 11:56 AM
Sawzaw 06 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 10 - 07:44 AM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 10 - 07:45 AM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 10 - 07:47 AM
Sawzaw 15 Feb 10 - 06:24 PM
Sawzaw 16 Feb 10 - 12:46 AM
beardedbruce 16 Feb 10 - 09:57 AM
beardedbruce 16 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM
GUEST,KP 17 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 01:15 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 01:20 PM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 10 - 05:11 PM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 10 - 05:15 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,KP 17 Feb 10 - 05:44 PM
Little Hawk 17 Feb 10 - 05:54 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 06:08 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 06:15 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 06:19 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM
Bill D 17 Feb 10 - 07:38 PM
Sawzaw 17 Feb 10 - 11:23 PM
Sawzaw 17 Feb 10 - 11:26 PM
Amos 17 Feb 10 - 11:41 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 12:13 AM
beardedbruce 18 Feb 10 - 08:12 AM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM
Amos 18 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM
pdq 18 Feb 10 - 05:18 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 05:33 PM
Amos 18 Feb 10 - 06:17 PM
gnu 18 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 06:52 PM
Amos 18 Feb 10 - 07:13 PM
Bill D 18 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 09:06 PM
gnu 18 Feb 10 - 09:15 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 09:21 PM
Bill D 18 Feb 10 - 10:00 PM
Amos 18 Feb 10 - 11:19 PM
Sawzaw 18 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 10 - 07:09 AM
Amos 19 Feb 10 - 10:35 AM
Amos 19 Feb 10 - 11:17 AM
GUEST,infowars.com 19 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM
Bill D 19 Feb 10 - 02:33 PM
Bill D 19 Feb 10 - 02:43 PM
Don Firth 19 Feb 10 - 02:51 PM
Sawzaw 19 Feb 10 - 03:46 PM
Sawzaw 19 Feb 10 - 11:58 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 10 - 09:07 AM
Amos 20 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM
Sawzaw 20 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM
Amos 20 Feb 10 - 05:32 PM
Bill D 20 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 10 - 07:11 PM
Sawzaw 21 Feb 10 - 02:36 PM
Sawzaw 21 Feb 10 - 10:27 PM
Sawzaw 21 Feb 10 - 10:40 PM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 07:30 AM
GUEST,KP 22 Feb 10 - 08:01 AM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 08:22 AM
Ebbie 22 Feb 10 - 10:04 AM
Sawzaw 22 Feb 10 - 10:48 AM
Sawzaw 22 Feb 10 - 11:02 AM
Ebbie 22 Feb 10 - 11:14 AM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 11:38 AM
Wolfgang 22 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 11:49 AM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 12:00 PM
Bill D 22 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 10 - 01:33 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 01:54 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM
Amos 22 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM
Sawzaw 23 Feb 10 - 02:29 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 10 - 08:28 AM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 10:33 AM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM
pdq 23 Feb 10 - 11:32 AM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 12:01 PM
pdq 23 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 01:39 PM
Sawzaw 23 Feb 10 - 02:50 PM
Amos 23 Feb 10 - 03:25 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM
Amos 25 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM
Amos 25 Feb 10 - 11:03 AM
Amos 25 Feb 10 - 11:11 AM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 10 - 12:11 PM
Sawzaw 25 Feb 10 - 02:56 PM
Amos 25 Feb 10 - 02:59 PM
Amos 25 Feb 10 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 10 - 06:48 PM
freda underhill 26 Feb 10 - 03:52 AM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 10 - 04:17 AM
freda underhill 26 Feb 10 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM
Amos 26 Feb 10 - 11:11 AM
Sawzaw 26 Feb 10 - 12:20 PM
Amos 26 Feb 10 - 12:37 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 10 - 04:20 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM
Sawzaw 27 Feb 10 - 12:29 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Feb 10 - 01:24 AM
Amos 27 Feb 10 - 02:12 AM
Sawzaw 27 Feb 10 - 02:17 PM
Sawzaw 27 Feb 10 - 03:35 PM
Amos 28 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM
Sawzaw 28 Feb 10 - 12:57 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 01:12 PM
pdq 28 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM
Amos 28 Feb 10 - 01:22 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM
Ebbie 28 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 04:18 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 04:34 PM
Ebbie 28 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM
Sawzaw 28 Feb 10 - 09:39 PM
pdq 28 Feb 10 - 09:59 PM
Ebbie 28 Feb 10 - 10:44 PM
GUEST,KP 01 Mar 10 - 05:20 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 05:27 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 06:01 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,KP 01 Mar 10 - 08:06 AM
beardedbruce 01 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,KP 01 Mar 10 - 08:41 AM
beardedbruce 01 Mar 10 - 08:42 AM
freda underhill 01 Mar 10 - 08:47 AM
pdq 01 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM
Amos 01 Mar 10 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 01 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 01 Mar 10 - 11:48 AM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 10 - 11:53 AM
Andy Jackson 01 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM
Amos 01 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM
Amos 01 Mar 10 - 01:13 PM
Amos 01 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM
Amos 01 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM
beardedbruce 01 Mar 10 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,KP 02 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM
Sawzaw 02 Mar 10 - 01:30 PM
Amos 02 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 03 Mar 10 - 06:37 AM
Little Hawk 03 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM
Amos 03 Mar 10 - 11:40 AM
Little Hawk 03 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,KP 03 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM
Amos 03 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM
Little Hawk 03 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Mar 10 - 11:43 PM
Sawzaw 04 Mar 10 - 12:12 AM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 10 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 04 Mar 10 - 05:57 AM
Ringer 04 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 10 - 10:55 AM
Amos 04 Mar 10 - 11:15 AM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM
pdq 04 Mar 10 - 11:45 AM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM
Amos 04 Mar 10 - 03:19 PM
freda underhill 05 Mar 10 - 02:37 AM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 10 - 08:27 AM
Amos 05 Mar 10 - 10:28 AM
pdq 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM
Ebbie 05 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM
Amos 05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 10 - 01:03 PM
Amos 05 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM
Sawzaw 05 Mar 10 - 08:59 PM
Ebbie 05 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 10 - 12:28 AM
GUEST,Doc John 06 Mar 10 - 05:26 AM
Ebbie 06 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 10 - 11:38 AM
Ebbie 06 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 10 - 12:20 PM
Ebbie 06 Mar 10 - 01:05 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 10 - 01:19 PM
freda underhill 15 Mar 10 - 06:24 AM
Amos 15 Mar 10 - 10:25 AM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM
Amos 15 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM
Alice 15 Mar 10 - 02:31 PM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 10 - 02:46 PM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM
Alice 15 Mar 10 - 04:01 PM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 10 - 11:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from sanity 16 Mar 10 - 01:06 AM
freda underhill 16 Mar 10 - 08:19 AM
Little Hawk 16 Mar 10 - 10:02 AM
Amos 16 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM
Little Hawk 16 Mar 10 - 05:47 PM
Ebbie 16 Mar 10 - 05:51 PM
freda underhill 17 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM
beardedbruce 17 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM
Amos 17 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,Scorpio. 17 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM
Amos 17 Mar 10 - 08:50 PM
Sawzaw 18 Mar 10 - 12:13 AM
Sawzaw 18 Mar 10 - 01:09 AM
GUEST,KP 18 Mar 10 - 07:03 AM
Amos 18 Mar 10 - 10:32 AM
pdq 18 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM
Martin Harwood 18 Mar 10 - 11:36 AM
Amos 18 Mar 10 - 01:15 PM
gnu 18 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM
Little Hawk 18 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM
Amos 18 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM
Little Hawk 18 Mar 10 - 09:19 PM
Sawzaw 19 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM
freda underhill 20 Mar 10 - 07:23 AM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 10 - 10:51 AM
Stringsinger 20 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 10 - 03:54 PM
Ebbie 20 Mar 10 - 05:03 PM
Amos 20 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM
Amos 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 10 - 08:14 PM
Amos 20 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 10 - 12:08 AM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 10 - 12:18 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM
freda underhill 22 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM
Ebbie 22 Mar 10 - 12:11 PM
Little Hawk 22 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM
freda underhill 23 Mar 10 - 03:50 AM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM
Amos 23 Mar 10 - 04:19 PM
Amos 24 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM
Amos 31 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 31 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM
beardedbruce 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM
beardedbruce 31 Mar 10 - 02:57 PM
pdq 31 Mar 10 - 03:19 PM
Little Hawk 31 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM
Amos 31 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM
Sawzaw 01 Apr 10 - 03:08 AM
ichMael 02 Apr 10 - 12:28 AM
Ebbie 02 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM
The Fooles Troupe 02 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM
Amos 02 Apr 10 - 10:12 AM
Sawzaw 06 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM
Wolfgang 06 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM
TIA 06 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Apr 10 - 11:28 PM
Sawzaw 07 Apr 10 - 12:42 AM
Sawzaw 07 Apr 10 - 01:09 AM
GUEST,TIA 08 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM
Sawzaw 08 Apr 10 - 01:19 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Apr 10 - 02:15 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM
GUEST,kendall 08 Apr 10 - 04:15 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Apr 10 - 06:10 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Apr 10 - 06:28 AM
kendall 08 Apr 10 - 07:45 AM
Sawzaw 08 Apr 10 - 10:53 AM
freda underhill 08 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Apr 10 - 11:50 AM
GUEST,TIA 08 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM
pdq 08 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM
kendall 08 Apr 10 - 08:22 PM
Sawzaw 08 Apr 10 - 10:40 PM
Sawzaw 08 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Apr 10 - 01:02 AM
The Fooles Troupe 09 Apr 10 - 03:05 AM
The Fooles Troupe 09 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM
Sawzaw 09 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Apr 10 - 10:09 PM
Sawzaw 09 Apr 10 - 11:22 PM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 12:29 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 12:34 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Apr 10 - 04:40 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 07:15 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 07:43 AM
TheSnail 10 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Apr 10 - 12:39 PM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,beRDEDBRUCE 12 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 12 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 12:33 PM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM
pdq 12 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM
Greg F. 12 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 02:06 PM
pdq 12 Apr 10 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 12 Apr 10 - 04:08 PM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM
Amos 12 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 15 Apr 10 - 09:26 AM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Apr 10 - 05:40 PM
Sawzaw 16 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM
pdq 16 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,TIA 16 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Apr 10 - 06:57 AM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM
TheSnail 17 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM
Sawzaw 17 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM
Sawzaw 17 Apr 10 - 02:32 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Apr 10 - 07:49 PM
The Fooles Troupe 17 Apr 10 - 08:59 PM
Sawzaw 18 Apr 10 - 01:07 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Apr 10 - 01:18 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM
TheSnail 18 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM
The Fooles Troupe 18 Apr 10 - 06:08 PM
Sawzaw 19 Apr 10 - 02:43 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Apr 10 - 03:00 AM
TheSnail 19 Apr 10 - 05:03 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Apr 10 - 06:32 AM
The Fooles Troupe 19 Apr 10 - 06:39 AM
Sawzaw 19 Apr 10 - 10:37 AM
TheSnail 19 Apr 10 - 11:21 AM
Ed T 19 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM
Ed T 19 Apr 10 - 11:30 PM
Sawzaw 20 Apr 10 - 12:08 AM
Ed T 20 Apr 10 - 12:43 AM
TheSnail 20 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM
Ed T 20 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM
TheSnail 20 Apr 10 - 08:03 AM
Ed T 20 Apr 10 - 09:24 AM
Sawzaw 20 Apr 10 - 02:11 PM
mousethief 20 Apr 10 - 02:39 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Apr 10 - 07:17 PM
TheSnail 20 Apr 10 - 08:04 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Apr 10 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,TIA 21 Apr 10 - 10:50 AM
freda underhill 27 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM
The Fooles Troupe 27 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM
freda underhill 30 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM
The Fooles Troupe 30 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM
Amos 30 Apr 10 - 08:25 PM
The Fooles Troupe 01 May 10 - 01:36 AM
Sawzaw 02 May 10 - 11:19 PM
Sawzaw 04 May 10 - 12:41 AM
The Fooles Troupe 04 May 10 - 02:24 AM
Sawzaw 04 May 10 - 11:02 AM
TheSnail 04 May 10 - 11:11 AM
kendall 04 May 10 - 07:55 PM
Sawzaw 04 May 10 - 11:56 PM
Sawzaw 05 May 10 - 01:09 AM
TheSnail 05 May 10 - 04:00 PM
Sawzaw 06 May 10 - 01:30 AM
TheSnail 06 May 10 - 04:50 AM
freda underhill 06 May 10 - 07:44 AM
Sawzaw 07 May 10 - 01:17 AM
GUEST,TIA 07 May 10 - 10:23 PM
kendall 08 May 10 - 07:52 AM
Ebbie 10 May 10 - 11:22 AM
Little Hawk 10 May 10 - 11:34 AM
GUEST,Kendall 10 May 10 - 04:36 PM
Sawzaw 11 May 10 - 12:39 AM
The Fooles Troupe 11 May 10 - 04:40 AM
The Fooles Troupe 11 May 10 - 04:45 AM
freda underhill 11 May 10 - 05:07 AM
freda underhill 11 May 10 - 05:10 AM
GUEST,KP 11 May 10 - 08:04 AM
The Fooles Troupe 11 May 10 - 10:04 AM
TheSnail 11 May 10 - 10:51 AM
Little Hawk 11 May 10 - 12:02 PM
beardedbruce 11 May 10 - 12:15 PM
Ed T 11 May 10 - 02:37 PM
Ed T 11 May 10 - 06:11 PM
The Fooles Troupe 11 May 10 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 May 10 - 07:43 PM
The Fooles Troupe 11 May 10 - 09:20 PM
Ed T 11 May 10 - 09:28 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 10 - 12:48 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 May 10 - 06:05 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 10 - 09:17 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 May 10 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,TIA 12 May 10 - 10:33 PM
Little Hawk 12 May 10 - 10:51 PM
beardedbruce 13 May 10 - 12:48 PM
Sawzaw 13 May 10 - 01:30 PM
TheSnail 13 May 10 - 02:22 PM
Ed T 13 May 10 - 04:33 PM
Ed T 13 May 10 - 04:47 PM
Sawzaw 13 May 10 - 05:16 PM
TheSnail 13 May 10 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,TIA 13 May 10 - 10:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 14 May 10 - 11:56 PM
The Fooles Troupe 15 May 10 - 12:59 AM
The Fooles Troupe 15 May 10 - 08:07 AM
Amos 19 May 10 - 10:45 AM
Paul Burke 19 May 10 - 02:07 PM
beardedbruce 19 May 10 - 02:13 PM
TheSnail 19 May 10 - 07:44 PM
beardedbruce 19 May 10 - 07:55 PM
TheSnail 19 May 10 - 08:23 PM
The Fooles Troupe 19 May 10 - 09:04 PM
TheSnail 20 May 10 - 04:50 AM
GUEST,TIA 20 May 10 - 11:22 AM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 12:17 PM
TheSnail 20 May 10 - 01:37 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 01:50 PM
TheSnail 20 May 10 - 02:26 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 02:31 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 02:36 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 May 10 - 03:52 PM
Ebbie 20 May 10 - 05:21 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 05:32 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 06:01 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 20 May 10 - 06:29 PM
Joe Offer 20 May 10 - 06:46 PM
TheSnail 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 07:19 PM
Ebbie 20 May 10 - 07:28 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 07:31 PM
TheSnail 20 May 10 - 08:41 PM
freda underhill 21 May 10 - 07:24 AM
Stringsinger 21 May 10 - 09:51 AM
pdq 21 May 10 - 11:42 AM
pdq 21 May 10 - 12:41 PM
pdq 21 May 10 - 01:21 PM
freda underhill 21 May 10 - 06:41 PM
beardedbruce 21 May 10 - 06:45 PM
freda underhill 22 May 10 - 12:22 AM
GUEST 22 May 10 - 05:33 AM
pdq 22 May 10 - 02:07 PM
Amos 22 May 10 - 02:19 PM
pdq 22 May 10 - 03:39 PM
freda underhill 23 May 10 - 06:52 AM
freda underhill 23 May 10 - 07:49 AM
Martin Harwood 23 May 10 - 08:18 AM
freda underhill 23 May 10 - 08:35 AM
Ebbie 23 May 10 - 10:06 AM
pdq 23 May 10 - 10:56 AM
Amos 23 May 10 - 12:34 PM
TheSnail 24 May 10 - 07:43 AM
beardedbruce 24 May 10 - 10:32 AM
Amos 24 May 10 - 10:40 AM
Ebbie 24 May 10 - 10:47 AM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 02:32 PM
TheSnail 24 May 10 - 02:55 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 02:59 PM
Ebbie 24 May 10 - 05:56 PM
Amos 24 May 10 - 06:00 PM
TheSnail 24 May 10 - 06:10 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 06:12 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 06:18 PM
TheSnail 24 May 10 - 06:34 PM
beardedbruce 24 May 10 - 06:36 PM
TheSnail 24 May 10 - 07:11 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 May 10 - 08:04 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 11:12 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 10 - 11:34 PM
Martin Harwood 25 May 10 - 04:30 AM
TheSnail 25 May 10 - 05:45 AM
Martin Harwood 25 May 10 - 06:59 AM
Little Hawk 25 May 10 - 10:22 AM
pdq 25 May 10 - 10:47 AM
TheSnail 25 May 10 - 10:51 AM
Little Hawk 25 May 10 - 11:31 AM
Little Hawk 25 May 10 - 11:33 AM
TheSnail 25 May 10 - 11:43 AM
Little Hawk 25 May 10 - 11:46 AM
Amos 25 May 10 - 12:00 PM
pdq 25 May 10 - 12:10 PM
TheSnail 25 May 10 - 12:28 PM
TheSnail 25 May 10 - 08:46 PM
pdq 25 May 10 - 09:54 PM
TheSnail 26 May 10 - 06:49 AM
freda underhill 26 May 10 - 07:59 AM
freda underhill 29 May 10 - 01:32 AM
The Fooles Troupe 29 May 10 - 08:17 AM
freda underhill 29 May 10 - 10:55 AM
pdq 29 May 10 - 12:31 PM
Sawzaw 29 May 10 - 03:01 PM
The Fooles Troupe 29 May 10 - 07:00 PM
Amos 29 May 10 - 07:37 PM
The Fooles Troupe 29 May 10 - 08:44 PM
freda underhill 04 Jun 10 - 07:46 AM
Ed T 04 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM
pdq 04 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM
Sawzaw 04 Jun 10 - 09:47 PM
Sawzaw 04 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Jun 10 - 10:24 PM
Sawzaw 04 Jun 10 - 10:49 PM
Sawzaw 04 Jun 10 - 10:56 PM
TheSnail 05 Jun 10 - 04:44 AM
Ed T 05 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM
Sawzaw 05 Jun 10 - 09:45 PM
TheSnail 06 Jun 10 - 04:53 AM
Sawzaw 06 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM
TheSnail 07 Jun 10 - 05:28 AM
beardedbruce 07 Jun 10 - 11:50 AM
TheSnail 07 Jun 10 - 05:04 PM
pdq 07 Jun 10 - 05:37 PM
The Fooles Troupe 07 Jun 10 - 06:33 PM
Sawzaw 08 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM
TheSnail 08 Jun 10 - 02:54 PM
beardedbruce 08 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM
TheSnail 08 Jun 10 - 08:57 PM
Ebbie 08 Jun 10 - 11:45 PM
freda underhill 09 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM
Ebbie 09 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM
Ebbie 09 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM
Ebbie 09 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM
TheSnail 10 Jun 10 - 03:50 AM
Leadfingers 10 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM
Ebbie 10 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM
Amos 17 Jun 10 - 08:09 PM
Amos 11 Jul 10 - 10:10 AM
The Fooles Troupe 11 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,TIA 12 Jul 10 - 12:51 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 Jul 10 - 09:13 PM
Ed T 13 Jul 10 - 12:03 PM
Big Phil 14 Jul 10 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,TIA 14 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM
freda underhill 26 Jul 10 - 09:27 AM
Amos 26 Jul 10 - 10:18 AM
freda underhill 26 Jul 10 - 09:22 PM
dick greenhaus 26 Jul 10 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,TIA 26 Jul 10 - 10:28 PM
freda underhill 27 Jul 10 - 03:07 AM
Amos 29 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM
beardedbruce 29 Jul 10 - 12:15 PM
Amos 29 Jul 10 - 12:38 PM
Amos 29 Jul 10 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,TIA 29 Jul 10 - 07:36 PM
beardedbruce 29 Jul 10 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,KP 30 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jul 10 - 09:21 AM
The Fooles Troupe 30 Jul 10 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jul 10 - 12:42 PM
Amos 30 Jul 10 - 01:09 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Jul 10 - 05:05 PM
The Fooles Troupe 30 Jul 10 - 07:06 PM
The Fooles Troupe 30 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM
Amos 07 Aug 10 - 12:21 AM
beardedbruce 08 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM
Ebbie 08 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM
beardedbruce 08 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM
Ebbie 08 Sep 10 - 12:48 PM
gnu 08 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM
beardedbruce 08 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Sep 10 - 09:44 AM
GUEST,Patsy 09 Sep 10 - 11:24 AM
Amos 14 Sep 10 - 04:23 PM
Ebbie 16 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM
Amos 06 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,TIA 06 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM
Wolfgang 12 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM
Bill D 12 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM
Bill D 12 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM
Amos 18 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM
Amos 03 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM
bobad 03 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM
Amos 04 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM
Amos 16 Jan 11 - 01:22 PM
Ringer 20 Jan 11 - 05:09 AM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Jan 11 - 07:40 AM
TIA 20 Jan 11 - 11:36 AM
TIA 20 Jan 11 - 11:44 AM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Jan 11 - 06:50 AM
Ringer 21 Jan 11 - 07:31 AM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Jan 11 - 07:58 AM
freda underhill 21 Jan 11 - 08:42 AM
TIA 21 Jan 11 - 02:13 PM
TIA 21 Jan 11 - 02:19 PM
Stringsinger 21 Jan 11 - 02:30 PM
The Fooles Troupe 21 Jan 11 - 09:01 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Jan 11 - 06:30 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM
The Fooles Troupe 22 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM
The Fooles Troupe 03 Feb 11 - 07:42 PM
Bobert 03 Feb 11 - 07:56 PM
The Fooles Troupe 04 Feb 11 - 05:38 AM
GUEST,Patsy 04 Feb 11 - 07:40 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Feb 11 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,TIA 27 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM
Little Hawk 27 Oct 11 - 02:19 PM
pdq 27 Oct 11 - 02:29 PM
Jim Dixon 27 Oct 11 - 10:09 PM
GUEST,TIA 28 Oct 11 - 10:07 AM
Greg F. 28 Oct 11 - 06:48 PM
Stringsinger 29 Oct 11 - 11:35 AM
freda underhill 07 Nov 11 - 04:32 AM
Paul Burke 07 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM
Greg F. 07 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM
bobad 23 Nov 11 - 01:50 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Nov 11 - 04:18 PM
freda underhill 23 Nov 11 - 09:33 PM
GUEST,Paul Burke 24 Nov 11 - 02:03 AM
Rumncoke 24 Nov 11 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Nov 11 - 03:41 PM
freda underhill 24 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM
bobad 06 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM
Ringer 06 Dec 11 - 10:30 AM
GUEST,TIA 06 Dec 11 - 01:17 PM
Brian May 06 Dec 11 - 01:32 PM
bobad 14 Jan 12 - 07:44 AM
Stringsinger 14 Jan 12 - 12:03 PM
saulgoldie 05 Jun 12 - 10:32 AM
Sawzaw 03 Jan 14 - 10:10 AM
Ebbie 03 Jan 14 - 12:15 PM
Greg F. 03 Jan 14 - 12:48 PM
Ebbie 03 Jan 14 - 02:27 PM
GUEST 03 Jan 14 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Jan 14 - 04:57 PM
gnu 03 Jan 14 - 06:11 PM
Bill D 03 Jan 14 - 06:20 PM
GUEST,Ed T 31 Jan 14 - 05:21 PM
Stringsinger 31 Jan 14 - 05:48 PM
Sawzaw 19 Feb 14 - 08:45 AM
Greg F. 19 Feb 14 - 10:12 AM
frogprince 19 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM
VirginiaTam 19 Feb 14 - 03:10 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM
Greg F. 19 Feb 14 - 03:39 PM
beardedbruce 19 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM
Greg F. 19 Feb 14 - 06:14 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 14 - 09:34 AM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 14 - 11:56 AM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 14 - 11:59 AM
Greg F. 20 Feb 14 - 01:12 PM
Sawzaw 20 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM
Sawzaw 20 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM
Ed T 20 Feb 14 - 07:13 PM
Sawzaw 20 Feb 14 - 11:41 PM
Ed T 21 Feb 14 - 06:01 AM
Sawzaw 26 Feb 14 - 11:24 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Feb 14 - 11:36 PM
Ed T 27 Feb 14 - 04:02 AM
GUEST 23 Jul 14 - 12:10 PM
GUEST,Crowbar 17 Jun 15 - 01:34 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 07:52 AM
Donuel 21 Dec 15 - 08:48 AM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 15 - 12:43 PM
Greg F. 24 Dec 15 - 01:09 PM
Donuel 24 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 15 - 02:41 PM
Greg F. 24 Dec 15 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 15 - 03:48 PM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 03:56 PM
Donuel 24 Dec 15 - 04:54 PM
Joe Offer 24 Dec 15 - 05:05 PM
gnu 24 Dec 15 - 06:30 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:36 AM

I hear all of this grousing about Bush causing global warming. How come temperature in most of the US are way below normal for this time of year?

If we have Global Cooling will that be his fault too?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:56 AM

The year 2005 has been the warmest year in recorded history except for 1998 when there was a major league El Nino event. Eighteen of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last twenty years. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years.

That's where it is.

Bev and Jerry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM

R U Lon Lee 2nite?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:28 AM

2005 is the hottest year in Australia since records have been kept..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM

Those who are scientifically uneducated think that 'Global Warming' just means 'everything gets hotter'.

Wrong!

'Global Warming' refers to the increase in the total heat energy in the system. As this increases, TURBULENCE increases. This means that things get BOTH hotter AND colder in different places. Also, while the NUMBER of storms stays about the same, the INTENSITY of them increases.

I'm sure others here can give more lengthy technical explanations, with all the maths, but I ascribe to the KISS school.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Crowbar, where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects. We can and do blame the GWuB for lots of things, and with good reason. If he took notice of the phenomenon and instated measures meant to begin rolling back some of the causes, he could still improve some of the labels that will eventually be attached to his presidency. But he's evidently too dumb and too stubborn in his stupidity to be aware of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Noddy
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 04:59 AM

Bush is adding to Global Warming!

Every time he opens his mouth all we get is crap and a load of HOT AIR!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Rumncoke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 05:48 AM

Forget global warming and think climate change.

There is a heating effect - but that just gets things on the go in the places most susceptible to heating - then there are changes due to, for instance, the melting of ice, the drying out of vegetation - movements of air currents, water currents, droughts, floods, and then hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and all things revolving at speed are affected by the alterations.

There are always variations in climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth, the vigour of the Sun, Humans changing the forest into farmland, even that blasted butterfly - but usually it is a fairly liveable with slow pendulum swing.

What the people who think about these things have been saying is that we might just have kicked the climate pendulum into swinging further, and faster than is safe, and it might just swing back and knock our silly heads off. They might be yelling 'Down!!'and there is no need - or perhaps we'd all be better off closer to the Earth, where we could see the damage being done so much easier.

Anne


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:11 AM

Gulf Stream down by 30% so they say. All that heat has to go somewhere- the best bet is into bigger and better storms. And polar bears are drowning. Don't know what's happening to the Cartesian bears (linear, log or log/lin).

Apparently it's even chance for the British isles to get hotter (because of overall warming), colder (because of losing the Gulf Stream) or stay the same, the two effects cancelling out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

If the Gulf Stream shuts down, there'll be no two ways about it - the Thames has frozen over in living memory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:23 AM

Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?

By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005; Page B1

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning. Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes. In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys. But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM

Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost to Thaw by 2100
PRESS RELEASE Date Released: Monday, December 19, 2005
Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research

BOULDER- Global warming may decimate the top 10 feet (3 meters) or more of perennially frozen soil across the Northern Hemisphere, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia. New simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half of the area covered by this topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff to the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The study, using the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM), is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. Results appear online in the December 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.

Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost across central Alaska, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests"--trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial facilities have reported significant damage. Further loss of permafrost could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and caribou. The CCSM simulations are based on high and low projections of greenhouse-gas emissions for the 21st century, as constructed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In both cases, the CCSM determined which land areas would retain permafrost at each of 10 soil depths extending down to 11.2 feet (3.43 meters).

For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. In the high-emission simulation, runoff grows by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as the water from ice melting within soil.

The new study highlights concern about emissions of greenhouse gases from thawing soils. Permafrost may hold 30% or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide. As the permafrost thaws, it could lead to large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide beyond those produced by fossil fuels. "There's a lot of carbon stored in the soil," says Lawrence. "If the permafrost does thaw, as our model predicts, it could have a major influence on climate." To address this and other questions, Lawrence and colleagues are now working to develop a more advanced model with interactive carbon. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR'S primary sponsor, and the U.S. Department of Energy. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. For more information about NSIDC, please visit http://nsidc.org


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:38 AM

TEN YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING
16.12.2005, www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=126351®ion=3

A pattern of more intense global warming over the past decade has been confirmed by temperatures over the past twelve months that confirm that 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. According to data released by the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) this year is the second warmest ever, with an increase of 0.48 degrees Celsius. The WMO uses 1961-1990 annual average surface temperature as the benchmark for climate change measurements.

In a year marked by record hurricanes in the Caribbean and melting ice floes in the Arctic, the WMO said the world experienced the warmest months of June and October ever, surpassing those recorded in 1998 and 2004 respectively. Gaps in data and outstanding readings for the final weeks of 2005 mean that this year overall could vary from being the warmest ever to being the eighth warmest when the final figure is released next February. "It could well be that this ranking could be modified but we are very confident that it will end up in the four warmest years," said WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud.

"In the northern hemisphere it will be the warmest year on record and in the southern hemisphere we anticipate that it will be the fourth warmest on record," he said. The WMO emphasised in its statement on the global climate in 2005 that "the last ten years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record." "Areas of significant warmth were widespread, with large areas of Australia, Africa, Brazil, China and the United States showing significantly above-average temperatures," the statement said. Sea surface temperatures in the north Atlantic, where scientists recently warned that warm waters were melting ice floes in the Arctic Circle, are likely to be the warmest on record, said the WMO.

The agency said the extent of sea ice in the Arctic dropped by 20 percent compared to average and reached the lowest coverage observed since satellite observation began in 1979. Mr Jarraud confirmed that the hurricane season in the United States, Caribbean and Central America "was exceptional by any measure" this year, although there were fewer typhoons in the Pacific Ocean than usual. The 26 named storms in the Atlantic exceeded the previous high of 21 in 1993 and included the strongest ever recorded, Hurricane Wilma.


2005 is likely to be the hottest year in Australia since records began in 1910, while several parts of south Asia experienced extreme heatwaves or heavier than usual monsoons. East Africa was blighted by continuing long term drought extending from Kenya south to Mozambique and Zimbabwe, which left several million people exposed to hunger. Scientists fear that those extreme weather conditions are signs of climate change caused by growing emissions of greenhouse gases by industry, transport and households. "At this stage the honest scientific answer for hurricanes is that we don't know," the global met chief said, although he highlighted evidence that the Caribbean Sea was warming and producing more frequent, intense hurricanes.

"What we feel more confident with, is that global warming will lead to more frequent heatwaves." "Conversely there's also a risk of higher precipitation in regions where floods can be a problem," Mr Jarraud added. Global average temperatures over land have risen since the beginning of the 20th century, but meteorologists observed sharper rises from the late 1970s.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:40 AM

it is in the Siberian perma frost that is now melting and poised to release BILLIONS of tons of methane.

it is in the loss/recession of hundreds of Alaskan glaciers.

it is in the melting of the Artic sea.

..........

I do not know and wonder if OZ has the chemtrail short term solution to reflect solar heat the same as the US.

You have to be at least 20 to see the difference between jet trails that used to dissipate in 15 minutes compared to the ones that now continue to billow and spread over they sky for hours.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:41 AM

Hysteresis.

The 'catastrophe point' at which a change becomes no longer easily reversible at the original energy level

That's what triggered the rapid changes in temperature testified to by frozen mammoths.

The recent movie got it partly right, just left out a lot of science, some of which is still being discovered. And there is no way that goddam statue would still be standing!

If you add up ALL of the individual causations, insignificant in each of themselves, you get a SYNERGISTIC response, where the total effect is much greater that the simple um of all the individual effects - a sort of multiplication, rather than an addition.

At least in the movie, the USA got thinned out, I suppose...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:49 AM

As evidence of global warming mounts, response is slow; Associated Press, December 18, 2005

In Geneva on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization reported that 2005 thus far is the second-warmest year on record, extending a trend climatologists attribute at least partly to heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

• The WMO said Thursday that in the Arctic Sea, where average winter temperatures have risen as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit over 50 years, the ice cap this summer was 20 percent smaller than the 1979-2004 average.

• British oceanographers reported this month that Atlantic currents carrying warm water toward northern Europe have slowed. Freshwater from melting northern ice caps and glaciers is believed to be interfering with saltwater currents. Ultimately such a change could cool the European climate.

• In southern Africa, beset by four years of drought, average temperatures during the 12-month period ending in July were the warmest on record, British scientists said. The mercury stood more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above a recent 40-year average.

• In Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea in the southwest Pacific, rising seas are forcing hundreds of islanders to abandon vulnerable coastal homes for higher ground, according to U.N. and news reports.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.warming18dec18,1,5727241.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:53 AM

You are wrong Ebbie (20 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM)

"where did you read that Bush caused global warming? It is just that he is taking no steps to ameliorate the causes and the effects."

He is doing a damn sight more and being a damn sight more effective than all those who signed up to the absolutely useless Kyoto Agreement. If you doubt that just ask any Kyoto supporter how many, or if any, of the signatories are going to make their targets. The US under Bush, on the other hand, in the same time span has managed to reduce it's harmful emmisions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:58 AM

2005 Costliest Year for Extreme Weather
by Jim Lobe; December 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec (IPS) - The world has suffered more than 200 billion dollars in economic losses as a result of weather-related natural disasters over the past year, making 2005 the costliest year on record, according to preliminary estimates released Tuesday by the Munich Re Foundation at the international climate conference in Montreal. These damages significantly exceeded the previous record of 145 billion dollars set in 2004, according to the Foundation, which is part of Munich Re, one of several leading re-insurance companies that have warned repeatedly over the past decade that global warming posed serious threats to the world's economy.

Of the more than 200 billion dollars in losses this year, more than 70 billion dollars was covered by insurance companies, compared to some 45 billion dollars in damages last year, according to the Foundation.

It said most losses resulted from the unprecedented number and intensity of hurricanes in 2005, particularly Wilma, which hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula; and Katrina, which overwhelmed New Orleans and other coastal areas in the U.S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Alabama. Wilma, the strongest-ever hurricane, according to records dating back to 1850, caused an estimated 15 billion dollars in economic losses, of which about 10 billion dollars was insured, according to the Foundation.

Damages caused by Katrina, the sixth strongest hurricane on record, were significantly greater, however. Estimated losses come to more than 125 billion, of which more than 30 billion dollars was insured, the Foundation said. "There is a powerful indication from these figures that we are moving from predictions of the likely impacts of climate change to proof that it is already fully underway," said Thomas Loster, the Foundation's director, who added that policy-makers should not only be concerned about the staggering economic loss.

"Above all, these are humanitarian tragedies that show us that, as a result of our impacts on the climate, we are making people and communities everywhere more vulnerable to weather-related natural disasters," he said. Loster released the Foundation's report at the ongoing 11th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Climate Change Convention, which is addressing what the international community should do after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement by the world's industrialised countries, with the exception of the United States and Australia, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Most scientists believe that emissions are the main cause of global warming and that they will have to be reduced by 60 percent or more in order to stabilise the atmosphere. While scientists insist that the increases in financial losses caused by storms may not necessarily be linked to global warming -- increasing populations and economic development in vulnerable coastal areas may be far more important -- a growing number agree that warming is becoming an increasingly significant factor.

Such a notion is bolstered by the occurrence of other highly unusual or even unprecedented weather events recorded during the past year. These suggest the Earth's climate is changing in ways that are generally consistent with predictions by sophisticated computer models about the likely impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Hurricane Vince, for example, was the first hurricane on record to approach Europe, making landfall in Spain in October. It was the easternmost and northernmost appearance of an Atlantic hurricane on record, effectively mirroring the appearance of Hurricane Catarina off Brazil in March 2004. Catarina was the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record.

Similarly, at the end of November, Tropical Storm Delta hit the Canary Islands to devastating effect. It was the first tropical storm to ever hit the islands. And in July, a weather station in Mumbai recorded 944 mm of rain in 24 hours, the greatest and most intense precipitation event ever recorded in India. The number of tropical storms broke all records in 2005, according to the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi. As of last week, there had been 26 storms, or five more than the previous record of 21. Of the 26, 16 reached hurricane force.

Scientific models have predicted an increase in the intensity of storms as the atmosphere -- and the temperatures of the seas -- became warmer. Tropical storms and hurricanes derive most of their energy from warm waters. While scientists agree that it is impossible to link global warming to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes over a one- or two-year period, recent studies have shown that storms have indeed become more intense over the past several decades.

In August, for example, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published a paper in the British scientific weekly Nature which found that hurricanes in the Atlantic and North Pacific had roughly doubled in power over 30 years. In September, a group of meteorologists published a study in Science weekly which found that, while the frequency of hurricanes had significantly increased over the past 35 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes -- the most powerful -- had increased by 80 percent over that period.

To many scientists, these studies provide additional evidence of a link between warming seas, to which warmer atmospheric temperatures contribute, and hurricane intensity. Others insist, however, that the 35-year period is still too short a time period to reach any conclusion, because such changes may be tied to other natural "oscillations" involving currents or salinity. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, hurricane activity was significantly greater than in the three decades that followed.

In his remarks to the climate conference, Loster stressed that economic losses attributable to weather-related disasters have risen much more steeply than those caused by earthquakes, according to records since 1950. "We do not want to estimate the human tragedy of earthquakes like the recent one in Pakistan which can kill tens of thousands of people a year," he said. "But our findings indicate that it is the toll of weather-related disasters that are the ones on the rise."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Pied Piper
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:57 AM

What a stupid question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:43 AM

Big difference between weather and climate.

Teribus, exactly what has Bush done to ease global warming?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:35 AM

Don't forget that statistics do not deal with a particular event, but all events. You could toss "heads" seventeen times in a row, but in the overall scheme of things it's still a 50-50 chance you'll toss tails.

The same thing is true of "grading on the curve." The "bell-shaped curve" of probabilies is based upon a huge population, and to apply it to a population of the 20 people in a classroom is wrong. The classs could all be "A" quality just as likely as they could all be "F" quality.

Statistics deals with populations, not discrete events. Thus this year could be the coldest in the last 450,000 and still not be any indication one way or the other about "global warming."

More pragmatically, go ask the Arctic peoples what they think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:35 AM

Why? the word of a drowning Polar bear not good enough for you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

If 95% of scientists agreed that something (you fill in the blank) was harmful to children, how long would it take for it to be banned or regulated by every civilized nation? Would we wait for the other 5% of scientists to agree before we conceded that something should be done? Would we decide that several more years of study are warranted before we act rashly? Why is the Bush administration treating this threat to our children so differently? Bush didn't cause it, but he's sure in a position to do something about it, and he has consistently (and conveniently) recommended further study, and said "let's wait for the other 5%".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650,000 years. actually this is not true - levels were higher for periods of years after several major volcanic events.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM

The most recent summit on climate change, & the most important since Kyoto, was just held in Montreal & labeled the Montreal Summit, about 2 weeks ago(where was the US news coverage of this event?). Of the 130 attending nations only the US walked out, again unwilling as at Kyoto to seriously acknowledge the problems & that not only are we a big part of the problem by first our contributions to the causes in climate change but by also hindering, by not trying to get on board & assist with agreeing to a solution instead of fighting a solution. The other nations did not walk out of the summit quacking about ducks, like some spoiled child as the US did (thanks Canada for buying the US delegate a flock of plastic duckies). We are not standing up to these problems as some would like to suggest. We are preparing to find a way to open the Gulf of Mexico & the Alaskan Wilderness to exploration & development no matter what studies say & no matter the environmental cost. Our fuel plants have newer & better laws & more tax benefits that would encourage less efficiency & safety in lieu of productivity. Seeing as how much oil we import we could probably raise the bar in world wide shipping policy standards. Have we required all ships that import oil to the US be doubled hulled? Could we see that ships are properly manned by a reasonably sized crew? Has Bush taken any positive actions when it comes to our environment & if he has, pray tell, what are they & how will they weight in comparison to his negative actions?

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

Permafrost may nearly disappear by 2100
Space and Earth science : December 20, 2005
   
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says global warming may destroy most permafrost across the Northern Hemisphere.

Researchers said warming may decimate the top 10 feet or more of perennially frozen soil, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia.

New simulations from NCAR show more than half of the area covered by the topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff into the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The study is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing.

The research appears online in the Dec. 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:33 PM

bovine waste product teribus..

sure a recent US report claimed that CO2 emmissions went down over
over 2001-2003 but that just happened to coincide with the downturn of the US
economy.

the way co2 emissions are calculated also dont help, since 1990 Canadian oil and gas exports to the US increased 20%. (however that increase is counted on the Canadian side, not on the US where it actually gets used).

it is true that some US industry and many US cities have started to deal with greenhouse gas emissions - all done in spite of Bush's policies, because they know the writings on the wall, the change is inevitable.

Kyoto was only a step, but it has spurred investment in wind generation as well as other
greener energy options.

also the US is 5% of the worlds population but causes 25% of the worlds pollution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 08:52 PM

Yeah, but it also produces more than 50% of the orld's good ideas. Who else would come up with Sesame Street, air-walks, the video iPod and the Pet Rock? Huh? Answer me that, wise guy!!

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM

Hmmmmm???

Polar ice caps meltin'... Not an opinion...

Yet Bush has hires a bunch of so-called "scientists" (???) who won't be hired if they have so much as think that global warming might be a real scientific possibility...

Meanwhile, any polluter with enough dough to funnel to Bush thru his Ranger and Pioneer "protection thugs" get tp pollute as much as they like...

Hey, I got freinds at EPA... They're all within a few years of retirement so they ain't going public but they all know what's going down...

Bottom line, you got cash, dump that sh*t anywhwere you want... Just don't tell nobody I said so...

Guess the Bushites will get it when D.C. is under water... BUt maybe not even then... They'll blame it on Clinton...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:34 PM

too bad the average intelligence doesn't rise at the same rate the average temperature does! How DO people so thoroughly misunderstand the information they are given?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Actually, there was an AP story in today's paper about how greenhouse gas emissions rose 2% in the USA this year. I'll get a clicky, 'cause I know good ol' T will demand one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

...and then either not read it, or not comprehend it.

But I can't make the specific allegation that he is dishonest or dumb. There is evidence that I am not at liberty to disclose that would support these contentions, but it is as yet unconfirmed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM

Yeah, Bill, seems that with every degree change upwards the average I.Q. drops about 10 points... Hate to come back in 50 years... Special Ed will no longer be special... It will be the kids with I.Q."s in the hundred range that will be the special kids... The rest... Jus Epsilons...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM

For those who wished to know:

From an article by Mark Steyn dated 6th December, 2005:

"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent.

During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.

Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM

"During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. "

None of these are Global Warming contributors, so why mention them?.

If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much.

nick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,a
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Do we have enough historical data to ascertain whether this is cyclical or not. Remember the Ice Age?
I am not making excuses, just wondering.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:52 AM

From the AP yesterday:

"U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose 2 Percent in 2005
By John Heilprin
Associated Press
posted: 20 December 2005
10:03 am ET


WASHINGTON (AP) —Emissions of gases blamed for warming the atmosphere grew by 2 percent in the United States last year, the Energy Department reported Monday. The report came just nine days after a United Nations conference where the United States and China refused to join any talks for imposing binding limits on emissions of those gases.
The so-called greenhouse gases, led by carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, rose to 7.12 million metric tons, up from 6.98 million metric tons in 2003, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said.

That's 16 percent higher than in 1990, and an average annual increase of 1.1 percent.

Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet. A study last month found that the gases are at a 650,000-year high in Earth's atmosphere.

About 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases last year was carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels —coal, petroleum and natural gas —for electricity, transportation, manufacturing and other industrial processes..."



So in the latest measure, the specific gasses that create warming are up. And that's according to the US DOE. And since 1990, they're up 16%.

That's gotta be Clinton's fault, right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:55 AM

And when, Teribus, were the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act put into place? Just about 30 years back, I seem to remember.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:08 AM

Naw, not Clintons fault.

I am still wondering if anyone knows if there is sufficient historical to ascertain if this could be cyclical.

Just as a side note, with most complaining about heating oil and propane costs, maybe a little warming would help. It averaged 4 - 7 degrees here last Monday.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM

Yes, absolutely there are cyclical climate changes. If you really want to see true scientists discussing them, and their relation to the late 20th century trend, go here.

Bottom line (agreed to by ~95% of scientists): "the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia."

Wally Broecker of Lamont-Doherty said nearly 20 years ago - "...if we wait until it is 100% proven that humans are affecting Earth's climate, it will probably be too late to do anything about it..."

And 20 years later, 95% isn't high enough for the politically-driven fools.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM

GUEST,Redhorse at work, 21 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM:

As pointed out by John Heilprin (article quoted above)
"Greenhouse gases act like a see-through blanket, letting sunlight in but trapping heat and warming the planet."

Air pollutants behave exactly as described above, apparently in the period given they have declined by 29 per cent.

What are your grounds for stating that "None of these are Global Warming contributors" And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."

Rapaire, I am not really too fussed about when the EPA rules and the Clean Air Act were put in place. The point being made is that the US in general has complied with them and has reduced emmission and pollutents whereas the Europeans and Kyoto signatories who make a great show of action on behalf of the planet fail due mainly to the fact they only pay lip-servicve to their stated commitments.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 AM

Sorry Teribus, "greenhouse gasses" and "air pollutants" are not interchangable terms. While your statistics on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions reductions may be true, they are completely irrelevant to global warming. Greenhouse gasses are up 16% since 1990.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Raptor
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

And Bush wants to drill in the Allaska wildlife refuge for oil to fund his war against the poor. Killing the last Carabou.
But youre right Terribus Bush is a friggin Saint!

Raptor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM

the US report was from a conveniently chosen period between 2001-2003
when there was an economic downturn - so emissions were down slightly but certainly not because of any policy of the Bush WHite House
(who so called Clear skies act actually allowed more pollution than before)
also the way the emissions are calculated is misleading. The 20% increase in Canadian oil & gas exports to the US since 1990 is added to Canadas emissions - not the US's, go figure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:57 PM

This chart shows that the CO2 level was higher 150 thousand years ago.

I guess there was a Bush administration back then and all history of it has been lost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:39 PM

My intent is not to argue that global warming is real but to question the cause. I offer no defence for environment polution and I support any possible reduction of any crap that we put into our living space.
That being said we must pause and take a (cough, cough) deep breath:
   We are being bamboozled by bad science that is ignoring many facts.
The Earth has been undergoing climate changes ever since its creation and it will continue to do so as long as time itself exists. To say a certain summer was the hottest on record means nothing if that record only goes back 100 years. We know that climate changes follow cycles that are far beyond our control. 25 thousand years ago most of North America was under a glacial blanket and woolly mammoths roamed it's perimiter. 1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland.
Today there are neither woolly mammoth or Newfoundland grapes. Tomorrow there may be neither polar bear or mankind. We must do what we can but before we take too big a guilt trip we must also understand that our power to change nature is limited.
                            Obie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

As a geologist with a very long view of time, I agree with much of what you say Obie. However, I believe that our power to change nature has become immense. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet, and it is due primarily to human activity.

A good analogy for our current behavior might be the self-destruction of Earth's early anaerobic biota that generated so much oxygen that they extinguished themselves.

If we continue to alter our environment, life will certainly go on, but we may not be here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:43 PM

Yes TIA but if our focus is in the wrong direction it will be of little help. As an example, some of the best and most fertile farmland in Canada is in the Toronto area. Every year many thousands of acres are bulldozed over to make room for condos. If we starve in the future it may be more of a result of losing arible land than a changing climate. My point is that we should concentrate most on the areas that we can enact the greatest change, and I remain unconvinced that climate is where it's at.
          Obie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: patmc
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:22 PM

Obie
I agree with TIA- as well as a background in geophysics I've spent the last decade in dynamics research- particularly paleoclimate. We need to be real careful using statistics- as they throw away a lot of the time order that things happened in stats tend to obscure dynamics.

Dynamically, systems do a weird thing called bifurcation (the Russians call it perestroika btw). Anyway at these bifurcations a system 'jumps' state. The way the system works at each side of the jump is utterly different. A topologist Rene Thom called these jumps 'catastrophes' back in the 70s. Funnily enough there are only 7 kinds of jump (they have weird/beautiful names). The reason climate warming might be very very nasty is that there is reason to believe that our present state is quite delicate- the ocean conveyor belt is totally interconnected. It didn't used to be. During the most recent glaciation (ended 9000 years back) Ireland and Britain were mostly iced over. However Florida was considerably hotter. Turtles that lived there then have died out due to the temperature drop. If the system goes back to the way it was (which has happened several times) the earth doesn't care but our arable land area drops big time. Figuring out exactly what these alternative climates are is the challenge.
So the earth does have different states (cycles is a rubbish word- they don't cycle- more jog). The worry is that we jog it into a nasty state- most of the other states that we have recovered are much tougher on living systems than the present very nice temperate one.

This stuff is not rocket science- rocket science is dead easy in comparison. I've yet to meet a politician with the requisite background to even follow the science and it gets WAY more complicated when the whole thing moves from the physics, chem and dynamics to the world of computer modeling the setup. This is where the action is- especially in Japan at the moment.

Personally I have mapped out some areas that survived with ecosystems relatively unchanged during the big shifts and bought some real estate there. I'm not the only one either. I don't think many of us modelers believe any of the governments can deal with this. They can't agree on farming!!!

Keep to the high ground ;-)

Pat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:09 PM

Pat, my interest in science is as an amateur with no great degree of formal training other than perhaps, some common sense. I do not dispute the theory , but I feel that the obvious is often overlooked in seeking the abstract. Between catostrophic climatic events such as volcanic eruptions and cosmic collisions there are climatic cycles and cycles within cycles. Changes occur for many reasons and human pollution is certainly a factor. When I hear a comment from a leading scientist that "last year was the warmest on record" I tend to question both his expertese and his motive. I can still recall the fable of Chicken Little and the falling sky. I do not wish to belittle the subject; only to state that we should concentrate our resources where they will do the most good.
Man by nature is a nomad and up until the last ice age we would migrate as nature dictated. 25 thousand years later we have boxed ourselves in with national borders and a society that tries to control nature. In the long term this will not work. We are driven by economics and greed and I am afraid that old mother nature will prove us all to be fools!
                              Obie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:22 AM

Teribus: 'And it does not necessarily follow that, "If energy consumption has gone up by 45%, Co2 production will have gone up nearly as much."'

Not NECESSARILY, but:
In the last 1/3 century there has been no significant change in the efficiency of heat engines generating energy (and unless there's a change in the laws of thermodynamics there won't be one in the future). So a 45% increase in fossil fuel generated energy would give pro rata a 45% increase in CO2 emissions. I said "nearly as much" to cover changes in the balance of fossil-fuel to non-emission energy sources. Since the US hasn't exactly led the world in replacing fossil-fuel with renewables, and I haven't spotted a major increase in nuclear generation since 3-Mile Island, I don't think the balance has moved much in that 1/3 century.

I stand by my original comment

nick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM

"1000 years ago North America was warm enough that Lief Erikson found wild grapes growing on the Northern tip of Newfoundland."

Probably didn't, the evidence from the l'Anse aux Meadows site suggests that it's not Vinland, which was probably further south, perhaps as far as New York. And they don't have to be very big grapes to impress a Viking, who had mostly never seen them before- IIRC they didn't know what they were until someone who'd been to Germany identified them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM

I thought the Caribou herd increased 300% since the Alaska pipeline was buiilt? (in its' vicinity)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:33 PM

village flees for safer ground

A small island in Vanuatu is claimed to be the first in the world to have to move its community because of rising sea levels. Ben Bohane visits Tegua island.The sea has its own ways. We can't control it," says Chief Reuben Selwyn as he stands on a thin wall of coral which is all that now separates his little village from the invading sea.
The destiny of Tegua island, home to 64 people in the remote Torres group of islands in far north Vanuatu, has always rested on the sea.

The sea brought its first settlers at least 3000 years ago on bamboo rafts, its raiding enemies from nearby islands, the first beche-de-mer traders from Europe, "blackbirders" and Anglican missionaries. It brings bright rainbow-coloured reef fish and leatherback turtles, who build nests along a windswept coast, as well as colonies of football-sized coconut crabs, prized by the restaurants of the Vanuatuan capital of Port Vila. But for some years, the sea has been literally eating away this pristine coral island.

Chief Reuben, paramount head of the island and father of six boys and six girls, claims that at least once a year a combination of king tides and a surging sea whipped up by strong winds floods his village of Loteu. He remembers as a young boy he could walk 30 metres from his house and fish from a rocky beach platform. Now the platform is submerged and he has been forced to abandon his childhood home. "I'd say the sea has come up 10 or 20 metres [horizontally] since I was a boy," he says. "I can't say if it's because of humans or because nature has its own power. But for us here we have no choice; early next year we will move into a new village further inland."

seas rising across Island under global warming


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:46 PM

I guess the hottest year on record and the fact that polar ice caps are melting mean nothing.

And maybe that is so. But can we afford to ignore it??

What would be the harm of instituting measures to cut down on emissions that cause greenhouse gases compared to the possible harm that might result if we don't?

Well, it takes some money out of the pockets of shamelessly rich CEOs and it is Bush's job to cut them as much slack as possible. Hence, in his mind, there isn't global warming and he's the president--so there!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:49 PM

...please don't read this if you already have a headache...


Pollution is protecting us from harsh rays of the sun
By Ian Sample in London
December 23, 2005

CUTTING air pollution could trigger a greater surge in global warming than previously thought, suggesting future rises in sea level and other environmental consequences have been underestimated.

Scientists have issued the warning after investigating the effect of aerosols on climate. Aerosols - particles smaller than 100th of a millimetre - are churned out from factories, the burning of fossil fuels and forest fires, although sea salt and dust particles from desert storms add to them.

Because the particles are so light they remain aloft for long periods, where they cool the earth by reflecting radiation from the sun back out to space. Higher levels of aerosols lead to the formation of clouds made up of smaller water droplets, which reflect still more of the sun's radiation. Cutting down on aerosols by improving air quality means the earth will be less shielded against the sun's rays.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists at the British Meteorological Office and the US Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that climate models used to predict future global warming have badly underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols.

"We found that aerosols actually have twice the cooling effect we thought," said Nicolas Bellouin, a climate modeller at the British Meteorological Office. "The consequence is that as air quality improves and aerosol levels drop, future warming may be greater than we currently think."

Scientists had assumed that the amount of sunlight reflected by aerosols from human activity was tiny compared with the extra reflective cloud cover they caused, but Bellouin's research suggests they are equally important. Scientists will have to feed the new information into their models before they can be sure of the implications for global warming.

One possibility is that while the latest study shows scientists have underestimated the direct effect of aerosols reflecting the sun's rays, they may have overestimated the indirect effect they have on cloud cover, meaning the overall error of climate models would not be serious.

Earlier this year, Peter Cox at England's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Winfrith, Dorset, warned that if the cooling effect of aerosols turned out to be greater, it could trigger faster global warming.

"It's quite a bizarre thing, because the last thing you want to suggest is that it would be a good idea to have dirty air, but as far as climate change is concerned, that's right. Everyone would be getting asthma, but the environment would be cooler," said Professor Cox.

"That said, the direct effects of air quality, particularly in urban areas, are so important to human health that it would be crazy to think of anything other than health damage."

If the Met Office calculations are right, they suggest the atmosphere's temperature is more responsive to carbon dioxide than scientists believed.

"If the cooling influence of aerosols is larger, it implies that the warming from the carbon dioxide must be larger than we think to match the warming we've seen in the past 100 years," Professor Cox said.

"And if that's the case, future climate change will be more than we have expected with air quality improvements."

The Guardian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:37 PM

This line of reasoning goes all the way back to mid-2004:

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3589662.stm)

-snip-

Professor Andreae, of the Max Planck Institute in Mainz, Germany, told the 13th World Clean Air and Environmental Protection Congress that the overall cooling effect was, in his view, currently dominant and offsetting the warming brought about by greenhouse gases.

"We've been in an accelerating car with one foot on the brake and one foot on the gas," he told the BBC.

The scientist said the "climate protection" provided by aerosols was likely to diminish in the future.

"The aerosol particles don't stay in the atmosphere for very long, so we don't expect their concentration - their effect - to grow over the next century.

"The greenhouse gases, on the other hand - carbon dioxide and methane - they keep accumulating in the atmosphere because they have long lifetimes.

"Whether we want it or not, the warming forces are going to overpower the cooling forces and the big question now is just how strong that effect is going to be."

Predictions of the rise in global temperatures may therefore have to be revised upwards, Professor Andreae argued.

The US space agency's Aura satellite was recently sent into orbit with a specific task to unravel aerosols' precise impact on the global climate."

-snip-

So particulate pollution may be masking the true extent of the effect of greenhouse gas pollution... and the good news is what? Shall we counteract global warming by pumping soot into the atmosphere?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:00 PM

Ahhhhh, not to beat the dead horse (Bush) yet agian but I umderstand that he has sought out the "scientists" who have the the greatest level of "Don't worry, be happy" thinking when it comes to global warming...

This is a disgrace to our nation... He, as everyone's president, should be more interested in a cross section of scientific thought...

Yes, we've seen piccures of the polar ice caps and they have been shrinking remarkably fast... Their melting I would surmise has something to do with keeping the temperatures from rising quickly, especially along coastal regions...

What I am most concerened about is that under the crrent administartaion, the Earth has lost perhaps 8 precious years where scientists could feel supported in trying to figure out where the Erath is and waht man can do to preserve it for future generations...

Hiring a bunch of yes-scientists, then openly ridiculing other scientists has not been helpfull...

I mean, where did mankind ever get this idea that there's always time to solve alot of the problems that mankind is creating here on this Earth???

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM

"RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming"

Not in Canada right now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM

Depends which part of Canada you're talking about. Yesterday the temperature on the southern part of Vancouver Island was 13 C or over 55 F and this evening a passing thunder storm caused a small fire when the local Wal-Mart was struck by lightning. Thunder storms are not common in Victoria, particularly in December.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM

Look at this chart of global temperatures, CO2 levels and seaa levels.

The CO2 level is not higher than it has ever been.

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/nswmanual/images/b12-1.gif


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

And your point is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:30 PM

I feel it getting hotter in here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:36 PM

Here's a link to Crowbar's chart, BTW.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM

The important thing about that chart is that it shows when the CO2 levels rise; so does the temperature and the water levels.

That is a very good argument for reducing CO2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

True to that, d'van. However, there have been natural rises and falls over the millenia (sp?), and it seems to be about to drop again. Or am I interpreting the chart incorrectly?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 10:59 AM

SOS call as island nations go under; By Cynthia Banham and Richard Macey; January 5, 2006 Sydney Morning Herald

AUSTRALIA is being pressed to come to the rescue of drowning Pacific islands which face a homeless crisis due to rising sea levels caused by global warming. With predictions sea levels could rise by up to 32 centimetres by 2050, a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The Federal Government, which has twice refused requests from Tuvalu to resettle its population, could risk isolation in the region if it does not take a more proactive stance on Pacific climate change. New Zealand and Canada have already responded to the environmental crisis afflicting many Pacific Islands countries. New Zealand has agreed to accept migrants from Tuvalu, which experts believe will be completely submerged by mid-century, and Canada is funding the relocation of residents of parts of Vanuatu affected by global warming.

The alarm bells were rung as Australia experienced its hottest year on record. Temperatures were so far above normal last year that it was as if many towns had been moved more than 100 kilometres north, the Bureau of Meteorology said yesterday. ..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM

the corporate party line

there is no global warming
CO2 is fine
hole in the Ozone, nope
there is no mass atmospheric spraying going on
Whatever we do is fine, God and the sun control the weather.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 07:35 PM

I don't wish to side-track a thread as important as this one, but I have had it to here with serious for today. You folks better get a grip. OK, so maybe global warming is going to make life on Earth extinct. Well, SHIT HAPPENS.

There is a fellow in England who figures that global warming is screwing up his three-minute eggs. That would piss me off, too. FYI.

Have a nice day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,just a guest
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:38 PM

I predict that when we run out of oil in about five years, global warming will no longer be a problem. I wonder if we will survive as a nation without oil. Others might. The USA may not. Perhaps we will witness something like Mad Max...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 06:41 AM

Re Crowbar's chart.
CO2 not been higher for 120 000 years.

The dangerous increase due to industrialisation has only occurred over last 100 years and can not be seen on the chart because the time scale is so large.

There is now no scientific dispute about the reality of global warming due to human activity.

The fear now is of reaching a tipping point wherafter reduction in emmissions will not prevent a runaway catastrophic change. The Amazon forest becomes savannah and millions of tons of methane are released by melting permafrost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 08:54 AM

And the warming of the Arctic Ocean (undisputed even by the wing nuts) shuts down the deep Atlantic thermohaline return flow - which means no more Gulf Stream, which means a northern Europe deep-freeze with mass displacements of populations... a scenario that the US Pentagon is already gaming.

Believe It.


But don't worry. Crowbar's got his chart.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM

So what's your point Peace?

What caused the CO2 to spike 150,000 years ago? Where was the industry to cause it then?

Could it possibly be that the planet goes through cycles?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM

The smart thing to do is to wait, do nothing, then ask & then wait again on answers that won't come, at least not soon enough then walk out on a world summit meeting where 129 other nations are trying to figure what to do & then ask for more time & money for research & then fire the government funded researchers that say the doomsday word. Ask a polor bear if something's wrong. All the new waterfont property will be up for grabs, real cheap, the remaining animals, if there'll be any, won't need to compete with us frail humans, either.
Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 05:55 AM

I suspect that Bush and his cronies DO know about global warming and are fully aware of its consequences. They just don't care, that's all! They figure that they'll all be dead before it has any effect. In the meantime they just want to go on appropriating as much as possible of what remains of the planet's resources. Let future generations sort out the mess. I predict that this will go on happening until there are no future generations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:14 AM

Absolutely the Earth goes through natural cycles.

BUT:

a) what if this is not a natural cycle? if 95% of scientists were to say that some product is potentially dangerous to our children, it would be yanked from the shelves immediately. But our president (and his crowbar supporters) say we need to wait for the other 5% before we act.

b) "natural cycles" have led to many mass extinctions. If we are contributing in even a very small way, shouldn't we do something? Or are we willing to take a chance that we will be among the 5 to 30 percent (based on past mass extinction numbers) of species that survive? Hmmm, let's see, is the Hummer worth it to me.....

Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival
Hummer, children's survival

Damn, this is a tough call.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM

The polar ice cap has shrunk by half
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I have never been there and have no plans to go.

Ethelene dibromide billows out of jet engines
covering the sky with thick spreading trails many miles wide.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter.
Its up there, I'm down here.

The land is deforested by 5% every year.
If it is a lie it doesn't matter
I see trees everyday.

They say we are making our military bullets, shells and bombs out of deadly uranium.
True or not, our enemy should have thought of that before they attacked us during the prememptive invasion.

I heard that my neighbor's daughter was killed in Iraq last weekend.
True or not I best not go over and ask, she might be touchy.
My kids are fine.

The bird flu has killed a few people in Asia and Turkey
in such small numbers its just like the numbers who died of bird flu in 1917.
If 70 million died in 1918 of bird flu it doesn't matter.
That was then, this is now.

Suicide bombers do not value human life, just like the Emperor worshipping Japs who made suicide charges or smashed the skulls of their mothers and sisters rather than surrender.
True or not it doesn't matter.
At least we still value human life.

People who leak so called truth are being investigated and are sent to jail.
True or not, I'm outraged by ranting Bush bashers like Cindy Shehan who are a disgrace to this great nation of faith.

They changed the broadcast times of American Idol.
If it is true it doesn't matter,
but its still pure torture to reprogram a TIVO.






http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/BLISS.jpg

(Message edited by Don Hakman on January 06, 2006)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 10:13 AM

Heat could kill delicate coral; January 8, 2006

RECORD temperatures last year could kill up to 40 per cent of Australia's coral. The University of Queensland has warned that above-average sea temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were causing coral bleaching, which could make much of the famous coral die within a month. The university's researchers have designed a protection system that involves placing huge sun shades over the coral in summer.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said his team wanted to avoid a repeat of 2002, where more than half of the reef was bleached and 5 to 10 per cent died. "Bleaching events usually occur about four to six weeks after the high temperature anomalies begin," he said. "This year we are worried because we have higher [temperature] anomalies, which may result in greater damage."

Source: The Sun-Herald


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: danensis
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 12:32 PM

Here's a nice balanced view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 01:01 PM

Here is a bit of the article to which John Rouse has linked:


"It may be that the ocean is warming and that's causing the ice to melt, but there may be other reasons as well; for example, there's lots of volcanism in that area and so that could change how much heat is delivered to the underside of the ice sheet."


I have posted several articles on ocean warming on other Mudcat threads about Global Warming. No proponents of that theory have answered this question: By Global warming, do you mean warming of the Earth's land, oceans, atmosphere or all three? Anybody want to attempt to answer it now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 07 Jan 06 - 04:43 PM

Who saved the animals and the waterfront the last time sea levels and C02 spiked?

How does the emissions and fuel consumption of Barbara Striesand's personal jet or John Travolta's 707 compare to a Hummer?

Even dumb assed Ralph Nader realized he could not own a car while bazhing auto makers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:16 AM

Maybe we can discuss 'global warming" and leave out the Algorerhythms.

Most discussions cover the period from around 1860 to date. About 140-150 years. One reason is that the methods of measuring thempertature were primative before that time.

Here is a statement from a New Zealand scientist:

"...surface measurement at weather stations, gives an averaged mean global rise of a mere 0.6°C over 140 years, but is intermittent and irregular. Individual records are highly variable, regional, and sometimes, particularly in remote areas, show no change, or even a fall in temperature.

It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming.

The small and irregular rise shown by many surface stations must therefore be caused by changes in their thermal environment over long periods of time, such as better heating, larger buildings, darkening of surfaces, sealing of roads, increases in vehicles and aircraft, increased shielding from the atmosphere and deterioration of painted surfaces."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:30 AM

2 possibilities:

1) global warming is a part of a natural cycle--and will therefore eventually solve itself.

2) global warming is in large part a human-generated phenomenon. It will therefore continue worsening as long as drastic change by humans is not made.


Exactly why is it the prudent course to assume the first possibility when the second both means world disaster and is something humans can in fact do something about?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:37 AM

OK, Ron, but how can you solve a problem if you blame it on the wrong causes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:18 AM

Global warming is a phrase that should be forgotton. Climate change is more accurate.

We know the climate is changing, as it has been doing for a very long time, but it would seem to be changing fast, and we seem to be involved. Anything more than that is little better than a Wild Ass Guess. But lets hope someone in charge notices London and Washington are at sea level before they end up under it....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:06 AM

Where's the Global Warming? Well, have a look at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro or have a look at what's happening to the ice packs and glaciers, and you will see where it is quite plainly.

It is of some comfort to me to realize that all the hot air blown off on these ludicrous internet debates is not contributing to it, however...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:08 AM

"It is concluded that temperature measurements carried out away from human influence show no evidence of global warming."

Tell that to the Polar bears who are losing cubs to broken up ice floes and not finding seals at the usual times. Tell that to the scientists who are WATCHING glaciers melt & recede. Tell that to the Inuit who have centuries of experience with the Polar weather, and find many aspects of their life changing.

I don't know what this guy from New Zealand is measuring, but most scientists who do LOTS of this work are, in fact, finding rising temps.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:22 PM

PDQ--

You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming.

As I have indicated, if you are right, and we needlessly try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it will do little harm.

If you are wrong, and we do not try to curtail human contributions to global warming, it means world disaster--not in your lifetime, but I would hope you would have some concern for the world we leave behind.

And there are indications--not a certainty, but many indications--you may well be wrong.

If we wait until it is clear to all that human activity is worsening the problem--and it will not resolve itself---it will be far too late for the world.

It seems clear the prudent--therefore conservative--thing to do--is to do something--starting now about the human contributions to global warming.

Not to do so is a reckless gamble--with the wellbeing of the entire world. That is not a conservative approach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:34 PM

Ron,

"You are assuming that human activity is not a main cause of global warming."

Nope.

I assume nothing. I am looking for facts. Then we can all make the conclusions. That is step two. The third step is to look for solutions. Again,   facts > conclusions > solutions.

Reducing polution is a worthy goal in it's own right. So is energy conservation. I have never seen a single statement by anyone advocating pollution or wasting resources. If you have seen such articles, please post . Thanks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:55 PM

It is 'likely' that there is a natural cycle entering a warmer phase, but exacerbated by human activity. CO², Ozone, 'heat sinks' over cities, rain forest reduction, etc..are all PROVEN causes of various changes.

The real point is that, with the stakes being as high as they are, we cannot afford to wait until the worst happens, then analyze a lot of data and nod wisely and say "so THAT's why we are in trouble!"

When it is LIFE we are dealing with, the only sane way is to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately, that's not a popular business model.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:10 PM

What we are trying to do is curtail so much wasting of resources as is going on right now. We are trying to do so through such efforts as pushing for better fuel economy. It's good to know that you need no such incentive as the threat of global warming to do the right thing--which is to support such efforts. However there are people who are unwilling to sacrifice anything--including multiple gas-guzzling SUV's in one family. If the threat of global warming can force government--even, through public pressure, the benighted Bush maladministration, to support better fuel economy, it is worth publicizing.

2 other small illustrations about wasting resources in the US--

1) gas-powered leaf blowers--why does every person with a yard seem to think they are necessary? They are a classic waste of resources.

2) "cigarette boats"--big article in the WSJ yesterday, stating among other things that "owners say that gasoline for a single day of racing (these boats) can cost up to $5,000".

The fact is that those who deny global warming are frequently those who refuse to take any steps at all toward conservation--and fight all attempts to do so.

You may or may not believe that global warming is heavily influenced by human activity--but I hope you are not opposing conservation measures on the basis that they are not necessary since global warming is not a proven fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 05:47 PM

100+ years ago there was a guy advocating the more efficient use of coal, thinking that it would help with pollution, etc. Unfortunately, being dysnomic at times, I can't remember his name, but am sure someone here will know.

The effect of his work was that he noticed that although coal usage became more efficient, in fact, MORE coal was used as a result (it now being a cheaper to use) thus pollution increased.

This IS what human behaviour is...


Excuse me, I've got Chicken Little on the other phone...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 27 May 06 - 05:57 PM

So... essentially, the only way to truly fix the whole thing is to reduce the human population, right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:30 PM

Ever read "Play Little Victims"? (short novellette by Kenneth Cook)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:54 PM

Useful link: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html. *That's* where the warming is, and it's happening all around the globe...

Graham.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:03 PM

"So...essentially, the only way to truly fix the whole thing is to reduce the human population, right?"

That's a bit disingenuous, gnu. True, that would probably help, but you're hypothesizing a draconian solution, postulating the horns of a non-existent dilemma. If a sufficiently large portion of the existing population economized, that would help fix the problem.

However, a drop in the birth-rate wouldn't be a bad idea.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:45 PM

well...I tend to agree that the absolute CORE problem **IS** the human population. Solving any of the other problems are just bandaids and delaying if we don't stop and reverse population growth. If we produce food out of thin air and find cheap, non-polluting energy sources, we still cannot keep expanding......Did no one ever read about the rats in the cage experiments?

Do we REALLY want to find out what the absolute maximum possible population density is? It's like wondering how many weak sleeping pills you can take and still wake up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:30 PM

Fans of 'global warming' should check this out...

                              here's the culprit


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:50 PM

I am currently in southern Austria, staying in a little village in Carinthia. This afternoon I had coffee with an elderly couple from the village. They told me that the rising temperatures in the area have meant that if you want to see the edelweiss flower, you now have to climb higher up the mountains (this area is in the Alps) because rising temperatures make it too hot for the plant to grow in its previous habitats. The plant isnt "moving up" the mountains, its just only left in the higher regions.

freda


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 06 - 07:19 PM

Another take on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 06 - 07:22 PM

A few more insights . . . .

(Click on the cartoon and it'll become readable.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 08:20 PM

:-D !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 06 - 08:50 AM

The book "Play Little Victims" is about the day when God had finally had enough and waggled his finger, leaving the whole surface of the earth devoid of all human life, and under 100 feet of solid ice. In one corner, that apparently got overlooked, were 2 mice (fortunately one of each!), and another side effect of the finger waggling, was that their intelligence was massively advanced. However they found that their whole world was rather small, being basically a small town surrounded by solid ice walls.

The book then details what happens as Adamus, and Evemus (I'm not making this up you know!), with their rapidly expanding population, try to take advantage of their advanced intelligence and the local library....

It's very clever...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:21 PM

Global warming 'the greatest atrocity'
By Xavier La Canna; June 04, 2006; the Australian

AUSTRALIAN actor Jack Thompson has said destruction of the environment is a worse atrocity than the September 11 terror attacks and the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Thompson, who will today address a Melbourne rally on the eve of World Environment Day, said measurably more people were affected by global warming than by the three catastrophic events. "That is not to diminish what happened on 9/11. That is probably the most awful and spectacular incident in my life since Nagasaki and Hiroshima," he said. "But Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 9/11 all together, when you look at the meltdown of the Greenland ice-cap and the flow-on of that alone, the numbers of people affected, it is measurably more."

The death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima was probably more than 100,000, possibly exceeding 200,000 within five years of the World War II bombings. An estimated 3,000 people died as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Thompson, who starred in films including Breaker Morant, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, The Sum of Us and My Brother Jack, said he was passionate about encouraging sustainable development. Thousands of people are set to join today's rally to push to protect Victoria's old growth forests.

Thompson most recently co-starred with Sean Penn in The Assassination of Richard Nixon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:21 PM

Teribus states: "The point being made is that the US in general has complied with them and has reduced emmission and pollutents whereas the Europeans and Kyoto signatories who make a great show of action on behalf of the planet fail due mainly to the fact they only pay lip-servicve to their stated commitments."

Show me proof that the US in general has done anything of the kind. Bush has sabotaged the EPA and other government agencies so that they can't be relied upon to support substantive facts. Obviously, Teribus doesn't live in the US especially in the critical areas where emmissions and pollutents prevail.
I smell corporate propaganda.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 01:57 PM

No, Mr. T doesn't live in the US. My guess is that he lives in Scotland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 05:04 AM

Fact, we pump billions of tons of crap into our air and still there are those who either can't or wont see, and that moron in the White House is afraid doing something will cut into the huge profits of the polluters.
Don't believe the earth is warming? Ok, this is what I know of my own observation: 20 years ago there were certain species of critters that simply did not make it up to Maine. Some of them, the Possum, Mockingbirds and the Cardinal. Now they are everywhere, and there can only be one reason; they can now tolerate our weather.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 07:08 AM

'Terestial Warming' is causing the snow line in Australia - in the Snowy Mountains! to elevate by a documented 150 metres a century. A certain tiny possum is in danger of extermination, because, paradoxically, it cannot hibernate for the normal length of time because the weather is too warm for that, but still too cold for it to find food, so it wakes too early, and then is in danger of starving at the altitudes it has lived in for ages.

When awake, it burns its food stores too fast to last until food becomes available.

When the snow line reaches the tops of the mountains...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Bart
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:51 PM

Who is included in "we"

It sure was cool today. Below average for this time of year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:20 PM

Buttheads like Limbaugh and Hannity are quite fond of pointing out a particular snowstorm or cold spell as proof that global warming is a myth. Weather and climate are NOT the same. It's a bit like seeing an emaciated starving person eat a grape and claiming "see he's getting plenty to eat".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:47 AM

'Terestial Warming' means that the total 'energy' is increasing - this increases 'turbulence', which means actually greater extremes, both of hot and cold temps in many places - the 'colder temps' mean actually that 'more cold is being swept away from the poles' to use the layman's term, actually using correct scientific terminology, 'more heat is flowing to the poles" - thus the 'warming' effects.

If the polar ice is melting, it is because more heat energy is reaching there...

"To the ignorant, all is bliss!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 10:49 AM

Two data from a recent survey in Germany:

2/3 believe that a climate catastrophe is inevitable.
15% would accept higher gas prices to avoid it.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 11:03 AM

What the average citizen believes is a product of the media. Facts have very little to do with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:16 AM

Damn it was cool this weekend. At one point I had to put on a long sleeve shirt.

I have not had to turn the AC on except over the Memorial day weekend.

So what gives with this global warming propaganda?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:30 PM

QUOTE
'Terestial Warming' means that the total 'energy' is increasing - this increases 'turbulence', which means actually greater extremes, both of hot and cold temps in many places - the 'colder temps' mean actually that 'more cold is being swept away from the poles' to use the layman's term, actually using correct scientific terminology, 'more heat is flowing to the poles" - thus the 'warming' effects.

If the polar ice is melting, it is because more heat energy is reaching there...

"To the ignorant, all is bliss!"
UNQUOTE


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:00 PM

Has this ever happened before?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM

Andy:

Yes it has. But not this fast. And when it has happened before, there were mass extinctions. We are, in fact, in the midlle of the greatest and fastest mass extinction in the history of the planet. And here's a statement that will make the apologists howl, but... No reputable scientist disagrees with this. Only the "think tank" scientists hired by Exxon, etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:03 PM

How fast was the mass extinction after that asteroid hit the Yucatan peninsula?

Remember when Carl Sagan predicted an ice age because of the oil well fires that Saddam set in Kuwait?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 04:31 PM

We are, in fact, in the midlle of the greatest and fastest mass extinction in the history of the planet. And here's a statement that will make the apologists howl, but... No reputable scientist disagrees with this. (TIA)

You are one of those people, TIA, who are giving environmentalism a bad name by making nonsense statements which are an easy prey for those who don't agree with environmentalist ideas. Former mass extinctions are estimated to heve eliminated up to 90% of all life forms. And how bad the present extinction is, it is still far from 90% of all life forms. Therefore it cannot be the greatest yet. Anyone with a bit of knowledge knows that.

And 'fastest' is dubitable as well. Former mass extinctions have been so far away in time that their time scale is fairly unknown. The data give an upper limit like for instance 100,000 years but it might as well have been a decade or two weeks. We only know it was faster than 100,000 years. You seem to be mixing up an upper limit with an estimate of a mean. These are two extremely different things.

What happens now is bad enough and there is no need to make nonsensical or outrageously wrong statements. Such statements do not help at all attempts to save the planet, they rather help those who see no need to act now. Lies never help any case.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM

There's a difference between what caused former mass extinctions & what's causing one now!
There is also a thinning layer of the top cold water layers that lie beneath polar ice. If or when these layer thins to far then the warmer bottom layers of water will slowly melt more ice (there's a cycle starting here) which will also cause changes in the gulf stream. Why can't we agree it's just to risky to leave it all up to chance, because that's the best we're doing since we're not listening to science. By the time more studies conclude no more than the past studies (the out come depends on who's doing the study & who's paying for it) will all be in the grave.
Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 06:18 PM

Sorry Wolfgang, I have far more than "a little bit of knowledge" on the subject of Earth's history.

You are right, we have not yet wiped out 90% of species. Yet we have lost about 2/3 of species on the planet in just the last 150 years. Is the trend slowing? The extrapolation is quite easy.

For a specific example, we have lost 70% of Earth's living coral in the last decade. Again, is it slowing? What does extrapolation tell you?

Another - globally, 90% of large predatory fish have disappeared in the last hundred 50 years (not solely the result of global warming..overfishing is hugely involved, but if you're a large predatory fish, do you care?)

Another - again globally, 30% of amphibians are on the brink of extinction -- in some rainforests, 2/3 of frog species are already gone. Is this slowing? Is there a logical, sensical extrapolation to be made?

On a geologic time scale, ten years -- hell even 150 years -- is no time whatsoever. Not long ago, claiming that a mass extinction, or any big event, happened in anything less than a million years got you labelled a "catastrophist". Ten to 150 years certainly seems like a catastrophe to little old nonsensical me. And while I do now the difference between an upper limit and a mean (in fact I know the difference between mean, average, median, and mode as well!), it's a pedantic distinction at best in this case, and exactly the type of argument that climate change deniers (and creationists, and other anti-science people) use to discredit the opposition -- seize upon a small side issue where you sense weakness, and argue it as if it is the main point. I have never considered you to be one of these, and I hope you are not.

Time will certainly tell whether I am "outrageously wrong". If I am I will be happy (and alive) and will apologize to you (and everyone) for being alarmist. If I'm right, we might neither (none?) of us be here for the "I told you so's".

And you are correct, lies do not help a case. In fact, lies are what are keeping us from doing the right thing now for our children and grandchildren (and perhaps all future progeny).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 06:22 PM

And just in case Guest Andy checks back, the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous which corresponds with the Yutacan impact probably took in the order of a million years.
What is currently accepted by most of the scientific community now is that the main cause of this extinction was huge volcanic eruptions in India, that formed the flood basalts know as the Deccan Traps. The meteor impact was just the icing on the cake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 09:06 PM

people like 'guest' Andy appall me with stupid (yes, STUPID..) insights like "it was cool this weekend.." etc.

Yeah...it's cooler right now where I am than usual for this time of year, but anyone with any sense will realize that temporary local variations are irrelevant in the global average.

Anyone who doubts....go READ...go LISTEN...to the ones who are seriously doing the field work and collecting the data!!!! We have problems, guys....you WILL believe in a few years, and then you'll pretend that "no one really warned me", and you'll complain that "no one did anything about it"....and YOU are the ones re-electing the idiots who refuse to do anything about it, and who are buying the SUVs and who are cutting down fields & forests for more malls and highways......

   .....and yes, you are the ones who refuse to see the danger of overpopulation that casts the big shadow over ALL the other problems.

Go on...keep denying and avoiding and pretending; maybe you'll get thru your miserable lives before the worst begins to sink in...but your kids and grand kids will ask why you hid your head in the sand!

Who, me? Cynical? naaawwwww...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM

Yes, it is Bush's fault. Most of it is caused, though, by wind escaping from the mouth and rear of Al Gore.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 04:55 PM

Al Gore probably isn't aware of your dislike of him, Doug. What can we do about that, I wonder? ;-)

I mean, hey, if he WAS aware of your opinion of him, he'd probably experience something akin to a revelation. He'd give up on all this "global warming" foolishness and admit he'd been wrong about everything else too. Wouldn't that be wonderful???

Hmmm. How are we going to make Al Gore aware of Doug's opinion? How?

Maybe we should see if we can get DougR to appear as a special guest on CNN or Larry King Live. Yeah, that'd probably do it. LOL!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 01:37 AM

Mankind and his activities are like a pimple on the Earth's arse. It may cause pain but other factors beyond his control cause greater health risks. Global warming is a natural cycle and human actions only play a small part in increasing its effect. The inverse being also true there is little that mankind can do to make any impact on this cycle to prevent warming up of Earth. That is not to say that we should not do what we can, but the scientific lie is to foster a belief that we can really prevent things like polar melting. Man is by nature a nomad who would change location with changing climate. Instead we build huge buildings on floodplains protected by earthen dams and expect nature to abide by our wishes. National but artificial borders prevent migration to more desireable areas and there are just too damn many of us in any case. If polar bears were to become extinct because of melting ice flows they would follow woolly mamoths that became extinct because of an earlier global warming.
We have changed from a species that goes with the flow of nature to one who stands in opposition, and that is the folly of fools. To believe every "Chicken Little" who cries "the sky is falling" is also the folly of fools, so I guess we are between that rock and a hard place.
         Obie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 04:21 AM

Nice rant, Obie. It's accurate in parts

If polar bears were to become extinct because of melting ice flows they would follow woolly mamoths that became extinct because of an earlier global warming.

Climate change alone wasn't sufficient to kill off the Mammoth, and several other large animal species. They had suvived similar changes between glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary( the last 2 million years).
The extra factor at the end of the last Glacial was people hunting them. There have been houses built of mammoth bones found in Eastern Europe, and mammoth skeletons with flint arrowheads in them found in the US. Where it took longer for people to get to them, the mammoths lasted longer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 10:52 AM

I almost had to turn on the AC yesterday. First time as long as I can remember not using AC this late in the year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 01:39 PM

Well, that clinches it, Andy--global warming is definitely a myth. Your scientific study has proven that it is. Thanks for all your hard work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 02:45 PM

Gosh, Andy, I would have agreed with you last week. It was quite cool here! But....today it's as hot as hell here, and a good deal more humid!

I guess global warming must be real after all, eh, Andy?

But what if it gets cool again? Then what?

It's all so confusing for those tiny minds out there...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM

Also, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, since Norway has loosened its rules about marriage, it's only getting 6 months of sunshine per year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 04:56 PM

" To believe every "Chicken Little" who cries "the sky is falling" is also the folly of fools,"

the point is, if a Chicken Little runs by squawking, it is prudent to at least look UP! Then, go spend a teeny bit of time asking the experts who just may have been where Chicken Little got his information.

This is not a rumor, nor is it a scare tactic...it is a deduction based on many, many factors.

Oh..Obie...".. the scientific lie is to foster a belief that we can really prevent things like polar melting. " ....the important point is whether we are exacerbating the natural processes, and by how much. You don't say how you got the info that 'we can't do much about it'.

Like I said before, and may say again until you are sick of hearing me say it, in matters like this, we need to err on the side of caution!!!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 05:02 PM

Global Warming: It either is or isn't a reality. Either way, it is still prudent to

STOP POLLUTING THIS PLANET

Thank you for reading. We now return you to the regularly scheduled program.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:28 PM

Go see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It will show you the details, the pictures, the numbers, the trends and the projections.

Just go see it. THEN quibble.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:44 PM

From a recent column by Ben Bova in Naples FL -- Bova was the editor of OMNI science mag for many years:

"nd now the bad news.

Global warming is real. Even the White House now admits it.

For years there's been a discrepancy between temperature measurements made on the surface of Earth and measurements made by satellites of the temperatures in the lower portion of the our planet's atmosphere.

The surface measurements showed that the global temperature is steadily rising. The satellite measurements didn't agree.

This led some scientists to downgrade or even dismiss completely the widespread fears of global warming. And such doubts by reputable scientists led others to believe that global warming is a sham perpetrated by Third World collectivists who want to cripple the industrialized world's economy.

The Bush White House was openly skeptical of global warming, although not entirely dismissive.

The Bush Administration commissioned a wide range of studies to examine the issue of global climate change. The first of these studies, released by the Climate Change Science Program, has resolved the discrepancies between surface and satellite measurements.

Thomas Karl, of the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina, was chief editor of the report. He stated that a key element of the study was bringing together the scientists who disagreed about the temperature measurements and having them iron out their differences face-to-face.

The result? The scientists found subtle errors in earlier analyses and, once these were taken into account, the surface and satellite measurements agreed.

Global warming is real.

Now what are we going to do about it? ..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:55 PM

"Now what are we going to do about it? .."

why, turn up the AC and open the doors, of course!

Sadly, if the situation--natural OR man-made-- has gotten out of hand, the only thing we can do that makes sense is to gradually reduce the population over the next few generations so that the areas that are still tolerable to live in are not impossibly overcrowded.

Move over, you folks in Canada, Siberia, Finland...company's coming!

(I sure would like to be mistaken....I'd LOVE to look down from above in 100-200 years and see that it didn't get too bad....but....)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM

Some suggestions here


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 09:03 PM

No. Now, there is a lot we can do about it right now, individual by individual, city by city, state by state.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 05:53 AM

I make no denial that Earth is warming up because that is likely true. I also believe that it will have some catastrophic effects that we have to deal with. I agree that we pollute our world and we must make every effort to stop doing so.
When I read in the promo for An Inconvenient Truth that 2005 was "the worst year ever" I ask myself "How do they know that?" Ever is a very long time and climate ebbs and flows. It is not good science to gain attention with unscientific statements like that, and it casts doubt on follow-up theories. Our way of life is in trouble because we try to control nature rather than flowing with it. If the seas rise we must move. If drought causes starvation then populations will be reduced to a sustainable level. Some other areas will see improvements and some wasteland will become fertile. We now waste huge amounts of water creating golf courses in the desert, and are building more every day. Soon we may need that water to grow food so don't buy a new set of clubs just now.
          Obie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:08 AM

Obie:

They know it for practical purposes because of analyzing ice-core segments that go back 65,000 years. Which in terms of human comparative history is "ever".


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 AM

Furthermore the ebb and flow of climate has been carefully plotted. What is happening now, and has been since the beginning of the 20th century, a complete break-away climbing trend fart above the climatic oscillation band in both carbon content of the atmosphere, measured precisely since the late 1950's thanks to Roger Revelle, and average temperature ranges.

2005 was, overall, the hottest year ever. Parts of India experienced 120-degree heat. Obviously steatements like this are generalized and abstracted -- they cannot be precise except as avaerages. But that does not make them unscientific.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

It's as good science as you can get into a movie tagline though. And if it's explained and expanded on in the moive, then there's no problem with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:14 AM

People who argue against it do so mainly for the reason that their ego demands that they continue to hold the same position they have have held in the past...regardless...because if they didn't, then they would feel like they "lost". That they cannot bear and will not tolertate.

That is what fuels most of these endless arguments, as a matter of fact...merely people's sheer stubbornness in defending an already established position that they have made an emotional investment in. It's a matter of pride, not reason.

It's the "Vietnam" syndrome. "We can't admit we were wrong, and leave now, because it would be humiliating. It would make us look like losers. People might laugh at us! So...we're gonna stay right where we are, take more losses, and keep saying what we have always said...that we are right and our ideas are the only way to go."

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." - Richard Nixon

(Or to put it another way: When the insecure are shown to be in error, the insecure go ever more deeply into denial.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 04:35 PM

My point is mainly that many claims are based on bad science. Bad science may be true or false or any degree in between.
In a related thread on An Inconvenient Truth we are referred to a scientific article that claims that the tropics are expanding toward the poles. This is just another example of extreemly bad science. The tropics area or latitude has nothing to do with global warming and they do not expand or contract. They are the points where the sun's rays land at 90 degrees to the earth at least once a year. Any scientist should know this as fact and not make such stupid statements. When they do it calls to question anything else that they have to say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 07:53 PM

Obie, it may certainly be bad wording (and I have a big beef with newspaper writer's imprecise, colloquial, or plain sloppy usage of words that have specific meanings in science ... e.g. theory, sinkhole, etc.), but that does not necessarily indicate bad science. Would you agree with Thomas Reichler (the author of the article in Science to which the newspaper writer was referring) if he stated it as "tropical climate is expanding towards the poles", or "tropical flora and fauna are expanding towards the poles"? He may simply be under the mistaken impression that "the tropics" are defined biologically or climatically, when, in fact as you point out, they are defined geographically or celestially.

As a corollary, not everyone who says "nukular" is a total dummy. Jimmy Carter had a degree in "nukular physics".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM

TIA,I think that you have stated a truth in that news writers often do not comprehend what they write about and work from a point of view that a good story sells more papers than some rather dry facts. There are also scientists out there who present a dramatic forecast in the hope of attracting some research grants.
That worldwide temperatures are increasing can be a proven fact. Why they are rising can only be theory, but an educated guess based on research acceptable to the wider scientific community should carry considerable weight. There is no denying that a problem exists, but it is caused by many factors. Increasing CO2 levels is part of the problem and mankind must bear some blame for that, but methane and other hydro-carbons emitted from the earth are a larger problem and that is far beyond our control. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere more vegitation should grow to absorb it if the natural cycle is allowed to proceed. If we clear more and more vegitation the natural balance of nature is disrupted so that part is simple enough.
What mankind has put into the equation during this cycle is greed. If somebody dosen't make money on it they don't want to do it. Mother Nature can and will take care of herself but it may be at our peril.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM

"If somebody doesn't make money on it they don't want to do it."

That is the whole problem right there. That is the disease of our civilization. It's not sane. It's not reasonable. It is totally irresponsible, and it's everywhere...because our society revolves around money. And money is an artificial thing that people themselves once created...it isn't real...unless you and everyone else pretend it is, and end up believing it. Then it becomes real, by default, and people serve it and murder for it.

The Indians who killed Custer and his men were outside that system. They didn't value it. They found a lot of paper money on the dead soldiers, took it and used it for ornamentation and starting fires. They could see that it was just little pieces of paper. They had not yet been fooled by the collective dream that white society had enslaved itself to....but the white society was bigger and stronger, so the Indians had no chance. They now serve that same false dream, and they run casinos. Tragic!

We cannot have a healthy planet when vital decisions are made on the basis of someone earning more money.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 12:11 AM

Obie:

There is a close correlation going back over hundreds of years between temperature and atmospheric carbon.

The oscillation of these coupled trends is clearly shown, when graphed over the long term, to be in a breakaway climb that begins around 1910.

The last ten to twenty years (I don't have tghe graphs in front of me) are exponentially ramping toward off-the-chart highs, in very close synchronization with each other.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:44 AM

Currently record breaking US high temperatures are achieved on a daily basis about 70% if the time.

Have you noticed that the cable news weather reports don't show HOT on their maps anymore - they use "very warm" instead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:50 AM

There may be oil under the glaciers and polar ice.

The tundra could be cultivated to grow food for the world.

Eskimos could cultivate a tan and go surfing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 10:42 AM

Trolls don't taste nice people, so don't bite.

Andy, see here....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:35 PM

Those bastards from 1910 did it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:49 PM

Recently scientists have projected that as the warming thaws permafrost tons of carbon will be released into the atmosphere which will in turn hasten and exacerbate global warming.

The trick to combating the warming is to find and grasp the end of the thread... Until we can do that we'll just be dithering about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:18 PM

In addition, because melting ice reduces the albedo of the surface (reflection of hear) and increases the absorption of heat by water (instead of the reflection of heat when it was ice) the warming accelerates from the increased absorption.

The "end" of the thread is reduction of carbon emissions by individuals, by groups, by companies, by cities, by states and by nations.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:52 PM

Yes, but Amos, how does an individual's efforts influence, finally, the nations'?

An analogy: You want to turn the creek on your property in to a different bed or course. You contract to get an earthmover to do the job but he is not available until September and this is only June. So do you take a wheelbarrow out there every day and haul water to the new bed, in order to do your part? And you got your neighbors to bring their own wheelbarrows to help?

Just seems pretty hopeless to me.

The other night at music the last four of us were sitting there singing one depressed song after another and our talk in between was no better. I think I may have outlived the era I want to live in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 10:06 PM

.....and were you aware that Custer was one of the first men to wear an Arrow shirt?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 11:39 PM

Ebbie:

If all you have is wheelbarrows, and your life depends on it, apathy is a pretty poor second choice, IMHO.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 02:30 AM

I don't care. (That is a joke, OK?)

But do you see what I mean? Are we as a country going to go out sputtering and choking because those with the power so decree?

Some things do give me hope. I get more mail from people than I used to, mail that shows that there are people actively working and exploring ways and means. And I meet far more people who forthrightly agree with the idea that something must be done.

And there is the Mudcat. If the proportion of American Mudcatters who are working to make things better in the US to the Mudcatters who not only want the status quo preserved but resent and resist any call to wake up is indicative of what is going on in the US as a whole, the prognosis is brightening.

Guess I'm just in a low spot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM

so much depends upon

a red wheel barrow

glazed with rain water

beside the white chickens.

    -- William Carlos Williams


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:34 AM

Planet running the worst fever in centuries
By John Heilprin in Washington; Sydney Morning Herald
June 23, 2006

THE earth is the hottest it has been in at least four centuries and perhaps in thousands of years. The US National Academy of Sciences reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by the US Congress. In a report released on Wednesday it found the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

A panel of leading climate scientists said the earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming". Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere rose about half a degree Celsius during the 20th century. The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House of Representatives science committee, Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat. The Bush Administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

The climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the northern hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2000 years. The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, scientists from the academy relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years", the academy said. Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the past few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the past 1000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted about AD1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

Between AD1 and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said. The academy is a private organisation chartered by Congress to advise the government on science.

AP


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 07:44 PM

here's the CNN link to the story


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM

The relationship between current heat waves, which have caused multiple deaths across the Midwest and West of the US, and global warming, is explained here in an article headlined "Better Get Used to Killer Heat Waves".


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 08:51 PM

Here in Brisbane, this winter has been weird - occasional nights right down to 6 deg C, with a lot of other nights anything up to nearly 10 deg C warmer than average winter temps for this time of year. And the rain pattern is disturbed - more overcast than normal, but it is not raining.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:46 PM

Please remember folks...Weather is not a synonymn for climate.
E.g. weather changes aren't a big deal, climate change another story...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:52 PM

Well, we had a cool spring and now it is payback time.

Looking at records in my neck of the woods:

Record high for July is 107 in 1936. Average high is 87 Today's high was 93. Tonight's low is supposed to be 76.

Record low for July was 55 Average low is 66

I don't know the date for the July low but the record low for January was -7F in 1984.

So dang, It looks like it was a lot warmer 70 years ago. Maybe there was a global cooling trend that bottomed out in 1984.

In searching for records I stumbled on this:

RECORD SNOWFALL in UPPER MIDWEST- DEC 2000

NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, OK1
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison2

First cold December in years

After several mild winters, the upper Midwest experienced near record low temperatures and high snowfall during the month of December 2000.

For example, the mean temperature in Madison was 11.2 F as compared to the December average of 21.7 F. This was 0.4 F above the record low of 10.8 F.
The temperature was subfreezing continuously except for 2 brief periods on the 3rd and 4th when high temperatures reached 34 and 35 F respectively.
The mean minimum temperature was 2.0 F. The temperature fell below zero (-18 C) on 13 days with -21 F (-29.5 C) the coldest on the 25th.

Waterloo IA set a monthly minimum record with -29 F on 25 December..

Record snowfall in Madison

Measurable snow fell on 20 days giving a record total of 35" for the month. The heaviest was 8.2" on the 18th, followed by 5.0" on the 11th, 4.6" on the 20th.

Total liquid equivalent for the month was only 1.39" giving an average snow/liquid ratio of almost 30 to 1. Most snowfall occured when the temperature was between 5-15 F. In some cases the snow/liquid ratio was as high as 40 to 1.
The highest Madison snow depth of 17" tied for the greatest December snow depth.

Milwaukee set a new snowfall record of 49.5" in December. This broke the previous record of 27.9" by almost 22"!

Snowfall in Milwaukee was occasionally enhanced by northeasterly flow over Lake Michigan. The 13.6" on the 11th was the greatest December single-day snowfall. There was as much as 32" of snow on the ground at MKE late in the month.
Climate data from Wisconsin are available from the NWS MKE (Milwaukee/Sullivan) Web page.

   Iowa:

    By the 21st, the average snowfall from all stations across the state was 19.8" - already a new record for December Snow depth reached 31" across northeast Iowa (29 December at Tripoli).
      Other record Midwest snowfall for December:

    Marquette MI                89.5" *
    Grand Rapids MI             59.2 " *
    South Bend IN                   44.6 "
    Saginaw MI                         40.3 "
    Dubuque IA                         37.6"
    Rochester MN                     35.3" *
    Waterloo IA                         34.0"
    Rockford IL                         30.1" *
    Green Bay WI                     28.9"
    Des Moines IA                     26.9"
    Springfield MO                      18.0"
    Tulsa, OK                               11.4"
    Oklahoma City OK                8.2" (.8" short of record)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 07:57 PM

Some frogs refuse to believe that the water is starting to boil too, you know...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 12:04 AM

That's because Rush and Sean and Ann and Britt are insisting that that the warmth they are distinctly feeling on their watertight asses is just more evil lib'rul media propaganda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

Good on, Ebbie! Perhaps you have now lived long enough to see a glass half full instead of one half empty. Congratulations!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: SINSULL
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 05:32 PM

You are all missing the point. The earth will go on with or without us. Global Warming is a problem only to that ridiculously egotistical creature called man. Once he eliminates himself. time and nature will produce the next generation of earthlings, ones who can survive in the heat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM

You are 100% correct SINSULL. It has happened many times in the history of the planet. The creatures that went extinct then couldn't see it coming, and if they were causing it (e.g. the oxygen-producing, but anaerobic, bacteria who poisoned themselves off in the Pre-Cambrian) could do nothing about it. We are different...aren't we?...maybe...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM

Yep.
It was hotter'n a wildcat's ass here today.
Feels just like summer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:55 PM

The dinosaurs walked the earth for 160 million years before they got wiped out when a piece of debris left over from the creation of the solar system collided with the planet, changing weather conditions so drastically that they couldn't survive. The disappearance of the great lizards allowed mammals, then, little squeaky things that hid in holes and scurried through the branches, to evolve and eventually take over. But no species, no matter how powerful—or how cunning—has a lease on the planet. No guarantees. Even humans, with the intelligence they are so proud of, can be wiped out the same way the dinosaurs were. Only a few weeks ago, a chunk of rock the size of Texas passed across earth's orbit, missing it by only a few hundred thousand miles. That's a very near miss, and it's my understanding (and I try to keep up on these things) that astronomers didn't even see it coming. A collision like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs could happen at any time. So we are no safer than the dinosaurs. But—unlike the dinosaurs, we have it within our power to alter our environment in a number of ways, any of which could be sufficient to cause our own extinction.

Anyone who knows anything about meteorology and other planetary sciences knows this. There have been examples in the past, when whole societies have wiped themselves off the map due to their lack of foresight. They caused their own Collapse.

And nowhere is it written that this kind of catastrophe cannot happen on a planetary scale. It has happened before. Venus, our "sister planet" is the way it is because of (and where have we heard this before?) a runaway greenhouse effect.

We are supposed to be an intelligent species. But if we continue in our dull-witted complacency and don't face the all-too-obvious facts and use that intelligence—and damned soon—humannity may not survive for many more centuries.

If, indeed, that long.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 08:06 PM

Climate reports sent to the White House are highly edited before they are released to Congress and to the public. They are not edited by a scientist, they are edited by a lawyer—a former lobbyist for the oil companies.

This is part of a story that was aired this past Sunday evening. Clicky. Then click on "Play" just below "Rewriting the Science." They may throw a 30 second commercial at you, but hang in there. This excerpt from the report only lasts for three minutes, but it gives you the gist of the longer story.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM

Why, of course they are edited by lawyers! We can't have scary scenarios being laid unvarnished before the public at large...why they might begin to worry and do something awkward....like demand their government curtail the way business interests run the world!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM

How did Mars's atmosphere get the way it is?

Also if anybody here knows what to do about this global warming let's hear it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:31 AM

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a gateway page to a whole pantload of "what to do's"...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/

Git Readin'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM

Al:

I suggest you sneak into the film "An Inconvenient Truth", halfway through. I say this because I am guessing you wuldn't pay for it. But there are a number of very good suggestions therein.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM

Like what? Are they secret?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ is all bout increasing efficiencies. That will happen automatically when the price of oil and electricity get high enough.

We were threatens with a 75% elcetric bill hike here. I went arounf and replaced all the light bulbs with Compact Flourescents. I am putting Microfoil refelective insulation to my attic. There are even solar assisted AC systems. There are governmant rebates on various insulation and soalr powered upgrades that people can take advantage of.

All it takes is monetary incentives.

Now what the hell are you going to do to keep people from trashing the rainforrest?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:29 PM

"Also if anybody here knows what to do about this global warming let's hear it."

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. Cool it down a bit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:38 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM

OK Peace, turn that knob back about halfway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM

Al, what you...and I...and everyone has to do is read, pay attention to the experts, then elect leaders who will also listen to the experts. We can do the individual stuff like light bulbs and insulation also, but some of the big stuff needs to be ORDERED done by someone in charge.

That's how we save the rainforest...we ORDER people to stop trashing it, and enforce the order. Brazil used to ISSUE chain saws to poor farmers, so they could hack out a new farm every 2-3 years...Japan and China are stripping Borneo and Indonesia for plywood and chopstick material.

We 'almost' stopped whaling, but logging is much harder. If we could get the U.N.s attention from petty squabbling over religious wars, we might make some headway!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 08:20 PM

"How did Mars's atmosphere get the way it is?"

The diameter of Mars is slightly more than half that of Earth, and its mass is approximately 11% of that of Earth. It is probable that Mars doesn't have sufficient gravity to retain much of an atmosphere.

Statistics regarding the Martian atmosphere:

Atmospheric pressure – 0.7 – 0.9 kPa
Carbon dioxide – 95.32%
Nitrogen – 2.7%
Argon – 1.6%
Oxygen – 0.2%
Carbon monoxide – 0.07%
Water vapor – 0.03%
Nitric oxide – 0.01%
Neon – 2.5%
Krypton – 300ppb
Xenon – 80 ppb
Ozone – 30ppb
Methane – 10.5ppb

The high level of carbon dioxide (95.32%) probably comes from heavy volcanic activity in Mars' history. There is evidence that it was tectonically very active in the past. One of its features is Olympus Mons, the largest known volcano in the solar system. It's extinct now, and Mars seems to be tectonically dead. At one time it had substantial amounts of water, as witnessed by huge canyons and rills that couldn't have been cut out by anything but flowing water (at least as far as we know; it's doubtful that the Martians had enough beer to do all that). In any case, it's also probable that most of the water dissipated into space as vapor. However, it's hoped, for the sake of future explorers and/or settlers (assuming a lot of terraforming), that much of it is locked up underground as ice.

But before we try to turn Mars into a vacation resort planet, we'd probably better do a few things to try to keep this one from turning into a pizza oven.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

Sorry, Don. But I think you're making that up.
The proof is here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:03 PM

Wow! I guess they did have enough beer!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:26 PM

It's not too smart to get into a tickle-fight with Tars Tarkas.

EEEK!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:34 PM

If Mars's atmosphere is 92% CO2, where's the global warming there? Venus's atmosphere is only 64% CO2.

How do you know an expert when you see one? Remember Carl Sagan, the Guru warning that we would have a nuclear winter because of the oil wells burning in Kuwait in '91?

I think the experts can't decide if it's global cooling or warming.

What is the procedure to ORDER countries to do something that is completely internal? Embargo them? Embargo Brazil and China will trade with them. Threaten them with war? Deny their sovereignty?

Only way I see is through the UN which in my opinion is dysfunctional and corrupt.

Oh by the way there is a dandy interactive map of mars at Google. You can see every pimple and pit. There are some places that look suspiciously like eroded riverbeds about 2/3rds of the way up just to the right if center.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM

Carl Sagan didn't reckon on the ability of Red Adair and his cohorts to put those fires out so fast!

But that is not the point...Carl Sagan may not have been right, but it was still a good idea to put the fires out! And it makes little difference whether this warming is serious or minor...or whether we cause most of it or it is a natural cycle....the fact is, *WE* are making it worse, and it is a good idea to STOP a lot of our self-destructive behavior!

Where did we get this idea that we don't have to DO anything until all experts totally agree we have a problem, and we are out of resources, hungry and miserable? Does no one even consider that in our situation (Mars doesn't seem to available for emigration), it's best to err on the side of caution?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM

OK. I just stopped all my self destructive behavior.

Now it's your turn.

Before we emigrate to Mars, we have to get some global warming going on there and produce some greenhouse gasses.

I have seen Saganesque plans to send robotic atmosphere producing machines there to get it ready for human occupation and subsequent raping. Trees should grow good there with 92% CO2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM

Sure...some folks with scientific expertise speculate on how we might "Terraform" Mars, but no one seriously expects to be doing that anytime soon....but certain experiments on the processes that would be needed to do it on Mars can be beneficial here first! It's the thinking that is important, not some narrow, distant goal.

So glad to hear you are now totally ecologically balanced....I have a way to go yet. I still have a few tungsten light bulbs, and can't afford the best insulation or solar panels or electric cars.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:14 AM

The motivation is purely economic. I get these 43 watt CFs at Walmart for $8.44 that put off 200 watts of light. Great for the garage.

Same way with gas consumption. I drive as little as possible, combine trips. Search out the cheapest gas on gasbuddy.com, add acetone to my gas, blow my tires up to 40psi, whatever it takes to save money.

Yesterday I went to the land fill and got a huge yellow plastic trash can, not a bin, for recycleables. Not for civic duty but because it easier for me to keep them out of the garbage and put them in the big yellow can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 12:25 AM

Why do you add acetone to your gas?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:09 AM

Well, let's put it this way:   I heard on the news a few days ago about a guy who took Viagra. Shortly thereafter he started having trouble with his eyes. He took some more and he lost all the sight in one of his eyes. Then he took another and he went stone blind. Think I'm making this up?

Clicky

Some folks are so focused on what they consider short term gains that they completely ignore the obvious signs and blunder—blindly—into disaster.

Have another tank of gas. What the hell! Buy yourself a new SUV!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:07 AM

2 to 3 ounces of acetone per 10 gallons of gas gets an extra 2 mpg or more gas mileage for most people. It has something to do with better more complete burning of the gas. Works with diesels too.

Acetone is a comodity so it is not hype for a particular "wonder" product. It costs around $5 per quart or $15 per gallon.

Google it or go to

http://www.gasbuddy.com/Forum_MSG.aspx?master=1&category=1054&topic=153466&page_no=1

There are other gas saving topics there and they debunk rip offs like magnets on your gas line.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:19 AM

Does putting acetone in your gas make it smell better?

Should we ask Spaw?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 10:25 PM

You can get a hell of a buzz off of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:48 AM

The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up. Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004. If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet). Estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres (57.3 cubic miles) per year. This figure is about three times higher than an earlier estimate.
(BBC online)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

Once all the weight of an ice cap comes off, there is a chance that the extra buoyancy will cause that mass land to rise. It is even more likely that if this land is in an area of geological instability, that earth tremors may be induced. Possible land and water disruptions may then ensue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM

Along with the fact that cold, fresh water in that quantity would alter the course of the Gulf Stream, which would, in turn, alter the climate of northern Europe. A regional Ice Age.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:18 AM

The lake-effect snowfall was a record for October, with 14.3 inches falling on Friday at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Combined with 8.3 inches recorded on Thursday, there was about 22.6 inches measured at the airport as of 11 a.m.

The previous record was 6 inches on Oct. 31, 1917.

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2006/10/09/daily47.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM

One heavy snowfall doth not an Ice Age make.

One of the effects of global warming is that all weather tends to grow more extreme--but the temperature trend is upward.

A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture in suspension, so one effect of global warming is that when the temperature does cool (temporarily) and the moisture precipitates out, rainfall or snowfall tends to be heavier.

Basic meteorology.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

What happened to those terrible hurricanes this year? You know, the ones caused by global warming?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:41 PM

Hang tough, Old Guy. The fact that you do not understand the science does not mean it isn't there, you know.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:45 PM

Old Guy, get a clue! Global warming is a upward trend in the global temperature, and like all meteorological phenomena, an instance or two that seems to contradict the trend does not mean the trend isn't happening!

Some posts back I point out the matter of the Greenland ice cap melting (which it is doing at a rapid rate) and pouring enough cold, fresh water into the warm, salty Gulf Stream, potentially disturbing its flow and basically, shutting it down. With the cessation of the warm flow of the Gulf Stream, Northern Europe would experience a severe drop in temperature--a sort of mini-Ice Age (it's happened before). But that would only be temporary. The global temperature would continue to rise and the cold temperatures in Nothern Europe would end soon enough. In the meantime, things could get pretty damned nasty in other parts of the world. Droughts, crop failures, increased "desertification," and much more severe storms (hurricanes, tornadoes).

Learn something about meteorology. You might also take a look at planetology. We can see, by examining conditions on planets like Venus, just how dangerous to humanity--or all life on Earth--a runaway greenhouse effect can be.

Don't snort. It's possible!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:06 PM

Im just asking. No need to get you drawers all in a bind.

Now the Greenland Ice cap. The gulfstream brings warm water northward into the area and the salt in the water makes if eventually sink and flow in reverse, bringing cooler water back to the gulf.

Am I right so far?

So when the cap melts and the water is less salty, it does not sink so much and the northerly flow slows down the warming effect, the area gets colder again and the ice cap rebuilds.

Is that why these palm trees were growing in england at one time?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM

OG:

Look -- go see "An Inconvenient Truth" and pay close attention to the math.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 04:14 PM

OK Amos, It was a troll but I sure got a lot of bites from the Kneejerk Liberals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM

It's not simple, Old Guy. If it was, then our lying useless fools of politicians esteemed leaders would have got it by now, and actually take it seriously....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 05:49 PM

If it was, then sevaral lying useless fools of posters here would have got it by now, and actually take it seriously as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:35 PM

". . . the area gets colder again and the ice cap rebuilds."

That's an essentially localized effect which would not take effect if the worldwide temperature continues to rise as a result of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

There's an old say about "not able to see the forest for the trees." You have to look at the overall picture, Old Guy. Global warming means global warming, and although it may have temporary localized effects that seem to indicated that it isn't taking effect in the short term, that doesn't meant that it isn't happening.

By the time it makes itself patently, obviously undeniable to people like you, it will be far too late. You, and everybody else, will soon be boiling in their own juices.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM

Gee, Old, sorry you were up at 4:18 AM. Hope the snow doesn't keep you up again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM

I wonder how coal got to be in Antarctica?

And Oil in the north slope of Alaska where no plants grow?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:16 PM

Old Guy, when you're boning up on the sciences, learn something about geology. Have you never heard of "continental drift?" What are now arctic regions were not always in the higher latitudes.

What the hell did they teach you in school? Or was that back when they still thought the earth was flat?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:20 PM

Why it's the Model T Ford made the trouble
made the people wanna go, wanna get, wanna get up and go
seven eight , nine, ten, twelve, fourteen, twenty-two, twenty-three miles to the county seat.
Yes sir, yes sir

It's the model T ford made the global warming.
Yes sir, yes sir


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM

Seashells in the Himalaya! Proves, yes PROVES that scientists don't know shit. Clams got no legs, let alone crampons.


What an F'in MOron.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:13 PM

Palm trees, Old Guy? The Isle of Arran--off the west of Scotland, has palm trees galore. And far from a looming rise in temperature due to global warming, the temperature in the UK/Western Europe region is expected to DROP, due to the probable diversion of the Gulf Stream, which is the factor which makes palm trees a part of Scottish vegetation. Whether or not this drop in temperature has permanence is debatable; I imagine it will depend in the mid to long term on the degree of the general global warming trend. Does all this mean that Boab is a convinced "believer"? Itdoesn't. I think there is a probable warming trend, and if not, it's No thanks to the heedless career of humanity, which is HELLbent in ignoring calls for action which will reduce their contribution to such a dangerous trend. If there is even a slight possibility that we are responsible for all or any part of a warming trend we owe it to our kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids [and I have all of them] to take whatever action possible which will slow down or stop this situation from reaching a deadly stage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:15 PM

So the continets slide around but the climate stays the same until humans screw it up?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:26 PM

Old Guy,

Have you ever flown south? Did you notice anything when you stepped off the plane? I can only believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, because nobody is that ignorant. ('til now?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM

"things could get pretty damned nasty in other parts of the world. Droughts, crop failures, increased "desertification,""

Welcome to Australia! The wheat and rice crops are likely to be about 25% of last year...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM

First, if you get off the plane in Mexico, little buggers come up to you and try to shine your tennis shoes for a penny. Then you notice it is warmer.

If you keep going and pass over the equator, you are upside down and the water draining out of a sink spins counter clockwise.

If you keep going, it gets real cold and the sink won't drain at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:04 PM

I am not saying global warming is not happening but here are some all time records:

In Chicago, the storm on Thursday caused brief white-out conditions and marked the earliest measurable snow on record.

SUMMIT COUNTY Colorado.
Friday's opening marked the earliest-ever start for A-Basin, and comes on the heels of a winter with banner snow that set a record for skier visits at The Legend.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:11 PM

Turbulence!

In the full global picture, as you have been told before local relatively small local areas will give instances that appear to be the opposite of the real trend.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM

Flatulence!



Lots of stinky, hot air everywhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 07:18 AM

Exactly what the deniers are full of...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 07:52 AM

Those are not all time records, Old Guy. 21,000 years ago, at the peak of the last Glacial Period, Chicargo was under a mile of ice.

Climate change is not new, but normally happens slower than this, and factors such as variations in the Earths orbit are responsible, not man-made Carbon Dioxide.

Don, It is entirely possible that continenetial drift would not have been taught when Old Guy was at school. It was proposed as a theory in the 30's, but only proven in about 1965-67.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM

I think old guy has proven his ignorance is bliss to him and he will hold on to that ignorance against any attempt to educate him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:14 AM

It is nice to see the hasty reactions to the troll post. But it was a fine trool post making fun of all the attempts to bring up personal experience as a proof of global warming. I wonder why some people who did react this time did not react the many times someone else used a particularly warm period or a sequence of hurricanes as proof for the other side.

The local effects of (real BTW) global warming are too variable and too small to be detectable by personal experience. But I do not think highly of those posters who first look for which opinion (man made global warming / global warming scepticism) a local personal experience is quoted and then either welcome it warmly or turn to science. Double standard posters!

(1) Never trust personal experience for so tiny effects (which could have large consequences, but that's something else, the effects are small compared to the standard deviation). Only trust good science for measuring these effects.

(2) Trust measurements much more than models.
We had the sad case reported just last weekend that the really big science global/local climate model (into which millions of Euros have flown) which did predict for Germany much more rain during winter, Mediterranean climate in summer, long periods ofdrought for some regions was found to be wrong. Not just a bit. Fatally wrong from the very onset. That means back to the start for the one big German model.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM

"So the continets[sic] slide around but the climate stays the same until humans screw it up?"

. . . friggin' pathetic. . . .

Jaysus, Old Guy, Read a Book!!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM

I hate to intrude on your "we are all doomed" club but the fact is that we are all doomed. It we don't wipe ourselves out, nature will do it for us.

Yellowstone could blow tonight and start a nuclear winter that could wipe out mankind. Even it that calamity and thousands of other possible calamities are somehow avoided, eventually the earth will be toasted by the sun.

If global warming is not a nautral occurance, a cycle like other cycles in history, is man made, there is no way to turn it around unless we all go back to the pre-industrial era, voluntarily.

Who wants to be the first in line?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:15 PM

Dumbass. There's a difference between being fried by a natural, unstoppable occurence, and actively doing it to yourself and your children because it is more important to you that you follow your blind stupid allegiance to a political party.

BTW, how soon will the Earth be swallowed by the sun? Any difference (that you know of) between the Earth biota now, and the biota at a comparable time in the past? Never mind. Just went way beyond you. Sorry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 11:21 PM

". . . there is no way to turn it around unless we all go back to the pre-industrial era, voluntarily."

Untrue. There are plenty of things we can do to stop the trend and reverse it, things that would improve our lives immensely. But there are those who are afraid that it will impinge on there profits and others who think it will alter their way of life. Well, it will to that--but it will alter it for the better

And it will also help to insure that future generations (do you have children and grandchildren, Old Guy?) will have a decent world to live in.

But that's just too much trouble for some folks to even bother thinking about.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 01:13 AM

"blind stupid allegiance to a political party"

An assertion, not a fact and a personal attack.

My point is, what can be done about this global warming and how do we know it is man made?

Every time I ask what can be done, I get told "see the movie" I do not care to see the movie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:51 AM

First try using your voting power & help elect someone with an enviormentally friendly brain & continue from there.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM

What can be done? Try a few of these things, Old guy.

Drive a smaller car, that will do better gas milage. Try and do fewer miles in it, by combining trips and such like.

Insulate you house well, and get used to wearing a sweater indoors in the winter.

There are lots of others, but I don't know your circumstances. If you live in cabin in rural Alaska, it will be well insulated already, and you do need a four wheel drive out there.

It's not a question of going back to the stone age, it's simply producing electricity , and running cars in ways that don't produce Carbon dioxide. It wil take decades to get to that stage, so in the meantime, use ways that produce less.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:17 AM

Nope. "Dumbass" was the personal attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM

You have been advised to see the movie, cause it is well researched and well put together, far better than trying to get the answers thru a thread at Mudcat...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:42 AM

"Every time I ask what can be done, I get told "see the movie" I do not care to see the movie."

Actually, various people upthread (maybe you?) asked what can we do, and I posted a link to UCS's common sense solutions. Here it is again. Don't see the movie. Read this.

Practical Solutions to Global Warming


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM

Old Guy:

OVercome your reluctance, and see the movie. It won't hurt, and it may inform.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM

That global warming is an established scientific fact, and that human activity (wholesale pouring of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere from automobiles, coal-fired power plants, dozens of other sources) is either causing it, or is dangerously accelerating it, is also a scientifically established fact.

No, we are not "all doomed." But we will be if we keep doing what we're doing. That, too, is an established scientific fact.

Scientists say so. Auto manufacturers, power plants, and other businesses that might have to spend a little money to reduce or eliminate their contributions to atmospheric polution--and the politicians they own--say either that it isn't so, or "well, let's study it for a few more centuries."

Personally, I'll believe a scientist over a politician every time.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:36 PM

"... what can be done about this global warming and how do we know it is man made?"

Lots can be done...and since there is some evidence that we humans are making it worse, the only prudent course is to assume that we are at least partially at fault! This is called 'caution'. I would rather err on the side of caution than wait until it is CLEAR that we needed to change our ways 50 years ago!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

Right, Bill. The steps we should take right now are relatively easy compared to what they would be fifty years from now. If we wait until it's obvious to everyone, chances are it will be too late to do anything about it.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM

Actually Old Guy, I would recommend you read

'Play Little Victims' by Kenneth Cook (an Aussie!) - published in late 70s or early 80s

If you can cope with this, you are capable of understanding the movie about Global Warming - it was pitched at such people as you.

a nice review is at http://kimbofo.typepad.com/readingmatters/2006/07/play_little_vic.html

Extract

It's basically a macabre satire about two mice that survive the end of the world. Adamus and Evemus (geddit?) start being fruitful and multiply -- and multiply and multiply -- until it's quite apparent there's an over-population problem.

An official governing body is set up, which then spends the rest of the book trying to work out ways of solving this problem. With the Word of Man to guide them -- a bible and 4,268 editions of the New York Times -- they systematically introduce wars, pollution, abortion, road-death, alcohol and cigarettes to stem the ever-increasing numbers of mice living in Earth's one remaining habitable valley.

When they stumble upon the final solution -- revealed on the very last page of this novella -- it is more horrifying than one could possibly imagine. It makes your skin crawl and your spine shudder.

The beauty of this charming and intelligent fable is its polished brevity. It's also laugh-out-loud funny in places, startling and morbidly dark in others. It says so much about the state of the world right now I find it amazing that Play Little Victims has never been reprinted: it would garner such an audience today. Perhaps because it is by an Australian, little known outside of his homeland, it just never gained the international attention it deserved. I'm sure that would not have been the case had he been a Brit or an American...

End Extract

Copyright Notice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. You must not copy and distribute any of the reviews on this site without giving Reading Matters credit. Click on the logo to view full details of the CC Commons Deed. Please contact the editor of this site if you have any queries.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 09:50 PM

Ok, I am all for these if only to screw the Arabs:
#1: Better Cars and Suv's
#2: Modernize America's Electricity System
#3: Increase Energy Efficiency
#4: Protect Threatened Forests
#5: Support American Ingenuity

I already follow a lot of energy saving measures.

How about the other contries in the world? If we conserve, are they going to do the same? Will the UN force them? The UN can't even stop the genocide in Sudan. Un should mean Unsucessful Nincompoops.

This chart shows oil comsumption in Asia more than doubling by 2030 so it almost equals US consumption.

Deforestation occurs mainly in Brazil and they have told us "screw you" more or less, we will cut our trees all we want to.

I am sorry to say I don't think the rest of the world will follow our example.

Yes we are the largest consumers of energy but cutting ours will not make a big dent in the world consumption. Not that we shouldn't try but in any event, we are toast.

We are headed for those domes over cities in the science fiction books.

It's easy for some niaeve idealist one to say we need to do this or that. It is the doing that is difficult.

"We need to eat less fattening unhealthy food and comsume more healthy food."

You can give the person that said that a Nobel peace prize but it won't get the job done.

To condense it all down, it is easier said than done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 10:14 PM

Indonesia and other nearby island nations are rapidly destroying their forests for the timber and to grow palm oil.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:05 PM

I am not aware of all that is happening in the world forrestwise but I think in the US we practice reforrestation. Do any other countries do this?

In Haiti they turned all of their trees into charcoal. The resultant runoff along the coast killed the reefs and the fishing which cut off that food supply. Who is going to turn this around?

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1103/Steber/Steber.html

...Later that evening, it rained long and hard. Soil mixed with huge stones washed down the hillsides. The roads. all of which lead to the harbor and slums lining the port, became impassable. People abandoned their cars and found them the next day crashed into the walls of' the national cemetery, where bodies had been washed out of their caskets. People walked gingerly around gaping graves to get a look at the decomposed corpses.

In the slums, people stood on their beds during the night of rain as it swelled the canals of sewage that run alongside their shanties. The mixture of rocks and mud and sewage flooded their dirt floors by nearly a foot. Babies cried and already-exhausted people who desperately needed sleep didn't get any. Rats swam where they could and otherwise drowned. Even after the water subsided, the mud remained and people sank into it up to their knees as they made their way to their jobs the next day.

Before the rainstorm was over, Haiti had lost tons of precious topsoil from the hills surrounding Port-au-Prince, along with thousands of gallons of water reserves. Some people drowned in the deluge. Here, as if in some evil pact, the problems of deforestation and lack of clean water played out their drama in which the Haitians were caught as unhappy victims.

No matter how many environmental, agriculture and forestry experts in American and international aid agencies one talks with, there are no illusions that even the best techniques available today can save Haiti....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:18 PM

So, if we can't encourage everyone to help with the rescue, we should just drown the fucker, right?

Sheesh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 11:50 PM

Hunh? How do you get that response out of a question?

Can you answer the question or are you only capable of reacting with a rhetorical question?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM

Excerpt:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Or paraphrasing T. S. Eliot,

Not with a bang but a "business as usual."

The name of the poem, incidentally, is "The Hollow Men."

Apt, eh?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 AM

Well it don't really matter how it ends. When it's over it's over.

Personally I think mankind will figure out what is happening and manage to pull out of it in time but I worry about third world countries ofsetting any efforts by the most developed nations to curtail global warming.

The natural rise in the cost of energy will cause conservation anyway.

I think we are not far enough into it yet to determine if it is natural or manmade. I say this because I remember claims of global cooling in the past. A large volcanic explosion or an asteroid strike could turn global warming into global cooling real quick and they have done so in the past.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM

Yes, the non-efforts of some (typically second-world) countries do (or would) undercut the true efforts of those who care to try. But it makes me crazy to hear the argument that we in the first world should do nothing unless we can get everybody to help.

This crazy argument is like a crowd watching someone drown. Unless everybody helps, nobody should.

We can't do anything about an asteroid strike. We can do something about climate change.

Back to our drowning victim. People get hit by buses. He might get hit by a bus next week, so perhaps we should just let him drown.

I don't know if OG is a scientist of any type, but the overwhelming scientific consenus is that we are plenty far enough into it to know that it is real, and that human activites are contributing to some degree. We can still argue over the degree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:03 AM

This discussion is reminding me of the scene in "Life of Brian" where the committee needs to make a unanimous decision as to what action will be taken to help Brian, captured by the Romans, and on his way to be crucified.

They fart about for ages, then issue a 'strongly worded politically correct statement', but actually DO nothing...

this is the scene with "What have the Romans done for us?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM

The West, at the moment, is the only area that can afford to develop large scale clean energy sources that actually work. If we do so, and start using them, then not only do we cut our emmisions, we then have proven technology to sell to the developing world.

Lets take China as an example. The projected health care bills due to the air pollution from their dirty coal powered industry make the US national debt look sensible. How many million will have to die there before the pressure to switch to cleaner power becomes irresisitable? I don't know, but it will happen, and sooner than many people think.

Even if they rip off every patent on the clean technology, then the West still benefits, by having New York and London above sea level. So does Bangladesh...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:17 PM

"We can't do anything about an asteroid strike" Oh yeah?

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9063.html

...Various plans have been put forward to deflect incoming asteroids. For example, lasers or giant space mirrors could evaporate ices on their surfaces, creating jets that propel them away from Earth. And half-painting an asteroid could make it radiate heat differently on each side, slowly nudging the object off course...

Who is going to make the Barbara Striesands and John Travoltas of the world park their private jets (Travolta has 5) and drive a Civic?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

Who is going to stop cows from farting and force termites to retain their methane?

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/physical_science/chemistry/methane.html

...Although the concentration of methane in Earth's atmosphere is small (around 1.8 parts per million), it is an important greenhouse gas because it is such a potent heat absorber. The concentration of methane in our atmosphere has risen by about 150% since 1750, apparently largely due to human activities. Methane accounts for about 20% of the heating effects by all of the greenhouse gases combined. Both natural and human sources supply methane to Earth's atmosphere.

Major natural sources of methane include emissions from wetlands and oceans, and from the digestive processes of termites. Sources related to human activities include rice production, landfills, raising cattle and other ruminant animals (cow burps!), and energy generation....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM

So Old Guy is perfectly willing to sit back complacently and "let technology save us."

Where have we heard that before?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM

Once again, if we can't get EVERYBODY to help, we might as well let the poor bastard drown.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:44 PM

Well, at least Old Guy's continuing list of "Oh, yeahs?" is a good way to have all the usual complacent and stereotyped objections to the warnings in one place, so that some of us can answer them, leaving food for thought for those who wander in.

Ahem...the asteroid deflection ideas are WAY in the theory stage so far,(I hope they DO come up with a good one!) but there are LOTS of ways to reduce Ozone depletion and greenhouse gas emissions, etc. already.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM

One thing I am doing to save energy is replacing my lightbulbs with Compact Florescents that use less than 1/4 of the electricity of incandescent bulbs.

You can buy a 6 pack of 60 watters for less than $10 at Home Depot. They consume only 14 Watts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM

"there are LOTS of ways" All I want to know is who is going to enforce those "ways" to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming.

There are lots of ways to prevent drug abuse, auto accidents etc. Have they been prevented? Have they even been reduced?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 03:10 PM

The light bulb bit IS one very good way you can help...and save money. I am doing that myself.

As to enforcement, most of us can do little but VOTE for those who promise to do the enforcement! Of course it is hard to get people to change long established habits..especially when $$$$ are in the way of sense..(pun intentional). Education will help....if enough people KNOW what needs to be done, the idiots who refuse to pay attention 'may' get out voted....if there's enough time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Al Gore
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM

I blew a fart and started it all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM

I know,i smelt it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Seattle City Light gave bunches of those 14 watt bulbs free to any customer who wanted them. Seattle is a fairly (excuse the expression) progressive city.

And ". . . who is going to enforce those 'ways' to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming[?]" Well, certainly not the Bush adminstration.

So--save a planet--work for regime change!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:12 PM

OG - I am truly (no sarcasm, honest) grateful that despite your rhetoric, you are actually doing things to alleviate climate change. Thank you. From me and my kids.

BTW, auto accident injuries HAVE been reduced thanks to seatbelt laws. And I, for one think that even if there are a few people who don't wear seatbelts, we should still all be required to wear them. Remember, some of us will try to save the drowning swimmer even if others stand around and watch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 09:21 PM

"who is going to enforce those 'ways' to have a sufficient effect to reverse global warming"

Think Globally, Act Locally.

What have YOU done?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 10:48 PM

I think the CF bulbs should cost less than the incandescents. Either lower the CF or jack up the Incandescents.

Why not a tax on the gas hogs that makes the price of a hybrid look more attractive.

Some people would like to have a hybrid but they can't afford the extra cost.

"Where have we heard that before" I don't know Don, where have we heard that before? You know who will certainly not so you must you know who certainly is. So who is going to enforce those ways?

Also you can get 6 packs of 40 watt CFs for less than $10 at Home Depot. They use 9 watts of electricity.

Compact flourescents are a product of technology that will help the environment. I am willing to let that happen, Does Don have a different plan for us to follow?

The next technological step forward is Cold Cathode bulbs which are more efficient than CFs. Beyond that are LED bulbs. Is it OK if we just sit back and let these things happen Don?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 06 - 11:47 PM

Lot's of people, particularly polluting manufacturers and the politicians they buy off, say that a lot. "Don't worry about it. Advancing technology will save us." And then automobile manufacturers, for example, go right on making and and selling SUVs and other gas-guzzlers and complain that it would cost too much to try to procuce more fuel-efficient vehicles. No advancing technology from that quarter if they can help it.   

Sit back and wait for these things to happen? No, I think we should insist on it. It's called "consumer demand." Businesses are often responsive to that. especially if you make it plain that you won't buy their products unless they make something you want, you'll buy from someone who already does, or managed to make do with what you already have.

A tax on gas hogs sounds like a good idea to me. And how about a tax credit for buying a hybrid?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:12 AM

Credit for Taxpayers Who Purchase or Lease Hybrid Vehicles or Other Alternative Motor Vehicles

The tax credit for hybrid vehicles, which was enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, may be as much as $3,400 for those who purchase the most fuel-efficient passenger automobiles and light trucks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 AM

I don't know where it is, but it darn sure isn't in the Buffalo NY area where they endured one of the earliest snow storms in history this past week.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM

I think we've already covered that, Doug. Read the thread before you post.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 05:59 PM

Aw, c'mon, Don- that takes all the fun out of it for ol' Douggie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:54 PM

Gee, Don, whatever would I do without you to guide me in curbing my errant ways? I'm just so grateful.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:04 PM

What? putting a bit of your own turbulence in there Doug?

:-P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM

Always glad to be of help, Doug.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM

Got to thinking about the Global Warming/Buffalo snowstorm thing (and similar ideas way up thread). So, I watched a lot of FOX News last night, and darned if my method of thinking isn't starting to be corrected. Works like a dream. For instance, there is no world hunger problem -- I saw a whole bunch of chubby people on my way to work this morning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 10:58 PM

TIA - you've been out-Foxed...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM

DougR:

Be careful. You will get drawn and quartered by the fanatics here if you hint that there is no global warming.

Though out in Colorado, they had the earliest opening of the ski slopes ever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:28 PM

There is of course, Old Guy, DougR, no Global Warming locally where you are, yet...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 12:17 AM

And, what's all this fuss about deforestation? I've got a whole bunch of trees right here in my yard.

My how much easier thought is now that I understand the way evidence works.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM

Fanatics sez Fat Old Woody?

Ya gotta love this guy, dontcha?

Even most of the worst of the right wing loonies don't attempt to argue with the overwhelming scientific evidence that the phenomenon of "Global warming" is established fact.

What they choose to question, for ideological reasons, are the CAUSES of global warming, i.e. they like to deny (again in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence) that human activity and "greenhouse gasses" and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to it.

Poor Fat Old Woody doesn't even begin to comprehend the Party Line he's supposed to be spouting!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:07 AM

It's not their fault anthropogenic is such a long and difficult word..

Questioning the causes of the current climate change is the only way they can make the case for doing nothing. It's such a complcated system, with so many feed-back loops, that any short( short enough for TV) and honest answer to 'What's happening' will have probably and we think scattered throughout it.

The enviromental records for the last few Glacial cycles (Not ice ages, we are in an ice age right now, which is composed of several glacial periods( much ice), and interglacials, like now (less ice)) is less than perfect, so trying to figure out what is happening to the satisfaction of scientists, let alone the absolute proof required to convince those who don't want to see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM

TIA, lol, thanks for making me smile!
Yup, that old Fox "programming", just program your thinking to make scary facts go away.
Such as, there can't be world hunger, those African babies on tv have round tummies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:24 PM

Will Dear Leader Greg Jong-il please point out where anyone here said global warming does not exist?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:26 PM

LOL. Wots the titul of this thred?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM

Whatever the Moderators want it to to be!

Oh no - did I say that?...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 09:26 AM

Why did the EPA smother a scientific report that questioned global warming?

Why is the EPA suppressing this global-warming report?

EPA May Have Suppressed Anti-Global Warming Study

NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:05 PM

Guest Old Fat Woody: Perhaps no one has posted that global warming does not exist, but this poster confesses to having doubts. At least I think it is questionable. It seems that there are many other reputable scientists who also question the evidence too.

The mainstream press (other than the Wall Street Journal) has kept the lid on the fact that one of the leading scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Carlin, (who holds a degree in physics from CalTech)along with another colleague at the EPA presented a 98 page analysis to the agency recently arguing that the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a "downward trend". It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA", the report read. Carlin and the report were blown off by his superiors at the EPA, who in my opinion, are bent on charging full speed ahead probably because the research money from the federal government and private foundations would dry up if the global warming scare was proven to be a hoax. One that would exceed even the scandal generated by Bernie Madoff.

Anyone interested can Google the WSJ and read the whole column titled, "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic," in the Friday/Saturday/Sunday edition of the Wallstreet Journal (July 3 -5, 2009)by staff writer, Kimberley A. Strassel.

I Expect few here will do so.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

  
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Marc Morano

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

I don't know why you'd expect that, Doug. Most mudcatters seem to be people who search to find information and try to look at all sides.

I googled it, found chain emails referencing it, blogs linking to it, and this page on the American Bar Association web site.

http://www.abanet.org/statelocal/lawnews/summer07/mass.html


Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Noreen
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM

Climate change is NOT a party political issue- it is an observed, recorded fact and has to be planned for and dealt with.

Scoring petty party political points merely produces more hot air (and CO2!) and signifies nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM

btw, I googled "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic".
The American Bar Association link was on the 19th page of google results. Guess I'm just a news junkie, or inquiring minds want to know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:01 PM

...from the article Alice in Montana cited:


"If anyone is keeping a scorecard of the winners and losers in this case, without a doubt, the climatologists who have been trying to warn the general public and policymakers for years about the seriousness of global warming must feel vindicated. They are the big winners, as we all are. One can almost see Justice Stevens giving an approving nod to James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, when he begins the opinion:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a 'greenhouse gas.'"


John Paul Stevens is an 89 year old senile lawyer who has no background in this subject. Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

BTW, CO2 is about 370 parts per million in the atmosphere and is therefore of little consequence compared to H2O, another "greenhouse gas".

So, BAN WATER Mr. Stevens, as long as you are being so silly. Or at least declare it "pollution" it and be consistent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 07:25 PM

To make it more clear, 360 PPM (parts per million) means that "for each molecule of CO2 there are 27 molecules of something else" in Earth's atmosphere.

Assume that we (people) are resposible for half the CO2 (not really proven), then about 55 out of 56 molecules in Earth's atmosphere are not our responsibility.

If we cut CO2 emissions by 10%, that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 by "one molecule out of every 550". Of no concequence at all, except for the cost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

Alice: I googled the same site that you did. There were over 14,000 sites related to that subject. I'm a bit puzzled about why you chose the American Bar Association's website information. What am I missing? I saw nothing there that related to the information from the Wall Street Journal that I posted.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

I figure the global is warming on the stove.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:09 PM

Right now, my stove has a pot of chili.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM

You make REAL chili?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Zen
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM

Lecturing the knowledegeable folks in the science community is as silly as truck driver lecturing judge Stevens about constitutional law.

So why are you doing the same to some of us scientists pdq?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:30 PM

It seems that there are many other reputable scientists who also question the evidence too.

Well, by definition all scientists are committed to question evidence - that's what evidence is for, and that's what scientists do.

But the suggestion that, having questioned the evidence, "many reputable scientists" think that the case is not proved that there is already substantial climatic change with worse to come, and that human activity is contributing dangerously to this - well, it just is not true. It really isn't.

Remember how for years there were efforts to claim that smoking didn't cause cancer? There were always a few "reputable scientists" ready to back up that fallacy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:40 PM

Indeed, McGrath,,, you can find a 'scientist' who will affirm that humans lived beside dinosaurs if you look a bit....



300!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

"You make REAL chili?"

Well, "yes" if you include the kind with beans.

Starts with...
          1 lb    dry red kidney beans (Wal*Mart, cheap)
          1 lb.    finely diced chuck steak (all fat removed)
          28 oz can of Hunt's diced stewed tomatoes
          some   Gebhardt's chili powder

After that, it varies.

Actually, Q is probably the top chili man on Mudcat, but did come from New Mexico.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM

OK. You got my attention. Y'eat it hot? As in HOT? Or just hot as in warm or mild?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

"chili today and hot tomale"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 02:06 PM

It went back to get more heat!

(A pparaphrase of Kendall's answer to the question, "So, where is the glacier now?" Answer: "It went back for more rocks!!"

Art


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 11:34 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arctic sea ice has thinned dramatically since 2004, with the older, thicker ice giving way to a younger, thinner kind that melts in the northern summer, NASA scientists reported on Tuesday.

Researchers have known for years that ice covering in the Arctic Sea has been shrinking in area, but new satellite data that measure the thickness of ice show that the volume of sea ice is declining as well.

That is important because thicker ice is more resilient and can last from summer to summer. Without ice cover, the Arctic Sea's dark waters absorb the sun's heat more readily instead of reflecting it as the light-colored ice does, accelerating the heating effect.

Using NASA's ICESat spacecraft, scientists figured that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 7 inches a year since 2004, for a total of 2.2 feet over four winters. Their findings were reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The total area covered by thicker, older ice that has survived at least one summer shrank by 42 percent.

Beyond that, the new satellite data showed that the proportion of tough old ice is decreasing at the same time as the amount of young fragile ice is increasing, information that was hard to discern from earlier data.

LOSING THE OLD ICE

In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice and 38 percent in first-year seasonal ice. By last year, 68 percent was first-year ice and 32 percent the tougher multi-year ice.

The research team blamed these changes on recent warming and anomalies in sea ice circulation.

"We're losing a lot more of the old ice, and that's significant," said Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Basically we knew how much the area (of ice) was shrinking, but we didn't know how thick it was."

To find the volume of ice, NASA's ICESat spacecraft measured how high the ice rose above sea level in the Arctic, Kwok said in a telephone interview.

"If we know how much is floating on top, we can use that to compute the rest of the ice thickness," Kwok said in a telephone interview. About nine-tenths of the ice is beneath the water, he said.

The ICESat measurements cover virtually the entire Arctic, and they tally with ice volume measurements made by submarines, which cover only a few passes across the area.

Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level last year, rising slightly from its all-time low in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic ice is a factor in global climate and weather patterns, because the difference between the cool air at the poles and the warm air around the Equator drives air and water currents, including the jet stream. (Scientific AMerican)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:17 PM

Yes, Amos, I read the newspapers too.

Arizona had the coolest June since 1913. Our first 115 degree day is expected this coming weekend. There are other publicized reports that the earth has been cooling, not warming for past few years.

Have you "believers" ever considered the consequences that would result from the proponents of man caused global warming being wrong? Most of us won't know whether they are or not of course because they are projecting climate 30, 40, 50 years into the future. Meanwhile governments are forcing changes upon businesses and individuals that are very costly and might not be necessary.

When scientist can guarantee that six months from now, on any certain day, the temperature will be ___, the humidity will be ____ and it will, or will not rain, I'll be a bit more accepting of the current guesses. And that's all they are, guesses from computer models (of course computers are never wrong ...right?)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

DougR - there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather", and I think you are mixing the two in your head.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:08 PM

From New Scientist, March 09:

" AM shocked, truly shocked," says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them."
The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them

Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. "Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It's unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing."
No summer ice

The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.

Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.

Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn't bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
Runaway warming

The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost...."





That seems to answer the question, doesn't it?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM

"The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions."

So, you do not have full faith and allegiance in the Gospal according to Gore???


I pointed out that carbon ( dioxcide ) is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses, and efforts to eliminate global warming by dealing only, or even primarily with it would fail.

Water vapor and methane are far more significant as greehouse gasses, and all the efforts have been ignoring them.


Now, tell me again about why the polar ice cap on Mars is shrinking, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is changing significantly over a short time scale- Perhaps the sun really is the variable star that astrophysicists have said it was, and all of King Gore's orders will not keep the tide of global warming from rolling in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:19 PM

My point has been that the problem is to adapt to the global warming, and move populations to where they will not be flooded out, as opposed to the Gore method of standing there saying it should be stopped, so we should not adjust to it- rather we should destroy the world's economy to make a futile effort to stop what will happen regardless.

But I don't expect those here that are on the bandwagon to consider that...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

Key word - leverage

Methane may be a more effective greenhouse gas, but if increasing atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature a little, which causes permafrost melting, which generates methane, which raises the temperature a *lot*. Where is the point in that chain where humans have (or maybe *had*) leverage on the whole phenomenon?

Due only partly to politically-motivated nay-saying, we may be well past the point where that leverage can do anything.

And wholesale moving of populations? Wow, talk about expensive and disruptive. Shall we move all of the Southeast Asians to your neighborhood?

I will take the Pacific Islanders.

Any volunteers for the Southern Europeans (yes Europe) where the climate may no longer be able to support even subsistence agriculture?

Oh yes, and Africa?.....

All maybe not in my lifetime, but surely in my kids'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

"...move populations to where they will not be flooded out...."

Have you done THAT calculation? Where would you suggest Bangladesh go? The Himalayas?

And Florida? and New Orleans... and Singapore?

Would you like the job of sorting that out?

Well, the 'move' will be gradual, but even that will require **reduction** in population...and telling any groups they must limit their families is..... tricky.

We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...(but don't bet on the basis of local fluctuations in Arizona)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:54 PM

TIA...obviously, great minds DO think alike... *grin*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:34 PM

Frost warnings tonight for parts of Atlantic Canada. Damn global warming.............................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 08:42 PM

"computer models"

Doug, behave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

There are geo-forming solutions which would address the solar aspect as well as the carbon. methane aspect, but they are huge efforts which, if they had unintended consequences, could really screw things up.

Bruce, although you raise good points, I am not clear on the reason for your hostility. The correlation with temperature versus human carbon injection is pretty close, and even though that does not prove we are a major contributing factor, it certainly suggests you should not throw the possibility out.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 11:06 PM

It's been said before - "Global Warming" is an obsolete term, driven into derision by the ignorant/uneducated/bigoted.

The Correct Scientific term is Now "Climate Change".

The original use of the term was caused by the scientific concept that as a system warms, the energy increases, and turbulence increases.

However, those with a drum to beast, as well as uneducated laypeople, misunderstood the name.

As turbulence increases in the atmosphere, there WILL be areas or greater depths of both hotter AND COOLER observed temperature, as big volumes of warmer air swirl to the pole, causing big volumes of cooler air to swirl away from teh poles.

Have all the fun you want making fun of the term, just don't ask ME for help when you find out that your bigotedness/lack of understanding has cause you like the grasshopper, to ignore the warnings of the ants to make sensible preparations for the future... you will have killed us all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Peace: For shame, for shame!

Foolstroupe: So the name change sounds a bit like CYA. Climate change could indicate that the problem is either that the earth is getting warmer, or, like in the 70's, fear that the earth is getting cooler.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 06:38 PM

Doug:

Do you know nothing at all about weather systems?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 07:11 PM

Only what Rush and Sean tell him, clearly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:11 PM

I get puzzled by why some people seem to think that if there are signs that there are factors outside human control that are contributing to global warming, that is somehow a reason to give up on trying to do what we can to avoid making things worse.

It's a bit like saying "I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:46 PM

I agree that we should do whatever we reasonably can to prevent polluting our environment. That being said there are limits to what we can do to alter the forces of nature. Climate changes,it always has and always will. While the effect may be catostrophic there is probably little that can be done to create any great change. Far better for us to properly prepare for change, than follow a fools mission to contain nature. To use McGraths example, we should fight the fire if there is a hope of putting it out. If not it is best to gather our belongings and flee to a safer place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM

sunspot activity


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM

And....

More info on sunspots


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM

And yet more...

Declining sunspots


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:02 PM

As someone pointed out a few posts back 'there is a big difference between "climate" and "weather" ' - and the sunspot cycle is essentially a matter of solar weather.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:09 PM

And yet more....

Decline in sun activity means global cooling

It all makes for some fascinating reading.

I might mention that we have had the coldest and longest delayed spring and latest summer this year that I can remember in Canada. Really remarkable. It's been great for the lawn...still green and lush. I don't think it's been so great for the wild birds and the farmers, though.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched just because you already have a past opinion that you're fond of. Consider alternative information that's coming in now and give it some serious thought. Any past assumptions about climate change which you have taken for granted might just be wrong, partly wrong, or even entirely wrong.

We've always had climate change in the past, and it's been cyclical. The Earth warms up for awhile, then it cools down for awhile. Those changing cycles normally fall in line with the activities of the Sun...the one single biggest player in the ongoing fortunes of life on Planet Earth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:37 PM

I suppose your dwindling sunspots and planetary cooling claims also manage somehow to account for the thawing of the tundra and the melting of the ice-caps, Little Hawk?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:41 PM

Kendall summed it up for me. Thirty... twenty years ago, no birds around here looked like a canary. And some that used to winter here back then are gone.   gone


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE
"I don't believe this fire was caused by arsonists, it was started by a lightning strike. So don't let us do anything about trying to put it out."
UNQUOTE

... so wouldn't it be fun to throw on a 1000 gallons of aviation fuel and see what fun things happen....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:24 PM

I'm not here to argue about it, Amos. ;-) I'll leave that to the rest of you, cos I ain't stupid. (well, not this time anyway) I know better than to question Holy Writ when I'm standing in the rotunda of the Vatican, as it were. Hell, that can lead to torture and execution, dontcha know? Or even excommunication!

Nope, I'm just here to post some interesting links to some other science articles that some of you might not have taken into account, and I'll let the rest of you fight over it for the next 20,000 posts if you want to. No skin off my back. You'll probably all just keep believing whatever you want to regardless...and I know it.

I'll post more links later maybe. Enjoy!

(By the way, I AM in favour of reducing our industrial and auto emissions. Why? Well, because I like clean air, that's why.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 10:55 PM

to quote ME:

'We MUST assume that it is possible to both limit warming AND reduce populations...the benefits will be great even **IF** warming is not serious...'

NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUTH, we will be better off if we act as if climate change is happening and try to reduce our part in it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:03 PM

This reminds me--the course of the thread and the various arguments about global warming--of a comment I heard many years back. Two 'hippies' were discussing war, etc. One said to the other, "Why do you like peace so much?" The reply was "Because it's peaceful."

Some things really ARE no brainers. A cleaner environment is better for our children than a dirty environment. Fewer auto emissions are better than more. Stuff like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 09 - 11:32 PM

LH:

That won't serve, man. A thing makes sense or it does not. If it does not, it is because the data is distorted, partial, misevaluated or false or incomplete.

Posting the assertions of the extreme views on either side is not likely to lead to understanding.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

The only link you need to see the sunspot data (pro and con) is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:49 AM

clicky thing


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

I find all these various views and theories quite interesting, Amos...not necessarily "extreme"...just interesting. Let's investigate them further, shall we? What's the danger? Are you that worried that you might be proven wrong? If not, let's investigate further.

Regardless of what you or I think about global warming OR cooling, what's gonna happen is gonna happen anyway. And eventually we'll know. ;-) If we're still here, that is.

My angle on this debate is not driven by any dislike of Al Gore, by the way. I like Al Gore, and I always have liked him. I was very impressed on my first viewing of his film "An Inconvenient Truth". I have since begun to feel that some of his assumptions about global warming may be incorrect, although I think he's quite sincere in those assumptions.

In time we will all know...if, as I say, we're still here. Anyway, whoever is here will know. We can argue about it all we want in the meantime, but we won't know till we get there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:08 PM

"...we won't know till we get there."

You mean like the frog in the kettle of water where we raise the heat gradually?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Ans Al Gore is telling us that if we don't kick and get overheated everything will be ok.

I do not have a problem with reducing pollution- but I do object to doing NOTHING to deal with the *** effects *** of climate change ( which IMO will happen regardless). By working so hard to reduce emmissions, we are taking effort away from moving those populations tha will have to be moved regardless. The implied point of Gore et al is that we will stop the warming, and there will be no need to make any changes in where we live, or the crops we grow, etc.

Has no-one here ever read about the Viking Greenland colony? Up until the mid 1100s, , it was a viable farming and grazing community, settled from Iceland. Guess what happened? There was a little ice age, ( from 1100 to now) and the colony basically died out. So now the climate has returned to what it was before 1000- and King Al is berating the tide for coming in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 01:42 PM

"Let's investigate them further, shall we?"

They are in fact being investigated further. Quite a lot of effort goes into this.

However, the popular press and infotainers report on every anti-climate change person or paper, and sometimes (sometimes) provide equal time for the opposition. If the representation were proportional to the division of opinion within the scientific community world-wide, there should be 10,000 provided with equal time.

Now, don't get me wrong - the "anti" people need to do their work and publish it, and it needs to be read and criticized and tested. As do all testable assertions This is exactly how science works. And, there would be no scientific progress - ever - if people did not upset the current consensus. We would (e.g.) still be bled and leeched by physicians.

BUT, the unbalance in the popular press creates an impression of a giant controversy where none actually exists. Thus, we have politicians making decisions about the future of the planet based not on science, but on re-election strategizing which is itself based on ill- and mis-informed public opinion.

And here we are.

The proof is likely to be in future events. I probably won't see them (although I have watched - literally - the death of 70% of the world's coral reefs in my lifetime). My kids will live through the coming events, and I fear for their future. Everyone needs to honestly ask themselves "what is the risk of future cataclysmic climate change?" Let's say you think it is only 1:10000. Would you feed your kids food that had a 1:1000 chance of poisoning them? Of course not. Remember all the E. coli scares, tylenol, tainted formula?

So there is a huge disconnect. Driven exactly by politics and political talking heads who have no knowledge of the process and proper reading and use of science. If we wait until Global Climate Change is "100% proven", well.... that will never happen. It never, ever does in science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:00 PM

bruce...did you read:
"From: Bill D - PM
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM"?

IF the situation is as Gore says, populations WILL try to move...and weak attempts will be made to try to control the process. And conservatives will stomp their feet and say "there goes the government again, trying to tell us what to do!"

If you think immigration is awkward now, just wait until all of Mexico & Central America and half the US decides to move north.

I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 PM

"I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping. "

Great idea- who decides who gets to be reduced???


IF we started moving populations now, instead of wasting effort trying to stop what is happening, there would be less need for population reduction.

But as it stands, we can have a nuclear war, and there will be plenty of room for the (few) survivors.

I guess that is what Gore wants...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:27 PM

That's idiocy, BB, as he has not done anything to indicate he wants global warming or population moves. THis kind of bitter, senseless assertion is counter-productive in extremis.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:30 PM

It was mentioned above, so here is...


                                                         a website about the Great Barrier Reef


{BTW, in the late 1960s the same reef was "dying" due to pollution and DDT. Go figure.}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

"IF we started moving populations now..."

*grin*...who decides who gets moved?...and to where? You want to be the one who tells Canada they get Spanish as a 3rd national language?

It all reminds me of the interviewer asking Will Rogers back about 1940...(paraphrased)"What should we do about the German submarines?"

"Easy,", Will replied, "Boil the ocean!"

"But, how could they do that?"

"Oh, we have technical experts for that", Will explained...."I'm just the idea man."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

Amos,

a. Gore states that global warming is real

b. Gore states that we should limit CO2 production to *prevent* global warming

c. Gore DOES NOT state that any action should be taken to deal with the effects of global warming, which he stated in a exists. In fact, when asked, he repeats his assertion that the right laws will stop global warming, with no evidence at all indicating that that is the case.


THIS failure is what I object to. Given that he advocates b., his failure of C. is reason enough to think poorly of him, and think he is more interested in political capital than in DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Midchuck
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:46 PM

I don't know if global warming is real or not; and if it is real, I don't know if its primary cause it human activity or something else.

I do know that the resemblance between the rhetoric of conservative fundamentalist Christians and that of liberal environmentalists is quite startling. In both cases, you are not only a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you disagree with them; you are a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you indicate that you don't think the evidence either way is solid enough for you to form an opinion.

But each group will say that their position is fully logical and the other group's position is ignorant fanaticism.

Peter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Exactly, Midchuck. I've noticed the same thing.

It's what's called "bigotry", the dictionary definition of which is "utter intolerance for beliefs, opinions, or creeds which differ from one's own".

And it is equally apparent among both conservative zealots and liberal/progressive zealots, both of whom are securely armoured by their self-righteous certainty that they hold the moral high ground...and THE TRUTH.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'.

Mainstream environmentalists get their opinions from detailed & exhaustive, testable research and technical data.

If they are correct, it is important...in the meantime, I'd be curious who is saying they are "...a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness.." or any similar fates.

You wouldn't be slightly exaggerating the rhetoric, would you, Midchuck?

Strong opinions about important topics need not only vigorous promotion, but also detailed support in the details. Even a brief search will get many, many details of temperature changes, geologic research of historical precedent, graphs of human production of various gases compared to climate changes and the chemical/physical causes that we have learned to understand. (much as we gradually learned why smoking cigarettes was more than just a statistical anomaly)

Why wouldn't those who have **strong evidence** that we face a grave crisis state their conclusions with passion?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM

"The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'."


Definitely, Bill! As you and I would see it, that is. But you must remember one thing: they themselves do not consider their sources to be odd sources. ;-) They believe them to be 100% reliable sources, and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!

Everyone in the world gets his info from some sources which he considers reliable. We all do that. We only differ about which sources ARE reliable. And that's what's at the heart of most unresolvable political disputes...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:08 AM

"We only differ about which sources ARE reliable.."

...and the 'we' that includes 'me' can only continue to point out the differences in definitions about what passes for credibility and reliability.


"...and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!"

...see above.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:10 AM

Yessir. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:22 AM

You know, Bill, the funny thing is....most of the religious fundamentalists I've ever met struck me as pretty foolish or deluded or just not very well-informed people or even fanatics...and yet....

I have met so far in my life 2 Jehovah's Witnesses that are astonishingly bright people, among the brightest and finest people I've ever met, very capable, and of the best character as well. They're an extraordinary pair of young people (a married couple in late 20s, early 30s). I'd trust them with absolutely anything. I count them among my best friends.

Yet they believe that their Bible is the ultimate authority. ???

This does not in any way prevent them from being extremely modern and effective and useful citizens. One is a dental hygeinist, the other is a businessman who assists companies in improving their operations, trains people in administration, etc.

They're very well educated, they're very articulate, extremely intelligent, well travelled, cosmopolitan, and very well informed. They are also kind, forgiving, generous, spirited, and good people.

Man, I could only wish there were more around like these two!

And I cannot fathom how they can put so much faith in an ancient religous book like the Bible...but it has proven one thing to me, and it is this:

"Thou shalt not pre-judge others merely by their stated beliefs. No. Ye shall judge them only by their character, their works, and their actual behaviour."

So I never assume anymore that all the people in any particular group fit some common stereotype we've all heard about that group. It is not necessarily so. There are some brilliant and very good people where you may least expect them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:09 AM

It's not a Hobson's Choice we have here. We ALL live on Noah's Ark, it's just a little bigger than Noah ever knew. What ever we can do, no matter how seemingly trivial, to improve this planet is simply a good investment for our children, grand children and ggchildren. The plane faces some truly frightening prospects--and we will have to deal with them unless we clean up our act. The results will not be good to see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:16 AM

"The plane faces some truly frightening prospects"

And so does the planet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:15 PM

"From his trawler that motors along the Nuuk fjord, fisherman Johannes Heilmann has watched helplessly in recent years as climate change takes its toll on Greenland.
Ads by Google
Boat Donation Program - www.Cars4Causes.net
Turn Your Boat into Tax Deductible Charity Donation. Call 800-766-2273

Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world.
Heilmann, in his 60s with a craggy, rugged face from years of work in the outdoors, says he and his colleagues can no longer take their dogsleds out to the edge of the ice floes to fish because the ice isn't thick enough to carry the weight.
And yet the freezing waters with large chunks of ice are too difficult to navigate in their small fishing boats, making fishing near impossible.
"We can't use the sleds any more, the ice isn't thick enough," laments Heilmann, saying he now has to rely on bird hunting, and sometimes seal hunting, while waiting for the summer months to go fishing.
At Ilulissat, more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) north of the Arctic Circle, Emil Osterman tells local daily Sermitsiaq how "in 1968, when I was 13, we went fishing in December in the fjord and the ice was several metres thick."
Now, more than 40 years on, the ice at the very same location at the same time of year "is only 30 centimetres thick."
The head of Nuuk's fishing and hunting association, Leif Fontaine, explains how climate warming is also affecting the region's shrimp industry -- Greenland's main export and biggest industrial sector.
"When the water gets warmer, the shrimp become rarer as they move further north," he says."...
Phys Org, July 9 2009



(PhysOrg.com) -- Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).
Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Previously, scientists relied only on measurements of area to determine how much of the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice, but ICESat makes it possible to monitor ice thickness and volume changes over the entire Arctic Ocean for the first time. The results give scientists a better understanding of the regional distribution of ice and provide better insight into what is happening in the Arctic.

Ibid, July 7, 2009


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:17 PM

It's Getting Cold Out There


A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders

No wonder skeptics consider the left's belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion -- last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth's temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. The worst part is: These are the brainy swells who think of themselves as -- all bow -- Men of Science.

The funny part is: G8 leaders can't even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? "This question is a mystery for everyone," an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.

And while President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as "likely unattainable."

No worries, the language was non-binding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief.

Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion. While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said of the bill, "We need to be a leader in the world but we don't want to be a sucker."

Republicans who oppose the legislation are positively gleeful.

For some issues, it can be more fun being part of the opposition, as Democrats are discovering.

During the last administration, Senate Dems could slam President George W. Bush for not supporting the 1997 Kyoto global-warming treaty, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to vote yea or nay on a treaty that they knew could be poison for the coal industry and family checkbooks.

That's why the Senate in 1997 voted 95-0 against any global-warming treaty that exempted developing nations like China. Now China wants none of the G8's goal for it to halve its greenhouse gases -- and the Dems are stuck with a leader who wants to save the planet.

When the GOP was in the White House, Democrats got to play scientific martyrs. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would go running to the New York Times or Washington Post with the lament that the Bushies were trying to muzzle his pro-global-warming science. No matter how many times he appeared on TV, the stories kept reporting on allegations that Bush was censoring science.

Now GOP senators have their own Hansen: Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Be it noted, Carlin is not a scientist.

He's an MIT-trained economist, albeit with a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, who has worked as an analyst at the EPA since 1974. In March, he co-wrote a 98-page paper that began, "We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming." He fears politics are steering what should be scientific research.

The analysis noted that global temperatures have declined over the last 11 years while carbon emissions have increased. It cited a 2009 paper that found "solar variability" may have had more to do with any warming over the last few decades than rising greenhouse gas levels. Carlin also wondered why the EPA bought into global-warming doom scenarios, when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer.

Did the EPA welcome a dissenting voice? Au contraire. According to e-mails released last month by Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, Carlin's supervisor told him not to "have any direct communication" with anyone in-house or elsewhere on the issue. And: "I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change."

Only later, Carlin told me, did the EPA grant him permission to post the paper on his personal website and talk to the media.

Kazman argues that the EPA's failure to post Carlin's paper officially violates court rulings that require agencies to disclose discarded evidence when making rules. And: "The bigger irony is that this administration has been touting its commitment to scientific integrity and agency transparency."

Now, you can argue that the Obama administration simply wanted to present a clear message on a policy on which it already had settled. But why is it muzzling science when Bush did it, but not worthy of a New York Times story when Obama does it?

Don't say that Obama has science on his side. As the Carlin paper noted, "We do not believe that science is writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject ... The question in our view is not what someone believes, but how what he or she believes corresponds with real world data."

The global-warming community's reaction to real-world data -- and the lack of warming in this century -- has been to remain true believers. Except now they call it "climate change."

    ©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

If what you say about Greenland is true, Amos, the world may soon find itself in the horrible natural conditions that existed back when the Vikings had a thriving settlement in Greenland and farmed the fertile land!!!!!

This could be good news for latter day Vikings, though, because Greenland will once again be green.

Meanwhile, the temperatures remain unseasonably cool in Ontario, Canada...and it's a relief from the heat of high summer. So it's not all bad.

I wonder what the Gulf Stream is doing? Could that account for the cooler temperatures here? Could we be on the edge of a sudden tip into a min-Ice Age???? Will I find myself under a glacier in the next few years?

Worry! Worry! Fret! Fret!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

Well, I welcome the dissenting voice if there are good solid data behind them. The post PDQ added looks like it has some behind it, but it is hard to disentangle from the strongly partisan rhetoric.

Solar variability cycles--is there a source on their historical data ptterns and present values?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:48 PM

I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents.

I may be mistaken too. Nevertheless, I have my suspicions that the present mainstream ideas about global warming are in error.

We'll see, won't we? In time it will become quite clear whether or not it is the human-based C02 emmissions that are causing global warming or whether that was a misperception.

If it turns out to have been a misperception, then people will be yelling about something else instead when that time comes. There's always something new to panic about, some new threat to life as we know it...and a little panic goes a long way toward providing employment and lucrative careers for a whole bunch of people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:58 PM

I watched a panel discussion on TV at a friend's house (I have no TV) in 2005.

The Global Warming enthusiasts were near clinical depression because all the objective scientific data showed no increase in ambient air temperature in the preceeding decade. None. Squat. Zip. Nada.

Earlier in this thread, bb linked to some DOD satellite-based (ultra accurate) temperature data. No change in ambient air temperatures anywhere on the planet, above land or sea, since 1990. That is close to 20 years of no temperature increase.

In fact, in the last 4 years or so, there may have been a very slight drop.

In the 1970 the story was that air pollution was blocking the Sun and causing Global Cooling. They said it would cause a New Ice Age if we didn't stop using so much fossil fuel. This whole scheme is just a way to keep the populace perpetually aggitated.They can be manpulated more easily it seems.

We have important things to worry about. GW ain't one of them


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:50 PM

You are seeing now and will continue to see extreme weather conditions throughout the world. Global warming also causes some unusual freezing in certain areas as well.
If you are not aware of what the Arctic and parts of Antarctica are experiencing then the question you ask show a lack of information. Looking at the polar ice caps melting,
the polar bears swimming, and the rising of the water table ought to tell you something.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:47 PM

There is a very good treatment of the solar variability issue here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

I mean here.

It says (in part):
"The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.

The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

So, there is warming. Please show where any of what you posted indicates it is due to man-made carbon emmissions, which is ALL that Gore is taliking about.


"I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents."



I think I said this a few years ago. Nice to know that someone else has a little sense.

What is Gore et all doing to DEAL WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING?????


Not a thing - ALL that he does is try top stop carbon emmisions: He is NOT advocating taking any action at all to help anyone survive the actual events.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM

Princeton Physicist: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult'
Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming

Wednesday, July 08, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, warned Congress that it has been "badly misinformed" about man-made global warming fears.

"Congress has been getting bad intelligence," Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, declared in a July 6, 2009 interview.

"Congress has been badly misinformed about the so-called science that supports the claim that increasing CO2 levels will bring about catastrophic climate change," Happer explained to Newsmax.com. (Full audio of interview with Happer here.)

Happer did not mince words, calling the movement to promote man-made global warming fears a "climate change cult" and noted that "zealots" promoting climate fears "are actually extremely ignorant."

"The idea that Congress can stop climate change would be just hilarious if the actions they propose were not so damaging to the American people and even more [damaging] to the poorer people of the world," Happer said. [Editor's Note: President Obama and Energy Sec. Chu both believe they can control the Earth's thermostat. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now' ]

"The so-called facts they are getting are just not true," Happer explained. " This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. As our Congressmen learn more about the facts, they will change their minds" and reject man-made climate fears.

'CO2 is not a pollutant' - Earth in 'CO2 famine'

Happer noted that "CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is essential for life." He added that the Earth will "be a better place with more CO2."

Happer testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25, 2009 and noted that the Earth was currently in a "CO2 famine." Happer requested to be added to the U.S. Senate Report of over 700 dissenting scientists on December 22, 2008. Happer also co-authored an Open Letter to Congress with a team of scientists on July 1, 2009 warning: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years.'

In addition, Happer has led a group of 54 prominent physicists to request the American Physical Society (APS) revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today." (Note: Science magazine reportedly refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

In the July 6, 2009 interview, Happer noted that many are poised to benefit from the proposed Congressional carbon trading bill.


more


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:44 PM

Furthermore, the solar flare cycle has been uncommonly LOW for the last few years, if my information is correct.

The air temperature data is not a complete index, since it is much less absorbent than water bodies and land masses. Satellites do not measure temperature in air directly; they infer it from measuring radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. "The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
To compare to the increase from the surface record (of approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is more appropriate to derive trends for the lower troposphere in which the stratospheric cooling is removed. Doing this, through June 2009:
RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.152 °C/decade.[3]
UAH analysis finds +0.12°C/decade.[4]
An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al. (2004)[5] finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set.[6] A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade (1978–2004).[7], although it must be noted that RSS also has a higher trend when taken only to 2004 (+0.186 °C/decade)
In 1996, Hurrell and Trenberth published in the Journal of Climate an analysis showing a warming trend of +0.18 °C/decade from 1979-1995.[8]
Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al. of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through March 2008) a trend of +0.110 °C/decade.[3] Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.050 °C/decade.[9]"

(Source article here

"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."[21][22]

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (2000). "Executive Summary". Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0309068916.
^ Llanos, Miguel (2000-01-13). "Panel weighs in on global warming: Earth's surface is warmer, they say, even if upper air isn't". MSNBC.

"he following figure shows a calculation of straight temperature averages for all of the reporting stations for 1950 to 2000 [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html]. While a straight average is not meaningful for global temperature calculation (since areas with more stations would have higher weighting), it illustrates that the disappearance of so many stations may have introduced an upward temperature bias. As can be seen in the figure, the straight average of all global stations does not fluctuate much until 1990, at which point the average temperature jumps up. This observational bias can influence the calculation of area-weighted averages to some extent. A study by Willmott, Robeson and Feddema ("Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages, Geophysical Research Letters vol 18 No. 12, pp2249-2251, Dec 1991) calculated a +0.2C bias in the global average due to pre-1990 station closures.


See graphs at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm.

This is not to say that a lot of the data cannot be argued. But the blunt denial of surface warming trends, melting icecaps, liquefying permafrost, and other plain evidence is really thick. The right answer is to try and get better quantifying values and clearer analysis, rather than railling and denying.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:55 PM

This article discusses at length the observations and measurements and analyses on this topic since the 1900's. Two-thirds of the way down the page there is a graph of land and water surface temperatures from 1880 to 2008. These are quite contrary to the statements up thread about "no warming ever found". In addition the brief interlude of non-warming or even cooling in the Northern hemisphere from the 1940s to the 1960s is examined with some reasonable explanations.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:01 PM

Amos,

there is warming- just as has occurred many times in the past, without mankind causing it ( and without mankind being able to stop it.

You keep supporting Gore's efforts, which are like telling the passangers of the Titanic to stop smoking, as it is bad for them. That may be true- but is not applicable to the situation. They need to either get in the boats or swim- and Gore is telling them "it will all be ok if you stop smoking."

We need to look at long term changes to where and how we live- NOT try to stop a climate change that we cannot alter. But Gore has made it entirely about man-made carbon contributions ( for his own profit and benefit) and does not allow any discussion of how to deal with it, like moving populations, and adjusting agriculture to the NEW climate.

You keep bringing up articles that say it is getting warmer- but nothing that says we a) are causing it or b) can do anything to stop it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Well, it was only a few posts upthread, BB, that all warming was being roundly denied.

There are two arguments that support the greenhouse causation theory. One is the difference in the increase between day and night, which shows more pronounced warming at night because radiation is escaping less due to greenhouse gases.

A second is the difference in rate of the Arctic declines.

"...computer models predicted that greenhouse gases would cause a particular pattern of temperature change. It was different from what might be caused by other external influences, such as solar variations. The observed geographical pattern of change did in fact bear a rough resemblance to the computers' greenhouse effect maps. "It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities," the researchers concluded, "although many uncertainties remain."(43) Even before it was published, the finding impressed the community of climate scientists. In an important 1995 report, the world's leading experts offered the "fingerprint" as evidence that greenhouse warming was probably underway. The leader of the team at Lawrence Livermore Lab that found the "fingerprint," Benjamin Santer, helped write the summary of this report, and he was deeply hurt when a few skeptics attacked not only the statement but his personal scientific integrity. (By 2006, when the warming had progressed considerably farther and the computer models were much improved, his judgment was confirmed. A thorough analysis concluded that there was scarcely a 5% chance that anything but humans had brought the changes observed in many regions of the world.)(43a)"

Further:

Data from various locations in Alaska, published in 1986, showed that the top 100 meters of permafrost was anomalously warm compared with deeper layers. The only possible cause was a rise of average Arctic air temperature by a few degrees since the last century, with the heat gradually seeping down into the earth.(45) In a burst of enthusiasm during the 1990s, scientists took the temperature of hundreds of deep boreholes in rock layers around the planet. The averages gave a clear signal of a global warming over the last few centuries, accelerating in the 20th century. A still more important example of the far-flung efforts was a series of heroic expeditions that labored high into the thin air of the Andes and even Tibet, hauling drill rigs onto tropical ice caps. The hard-won data showed again that the warming in the last few decades exceeded anything seen for thousands of years before. The ice caps themselves, which had endured since the last ice age, were melting away faster than the scientists could measure them.(46)

FInallly, Gore is basing his information not on some private agenda of profit but on the reports from the Inter-Governmental Panal on Climate Change. You can look over the same historical and physical analysis data he is using here, for example.

You ad hominem slurs do not contribute to the discussion or clarify anything at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2.

This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:16 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2. Once the ice caps melt, the water vapor that they release, along withg the methane, are more than enough to provide for the greenhouse effect as seen in past climactic changes.

The next ice age will not occur until either the sun ( a variable star, by about 4%) cools down, or the planet is hit by a large enough object to raise dust for several years. Or maybe another Krakatoa type event ( or several.

The only way that mankind is going to alter this climactic change is to have a major thermonuclear war, and let the dust clouds cool things down- refreezing tyhe ice caps, which then reflect more sunlight and capture the methane, etc.

So, to follow in Gore's parade, if you would rather stop the climate change than adjust to it, start a war. a BIG one.


I would rather move a few million people, like out of Florida. But that won't get Gore any votes for Saviour, now will it???




This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

I understand the difference, Bruce. Your perspective that all the warming is just hidden in longterm trends which we have no effect on is possible but unlikely, IMO. And a good number of reputable scientists disagree with your analysis which you present as an absolute assertion.

I have no time for exchanging brassy, windy assertions.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

"If changes in the Sun's activities are part of it, there's not a lot we can do about that right now. "

We SHOULD be relocating coastal populations, and preparing for the change in climate: Instead, we bitch and moan about how everything would be just fine if ( insert hated country) would just comply with the Kyoto accords.

And NOTHING is being done to DEAL with the effects that WILL be coming along, regardless of what we "can" do about CO2 emmissions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:33 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:29 PM

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/posts


""I don't make climate predictions because I don't know what the Sun will do next," says S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. "But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted that "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, more than 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris's Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the global-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

"The hypothesis that solar variability, and not human activity, is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not," explained Dr. David Wojick, co-founder of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.

These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.

The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions. "

read the whole article- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:02 PM

Your excerpt from the WaPo was almost persuasive and I was going to acknowledge that when I took the trouble to go to the link you provided for the actual piece and found your excerpt had roundly altered the whole throust of the article. The whole point of the piece is that cap and trade to limit carbon emissions is not the best way to reduce greenhouse effects. I have no disagreement with that view--if solar were more costeffective than petroleum, we'd be miles ahead.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:10 PM

"WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

from

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HPTfR6bjQD4J:www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html+oil+co


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:15 PM

Oil Change International - Follow the Oil Money -

Google that, svp.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:24 PM

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said.
"This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM." (Phys.org)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:27 AM

If it were variations in the sun's behaviour that caused a whole lot of global warming during the PETM....how would we find physical evidence of that now?

Furthermore, could it be possible that an increase in solar energy during the PETM would have itself caused an increase in atmospheric C02? Quite possbily, I should think, because if the sun heats the surface of the Earth more than usual then you will have a greater incidence of drought over wide areas of geography, and that will cause a greater incidence of forest fires and brush fires to occur. More forest fires and brush fires means a lot more smoke and C02 going into the atmosphere. (Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere...but that can cause global cooling for awhile by blocking sunlight.)

It's quite possible that the changing activity of the sun has been the major player in Earth's past heating and cooling phases...not greenhouse gases. An increase of decreans in greenhouse gases may itself be partially a biproduct of changing solar behaviour.

If so, well, we can't do anything about the sun. All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change.

There will always be climate change in one direction or another. What humanity needs to do is get better at anticipating a major climate change before it happens and taking measure to protect people from the worst effects of it. Preventive medicine, in other words.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:32 AM

"Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere..." ~ LH

I'm not being confrontational on this point. I just want people to realize that CO2 is not correctly called a pollutant.

CO2 is an essential component of the Earth's atmosphere and all plant life would cease to exist without it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:40 AM

Earth temperature and Solar activity have always been in lock-step. Until 1975. Now they are out of step, and increasingly so. A strong argument for anthropogenic climate change *not* driven by the sun. I put the link above, but I suspect that many in the discussion did not read it. I will repost later.

And yes, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than C02, but the CO2 is where we have leverage. If we slightly increase CO2, and it slightly increases warming at the poles which releases methane which causes huge warming, it seems very smart to attack the trigger over which we have control - CO2. It's not the whole story, but it is *something* we can do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change."


Exactly! And this is what Gore et al are NOT doing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Solar could be made cost effective if there wasn't the opposition to carbon industries.
There is an analogy to the car makers. A decent car could be produced but the so-called
"market" values and the car industry militate against this.

Any excessive imbalance in the earth's atmosphere can have deleterious effects.
That's just common sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Gore is beating the drum for action to be taken, Bruce, and among those actions, cutting back on human-driven CO2 emissions. But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply, nor is he in a position to legislate one or another strategy. So I think you are mischaracterizing the man, perhaps out of bitterness. To the degree that anthrogenic factors are contributing to the climate curve, they should be considered a human risk factor and managed as possible, surely; and surely calling this to public attention is a public service.

Why not write your own gospel and put it out in PowerPoint, if you are so much the wiser than he?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM

"But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply"

Fine. Show me a statement where he says to actully attempt to deal with climate change, instead of trying to prevent it.



I'll wait.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Lemme see if I can get this in a form Bruce understands..

So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...)





Yes...of course it's a silly example......that's the point.

   But a serious question is: Why is **Gore** supposed to focus on stuff like 'moving populations' rather than trying to prevent the need to do so? Don't we have official agencies to deal with logistics IF the need arises?
It 'feels' to me like you are trying to divert attention from the issue of whether we have a significant trend in warming, by ridiculing Gore's logic about response.

I just don't get it....as I said before, populations WILL try to move if this continues, and Gore is not the one to try to oversee that process.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

"

A new scientific study published today in Nature could serve to simplify the debate surrounding carbon targets, by warning that the world can only afford to burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon if it is to prevent potentially catastrophic increases in average temperatures of more than 2°C.

The research calculated that the world has already burned about half a trillion tonnes of carbon since the industrial revolution, and that based on current projections it is on track to burn the next half a trillion tonnes within 40 years.

It warns that once a trillion tonnes of anthropogenic carbon has been burned, resulting in 3.67 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide being released, global warming of between 1.6°C and 2.6°C is likely, with a rise of 2°C "most likely".

The EU has set a target of limiting average temperature rises to 2°C as scientists fear that larger increases in temperature could trigger the collapse of natural carbon sinks that would lead to still higher levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and result in "runaway climate change".

The new research suggests that a target based on how much carbon can still be burned would be simpler to understand and enforce than targets based on the rate of emissions or concentrations in the atmosphere, which have been adopted by many businesses and governments.

Writing in Nature, the research team, which was led by Oxford University's Myles Allen, said that "policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to be more robust to scientific uncertainty than emission-rate or concentration targets".

The research implies that access to fossil fuels will eventually have to be blocked, warning that only a third of economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves can be burned before 2100 if two-degree warming is to be avoided.

The scientists said that while the research framed carbon targets in a different way to those being discussed as part of the UN's climate change talks, they were broadly in line with current expectations that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in about 2020."
(From here.

A

Bruce:

I am not finding instances of Gore pushing for adaptation measures, in a rapid search. Although he has pushed the cap and trade model, it is not the only remedial measure he has promoted. But I fail to see why you feel he is at fault for doing what he is doing, because there is something else that also needs doing. If he focuses on remedial measures, why don't you start an adaptation measures campaign instead of just being sarcastic about him doing what he does?


A


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,ken mellor
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

I want to see the IPPC "hockey shaped graph" showing (allegedly)
Global temperatue and CO2 plotted against time.
I want to see it wit "error bars"
That graph is the mainstay of the man - made global warming theory.
We never see the graph !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM

See the reference link I posted a while back, Ken. Or go see "An Inconvenient Truth". It is in both places. Sheesh.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM

BillD,

"So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...☺)"

No, another logically flawed case. YOU are ignoring that what Gore is advocating is more like conting how many feet of hose are used rather than truning on the water. I would rather they put out the fire.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Ken,
You can find the original hockey stick graph here, along with a very cogent discussion of it's controversial origin, as well as diminishing scientific importance and brief media stardom.
The hockey stick has data is now pretty irrelevant. There are numerous completely independent proxies that show the same thing. So, even if one concedes to the skeptics on the hockey stick. The game is not over - there's a lot lot more debunking to do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

"...what Gore is advocating is more like conting how many feet of hose are used rather than truning on the water."

piffle! He is advocating changing what we do to the environment! He **IS** advocating turning on the water! He is NOT advocating that everyone run as far from the fire as possible.

(sheesh...I use an admitted silly example and you make flawed commentary on that rather than deal with my serious questions...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

Serious question?

I have asked what Gore has proposed to DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING- the answer is still NOTHING- He is trying to stop it, not deal with it. Unlikely that he can, and sort of like throwing away the life preservers in order to lighten a sinking boat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:10 PM

I surrender..... I explain why 'dealing' with it in that way is not relevant, and you repeat, in larger letters, that he should figure out how to 'deal with it'.

There is a big difference between explaining one's position and asserting one's position.

I can't debate single-minded repetition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 11:42 AM

I accept your surrender.

Now, why have YOU ignored the fact that I have stated that what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming, and (You) keep saying that he is "installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials?" I do not see that he is doing that- I see that he is saying "give me your money and everything will turn out OK. ( And when it does not, he complains we did not give him enough money)"


Given the past global climatic changes, and the long-term trends ( centuries, not decades) I see no reason to believe that the man-made CO2 has made a significant contribution to, and certainly is NOT the controlling factor to global warming.

Have you looked at recent volcanic activity ( part of my job in satellite Earth observations)?

And you think switching to a Prius will change the weather on Mars and Jupiter????? You must, if you believe that it is anthropomorphic CO2 causing the warming...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Zen
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:10 PM

I'm not being confrontational on this point. I just want people to realize that CO2 is not correctly called a pollutant.

CO2 is an essential component of the Earth's atmosphere and all plant life would cease to exist without it.


This is just nitpicking and stating what is clearly obvious.

Plants are also an essential part of the biosphere but excess plants in unwanted places are still called weeds. The same argument applies to excess man-made CO2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:14 PM

I guess we have to negotiate surrender terms....

"..., why have YOU ignored the fact that I have stated that what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming..."

Ignored? Hardly....

The important phrase is "has not been shown...". Do you demand instant results? You don't turn a herd of stampeding cattle around by jumping up in front of them and yelling "BOO!" And, yeah...it will take some money....long term projects- like space exploration - do require funding. That's why you HAVE a job doing it.

As to 'factors'...Gore is not DOING a the research. There are many, many competent experts who can show you the details of WHY they assert that CO2 is a ***significant part*** of the problem.
In MY opinion, this warrants 'erring on the side of caution'. The changes Gore & others are asking for have many benefits even IF you believe they have little or no effect on climate change....just like buying a Prius might...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:29 PM

Where is Gore saying "give me your money"??? Are you that paranoid?? He is saying "Cut bachk significantly on carbon emissions." Why do YOU twist his words?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM

400


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 07:02 AM

"what Gore proposes has not been shown to have any effect upon global warming"....... because it has not been implemented perhaps !?!?!?!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 10:40 AM

The issue of pollution in the meat packing industry and poultry and pig processing plants have been left out of the equation. Cattle causes pollution in the atmosphere that directly affects global warming. Just as much as cars. BB, the point it, as was stated above, not CO2 per se but too much of it.

Gore should talk about meat, poultry and pork as well as the excessive pollution in Agribusiness. And this ridiculous "clean coal" Orwellian sales point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:09 AM

Not only is CO2 an essential part of the Earth's atmosphere but there is very little of it. About 0.36 of 1%. Enough to supply the needs of plants but too little to have any effect on global temperatures.

A slight increase, even doubling, of CO2 would have a huge beneficial affect on crop vigor and increase production. That will be needed if the Third World keeps attempting to overwhelm the world's food production capacity with absurd birth rates.

A slight increase in air temperature, perhaps 1 or 2 degrees would put us back to the temperature levels of 800-1000 years ago and would also bode very well for increased food production, especially in regions of Canada, Alaska and Greenland.

As far as glacier melt, it is only brought to the public's attention when a glacier gets smaller. There are just as many glaciers that are increasing in size. Net icepack is the same as it was 40 years ago, it is just in different places.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:48 AM

I am sure, too, PDQ, that the melting tundra permafrost layer is just shifting its cold center a few miles to one side or the other, and refreezes when no-one is looking... I think your assertion about balanced ice masses is perhaps hogwash. Do you have any reference for it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

It is extremely important to think about land ice and sea ice differently. Only land ice melt contributes to sea level rise. The GRACE satellite measurements have clearly shown that land ice is being lost rapidly. There is no debate about this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM

Science and Technology News

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ø      The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers' money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ø      Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of "global warming" theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ø      Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.



Ø      Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ø      The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ø      By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ø      Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, "For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It's time to start talking of "Monopolistic Science". It's time to expose the lie that those who claim "to save the planet" are the underdogs. And it's time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money."



Robert Ferguson, SPPI's president, says: "This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the 'global warming' non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own "group-think" scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State's near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



"Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the "right" data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM

Amos, you said that Gore "is saying "Cut bachk significantly on carbon emissions." "

I had no idea that Al Gore knew some Klingon words. Fascinating! ;-D

I think that what we've got right now, folks, is a new global cooling phase, and it's due to a recent dramatic reduction in sunspot activity. Since the official cry of the media propaganda lemmings these days is "Global Warming!!!", there has been a profound resistance to recognizing that the warming phase of the early years of this century (when the sun was more active than now) is over. We're into another cooling cycle, and it has very little to do with CO2 levels. It has to do with the sun.

Now jump around, wave your arms wildly, and yell at me for awhile. Quote the official line. Go ballistic. ;-D

But remember, we'll all know for sure in a few years from now. And my prediction is that the present Hoo-Hah about "global warming" will by then have faded into the past and been mostly forgotten, and some new popular orthodoxy will have come into vogue instead and have been accepted by almost everyone, and no one will be talking anymore about global warming. No, they'll be spending new billions on some other mass panic attack.

Wait and see.

In fact, cut this post out, date it, and stick it on your stove...then check back with me in 5 to 10 years from now and we'll see if I was right. If I was, you can shake my hand and say "You were right.". If not, we'll do it the other way around. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 07:52 AM

"It has to do with the sun."

Thank you, LH. Now that someone other than myself has stated that the temperature on Earth is related to the output of the sun, perhaps there can be a reasonable discussion of what effort needs to be put into trying to stop something that will happen regardless of what Al Gore wants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 12:43 PM

The reference that nearly all Global Warming debunkers cite when saying that it is the sun is Usoskin et al., 2005.

Interestingly, their study does show a very, very strong correlation between solar activity and global mean temperature (~0.7 to 0.8 at >95% confidence) over the last 1150 years. Read carefully though, because this very paper also points out that temperature and solar activity strongly diverge starting in the 1970's. In fact the last sentence (never cited by the debunkers) says that the observed warming since 1975 *must* have a non-solar source.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM

"...is related to the output of the sun..."

Is related to a number of things! You are emphasizing those reports and opinions that suit your own wishful thinking. The large majority of experts STILL agree that human impact is driving much of the climate change, and the changes in behavior they advocate will, in the long run, be better for everyone, no matter what the exact % we we are responsible for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk."

Your property & constitutional liberties won't mean much if we don't control our impact on the environment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 01:50 PM

TIA - Hasn't there been a fairly much steady increase in industrial and transportation-related CO2 emmissions ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution...in other words from the 1800s right up to now? If so, and if global warming is so much due to CO2 in the atmosphere, then why have we not seen the world getting steadily warmer throughout the entire history of our industrial revolution?

Instead, we have seen a number of warming and cooling phases during that historical period. There was a notable cooling phase in the 40's, during WWII and it was one of the reasons that the German Army got into big trouble in the severe Russian winter in '41-42. Why did that happen during an ever-increasing industrial output and burning of fossil fuels worldwide? I suspect it happened because of variations in the energy output of the sun. There was another notable cooling phase in the early 70s, and the papers at the time were printing scare stories about the possibility of a new Ice Age. Where'd that come from? You notice that they turned out to be dead wrong about it? ;-) Yet it was the popular trend of the time for some reason...maybe because "We're all doomed!" stories appeal to people's sense of drama and they sell copy.

I'm not saying that CO2 does not contribute some to global warming. It does. So does atmospheric water vapour, but to a much greater extent than CO2. The biggest influence, however, seems to be the varying behaviour of the sun itself. Scientists are presently noticing a historic minimum of sunspot activity...that means less energy coming to this planet from the sun...that will mean a cooling planet for awhile till the sun gets more active again.

I think that the role of atmospheric CO2 in this picture is a very minor one. I am in favor of reducing our CO2 emissions anyway...not because I think they're causing "global warming", but because I am in favour of cleaner air.

In that respect I fully agree with Bill D that we must "control our impact on the environment". For sure. It's only good sense to minimize our industrial CO2 emissions...but I think the present "global warming" scare is based upon false assumptions and has tried to pin the tail on the wrong donkey, as it were. I think it's a fad, built upon a faulty premise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:29 PM

The entire Global Warming affair is based on two things, generally accepted by all sides as "fact":

       1. there has been a 1 degree F rise in the average ambient air temperature as measured above land, since the great Irish Potato Famine (circa 1845)

       2. there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 during the same period of time, perhaps from 290 PPM to the present 361 PPM

All else is speculation. Anyone who says he knows what the average ambient air temperature will be in 2050 is guessing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:32 PM

I don't know much about climate change, but I do know it's been hotter than the hinges of hell in Montreal this past week.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 02:42 PM

"The entire Global Warming affair is based on two things..."

No..it is also based on the disappearing glaciers and starving polar bears. I do hope those facts are also accepted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:10 PM

Bear with us, one might say:


"Excerpt from one of about 100 sources I found debunking the GW polar bear scare:

Indeed, since the 1970s -- all while the world was "warming" - polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century).

And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

Polar bears have thrived during warmer climates because they are omnivores just like their cousin's the Brown and Black bears.

Though Polar Bears eat seals more than any other food source at present, research shows that they have a varied diet when other foods are available including, fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds, the occasional beluga whale and musk ox and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses.

In addition, Dr. Mitchell Taylor , a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, pointed out in testimony to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that modest warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available .

Alaska's polar bear population is stable, and Taylor's research shows that the Canadian polar bear population has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.

Where polar bear weight and numbers are declining, Taylor thinks too many bears competing for food, rather than arctic warming, is the cause.

That's right, the problem confronting polar bears may overpopulation not extinction!

Posted by: Lorraine at May 7, 2007 10:00 PM"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:35 PM

LH-
Good sensible questions:
Q
"Hasn't there been a fairly much steady increase in industrial and transportation-related CO2 emmissions ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution...in other words from the 1800s right up to now?"

A
Actually, there has been an exponential increase in CO2 production. That is, the production is not "steady" it is ever-increasing in both volume and rate (mirroring the exponential human population growth and energy consumption). In addition, there are tremendous positive feedback mechanisms. A little additional CO2 may increase temperature a little, which thaws just a little permafrost, which releases more CO2, as well as the more potent methane...and so on, accelerating the process.

Q
"If so, and if global warming is so much due to CO2 in the atmosphere, then why have we not seen the world getting steadily warmer throughout the entire history of our industrial revolution?"

A
We have!

graph 1

graph 2

graph 3

Sure, it's complicated and one can easily point to years where the temperature dropped a bit, but the long-term trend is very clear, and it is based on a multitude of both direct and proxy measures.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 04:53 PM

Yes, TIA, that's exactly what I would expect there has been...an exponential rise in CO2 production since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Matter of fact, that's what I intended to convey in my previous post. I simply used the wrong words when I said "a fairly much steady increase".

We do not disagree at all when it comes to that.

Can you find similar climatic charts that go back 2 or 3 thousand years? I'd be interested to see what mean annual temperature ranges have been seen around the world in that peroid. For instance, what was going on when the Vikings were farming in Greenland? And why was Greenland so much warmer then than it is now?

One thing for sure. It had nothing much to do with human contributions to global warming.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM

"One thing for sure. It had nothing much to do with human contributions to global warming. "


Be carefull- those who dare challange the religious assumptions of others run the risk of crucifiction ( unless you point out the fact that the decay gasses are more potent greenhouse gasses than CO2) or burning... ( unless you point out the carbon footprint).

Ok, go ahead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:10 PM

Yes, BB. ;-) I expect to be drawn and quartered or possibly excommunicated at any moment for my heretical statements about global warming.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM

"heretical statements about global warming. "


Worse than that, you are putting forth the same ideas I posted some time back!

"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses..."


( and the weiner dog got up and slowly walked away)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:17 PM

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/temperatures.html


Posted before, but not noticed, obviously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:23 PM

FYI, CO2 is just noise, compared with other greenhouse gasses. But I guess asking people to reduce their water vapor just does not have political appeal.




"Carbon dioxide doesn't affect global warming

Saturday, October 7, 2000


In reading Dispatch Science Reporter David Lore's recent article "Evidence keeps mounting that Earth is warming up,'' it is difficult not to retort: So, what else is new?

I learned about global warming 50 years ago reading geology as one of my subjects in natural sciences at Cambridge University.

The "news'' at that time was that the ice sheets had been retreating since the early 1900s, and Earth warming had started about the middle to late 1600s.

This followed a 300- to 400-year cooling period, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, which came after the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, running roughly A.D. 900 to 1300, depending on the source. During that warm period, the Vikings had two settlements on the west coast of Greenland -- try that today -- which vanished with onset of the Little Ice Age.

And, the further point in the article that climatologist James Hansen gets so excited about is the contribution of carbon dioxide. What has carbon dioxide to do with all this?

Almost nothing, from what I have seen, looking at the numbers for the last 30 years, which raises major questions both about both the feasibility and the pointless cost to society of trying to control such emissions.

It is well-known and fully recognized, if one checks the relevant Web sites, that the two principal thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide.

However -- and this point is continually missed -- the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top limit, it is closer to 100-to-1.

This means that the carbon dioxide is simply "noise'' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done.

So, if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving up the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide?

One can easily run the numbers by using the standard psychrometric chart as used by the friendly neighborhood air-conditioning man. This is a graph of the ratio of water to air in the atmosphere plotted against temperature, for different levels of relative humidity.

If one calculates the ratio of carbon dioxide to dry air and plots it on the same graph, one would see it is just above zero. In other words, at such a small relative concentration, how can carbon dioxide have any significant influence on the atmosphere? If anyone has an answer, I'm listening.

Robert H. Essenhigh
Professor of energy conservation
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Ohio State University"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM

Now there are some interesting charts! Just what I had in mind, BB. We appear to be at the tail end of a relatively cold period..."the little ice age" that followed the medieval warm period.

I do not find that scary at all. The possibility that we might be entering another medieval warm period sounds pretty good to me.

I note too that the Earth had far higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during the very lengthy period when the dinosaurs were in their heyday, and it seems to have been teeming with plant and animal life at that time. Plants greatly benefit from increased atmostpheric CO2, and animals benefit from increased vegetation, so it's not surprising that they would both thrive under those conditions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:38 PM

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."


Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:46 PM

"Stopping Climate Change
Putting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.

Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.

Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.

Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.

Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains:

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:47 PM

" our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change."



How often do I have to find peopel saying this before the "Carbon-cappers" will listen????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 05:49 PM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:18 PM

PDQ...re:bears...which of the hundred sites/sources do you trust as much as these? Any of them?


National Wildlife Foundation

Wall Street Journal-2005

2007- UK paper...with images

March-2009 NY Times blog

NASA-2006

from the NASA site.

"According to scientists from NASA and the Canadian Wildlife Service, these increased Arctic polar bear sightings are probably related to retreating sea ice triggered by climate warming and not due to population increases as some may believe."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM

Clearly we have two orthodoxies here battling with each other over who is right...and both can provide plently of links to authoritative sources to back up what they say.

Nothing terribly unusual about that. ;-)

We won't know for sure, guys, until we get there. When the Fat Lady Polar Bear sings, in other words. Like I said, check back with me in 5 or 10 years on this if we're both still here to talk about it, and then we can see who won.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

Rather than 'just wait', my eternal and oft repeated suggestion is

err on the side of caution

If the sites *I* note are correct, it's gonna look stupid to have just trusted to luck.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 07:24 PM

"facts trump opinions every time" ~ me

fact: the world's polar bear population has gone up dramatically since the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1972...same is true for wooping crane and bald eagle...there are about 25,000 polar bears now as opposed to about 5,000 in the late 1960s...steady increase every year for almost 30 years...good news

opinion: good news seldom sells books or gets you any federal grant money


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 09:54 PM

Crowbar: Yes, Bush would be blamed.

Just a though: If any mudcatters crave some warm weather, you might amble on out to Arizona. We are expected to have a high of 115 degrees (F) today.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:14 AM

I'm all for erring on the side of caution, Bill, but I'm also in favour of reducing our industrial emissions anyway...for a number of good reasons quite aside from global warming.

My point is that I just don't think our CO2 is a very significant factor behind what's causing present global warming, that's all. In fact it may BE the global warming itself which is and has been the primary cause OF greatly increased CO2 levels during many of the past warming phases in the planet's history, and our contribution may be negligible in comparison to that effect.   Therefore, I question the currently popular theories about that may be quite wrong...in that they have incorrectly identified the tail as wagging the dog.

I'm not against being cautious, Bill. I'm just looking for the truth, that's all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 08:22 AM

Article from:  The Australian

Christopher Pearson / March 22, 2008         

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

{shortened to fit space limit }


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:21 AM

I repeat:

"" our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.""



To err on the side of caution, when it takes resources away from the proper action, is still to err.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 10:28 AM

LH-
You are absolutely correct about the long history of dramatic climate change on planet Earth. And, life and Earth are absolutely not in peril. I am dead certain that, as has happened uncountable times over the last 3.5 billion years of life on Earth, climate will change, and the flora and fauna best suited to the new climate will thrive, while those that cannot adapt fast enough will not. So what is in peril is not life. It is human civilization. If we can slow the rate of climate change so that people can adapt, humans may survive. If not, they may disappear. Adaptation typically takes many, many generations. Dramatic climate change over a short period of time usually results in the extinction of the dominant genera.

One could argue that humans are in even greater danger from loss of potable water, ubiquity of potentially harmful chemicals, population crash due to disease or mass starvation from overpopulation, but that does not lessen the threat from too-rapid global climate change. If it is not human-driven, then we are all simply screwed anyhow, so we can whistle away on our summer days enjoying what we have left. But, if there is a chance that we can slow it enough to adapt, wouldn't that be smart? I have been one of the ones pointing out that CO2 is not the whole story. Methane and water vapor are more eficient greenhouse gasses. But we have leverage on CO2. Think of CO2 as a hand on the valve of climate change. If we can reduce CO2, which may reduce production of other gasses through limiting the positive feedback mechanisms (see my posts above), isn't opposing mitigation just sticking our heads in the sand and *hoping* for a good outcome?

And now for a sudden turn - perhaps the extinction of humans *is* a good outcome for planet Earth. Or (more likely) perhaps it just doesn't matter to planet Earth in the long run since the supernova of Sol will take it out eventually.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 11:14 AM

"We are expected to have a high of 115 degrees (F) today."

That ain't human. Doug, I will quit complaining about Montreal where it's in the 80s. I don't gel along too well with heat like that. Once spent three days in California (near SF) and the temp got to something like that(I remember 114, but my good friend who has a better memory than I ever did says it was 117). We sat around his basement for three days and drank a mixture of stuuf to keep ourselves hydrated. Well, the three days dragged on for a week, but we'd failed to recognize after the three days that it was cooling down substantially. Beats me why.

Sorry for the thread drift, bb. Trust you're well and behaving, buddy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM

...this is from a normal citizen and was posted to a blog. He writes better than I do, so I will post his statement:


"Actually William, no I am not backing off.

I notice you did not answer my question either.

My position has not changed. It is that we don't know enough about climate feedbacks to restrict CO2 emissions.

Since some analyses point to 1998 as the hottest year and some to 2005, I think it's fair to say that in any event global warming is slowing. In that vein I pointed out further variability. There is no crisis in the immediate future (from global warming anyway) so we have better things to do with our resources, until we actually have a handle on feedbacks. One of those things is further research. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers (some with no data or algorithm backup) that show anything anyone wants to prove. It's *all* cherry picking.

In particular, the concept that increased damages from tropical storms are primarily due to "global warming" is absolutely ludicrous and I don't understand how anyone who has seen the development in hurricane prone areas over the last few decades could say that. Of course, there are people who just sit in their labs and never get outside - to them it's plausible.

It's all part of the welfare state/lack of personal responsibility we have gotten ourselves into. CO2 is the base of the food chain, but despite the billion or so people on the edge of starvation there are selfish people who want to limit it, therefore food, with:

1. no reasoning remotely related to reality (e.g. clouds), or

2. The potential for them to make a lot of money off carbon trading or some other aspect of limiting fossil fuel use.


Posted by: Steve Hemphill at December 1, 2006 05:15 PM"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Good post, TIA.

I am in favour of reducing our industrial emissions, as I've said several times. Yes, we should make efforts to protect ourselves against rapid changes in the climate (either of warming or cooling phases). And BB has also been saying that.

What has mainly drawn me into this discussion is simply that I think the present common idea about "global warming" that has been dominating the airwaves for at least 10 years now is based on faulty premises. It's become a sort of secular religion with all the authority of the kind of unquestioning faith that you find in the most doctrinaire religions, and that worries me, because I think it's based on incorrect assumptions and bad science. It's simply the desire to know the real truth here that concerns me...not the desire to defend some kind of big industries that want to spew pollutants into the atmosphere.

***

Doug R - Say, how far do you figure Hell is from Arizona??? (grin) I'd be thinking of moving if I had to put up with temperatures like you are facing there right now!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 12:28 PM

Mudcat quit last night while I was assembling my reply about bears...so:

"fact: the world's polar bear population has gone up dramatically since the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1972." ---from PDQ


PDQ... what you are doing is the age-old routine of repeating one mantra, and 'suggesting' that it covers all that needs to be said about the issue. You do not seem interested in any OTHER facts that may cast doubt on what you wish to believe.

read this: "http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/

Here: I'll quote a small bit for you:
"Just because polar bear numbers might have increased in the previous three or four decades, we must not discount the evidence that they are now declining in some areas and are expected to soon decline in others."
...also
..."Dykstra (http://www.sej.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm) thoroughly examined media accounts that supposedly provided evidence of growing populations, and did a nice job verifying that they have no scientifically established basis. You might wish to refer to that document."

also

"Regardless, population recoveries, where they have occurred, are irrelevant in light of the recent changes in the availability of sea ice for polar bears. Because polar bears are entirely dependent upon the sea ice for their survival, any observed and projected reductions in preferred sea ice habitats can only result in declines."


There's a LOT more about the details of the studies of bear populations and how they have changed for 200,000 years and why they DO change. Some of the 'studies' were very cursory, and due to the difficulty of following any large % of the bears, simply declaring that "bear populations are fine" is a prima facie example of the 'wishful thinking' I was referring to.

The real importance of ANY of the facts is their bearing (no pun intended) on the overall issue of climate change and what such change portends for the environment in general, as WE are the only life form on Earth which can study it, reflect on it and do anything about it. We need to get it right as best we can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

I realize that Carl Sagan is dead and therefore needs no defense from me but W A Y   U P   T H E R E   I N   T H I S   T H R E A D, "Guest/Al" several times made the remark that Sagan had predicted that nuclear winter would follow the Gulf War oil well fires, and that therefore one could not trust "experts" opinions on global warming.

No one on this thread challenged the charge. The fact is that, wittingly or not, Guest/Al was wrong. I have found no such evidence that Sagan ever made such a prediction. Typical:

From Wiki

"Sagan erroneously predicted in January 1991 that so much smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia…" He acknowledged the error in The Demon-Haunted World: "as events transpired, it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:13 PM

Did you guys actually look at the three charts up-thread?

1880 to 2008 Hemispheric Temperature Change in both hemispheres, moreso in the northern hemisphere: continuous, accelerating increase approaching exponential rampup in the last 80 years.

1880 to 2008 Global Temperature annual Mean and five-year Mean values showing temo anomalies from -.6 to +.8 deg. C: constant increase accelerating to nearly exponential in the last 60-80 years.

1880-2008 Global Land/Ocean Temperature Index anomalies -- same pattern.

The exponential increase of anthropogenic carbon, methane and water emissions is highly likely to follow the same pattern.

The other factor you seem to be ignoring is that CO2 emissions actually lower the ratio of oxygen in the atmospheric mix on land, making for unpleasant breathing.   I have no data on the quantities involved on this last point however.

Do you think these trends are fiction?????


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:19 PM

(some little heads only have room for facts that suit their preconceived opinions)

It saddens me to say that, but I see it everyday in various ways. *IF* some scientific idea is incorrect, science will eventually figure it out....if someone has a pet idea that it ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

Iss da fookin seals eh wha?

All da seal huggin yuppies what gets da ban on da seal hunt is causin a spoike in da seal population. More seals eatin cod an salmon an shellfish ana loike an fartin, what den causes da roise in yer temperature a yer bay, see? Not ta mention yer green gas what fooks wit yer ozone. Now, dem cod and yer loike is after livin in cold water fer a long many years and dey don't spawn so good when da bay is warm. Less fer yer whole food chain ta eat, what stunts yer growth of yer under da water plant type life and den iss loike a dog chasin ees tail I tell ya.

True sure! Iss da fookin seals, buddy.

Well, iss da yuppies what gets sucked in ta donatin coin by yer global Mega-Beggers loike yer Green Pieces who use yer stunned as me arse neo-ecological old hippies loike yer McCartneys fer frontmen. Imagine da loikes a dat pair globe trottin in jets and cruise punts and couldn't even find Newfoundland on a fookin map!! Jaysus! Wonner Danny b'y didn't go out fer a wee chat wit his nibs in person and give n a smack.

At least get a fookin GPS so's ya knows where yer to eh, Pauly. I mean, it's nare loike ya can't afford one... and maybe a yuppie to read it for ya. Good ting dey weren't walkin, eh? Prob'ly woulda got lost sure... had ta club a baby seal fer sustinence eh wha? Nothin out on ta ice fer ta make a club with though. Wonder what dey coulda used?

Some folks is stunner n fookin seals. I mean, ya don't even have no never mind the roise in da level a da bay from yer global swarming… put a seal in yer washtub an see if yer floor gets wet.

Iss da fookin seals!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:31 PM

What the Global Warming barkers have on their side are the news outlets. They do not have have the facts on their side.


"The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with '2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'. In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'.

A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a 'growing accumulation' of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the "science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. 'More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming' An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable presence" of scientific skeptics exists.

An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.' "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 01:57 PM

"We need to get it right as best we can. "

I agree with this- so why do you keep advocating action without getting it right?


If you are right, having "preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change" will be usefull, and attempting to stop it will be usefull.

If I am right ( and global warming occurs regardless) it is essential that we "prepare to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change", and all attempts to stop it are wasted effort.




So, which one is the side of caustion? If I am wrong, we have prepared for something that is not (immediately) occurring, and we live.

If King Al is wrong ( and we cannot stop Global warming) we have wasted the resources we need to survive.- And we die.


I think I know which one I will pick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 02:25 PM

"I think I know which one I will pick."

Then you need to find out if anyone agrees with you, and work out some plan to ...ummmm.....expedite this great 'move' you advocate and convince places like Canada they they need to prepare to accept 23-30 million more folks.

What *I* said is, that if climate conditions change enough, moving WILL occur...gradually, and negotiations (both friendly & not) will happen....(and IF climate changes enough, some will die...whether King Al was ignored or not)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:06 PM

In science, truth is not judged by popular vote. In fact, the prevailing "truth" in any field of science regularly gets tossed out on its ear after a few decades (sometimes more). However, at any stage, humans would be fools to not base their behavior on the state-of-the-art in science (such as it is…see above). So, it is important to be clear about what the current consensus is, and the fact that there is one. It is always possible to find a curmudgeon to debate on TV the current state of any science. But how many are there really? The following scientific organizations have all either explicitly endorsed, or signed joint statements in support of the latest IPCC report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

I would be curious to see a listing of the organizations that have opposed the findings…and political ThinkTanks and PACs don't count.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:22 PM

All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009.

A scientist will be wary about the test methods as well as the results.

Seems that many weather stations that were in rural areas a century ago are now surrounded by urban sprawl.

The concrete and surrounding buildings has thermal mass and therefore heat retention, and keep minimum measured temperatures higher than they actually are.

This is supported by the fact that the 1 degree F of "average ambient air temperature" is derived from a two degree increase in measured minimum temperature and a zero degree change in daily maximum measured temperature.

Furthermore, even if the 1 degree F rise reflects reality, there is no reason to be alarmed. It is trivial. Hardly merits a special name like is has been given. So much for Global Warming.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:28 PM

"All this flap is about a 1 degree F rise in average ambient air temperature as measured over land from 1845-2009."


Good grief, PDQ! No...that is NOT 'all' what it is about! There is MUCH more. If all we had was a 1° rise in 150 years and no other symptoms or issues, even Gore would not be wasting his time on it. A degree or 2 fluctuation in many years 'can' be quite
normal'....


ahhh...never mind. You have decided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 03:59 PM

Bill, you said, "if someone has a pet idea that is ultimately wrong and has an emotional interest in it, they will often defend it to the last"

Yes! Exactly. ;-) And that IS precisely what worries me about most of the more enthusiastic adherents to the recent popular theories of "Global Warming". They have rushed like lemmings to join in the popular and trendy theme of their day, and they have a very big emotional interest in maintaining their present state of belief. They defend it with the zealousness of priests defending Holy Scripture.

Now in my case, Bill....I initially was extremely impressed by Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and I became a strong believer in the Global Warming theories just as they were presented in that film. I also like Al Gore personally, I like him politically, I'm not against him in any way, and I have no axe to grind against Al Gore at all (unlike many conservative opponents of the Global Warming theory).

However....I have since gradually come to the conclusion that his global warming theories are far from correct, and that human-produced C02 concentrations are not a major cause of global warming.

So, Bill. Who has been unable to alter a past opinion due to their emotional attachment to it? Not me. I HAVE altered my past opinions on this subject. I've altered them radically.

And I still like Al Gore, but I think he's simply mistaken in his global warming theory. That doesn't make him a bad guy in my books, it just means he's probably in error about something, that's all.

And now if I may quote you again....

"Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM

Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change, nor anytning we can or even should do anything about; and it is comforting to know that the correlation in accelerated global temperatures and accelerated human-driven carbon emissions is just a minor coincidence in the Great Shake and Bake of existence.

But I think there is more to the climate change argument that you guys are taking into account, and I don't by the Sunspots THeory or the Aliens are Doing It theory, either.

(That was uncalled for, Amos!! I know. But I couldn't help it!! Shame on you!! Oh, shut up!)


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:34 PM

NOTE When somebody writes "global warming" are you not in actuality addressing human causes and contributions? Because if you are not, you are talking nonsense.

I don't think we have established how much humans are contributing to global warming but NO ONE can dispute that global warming is happening.

I don't care if you, personally, are having an extra cool summer, the indisputable fact is that ice is melting, land is reappearing that has not been visible for eons and permafrost in many places is becoming mush.

In the north it is especially striking. Villages in Alaska are facing the reality that they will have to relocate; take Shishmaref, for an extreme example.

In a documentary I watched recently, Inuit elders said that they used to hunt seals "right out there", less than five miles off shore - and the closest ice is now 50 miles away.

Scientiests are now projecting that we may have summertime ice-free waters above the Arctic Circle by the year 2030. As they say, the only thing they've gotten wrong is that it's happening much faster than they had previously projected.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:36 PM

Calm down, Amos. The nice young men in the white coats will be along shortly to help you into a nice new canvas jacket...



"Well, it is nice to know that the inordinate calving of state-size chunks of arctic ice shelves, the unprecedented softening of the permafrost in northern tundra, the accelerating retreat of icebergs, and other such macro-scale symptoms, are not, after all, the cause of climate change,"

When you learn the difference between cause and effect, please let us know what this statement was supposed to mean.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 04:37 PM

""Aahhh...never mind. You have decided."

Haven't you? ;-D"

Nope...I just agree with TIA's last post. Quite a list, huh? I have 'decided' to take seriously the studies of all those respected experts. IF they are wrong, it will do less damage following their advice than it will ignoring it if they are right.