mae.ucdavis.edu/~biosport/frisbee/HummelThesis.pdf

O.K. Now I understand why the answers you're giving don't make sense to me.

This thesis confirms that spin doesn't effect the aerodynamics of the disc )actually, the thesis doesn't but it gives two clear references that do).

However, I still don't have a clear answer on how precession affects stability. Sigh...

1) What is the force that tires to change the spinning angle of the disc?

2) What do you mean by spinning angle?

My understanding of what you're saying is that when you aply a force on the disc (and I still don't understand that force, is it forward momentum or what?) that the action of precession causes stability changes. I'm still missing something.



Spinning angle is axis of rotation. The gyroscopic force resists changes of the axis of rotation, but the vector of resistance is 90 degrees along the spin.

The forces acting on the flying disc trying to change the axis of rotation are aerodynamic. For instance: a nose up throw will have a greater than normal force pushing the nose up. This force will be translated by precession to the right edge of the disc, and therefore causing hyzer or overstability. A nose down throw has a greater than normal force pushing the nose down. This force will translated to the right edge causing turn over.

This is all for rightie backhand of course.

I think I understand a point of misunderstanding now. Precession is used two ways. The wobble about an axis of rotation is called precession as well as the force. The wobble is, I think, better described as a result of precession. The Earth's wobble or a toy top's wobble are the result of precession, even though they are often called precession. When the Earth or a top precesses, their tilt, and therefore, their torque force changes with the tilt continuously as precession takes them around in a conical pattern as Lyle described. A disc doesn't work that way. The tilt itself doesn't cause the torquing force. Only the airflow. So, the torquing force on the nose of the disc is always on the nose of the disc even if the disc tilts right or left. Therefore, it doesn't chase itself around in a circle. Only the change in nose angle will affect the magnitude and direction of the translated force, unless we are introducing a side wind. The side wind acts just like a nose wind. No spirals.

How about when a big arm hyzerflips a disc into a long, stable (read straight) flight pattern...and then the disc will turn over quite late in its flight? I've seen George Smith (when he still threw Innova) do this many a time with beat max weight DX Firebirds. :confused:

Aleksey Bubis is the master of late hyzer flips. I saw Bubis throw a beat up orc that flipped flat and then flipped completely over at around 400' and rolled for another 250'. He can do the same thing with rocs. They go dead straight for about 300' and then fade right for another 50'.

Aleksey Bubis is the master of late hyzer flips. I saw Bubis throw a beat up orc that flipped flat and then flipped completely over at around 400' and rolled for another 250'. He can do the same thing with rocs. They go dead straight for about 300' and then fade right for another 50'.



This only works if the process of the flip brings the nose down. If it doesn't, then the disc will fade back to the left. It also is much easier to do with a right to left wind.

I think I understand a point of misunderstanding now. Precession is used two ways. The wobble about an axis of rotation is called precession as well as the force. The wobble is, I think, better described as a result of precession. The Earth's wobble or a toy top's wobble are the result of precession, even though they are often called precession. When the Earth or a top precesses, their tilt, and therefore, their torque force changes with the tilt continuously as precession takes them around in a conical pattern as Lyle described. A disc doesn't work that way. The tilt itself doesn't cause the torquing force. Only the airflow. So, the torquing force on the nose of the disc is always on the nose of the disc even if the disc tilts right or left. Therefore, it doesn't chase itself around in a circle. Only the change in nose angle will affect the magnitude and direction of the translated force, unless we are introducing a side wind. The side wind acts just like a nose wind. No spirals.



Now things are getting clearer. So, the combination of airflow and precession are what turn the disc but there is still a missing element that has to be structural to give differences in stability.

Also, I contacted a Physicist last night and he basically said the same thing. He suggested thinking about throwing the disc in space. No matter what the physical properties of the disc or how fast it spins, its going to run straight. It needs the airflow as a physical presence to act on.

I still don't have a good grasp of why the disc has different stabilities at different parts it's flight other than the obvious, the airflow and the rate of precession will be different during different parts of the flight.

That still leaves me with the hyzer flip. What causes it? Is there a critical junction between precession and airflow where the fligh dynamic shifts?

Lastly, thanks for your patience and time Dave.

I like the way this thread has gotten les inconvienent to read :D

I still don't have a good grasp of why the disc has different stabilities at different parts it's flight other than the obvious, the airflow and the rate of precession will be different during different parts of the flight.

That still leaves me with the hyzer flip. What causes it? Is there a critical junction between precession and airflow where the fligh dynamic shifts?

Lastly, thanks for your patience and time Dave.



As I was told by some of the world's leading low speed aerodynamics experts, the position of lift on a wing changes with the velocity of air. I don't know why this happens. But, it seems that the position moves rearward as the wind velocity increases. So, all things held equal, (sometimes they aren't) low velocity lift center is further forward causing a translated vector to hyzer the disc. Normal velocity wind puts the lift center in stable position. Excessive velocity moves the center back and turns the disc over.

Inherently unstable discs are more easily flipped. Inherently stable discs have a wider zone were velocity affects them less with regard to center of lift. This is why high speed throwers much more often choose stable discs, as they are less variable in flight. That being said, nose up and nose down throws will still affect stable discs. The center of lift will still move forward and back, but will affect the flight less. Inherently overstable discs will want to turn left, but if thrown hard enough, will fly straight for the high speed portion only. At cruise (middle) velocity, they willl begin to fade, and at low speed will fade hard.

I still don't have a good grasp of why the disc has different stabilities at different parts it's flight other than the obvious, the airflow and the rate of precession will be different during different parts of the flight.

That still leaves me with the hyzer flip. What causes it? Is there a critical junction between precession and airflow where the fligh dynamic shifts?

Lastly, thanks for your patience and time Dave.



As I was told by some of the world's leading low speed aerodynamics experts, the position of lift on a wing changes with the velocity of air. I don't know why this happens. But, it seems that the position moves rearward as the wind velocity increases. So, all things held equal, (sometimes they aren't) low velocity lift center is further forward causing a translated vector to hyzer the disc. Normal velocity wind puts the lift center in stable position. Excessive velocity moves the center back and turns the disc over.

Inherently unstable discs are more easily flipped. Inherently stable discs have a wider zone were velocity affects them less with regard to center of lift. This is why high speed throwers much more often choose stable discs, as they are less variable in flight. That being said, nose up and nose down throws will still affect stable discs. The center of lift will still move forward and back, but will affect the flight less. Inherently overstable discs will want to turn left, but if thrown hard enough, will fly straight for the high speed portion only. At cruise (middle) velocity, they willl begin to fade, and at low speed will fade hard.



I'll need to read that one a couple of times but it is consistent with what was in the thesis I posted (not work done in the thesis, but references in the thesis). BTW - that thesis doesn't just look at aerodynamics, it also looks at arm movement through the throw to determine the best structure. It goes into a great deal of physiology. Do ya think she took to big of a bite, physics and physiology in one thesis?

BTW - that thesis doesn't just look at aerodynamics, it also looks at arm movement through the throw to determine the best structure. It goes into a great deal of physiology. Do ya think she took to big of a bite, physics and physiology in one thesis?



I think she did quite well with the flight dynamics, with the exception of one negligible bit of causality. The throwing analysis, while it might be factually accurate, (I doubt it as measuring what she needs to measure is difficult) is causally flawed. Her recommendation for beginners doesn't make sense. That being said, it is probably better than most other stuff out there.

geez, why does innova have to make their discs so complicated?

i think my head is about to explode

geez, why does innova have to make their discs so complicated?



Wham-o kept it simple and was left behind.

plus ESO* errors keep disc lovers guessing, and buying.

*equipment superior to operator :D

i think my head is about to explode



Actually, I started there, that is with an exploding head, but there are about three posts by Dave that go through several key points and actually explain the process quite well. I need to get that info fixed in my head.

Dave, do thumb tracks cause localized turbulence disrupting the tailing turbulence thus giving longer flight? The engineer I talked with asked. BTW - he's a civil engineer, I did my best, but did find the whole topic fascinating.

geez, why does innova have to make their discs so complicated?

I'll simplify it for you: Shut up and throw! :D

Dave, do thumb tracks cause localized turbulence disrupting the tailing turbulence thus giving longer flight? The engineer I talked with asked. BTW - he's a civil engineer, I did my best, but did find the whole topic fascinating.



No. If the disc had a much blunter rear end, it might, but the overall shape of the disc is already long and narrow. The Thumtrac adds a downward vector to the rear of the disc that helps to fight turnover at higher relative wind velocities. So, as the center of lift moves rearward and wants to cause the disc to turn over, the Thumtrac helps to correct this by adding a downward vector on the tail, which is translated to the left side. Thumtrac discs are inherently more high speed stable at the cost of drag.

Dave, do thumb tracks cause localized turbulence disrupting the tailing turbulence thus giving longer flight? The engineer I talked with asked. BTW - he's a civil engineer, I did my best, but did find the whole topic fascinating.



No. If the disc had a much blunter rear end, it might, but the overall shape of the disc is already long and narrow. The Thumtrac adds a downward vector to the rear of the disc that helps to fight turnover at higher relative wind velocities. So, as the center of lift moves rearward and wants to cause the disc to turn over, the Thumtrac helps to correct this by adding a downward vector on the tail, which is translated to the left side. Thumtrac discs are inherently more high speed stable at the cost of drag.



Aha! Now I know why the Rhyno is a stable short disc! :D

Can someone tell me where this thread got hijacked. This page is a lot more interesting than page 1. I would really like to start from the beginning and try to catch up. I have tried (a few times) to understand why discs fly the way they do. I have two mind-numbing articles on my desk as proof. :confused:

i think my head is about to explode



Mine is spinning.

;)

Can someone tell me where this thread got hijacked. This page is a lot more interesting than page 1. I would really like to start from the beginning and try to catch up. I have tried (a few times) to understand why discs fly the way they do. I have two mind-numbing articles on my desk as proof. :confused:



It's not that far back approx. page 20 of the thread. Morgan, Frisbee is his on-line personna, in a sucsessful attempt to show I had limited knowledge of science trivia, asked three questions including one about disc stability and why it changes with wear. So look for that Frisbee post around page 20 and go from there. BTW - it took a while for me to get it clear, mainly because I would skim read Dave's posts. He is actually quite clear and the real meat is in the last couple of pages.

i think my head is about to explode



Mine is spinning.

;)



Yeah, but that has nothing to do with disc golf, that's lack of sleep from your first week of all night feeding, Dad!

i think my head is about to explode



Mine is spinning.

;)

you trying to say your head is more stable?

i think my head is about to explode



Mine is spinning.

;)

you trying to say your head is more stable?



Me? Stable? :D

I am experiencing local warming. 103 F friday, 105 F today. 107 F tomorrow. :(

I am experiencing local warming. 103 F friday, 105 F today. 107 F tomorrow. :(



Can you imagine the average for August and September !!!!!

Has been the hottest June and July I can ever remember , so far !!!!

Global warming is cool.

Hey Dave, i'm still too lazy to try and get up to speed on all the aerodynamics stuff so maybe you can help me out: would a thumb track on a MTA Condor be good for MTA? (what would be the effect?)

Hey Dave, i'm still too lazy to try and get up to speed on all the aerodynamics stuff so maybe you can help me out: would a thumb track on a MTA Condor be good for MTA? (what would be the effect?)



It would add a lot of weight: bad. It would prevent any turn at all: neither good nor bad. It would slow the disc down: not good for a heavier disc. It would kill the float: way bad.

Best way to blow away the MTA record is to throw a golf disc into a gale force headwind. I know the record is like 16 seconds with a wham-o, I beat this record several times but no witnesses, with an Eagle thrown into a 40-50 MPH headwind, on the beach in Hastings, England. The disc stays up forever.

I don't know why this wind was special, maybe because it was constant, no gusts, very strong and coming up a big hill off the ocean, just a constant high power wind, 40 MPH or more. You just throw a crush into it, level and flat, and the disc goes up in the air, about 200 feet forward and 50-75 feet high, hangs there forever, slows down and then goes over your head and behind you about 200 ft behind your back before landing. Easy to do, anybody with a good rip can do it. Way more than 15 seconds. The trick is finding a 40 MPH constant and uniform wind with no turbulent gusts. The south coast of England is windy like that all the time. No gusts just a constant 40 MPH wind coming up off the beach. I was about 50 feet elevation above the ocean so I think the uphill wind did all the work. The disc flew until the spin ran out. Way over 15 seconds more like 20 or 30.

It was in a park on the beach, I wish I knew the name. Grassy area.

throwing MTA into a decent wind is heaven

I didn�t say a word.

you just did

'Science' For Sale: Utilities give warming skeptic big bucks

By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
Thu Jul 27, 5:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Coal-burning utilities are passing the hat for one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.

Pat Michaels � Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute � told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, Colo., gave Michaels $100,000 and started the fund-raising drive, said Stanley Lewandowski, IREA's general manager. He said one company planned to give $50,000 and a third plans to give Michaels money next year.

"We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists," Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to launch a counterattack on "alarmist" scientists and specifically Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Michaels and Lewandowski are open about the money and see no problem with it. Some top scientists and environmental advocates call it a clear conflict of interest. Others view it as the type of lobbying that goes along with many divisive issues. "These people are just spitting into the wind," said John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The fact is that the drumbeat of science and people's perspectives are in line that the climate is changing."

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group, said: "This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda."
Donald Kennedy, an environmental scientist who is former president of Stanford University and current editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Science, said skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers. "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."

Michaels is best known for his newspaper opinion columns and books, including "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media." However, he also writes research articles published in scientific journals. In 1998, Michaels blasted NASA scientist James Hansen, accusing the godfather of global warming science of being way off on his key 1988 prediction of warming over the next 10 years. But Hansen and other scientists said Michaels misrepresented the facts by cherry-picking the worst (and least likely) of three possible outcomes Hansen presented to Congress. The temperature rise that Hansen said was most likely to happen back then was actually slightly lower than what has occurred. Michaels has been quoted by major newspapers more than 150 times in the past two years, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search. He and Lewandowski told The Associated Press that their side of global warming isn't getting out and that the donations resulted from a speech Michaels gave to the Western Business Roundtable last fall. Michaels said the money will help pay his staff.

Holdren, a Harvard environmental science and technology professor, said skeptics such as Michaels "have had attention all out of proportion to the merits of their arguments."

"Last I heard, anybody can ask a scientific question," said Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It is a very spirited discussion that requires technical response and expertise."

Other scientific fields, such as medicine, are more careful about potential conflicts of interests than the energy, environmental and chemical fields, where it doesn't raise much of an eyebrow, said Penn State University bioethicist Arthur Caplan.

Earlier this month, the Journal of the American Medical Association announced a crackdown on researchers who do not disclose drug company ties related to their research. Yet days later, the journal's editor said she had been misled because the authors of a new study had not revealed industry money they got that posed a conflict.

Three top climate scientists said they don't accept money from private groups. The same goes for the Web site realclimate.org, which has long criticized Michaels. "We don't get any money; we do this in our free time," said www.Realclimate.org (http://www.Realclimate.org) contributor Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean physics scientist at Potsdam University in Germany.

Lewandowski, who said he believes global warming is real just not as big a problem as scientists claim, acknowledged this is a special interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use. He said his effort is more aimed at stopping carbon dioxide emission taxes and limits from Congress, something he believes won't happen during the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_on_sc/science_for_sale_2

UK, Calif. to strike global warming deal

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer
34 minutes ago

LONG BEACH, Calif. - British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an agreement Monday to bypass the Bush administration and work together to explore ways to fight global warming.

ADVERTISEMENT -snip-

The two leaders announced the pact as they met with business leaders on clean energy and climate issues against the backdrop of a BP oil tanker at a terminal in the Port of Long Beach.

"We see that there is not great leadership from the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment," Schwarzenegger said. "We know there is global warming, so we should stop it."

Addressing business leaders during an earlier panel discussion, Blair called global warming "long-term, the single biggest issue we face."

The agreement calls for collaboration on research into cleaner-burning fuels and technologies, and looking into the possibility of setting up a system whereby polluters could buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases. The idea is to use market forces and market incentives to curb pollution.

Environmental groups questioned the value of the agreement, calling it little more than a symbolic gesture.

California is looking to cut carbon dioxide � a byproduct of coal, oil and gasoline combustion � and other heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet. President Bush has rejected the idea of ordering such cuts.

"This is an agreement to share ideas and information. It is not a treaty," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Adam Mendelsohn. "Right now, all we are doing is talking about sharing ideas."

"It will be markets, not governments, that will decide which technologies are chosen in the future. Governments can give clear, credible, long-term signals to the market which will enable companies to develop the technology that will result in cleaner technology, more energy efficient technology," said a Blair spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, in line with government policy.

Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the agreement was "a wonderful amplification" of talks last year between the president and Blair.

"It's just another step forward," she said. "This is a way to share ideas, what works and what doesn't work."

For Schwarzenegger, a Republican who is running for a full term in November, the agreement comes at a time when he has been trying to distance himself from Bush in this mostly Democratic state.

His aides disputed speculation that the agreement was an attempt to sidestep the White House. In a conference call with reporters, state Environmental Secretary Linda Adams said the agency is in "constant contact" with federal regulators, but added that there was no discussion with Washington about Monday's agreement.

Craig Noble of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the pact had symbolic value, but that "the time for talk is over." He urged passage of a proposal, pending in the state Legislature, that would make California the first state to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources.

"The bottom line is, voluntary is not enough," Noble said.

While partnering with Britain, Schwarzenegger is seeking changes to the state bill that Democrats say would undermine its goals.

Schwarzenegger has proposed creating a board of agency heads who would set emission limits after taking into account the economic effects. Democrats say the independent state Air Resources Board should oversee the program.

The world's only mandatory carbon dioxide trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen countries.

Companies can trade rights to pollute directly with each other or through exchanges located around Europe. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that signed Kyoto, plans a similar program.

Although the United States is one of the few industrialized nations that have not signed the treaty, some Eastern states are developing a regional cap-and-trade program. And some U.S. companies have voluntarily agreed to limit their carbon dioxide pollution as part of a new Chicago-based market.

A main target of the agreement between Britain and California is the carbon dioxide from cars, trucks and other modes of transportation. Transportation accounts for an estimated 41 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and 28 percent of Britain's.

Schwarzenegger has called on California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. California was the 12th-largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations.

Blair has called on Britain to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 60 percent of its 1990 levels by 2050. Britain also has been looking at imposing individual limits on carbon pollution. People who accumulate unused carbon allowances � for example, by driving less, or switching to less polluting vehicles � could sell them to people who exceed their allowances � for example by driving more.

Bush has resisted Blair's efforts to make carbon dioxide reduction a top international priority. After taking office, Bush reversed a 2000 campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, then withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels.

The United States is responsible for a quarter of the world's global warming pollution. Bush administration officials argue that requiring cuts in greenhouse gases would cost the U.S. economy 5 million jobs.

Instead, the administration has poured billions of dollars into research aimed at slowing the growth of most greenhouse gases while advocating a global cut on one of them, methane.

___

Associated Press Writer John Heilprin in Washington contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_sc/blair_global_warming_15

is this suppose to be funny?????

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I don't get it and don't see how it would sway anyone one way or the other

If you think it has been exceptionally hot where you are this summer, it is no illusion. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the first seven months of this year mark the hottest average temperature in the nation for a January to July period on record. Over 2,300 daily temperature records have already been broken across the country this year.

hey Pizza, you gonna fill up this weekend, or wait for the Isreali-Lebanon thing to blow over? it was two weeks ago you said it was a short term thing, but today Isreali says they'll go in with a ground force for a 30 day effort!

and with alska pipeline killing the west coast gas supply, we are SCREWED!

If you think it has been exceptionally hot where you are this summer, it is no illusion. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the first seven months of this year mark the hottest average temperature in the nation for a January to July period on record. Over 2,300 daily temperature records have already been broken across the country this year.



ya can't have it both ways, wayne. remember when you said this?


Regional variances in the global temperature prove nothing. Even today, with the overall warming of the earth higher than any time in recorded history, some places are cooler than normal while some places are warmer. It is the average temperature of the earth that matters.



but i guess the situation is so desperate that we have to use every conceivable bit of evidence to sway the numbskulls out there. who care's if it's fearmongoring?

The entire continental United States takes up a pretty big chunk of the Earth�s surface and thus represents a little more than a regional variance. I�m just posting information as it becomes available. When the global data comes in, I�ll be sure to pass it along.

filled up today at $2.82 because of the Alaska Pipeline deal.

Oil jumped up $2 and gas futured jumped up 20 cents per gallon.

$4 gallon gas is not that far away.

we were due for high temps this year. Last year was thecoolest in years.

Most of the hot weather has beencaused by the jet stream. It is bypassing most of the USAall together andgoing through Canada. That has taken temps that are normal for the south and brought them up north.

BTW, El Paso already has more rain in the last few weeks thanthey normally get in a year???

for all you folks who think gloabl warming means hgher temps and beigger storms for everyone all lthe time... looks like china is getting the blasting this year

we were due for high temps this year. Last year was thecoolest in years.



That's funny.

"The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html

yeah, PG really let me down on this one... i was expecting a fully cited, peer-reviewed post. :D

Hey I was only refering to Dallas, we only had like 4 100+ days last year. It was the coolest summer I ever remember.

And I remember the 2 hottest years too

1998 we had the whole summer of almost 100 plus temps. I even played a tournament in 113 weather.

That high temp tied the hottest on record from 1980,the hottest summer ever recored in Dallas. We had something like 53 days of 100+ temps IN A ROW. That was 26 years ago.

is this suppose to be funny?????

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I don't get it and don't see how it would sway anyone one way or the other



Actually, everyone should watch this video, it's very important. Essentially, it's a slam on "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al Gore. It is set up to look artsy and to appear cutting edge. The propanganda, sorry information that was released with it was that a hot young director out of Hollywood made it in his spare time.

The reality is a little more interesting. It turns out that the producer was DCI a marketing agency that represents... you guessed it, Exxon-Mobil. Kind of makes ya wonder don't it.

1998 we had the whole summer of almost 100 plus temps. I even played a tournament in 113 weather.

ah, those were the days... my first summer in texas, and my first tournament ever, the Fritz Park Open, played betwen 100 and 115 degrees F!

if this only makes anyone "wonder" they are certifiably insane. this shouldnt make people wonder.... it should make people CONVINCED!

if this only makes anyone "wonder" they are certifiably insane. this shouldnt make people wonder.... it should make people CONVINCED!



What's obvious to one person, isn't to another. Did you ever watch Colin Powell's disertation on Iraqi weapons and why we should go to war? It was so bad it was silly.

He talked about their war planes and then showed F16 fighter jets (they use MIGs). He mentioned a remote drone they could use to drop gas or bombs on us and showed a stick and paper airplane that didn't look like it could get off the ground, and the Mobile Weapons Labs looked like industrial pumping equipment, not fermentation facilities. The best part was a recording they had made of two Iraqi officers talking about WMD. One guy calls the other and says: "you know those WMD we have at the compound, well you better move them, the inspectors are coming."

Officer 2: "Oh yeah, we better move those WMD, before they get here."

Officer 1: "Yeah, because if they found WMD we'd be in trouble."

Officer 2: "Well, I'll get on moving those WMD right away."

Officer 1: "Good, make sure you move those WMD as soon as possible."

(BTW - this isn't the conversation, rather it conveys the nature of the conversation. You can search for the text of Colin's speach on WMD at the U.N.)


I am not kidding, this is exactly how the conversation went. Frankly, Abbott and Costello did it better.

The sad thing was that Congress and the news media bought it. It was like they shut off their brains for 30 minutes. Well, when I see that kind of garbage go over, I'm not too optimistic that even know the Oil industry is buying propaganda will have that much affect on the public.

1998 we had the whole summer of almost 100 plus temps. I even played a tournament in 113 weather.

ah, those were the days... my first summer in texas, and my first tournament ever, the Fritz Park Open, played betwen 100 and 115 degrees F!



1998 Fritz Park open, tied the hottest day on record at 113 at DFW Airport. I flew to Appleton WI the next week and was wearing warm up in the 70 weather

Sometimes two articles appear on a related topic and written from different perspectives that together provide a kind of parallax and help trace the prime mover behind the action. Such is the case with these two news entries: The New York Times printed an article by Andrew C. Revkin on July 22nd that reported the recent change in NASA�s mission statement. The mission statement used to read: �To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers � as only NASA can.� In February the statement was quietly altered to delete the phrase �to understand and protect our home planet�. Then on June 9th The Boston Globe reported that NASA recently cancelled a couple of satellite missions that would have given scientists critical information on climate change. One satellite mission, headed by MIT, was to measure soil moisture, the other mission would have provided more detailed information on solar radiation, ozone, clouds and water vapor. These are merely the most recent of many cancelled NASA missions designed to provide a better understanding of global climate change. Somebody really doesn�t want the truth to be told on this issue.

If you look hard, you can see the shadow of Edgar the Grand Puppeteer lurking in the background.

A Beautiful Mind at work

the ultimate inconvienent truth=

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

all the more reason not to degrade the planet we all live upon for the brief time we are alive.

- - - -

Scientists add years to time required for ozone recovery
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer

GENEVA - The atmosphere will take up to 15 years longer than previously expected to recover from pollution and repair its ozone hole over the southern hemisphere, the United Nations' weather organization said Friday.

Thinning in the ozone layer � due to chemical compounds leaked from refrigerators, air conditioners and other devices � exposes the Earth to harmful solar rays. Too much ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer and destroy tiny plants at the beginning of the food chain.

Scientists said Friday it would take until 2065, instead of 2050 as previously expected, for the ozone layer to recover and the hole over the Antarctic to close.

"The Antarctic ozone hole has not become more severe since the late 1990s, but large ozone holes are expected to occur for decades to come," ozone specialist Geir Braathen told reporters in summarizing a new report by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. The report will be released next year.

The ozone hole, a thinner-than-normal area in the upper stratosphere's radiation-absorbing gases, has formed each year since the mid-1980s at the end of the Antarctic winter in August, and generally is at its biggest in late September.

Experts said they extended the projected recovery because chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, would continue to leak into the atmosphere from air conditioners, aerosol spray cans and other equipment for years to come.

But there was cause for celebration, they said, noting a decline in CFCs in the first two atmospheric layers above Earth.

"The level of ozone-depleting substances continues to decline from its 1992-1994 peak in the troposphere and the late 1990s peak in the stratosphere," WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said in a statement.

Less of these chemicals are used every year, he said, after 180 countries in 1997 committed to reducing CFCs under the Montreal Protocal.

"This shows that the Montreal Protocol is effective and is working," he said.

Last year, the ozone hole reached about 10 million square miles on Sept. 20 � just below its largest size in 2003 of about 11.2 million square miles, WMO experts said.

view online source here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_sc/un_ozone_hole_6)

If you are disinclined to accept the reality of human induced climate change because the message is coming from the likes of Al Gore, then perhaps an endorsement by none other than the Govenator (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/30/financial/f154259D53.DTL&type=politics) will give you reason to reconsider.

Skeptics shewered. (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) Earth is warming. Humans caused it. We cannot stop it. If we make dramatic changes now, maybe, just maybe, we can slow it down. Scary!

Skeptics shewered. (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) Earth is warming. Humans caused it. We cannot stop it. If we make dramatic changes now, maybe, just maybe, we can slow it down. Scary!



It's pretty sad that our President made this a debate when it was obvious from the start. There's only one thing to say, move to higher ground... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It's pretty sad that our President made this a debate when it was obvious from the start. There's only one thing to say, move to higher ground... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



And hope that you are not poor, don't live in Bangladesh, can live for long periods without water, can subsist off eating rocks, etc.

I'm still a skeptic and here's the experiment that proves the CO2 greenhouse theory is a total sham.

Back in 1800, a scientist, let's call him Watson because everybody in 1800 was called Watson, had a theory that the earth was a giant greenhouse and CO2 was the glass. He needed to devise an experiment to test his theory. Heat lamps weren't invented yet, or spectroscopes, etc. And how would he get enough CO2 in one spot that would represent an accurate model of the earth, without introducing massive amounts of experimental error? It seemed an impossible task.

One night, the ideal experiment came to him. He would vary the amount of CO2 in the entire atmosphere itself, and see if it made a difference!

"Let's double the CO2 in the atmosphere and see if the temperature goes up!" professor Watson said to his assistant, Johnson. Lots of people were called Johnson back in 1800, too. "If there is a greenhouse effect caused by CO2, and we double the amount of CO2 in the air, it will double the temperature of the earth. It will be hundreds of degrees higher. The oceans will boil away, all life on earth will be steam cooked like broccoli in a giant Wok." His plot was purely diabolical. Even superman could not repair the damage by flying around the earth real fast and blowing the CO2 out of the air, because he wasn't even born yet.

"My word," said Johnson."How ever will do such a thing?" (With the same fake English accent John DeBois used on the Skylands National Tour DVD). "It's elementary," said Watson. "We will simply burn billions of tons of coal and petroleum."

Well, as crazy as it sounds, we did it. Took 200 years to do it, but we did it. We doubled the CO2 level in the atmosphere. And nothing happened. Nothing happened at all, proving the null hypothesis.

CO2, although clearly able to absorb infrared, and on paper may cause the earth to warm up, failed to do so in the lab. The most massive experiment ever undertaken by the human race failed to show a positive result, CO2 doesn't have a greenhouse effect on the earth.

Oh yeah I know. Since 1980 the temperature went up by 0.7 degrees. Woo hoo! Sorry, too late. The results were peer reviewed and published in 1980. Case closed. It's a total sham. There is no CO2 greenhouse effect. Sorry, Mr. Gore.

Putting 'air' aside...how about ocean temps? IFF the icecaps and glaciers are melting...then the 'moving to higher ground' theory seems quite plausible. :p

Let me repost a post I made on 7/10/06 on this thread:

Ok now let me explain why Earth has no greenhouse effect. A greenhouse works because plate glass is opaque to infrared. The glass blocks infrared from getting in, while visible light gets in. The visible light gets in and warms things and re-radiates the heat as infrared, which is trapped by the glass because we just learned, glass is opaque to infrared.

Our atmosphere is nothing like this. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to infrared. The infrared from the sun gets in, it is not blocked. The infrared from the sun heats the earth, unlike a greenhouse, where no direct solar infrared heats anything, it doesn't even get in. Visible light and UV get in too and heat the earth.

Yeah, lots of infrared is reflected back from the earth. And lots of visible light heats the earth and is radiated back as infrared. That's true. But if this were a greenhouse, it would be trapped by the atmosphere like it is by the glass. But like we just discovered in the first paragraph, the atmosphere does NOT block all the infrared.

Thus, earth's atmosphere is the opposite of the glass of a greenhouse.

I am still a skeptic. Even when Morgan makes a case :D

I wan't to see less polution, but am not worried about the Co2 levels.

BTW, don't forget the Great Lakes were formed by glasures (sorry can't remember how to spell it) I guess it was all our coal and oil burning that caused those to melt and form the lakes.

BTW, not all glasures are recceding, some are growing.

Next, if the polar ice caps melt, the ocean level will not change as much as they say they will. Don't forget that when frozen, Ice displaces water.

Want proof,fill up a bottle of water and cap it off. Now freeze it. See what happens.

They are talking about the ice on land, like Greenland, flowing into the ocean. The ice that's already floating, like the ice shelf in Antarctica, doesn't change the sea level when it melts because it's already in the water.

Glaciers dude.

dude, right after posting this, I went to bed. Right when I turn the radio to listen to overnight I hear this guy talking.


Global Warming: A Contrary View
First hour guest, Dr. Tim Ball, the head of the National Resources Stewardship Project in Canada, shared his views on global warming. Many different types of climate cycles, specifically those related to the sun, can cause warming trends, he suggested. The increase in C02 emissions is overemphasized as a factor in warming, he argued, and the science in the film An Inconvenient Truth is based on faulty computer models.



One thing he states was that several Climatetologist are afraid to come out and state they are not on this current global warming bandwagon. Several have been fired, including a State guy in Oregon recently for there views saying Global Warming is a myth.

One thing he stated was that it is normal for the weather and world temp to flutuate. It would not be normal if it didn't.

It will be interesting to see how long you hold your position considering the increasing evidence.

I remember your posts and am (fortunately?/unfortunately?) real good at playing devil's advocate. I do, however, resist most online pissing matches.

The amount of pollution 'we' have contributed to our planet, be it in gas or liquid or solid form, is a stain...hopefully it's not permanent, and that we'll be able to "shout it out"...though it seems many are choosing not to listen. Because weathermen/meteorologists can't predict the weather for next week, let alone tomorrow very well - lol, I see why folks are not likely to accept any longer range predictions. There's big money in community expansion & development - which requires new land, more concrete/natural resources, etc...

I saw An Inconvenient Truth and thought it was well done - whether true or not. Am guessing there is some truth to all this and I cannot just simply discredit it all as hearsay... Al Gore is passionate about our planet and its future...and many folks are not. That's their business...whether that affects us all or not. Time will tell, as usual.

It will be interesting to see how long you hold your position considering the increasing evidence.



Increasing evidence, or increasing hype?

Look at silicone breast implants. When the hypewagon started on that one, people were afraid to say they were safe, for fear of being accused of not caring about safety, not caring about women, etc. Oviously they were safe, because silicone is not soluble in water, it can't leak, there is no liquid to leak! They are silicone rubber! But the wrong side won and Dow Corning lost billions of dollars.

Now, they are legal again and somehow deemed safe, but not because they are "new and improved," they are exactly the same as before. It's because everybody was wrong.

Now who is going to give Dow Corning their money back??????

Now, as with silicone implants, if you argue that the greenhouse effect is a myth, you run the risk of being accused of not caring about the planet, not caring about future generations, being a republican, driving an SUV, and being in favor of pollution, when all you are is a scientist in favor of the truth. But politicians don't care about the truth, they just care about making an image for themselves. Everybody cares about the planet, nobody wants to destroy the earth, but there are lots of people tooting their own horns about global warming who know nothing about science, whose only objective is to show off how much they care about the environment. They do it to hype themselves. Their other objective is to fit in, everybody wants to fit in, and if they rant a rave about global warming, it makes them feel like they are part of something, part of a group, a feeling of belonging. Everybody wants to belong.

The only problem is, they are wrong. CO2 doesn't cause global warming. There is no CO2 greenhouse effect.

In the final analysis, people are idiots. Really.

Some more than others...

Mmmmmm . . . 2500 expert scientists from 130 countries looking at all peer-reviewed research into global climate change conducted over the past six years unanimously report with 90 � 99% certainty that global warming is real and is caused by humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Morgan reports that climate change is a hoax because it�s just like breast enlargement surgery. What is a person to believe?

Those politicians who went to that UN meeting who said they were scientists did not present any original research, they merely gave a concensus of the same stuff we've been reading. It was a condensation of the stuff that actual publishers condensed for them. It was just a Cliff's notes on a Reader's Digest condensed book of global warming.

And they unanimously agreed on it? Gee. I wonder if THEY were hand-picked. The last time scientists unamimously agreed on something was to tell Copernicus that the sun orbited the earth. I think Sadam got 100% of the vote when he ran for president. You gotta watch out for these unanimous votes.

Tell me mister izink, how CO2 is the glass of a giant greenhouse, when we doubled the CO2 between 1800 and now, and nothing happened. If CO2 acts like a greenhouse, and we double it, don't you think the temperature should have risen by, like, 100 degrees, or 200 or something by now? It rose by 0.7 degrees, which obviously would fail Students T test.

CO2 is not a greenhouse. Not at all.

Doesn't your argument assume a linear realtionship between the [CO2] and temperature with an intercept at zero?

No, your does. YOU need to show a linear, or maybe even a parabolic, hyperbolic, circular, pigtail, or little crayon squiggle relationship. My results show no relationship at all.

The current global warming argument says, (wave left hand), Buh? (wave right hand) Humuna humuna humuna? (talk a little louder and wave both hands) and the world will come to an end!

Morgan reports that climate change is a hoax because it�s just like breast enlargement surgery. What is a person to believe?



I won't stand for any disparagement of breast implants.

Something else of yours won't stand for women either, they have told me.

I�m glad Hawk stepped up to move this discussion away from whether climate change is real (that debate has essentially been over for ten years), to a discussion about possible solutions. Instead of silicon, perhaps cosmetic surgeons could perform this procedure by sequestering CO2. It�s a start.

No, your does. YOU need to show a linear, or maybe even a parabolic, hyperbolic, circular, pigtail, or little crayon squiggle relationship. My results show no relationship at all.

The current global warming argument says, (wave left hand), Buh? (wave right hand) Humuna humuna humuna? (talk a little louder and wave both hands) and the world will come to an end!



Where exactly have I presented my argument? Please feel free to directly quote from it.

The current global warming argument says, (wave left hand), Buh? (wave right hand) Humuna humuna humuna? (talk a little louder and wave both hands) and the world will come to an end!



BTW, that is an outstanding summation of the literature to date. You sure you're not really a scientist?

Where exactly have I presented my argument? Please feel free to directly quote from it.



I don't know what your position is, so I changed it from "your argument" to "the current global warming argument"

I�m glad Hawk stepped up to move this discussion away from whether climate change is real (that debate has essentially been over for ten years), to a discussion about possible solutions. Instead of silicon, perhaps cosmetic surgeons could perform this procedure by sequestering CO2. It�s a start.



The debate isn't over until the earth's temperatures go way down again. Take about 10 more years before we reach a low equal to the 1980 low, and then all the global warmists will go away, the way the ozone holists did, and the alar applists did and the silicone breastists did.

It always comes down to the same thing. Why would you want to experiment? Whether you accept that man is the direct cause of our current warming or not, we're living here, we know CO2 causes global warming (the experiments aren't in question) why experiment on yourself? So the oil companies can get richer? So we can continue to drive our SUVs? Seems kind of silly to me.

BTW - the few scientists who disagree with the concept that man is contributing to global warming all take money from big oil. You'd a thunk we'd of learned from tobacco.

we know CO2 causes global warming (the experiments aren't in question)



What experiments?

I�m glad Hawk stepped up to move this discussion away from whether climate change is real (that debate has essentially been over for ten years), to a discussion about possible solutions. Instead of silicon, perhaps cosmetic surgeons could perform this procedure by sequestering CO2. It�s a start.




Oh yea, when they finally stopped saying we were in for another ice age :D (this statement is true, look it up)

The guy I posted about earlier was NOT supported by oil and he was NOT even american. He stated that the computer models used in Gores propagana movie were wrong.

I just learned something,

WATER IS THE BIGGEST GREENHOUSE GAS.

That is water vapor.

95% to be exact.

you want to do something about global warming, lets quit using water.

Hey Lyle, what experiments? There have never been any experiments, only talk, talk, and more talk. The only "experiment" on this was an accidental one, a multi-national and multi-century experiment, where we burned trillions of tons of coal and oil and released trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing the CO2 levels in the air by 50%, and it didn't do anything. Didn't do a **** thing. This experiment is conclusive. CO2 doesn't do anything.

I just learned something,

WATER IS THE BIGGEST GREENHOUSE GAS.

That is water vapor.

95% to be exact.

you want to do something about global warming, lets quit using water.



The biggest greenhouse gasses are water vapor, oxygen, and nitrogen.

If Co2 causes global warming, then why did the tempature actually drop when the co2 started shooting UP????

mmmm, the Vikings grew there crops in Greenland......... They would not be able to do that now.

in the 70's, the earths comming ice age was blamed for strong huricanes. (now it is the warming???)

Where were the strong storms this last year????

mmmm, did you know that the norther hemispear has warmed up slightly. (oh yea, that is global warming)

Well then how come the souther hemisphear has cooled in that same time period??????? (oh yea, Al Gore only based his theory on the Northern half)

global warming is followed by ice ages.

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif

Exactly! I think the biggest worry for the human race is the next ice age. They last for 100,000 years and in between ice ages is a period of 10,000 or 15,000 years of warm weather. During ice ages, the temperature of the earth is not 0.7 degrees colder or 1 degree colder, but 10 DEGREES COLDER centigrade, which is 18 degrees farenheit. This is HUGE! Look at the graph, the blue line is the temperature, and the change from the peak to the valley is 10 degrees centigrade. The green line is the CO2 level and it's now as high as it was during the last warm period 120,000 years ago. During ice ages, almost all of Europe is under ice for 100,000 years, all of Canada, and in the USA down to Pennsyltucky. Right now we are towards the end of our warm time. I figure in 1 or 2 thousand years the next ice age will come back, the golbal temperature will drop by 10 C (18 F) and all humans will have to head for the equator. Europe will be gone, under a mile of ice. Eifel tower, gone. Chicago, NY, all bulldozed over by glaciers.

The last warm period started 10,000 years ago and is responsible for modern human civilization. We are almost at the end of the warm time and very soon will be slipping into the next ice age. The best thing we can do to delay this is fill our atmosphere with CO2 to slow down the next ice age.

Dang, instead of crying about stopping global warming, we should all be doing whatever we can to increase global warming in hopes of prolonging the warm period. For our children's children sake.

I shoulda bought an Excursion. My stupid Tundra is getting 15.5 MPG and now it is clear that I am contributing to the demise of civilization by not doing my part to increase global warming. :(

I'm eating lots of full lactose milk and eating beans so as to contribute as much methane as I can

Ah, the intracies of multi-variable analysis, it's just so simple, isn't it? You plot [C02] vs temperature and its a obvious correlation? Don't even believe for a second that you have any clue what you're talking about. You ask "better or worse" all day. Please, you don't have a clue. For those of you actually interested in any of this, look of it this way, you can choose between the consensus of the scientific community or the worldly wisdom of an ex-hippy optomitrist and a pizza guy. Personally, and I speak of this as a member of the scientific community that publishes in peer-reviewed journals, this argument is approaching that of creationism vs. evolution. You're either with the data or you're an idiot. It's that simple. Really.
Now I'm not saying that global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call is going to end all life on the planet. That's almost as silly as denying it. The planet is much bigger than us. It does, however, pose a serious threat to civilization as we think of it. The unfortunate aspect is that its probably too late for us to do anything useful about it. There's a concept is physics called inertia, ever heard of it? The convergence of climate change and resource depletion will be the biggest challenge of the 21st century. Enjoy the next couple years, it's all down hill from here...but don't take my word for it, just wait and see.

Judging by the dust factor, which I assume you put in there to elicit this exact response, we are a bit overdue for a significant asteroidal (I made that up) collision event.

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims.
During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in
centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may
well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from
uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the
American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest
winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing
number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological
fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from
place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend
shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere �from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the
waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the
Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7� F. Although that figure is
at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had
suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in
the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered
year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable
expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds �the so-called circumpolar vortex�that
sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of
cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds
and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other droughtridden
areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds
have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the
same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the
winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is
pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air
masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms�the Midwest's recent
rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy
that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun
could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either
hemisphere�thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year
sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of
how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A.
Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a
result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating
the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's longrange-
prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly
more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such
knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling
in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and
atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known
acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.
Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip
the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age
within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at
least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as
high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of
another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one
or more of the three major grain-exporting countries�the U.S., Canada and Australia �global food
stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president
of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the
Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe
that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.




Funny how 30 years changes things.

mmmmm according to Al Gores charts, Co2 levels were rising durring this same period.

Also note that in 30 years the average world temp dropped 2.7 and they are now complaining about a 1 decgree rise????

And you wonder why I am skeptical.

ok, more data for you to digest.

Senate web site (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777)

Some quotes for you to mull over from this article from October 2006


One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific �consensus� on climate alarmism.



A quote from this scientist.

�Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,� Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that �the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!�

mmmm so the protesters are making money off saying these things.....

Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a �consensus� about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News �60 Minutes� correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to �Holocaust deniers.� See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."


So the global warming guys have been using scare tactics (or calling others "idiots" for not falling for them)

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called �consensus� that the Earth faces a �climate emergency.� On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

�Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future�Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,� the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605


60 scientists huh, i though YOU said that most scientist agree with this theory.


Oceans Cooling

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans �certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.� See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/


really.....

Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to �global warming theory� and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word �global� in �global warming� may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be �Northern Hemisphere� warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html




really....

Hockey Stick� Broken in 2006

The �Hockey Stick� temperature graph�s claim that the 1990�s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697


oh, is that a fact.....

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZ3EM2a1Qjg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZ3EM2a1Qjg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Sorry, this is VERY long. I have not watched all of it yet.

There's a concept is physics called inertia, ever heard of it?



Nice, inertia. A body at rest shall remain at rest and resist acceleration, a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless changed? You mean the earth is going to keep turning? You should change your name from M cephalis to anencephalis.

Are you going to believe anything Al Gore says? We are talking about a guy who clearly lost the 2000 election, but tried to cheat by demanding a recount of one county in Florida, because it was a heavily democratic county with a large population and he demanded a recount of the absentee ballots, hoping to win more votes in that county, enough to tip the scale and win the whole state. Did he want a recount of other counties in Florida, say for example, some of the heavily republican counties? Hell no. He just wanted a recount of the big democrat county. Obviously, if they recounted all the counties in florida, republican and democrat, for absentee ballots, you'd get the same result as before, but if you only recount the one big democrat county you could get a false tally of the votes and maybe win. He's a #$*&amp;$! cheater. This is the exact same sort of "math" he uses to fudge the data in his movie.

Gore is a cheater. The data in his movie is pretty much all fraudulent and frighteningly so. He's a total *******. If he was a disc golfer he'd carry a #1 pencil and 2 fat gum erasers. He's a #$*&amp;$! liar.

Perhaps Mother Earth herself will slap these silly 'skeeters on her surface...that are rustlin' up the dust and causing irritation...much like a horse uses its tail to disturb the flies from biting. IFF there's global law and order, we're likely found offensive...deserving a swat. And a swat could be any 'natural' catastrophic event...earthquakes, volcanoes, weather events, tsunamis...all of which can contribute to disease and pestilence of the vermin. :o (Pardon the poetic justice here)
We are ALL observers...whether proactive, or educated, or dimwitted, or insane.

(edit: I'm not sure, but I think I just busted my first flow... :o:eek: :D)

Pizza I watched about half of the movie you posted, the one that's 2 hours long. It's really fantastic. Maybe Gore's movie should be called "Convenient Lie" instead, because it's all made of fudged data and outright lies.

I'm more worried about the coming ice age than global warming. That is an indisputable truth.

Judging by the dust factor, which I assume you put in there to elicit this exact response, we are a bit overdue for a significant asteroidal (I made that up) collision event.



I didn't make that chart, but I am real confused by the dust. I wish I knew what sort of dust it was, I can't figure it out.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/22/mucci_narrowweb__300x369,2.jpg

It's asteroid impact dust, silly. The real driver of significant global climate changes and evolutionary events.

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif





That's a nice piece of data there. Did you happen notice the that it very nicely indicates the correlation between [CO2] and temperature? How nice that the current [CO2] isn't even on the scale. Brilliant, truly brilliant.

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif





That's a nice piece of data there. Did you happen notice the that it very nicely indicates the correlation between [CO2] and temperature? How nice that the current [CO2] isn't even on the scale. Brilliant, truly brilliant.



The CO2 level might follow the temperature. Maybe the warmth causes the CO2 to increase, not the other way around. Maybe the warmth triggers release of CO2 stored up in the ice shields, or it causes forest fires, or maybe even some outgassing from the oceans. Correlation doesn't always show causation. If A correlated with B, maybe A causes B, or maybe B causes A. Or maybe a third factor C causes both A and B. Here it looks like the dust causes A and B, we'll call the dust "C" for now. Nice post though, anencephalis. Brilliant.

Just remember, it's the dust man, the dust.

It's asteroid impact dust, silly. The real driver of significant global climate changes and evolutionary events.



I don't know man. Asteroids come every 120,000 years on the dot??? And they are all the same size? All these peaks are too cyclical to be asteroids. Also, the most recent dust peak looks like 20,000 years ago, do you think we had an asteroid that recently? Maybe just a little meteor, like the one in Arizona, that was 50,000 years ago. The one by Winslow Arizona, standing on the corna, such a fine sight to see. I've been there man, it's amazing. I went with a girl my lord in a flat bed Ford. Just south of I-40 easy to get to off the interstate.

No way man. A meteor would kick up a ton of dust and it would all be gone in a few weeks or months, one year max, but these dust things on the chart are like thousands of years duration. No way it's meteors, dude. But as for causation, it's obvious the dust causes the warming and CO2 release. It's C, not A or B. Right cephalus?

Volcanoes?

Where did I explicitly state that one was the causitive agent? That's something you learn in science, language is important. You're right that the inertia statement I made earlier is inappropriate in a scientific discussion. There's no room for metaphor or allegory.

The chart you provided earlier is one of many pieces of data that thousands of scientists have used to build a consensus. If you'll recall I mentioned something about multi-variable analysis in an earlier post. It's clearly not all about CO2. If you think you can actually understand the complexities of the global climate all by yourself then you need help because you're delusional. So again, its not your word against mine, it's your word against the scientific community. But I guess this is a lost cause so I'll leave you to your pyschosis now.

Za, you quoted a scientist or someone saying "Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France"

so...... we're talking about an epoch length event and some supposed "scientist" thinks "August" proves something? puhlease.

You take one little quote (out of context too) instead of reading all the other facts I listed????? (it is out of context because I did not quote the whole article.

BTW, the Frenchy Allegre signed the 1992 letter mentioned several times by he doom and gloom Global Warming theorist.

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled �World Scientists' Warning to Humanity� in which the scientists warned that global warming�s �potential risks are very great.� See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html



5 years later, after seeing the studies done to prove there theories, he becomes a skeptic. Why, because the studies are proving them wrong.

Does any of you "Global Warming" theorist have the answer to why they ignore the fact that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effects gas, yet is never talked about????? In FACT Co2 is less than 5% of the total greenhouse gas RIGHT NOW.

#2, I pointed out that from 1940 to 1970, the temperature of the oceans actually decreased. This was used to blame severe weather patterns 30 years ago. Now they (the same type of scientists) are claiming the exact opposite.....

This just tells me they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

Remember, Global Warming is a theory, just like the theories of the comming ice age in the early 70's.

True, we are poluting out water, air and ground and we need to start working on them.

#1 next auto you buy, get one that gets better gas milage than your last.

#2 Recycle as much as you can, this will help our current trash dumps to last longer.

(sorry, it's 4 and I have to leave for work)

To be continued.......

Where did I explicitly state that one was the causitive agent? That's something you learn in science, language is important. You're right that the inertia statement I made earlier is inappropriate in a scientific discussion. There's no room for metaphor or allegory.

The chart you provided earlier is one of many pieces of data that thousands of scientists have used to build a consensus. If you'll recall I mentioned something about multi-variable analysis in an earlier post. It's clearly not all about CO2. If you think you can actually understand the complexities of the global climate all by yourself then you need help because you're delusional. So again, its not your word against mine, it's your word against the scientific community. But I guess this is a lost cause so I'll leave you to your pyschosis now.



The scientific community is far from being in concensus. As Dennis Miller said today, "I used to believe in global warming until the recent UN decision, now I'm against it. I can't believe anything the UN says."

What do you think is the cause of these mysterious dust periods that seem to cause (because they come first) the warm periods of high CO2?

December 2012 it starts to get cold.

oh. that sucks

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif

I added 0.7 degrees to the graph for scale. That's the amount the earth has warmed this century. Looks just like all the other little zigs and zags in the graph, and heading in the right direction, not down the slope to the next ice age, which is coming REAL SOON by the graph.

No worries.

I thought I might throw a little gas (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/gore.nobel.ap/index.html) on this flaming and futile argument. (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)

dudio, do you see any other sections of the graph that look like that? a thick band of squiggly at the top of hte range? no. if the current time acted like exactly like the previous cycles, we should be headed down the slope by now. the graph doesnt say its gonna go up more, but it does say something is different. your babbling-brook-pole will turn into a river-pole :)

The recent data is just more accurate. See how each warm period has less squiggles as you go back? The neanderthals didn't have accurate data.

circle_2, i heard it too and it was nice

:D

Bush has been nominated too
2004 nobel peace prize nominees (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-02-13-nobel_x.htm)

Hmmm.....maybe it's Tiberium. I heard that the Tiberium Cactus lies dormant for 120k years and then release their Tiberium spores.

also, don't forget, listed in that article was also the fact that there were 191 nominations for the prize last year.

other past nominations include Hitler and Stalin :D

So now you can say Gore has something in common with Bush, Hitler and Stalin.

Gore was nominated by a Norwegian guy who was sick of the cold up there .

I'm not sure if the dust is really the cause. It doesn't line up right. Sometimes there is huge dust and no ^ in temp and sometimes the dust goes on for 10,000 years before you see an ^ in temp. Must be something else.

Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave.

That can't be it either. Must be something else.

The dust is probably an effect, not a cause. Crappy weather, lots of wind blown erosion dust is what I have heard posited.

Another tidbit to ponder is the differential glaciation of northern vs southern hemispheres. I don't know if there is any glaciation in the southern hemisphere.

A Special Announcement on Global Warming from the President (http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/pages/page.cfm?page_id=123)

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1457

Are you really looking for 'one thing' to explain all this?

While it's an excellent way to help correlate quantitative data, our 'scientific method' is basically simple & only reliable with up to 2 individual variables...if you expand that to 3 - the levels of reliability drop dramatically...

Weather must have hundreds (maybe thousands) of individual variables beyond temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed/direction/vortices, dust/pollution, geography/terrain, polar icecaps, ocean/lake/river levels, deforestation, atmospheric conditions/O-zone, sunspots/solar-flares, geothermal events/venting, continental drift, tectonics...ETC, ETC...! This planet is **** big compared to puny us.

Science relies on what can be quantitatively measured...leaving out qualitative factors altogether because they cannot be measured...AND leaving out what we do not or cannot measure with our current technology.

Wrong or right, the scientific community members who have made their careers in these fields are essentially sticking their necks out on the proverbial chopping block for sharing their opinions/predictions...whether they favor global warming or not.

Interestingly, in my limited lil mind/observations, a BIG variable in whether one is choosing what camp to believe in - is economics. My friends involved in construction/development DO NOT see dollar signs by choosing to listen to the new unpopular messages...to them it's all a liberal conspiracy...by the tree huggers, et al. Funny stuff!

BTW, why are we debating all this? Oh yeah...there MAY BE implications on our futures, on our children's futures...on our very existence; since we lack the tecnology to move to another planet. Am I buying into all this global warming crap? Not really, I have faith in the Earth more or less correcting itself over time...but the scope of time the Earth works in is quite grand compared to the fart of time we call our lives. Fun to watch and discuss, though! :cool:

Look, there it is, right there, on the cover of the Houston Chronicle.

Exxon Mobil accepts global warming and it's exacerbation by green house gasses generated by humankind.

Good thing they have Za and Frizbee to point out their misperceptions.

December 2012 it starts to get cold.



Doesn't that depend on the state your in. I mean it might work for California and Texas, but in Massachusetts it's starts getting cold in October. :D

December 2012 it starts to get cold.



Doesn't that depend on the state your in. I mean it might work for California and Texas, but in Massachusetts it's starts getting cold in October. :D


If you google "December 2012".....

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 CHING!!!

Here are a few highlights from the actual IPCC Summary Report for those who have neither the time nor the inclination to read the whole report:

�Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.�

�Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.�

�At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.�

�Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.�

�Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the Third Assessment Report�s conclusion that �most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations�. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.�

�For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2�C per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1�C per decade would be expected.�

�Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.�

And the consequences of inaction:

Stern Report Lists Degrees of Impacts
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published on Feb. 2, 2007, the most complete overview of climate change science. It will guide policy makers combating global warming.
A draft of the report projects temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a "best estimate" of a 3C (5.4 F) rise.
Below are some estimates of the global implications of different temperature rises in degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels, as detailed in a report on climate change by Nicholas Stern, chief British government economist, published in October.

Temp. rise/ Impacts 1 DEGREE
* Shrinking glaciers threaten water for 50 million people
* Modest increases in cereal yields in temperate regions
* At least 300,000 people each year die from malaria, malnutrition and other climate-related diseases
* Reduction in winter mortality in higher latitudes
* 80 percent bleaching of coral reefs, e.g. Great Barrier Reef

2 DEGREES
* 5 - 10 percent decline in crop yield in tropical Africa
* 40 - 60 million more people exposed to malaria in Africa
* Up to 10 million more people affected by coastal flooding
* 15 - 40 percent of species face extinction (one estimate)
* High risk of extinction of Arctic species, e.g. polar bear
* Potential for Greenland ice sheet to start to melt irreversibly, committing world to 7 metre sea level rise

3 DEGREES
* In Southern Europe, serious droughts once every 10 years
* 1 - 4 billion more people suffer water shortages
* Some 150 - 550 additional millions at risk of hunger
* 1 - 3 million more people die from malnutrition
* Onset of Amazon forest collapse (some models only)
* Rising risk of collapse of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
* Rising risk of collapse of Atlantic Conveyor of warm water
* Rising risk of abrupt changes to the monsoon

4 DEGREES
* Agricultural yields decline by 15 - 35 percent in Africa
* Up to 80 million more people exposed to malaria in Africa
* Loss of around half Arctic tundra

5 DEGREES
* Possible disappearance of large glaciers in Himalayas, affecting one-quarter of China's population, many in India
* Continued increase in ocean acidity seriously disrupting marine ecosystems and possibly fish stocks
* Sea level rise threatens small islands, coastal areas such as Florida and major cities such as New York, London, and Tokyo

Thanks Bruce, I loved the last paragraph from that article

We are repeatedly told that there is simply no evidence to counter the man-made global warming theory and that the argument is over. This, it would seem, is how they are ensuring that it is over � by proposing to doctor the evidence. If they believe the evidence really is conclusive, just what are they so worried about?



BTW, that article was about the NEW report. They are starting to realize the skeptics are right. There computer models were faulty and gave larger numbers than reality.

Unfortunatly, we will not know who is correct for 100 years. Even then, it takes thousands of years to see a true trend.

Thanks Bruce, I loved the last paragraph from that article

We are repeatedly told that there is simply no evidence to counter the man-made global warming theory and that the argument is over. This, it would seem, is how they are ensuring that it is over � by proposing to doctor the evidence. If they believe the evidence really is conclusive, just what are they so worried about?



BTW, that article was about the NEW report. They are starting to realize the skeptics are right. There computer models were faulty and gave larger numbers than reality.

Unfortunatly, we will not know who is correct for 100 years. Even then, it takes thousands of years to see a true trend.



I'm not sure that's true and it suggests a fundamental lack of knowledge in how science is pursued. Theories are made of stronger stuff than our President and lay public believe. An idea or concept only gets to be a theory if there is no counter to it no matter how small. There are rules about how such a counter can be proven, for example, it's not a viable counter if God told you so. But a good scientific experiment that shows that man made C02 is not contributing to global warming has not been put forward... period.

On the other hand, there are 100s of experiments that support the Theory. So, 100s of experiments supporting, none against. Now, even with those 100s of experiments, if someone brings a credible piece of experimental data countering the argument, then it gets lowered from Theory to hypothesis, good idea, b.s. whatever. But, there hasn't been a credible experiment that counters the data yet. Lots of good ideas but until they are tested experimentally, they are just that, ideas.

Saying that global warming is causing C02 vs. the opposite, is a great idea. Someone needs to do a credible experiment before this idea has any merit.

BTW - the reason the environmentalists and scientists are worried is because all to often facts have nothing to do with the argument.

Take cigarettes (please). The evidence was clear. Yet tabacco paid scientists and good marketing (that is, expensive marketing) countered that.

Same situation, different addiction. Only this time the counter marketing comes from big oil.

ExxonMobil sees the writing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html) on the wall.

You ought to Wiki Mellanie, interesting reading. And while you're at it read this:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

Za,

did you really read the stuff that Mellanie put up or just her comments? The part she thinks says they are going to commit fraud simply says they are going to make sure that there are no changes made that are inconsistent with the report as it currently stands, that is, there's a report, and a summary of the report, don't come back and change the report so that the summary is no longer relevant. Where in that does it say that the data supporting global warming is inconsistent or has changed? She's pulled out a bit of tripe and is presenting it to say "look they're going to lie to you, and BTW - they were stupid enough to write a document that says they're going to lie to you..."

Only a fool would think that this means that any new finding about the issue would be squashed in some nefarious fashion, and Mellanie is definitely a fool.

Scientists made their educated predictions thirty years ago about what would happen if we kept pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Now all those predictions are coming true. The models they created have proven accurate. The scary thing is that those consequences are coming about much faster than even the gloomiest scientists ever imagined. What is happening is so far off the chart that to say it is part of the natural cycle is total nonsense.



I was re reading this thread to try to find a web site I posted. I came across this gem and thought I would repost it. Actually, I posted in the last few days that 30 years ago, the scientist were predicting global cooling due to co2. They are now predicting the exact opposite. They were even saying the huge hurricanes they had in the 60's was a result of the oceans cooling. Until 2005, we had not seen hurricanes like we had in the 60's. (what happened this last year?????)

Scientists made their educated predictions thirty years ago about what would happen if we kept pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Now all those predictions are coming true. The models they created have proven accurate. The scary thing is that those consequences are coming about much faster than even the gloomiest scientists ever imagined. What is happening is so far off the chart that to say it is part of the natural cycle is total nonsense.



I was re reading this thread to try to find a web site I posted. I came across this gem and thought I would repost it. Actually, I posted in the last few days that 30 years ago, the scientist were predicting global cooling due to co2. They are now predicting the exact opposite. They were even saying the huge hurricanes they had in the 60's was a result of the oceans cooling. Until 2005, we had not seen hurricanes like we had in the 60's. (what happened this last year?????)



Arrrrggggghhhhhh!

At least know the Theory. Global Warming does not predict a straight line increase in temp, and catastrophies!

One thing it does predict is a general increase in weather variability. More very hot days, more very cool days. Now, answer this, are we not seeing a greater variation in our weather than in the past?

You ought to Wiki Mellanie, interesting reading. And while you're at it read this:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html



yep, just did. She use to write for the Guardian that you just linked. (BTW, I do not read the Guardian, they are VERY left minded and do not show both sides of an argument) I don't like her views on some items. This is true. And the guy listed in your article has said she is funded by exxon????

That is what they say about every skeptic. Truth is, if you are scientist working for a goal, you need funding, most of the time your funding is going to come from someone who would benifit from your reports.

This is the same for the "Global Warming" theorist and scientists OK, so Exxon/Moble does not fund them, woopie.

I will admit, it is hard to belive anyone who is funded by big companies like Exxon who have just been making too much money for there own good, but not all of them are making things up. there are a lot of skeptics out there that are not being funded by Exxon.

This argument is starting to be like Creation vs Evolution, Abortion vs Pro Life,and Liberal vs Conservitism.

As my bumper sticker says
The Right is Wrong and the Left is Stupid

One thing it does predict is a general increase in weather variability. More very hot days, more very cool days. Now, answer this, are we not seeing a greater variation in our weather than in the past?




nope, weather is different every year. If we get more rain in Texas, it will be cooler, if we have a dry spring, it will be a very hot summer.

In the Winter, if the Jet stream arc twards Texas,we get huge cold snaps, if it doesnt bend our way, we have warm winters.

You ought to Wiki Mellanie, interesting reading. And while you're at it read this:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html



yep, just did. She use to write for the Guardian that you just linked. (BTW, I do not read the Guardian, they are VERY left minded and do not show both sides of an argument) I don't like her views on some items. This is true. And the guy listed in your article has said she is funded by exxon????

That is what they say about every skeptic. Truth is, if you are scientist working for a goal, you need funding, most of the time your funding is going to come from someone who would benifit from your reports.

This is the same for the "Global Warming" theorist and scientists OK, so Exxon/Moble does not fund them, woopie.

I will admit, it is hard to belive anyone who is funded by big companies like Exxon who have just been making too much money for there own good, but not all of them are making things up. there are a lot of skeptics out there that are not being funded by Exxon.

This argument is starting to be like Creation vs Evolution, Abortion vs Pro Life,and Liberal vs Conservitism.

As my bumper sticker says
The Right is Wrong and the Left is Stupid





That's not what the article says, it says that her reference sources only include "scientists" funded by Exxon Mobil.

There is no arguement, in either case. However, this one is clear because there is no, "you have to believe" element to it. Go back and read the article again, it lists the organizations that Exxon Mobil funds and gives a link to the site where that data comes from, a site that I believe shows the internal documents that shows that funding occurred. Then go back and read your counter agruments and the sources you list. They're all organizations funded by Exxon Mobil.

Your comparison is not apt. The comparison that should be made, as in the article I posted, is with the tobacco industry.

The only relevance to creationism is that those who believe it's bogus believe they won't get caught because it won't happen in our lifetime. They're wrong, we are already seeing the effects and costs. They just won't fess up to it. Then again, neither did the tobacco companies.

BTW - are you coming to States? I owe you a beer, root or otherwise!

I think it's really lame to accuse anybody who doesn't believe the global warming myth works for Exxon Mobile. It's really #$*&amp;$! lame. Politics is so #$*&amp;$! lame. So you think scientists are liars for Exxon, then who do all the global warming scientists work for? They must be paid by the media. It's the media that make millions selling global warming scare reports in magazines, boox, and TV, they pay the scientists to make up all this crackpot nonsense.

Gore's best line so far. "It was 120 degrees in South Dakota. Hello!" (It tied the record set in 1936 (http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/south-dakota-july2006-record-high-state-temperature.html) . Hello! Second highest temperature recorded in 1910. Hello!)

When I read most of the global warming stuff, it seems biased, as if they are trying to make a case. Global warming might actually be happening, but the way many people (Gore) are making a case for it seems exaggerated. Most of the increase in mean surface temperature might be an artifact of heat islands brought about by urbanization. If the increase was measured from the last little ice age, which ended in 1850, that's cheating. Most of the increase ended in 1940, I have read. All the focus is on CO2, yet aerosols, methane, and water vapor are much more potent green house agents. I believe our global weather is much more predicated on ocean temperatures and currents than it is on northern hemisphere warming.

Like I said, there actually might be something to this global warming related to CO2, but I am not convinced that it is much, or that it will lead to anything past bumper crops in Canada and Russia. The problem is sifting through all the crap data. It just doesn't seem to point to anything conclusive, and the harder the Al Gores point, the more suspicious I get of their "case". YMMV

Gore is just doing what he tried to do to the 2000 election. Cheat.

With all this excess CO2, plants should be feasting...right?

With all this excess CO2, plants should be feasting...right?



That is one of the arguments for Global Warming, saying that some plants are appearing further north than in the past, they also say that some animals have been seen further north than in the past.

I was listing to my favorate talk show host today. I have not heard him say anything about global warming till today. He basicly pointed out how the new IPCC reports admit the original computer data was incorect and gave faulty high numbers. He also pointed out that these same people were predicting a Comming ice age 30 years ago.

Then he pointed to a russian scientist who discovered the planet earth does not go around the son in an exact circle. It moves in and out from the sun. His models showed that when earth was further away from the sun is when the earth went through ice ages. We happen to be closer to the sun right now. This also shows why were are getting close to the tempuratures of 125,000 years ago, right before the last big ice age. BTW, he also pointed out that the human race survived.

Here is the funny stuff. Ed then pointed out that the Co2 levels are real high and they prolly are caused by us, it remained to be seen if the "Global Warming" scientists are correct. He is just frustrated that only the Global Warming scientist make the news and those that prove them wrong are bashed and don't make the news. As he pointed out, scientist sometimes make mistakes, don't take everything into account and may not use the correct data.

He then said he was going to get off the Libertarian soap box and get back to his show. (I loved that comment) Ed Wallace will not say what political party he leans too, he does say he is an indepenedent. I just like the fact he even mentions the Libertarian party every once in a while.

BTW, Neal Boortz is back on the air in Dallas. 1160am from 9am to 11am, then a repeat from 1 to 2pm.

You know where my ears will be :D

9am to 11am, then a repeat from 1 to 2pm.

You know where my ears will be :D


Is that the condensed version where he talks twice as fast??!?? :D

The human race survived 125,000 years ago because they were all in Africa.

The human race survived 125,000 years ago because they were all in Africa.



Neanderthals were in Europe freezing their butts off.

best of, usually a repeat of the first hour. 570am does that with Coast to Coast from 4am to 5am with the first hour of coast to Coast. (check that out at Coasttocoastam.com)

Science
Ice cores provide key evidence. Scientists can draw three important pieces of information from these ice cores. From analyzing the air bubbles trapped inside the ice, they can determine the concentrations of CO2. They can also, by looking at the ratio of different oxygen isotopes, measure the temperature of the atmosphere when the ice was laid down. Finally, by measuring the rings in the cores, kind of like counting tree rings, they can determine the year each layer was deposited.

Ice cores taken from the Antarctic provide this data going back 650,000 years and for the past 650,000 years, when CO2 concentrations went up, temperatures followed. Never during that period did CO2 concentrations exceed 300 parts per million. According to the new IPCC Report, concentrations of CO2 in 2005 were 379 parts per million. That concentration, based on current emissions, is projected to be 600 parts per million within about forty-five years.

Politics
Don�t blame the liberal media: Dr. Naomi Oreskes of UCSD conducted a study comparing peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals over a period of ten years and articles appearing in the popular press during a fourteen year period. The percentage of peer-reviewed articles expressing doubt about the cause of global warming was 0%; the percentage of popular press articles expressing such doubt was 53%.

Among expert scientist there is overwhelming consensus. Doubt is widespread in the popular press owing considerably to the disinformation campaign orchestrated and funded to the tune of some 8 billion dollars by ExxonMobile.

...when CO2 concentrations went up, temperatures followed...



You don't know that. Remember our little A and B and C lesson?

Also, our CO2 level in 1907 was 339 ppm, way higher than anything on that chart. So it's been 100 years of unprecedented CO2 levels, but no warming in 100 years. Do you really think there would be a 100 year lag? I didn't think so.

Did you know that water vapor is 300 times more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? It's 10 times stronger at absorbing long wavelengths, and 30 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 at lattitudes that receive most of the sunlight. If water vapor is 300 times more important than CO2, it explains why 100 years of high CO2 levels hasn't done anything. Why? Because CO2 doesn't matter. It's all a sham. Forget about CO2 already, it's nothing but a hoax, a politically motivated hoax perpetrated by liberal communist idiot Al Gore who can't even get support from the Democrat party now because of past failures and embarrassments.

Most clever scientists think CO2 is a non-entity in the greenhouse effect picture, but unfortunately, there are more politically motivated scientists who want Gore because they are college professors and their livelihoods depend on the approval of their students, most of whom are hemp abusing teenagers who say "we love the earth and hate the big oil companies" because they are stoned. Everybody loves the earth, no #$*&amp;$!. Everybody hates pollution, no #$*&amp;$!. But Gore thinks he's the only one who loves the earth and wants to play that card. You love the earth Gore? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

So the whole global warming myth is fueled by the illegal hemp trade and the "I love the earth because it grows oily tops so lets all get stoned and vote for Gore."

The ExxonMobil funded scientists are not doing research. They are not doing the hard work of going out and gathering data. Instead, they are taking money to criticize research that has been published, which has already passed the muster of peer review, and to find apparent, apparent being the key word here, inconsistencies that they can exploit to create some kind of doubt in the mind of the public. Intellectual prostitutes are what they are and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Morgan finally got something right! Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas. The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has not increased significantly. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has risen slightly recently, but only because warmer air can hold more water vapor. Which is a result of global warming, not a cause. CO2 concentrations, on the other hand, have risen significantly over the past few decades.

What did the chart show ?

CO2 increase - Temp increase. How many times did it happen ?

How many times did humans cause the temp increase (and subsequent ice age)?

How many times will humans be able to stop the temp increase (and subsequent ice age)?

We may be able in some small way to effect the speed at which the earth will go through it's natural cycles, but I don't think we have the power to stop the natural cycles.

Ice cores show that short term warming followed by long term freezing is the natural cycle.

[QUOTE]

Did you know that water vapor is 300 times more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? It's 10 times stronger at absorbing long wavelengths, and 30 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 at lattitudes that receive most of the sunlight. If water vapor is 300 times more important than CO2, it explains why 100 years of high CO2 levels hasn't done anything.



I probably should have quoted another entry on this thread that stated that water vapor levels have gone up slightly. Then he attributed that as an effect rather than a cause.

Water vapor appears to be the strongest contributor to the greenhouse effect by far. A 1% ('risen slightly') rise in water vapor can, (under the right influence of sun angle and strength), (cyclic), cause a 4C rise in global temperature, I have read. (Shidurov) Shidurov posits that the Tunguska event was the cause of the slight increase of water vapor and the subsequent increase of temps up to 1940, when most of the increase occurred. I see a lot more reason to believe that water vapor cycles, mostly influenced by sunlight cycle variations is responsible for the variations in global temps and the ice ages. We have the dust blowing around in the dry cold air during the ice ages, and the reverse in the temperate clime times. I would reverse the CO2 and water vapor positions as cause and effect. I would put water vapor as the cause, and CO2 as an effect. It makes much more sense to me.

Forget about CO2 already, it's nothing but a hoax, a politically motivated hoax perpetrated by liberal communist idiot Al Gore who can't even get support from the Democrat party now because of past failures and embarrassments.



The fundamental aspect of the scientific process of trying repeatedly to disprove a hypothethis wrong before accepting it has fostered a common trait among scientists. They love to prove the other guy wrong.

The notion that a few scientists would collude to put forth a theory that they knew to be wrong in order to further their own careers is viable. The notion that the vast majority of the scientific community would put aside the method and ethics that define their lives in order to further the agenda of one man makes the consiracy theory that George W. Bush orchestrated the 911 attacks in order to give him political cover to invade Iraq seem believable.

From your logic and hyperbole I'm betting you're a fan of the O'Reilly Factor. It's a travesty that he got canned as the keynote speaker for the missing child conference. His theory that the eleven year old boy was having "fun" in between rapes makes more sense than some other theories out there.

Scientists are like cattle. One minute they are grazing and making meadow muffins, then one eats loco weed and starts a stampede. They all run for a while, following each other as they run in one direction. They are afraid to step out of line for fear of being trampled by the others, but they have no idea where they are going, they are only going the way the others are so they don't get trampled. This is what izink calls "concensus."

Sooner or later a little border collie rounds them up, and they all go back to grazing and making meadow muffins again. I hope Rudy Giulianni is part border collie

Scientists are like cattle. One minute they are grazing and making meadow muffins, then one eats loco weed and starts a stampede. They all run for a while, following each other as they run in one direction. They are afraid to step out of line for fear of being trampled by the others, but they have no idea where they are going, they are only going the way the others are so they don't get trampled. This is what iznk and m_cephalus call "concensus."

Sooner or later a little border collie rounds them up, and they all go back to grazing and making meadow muffins again. I hope Rudy Guilianni is part border collie


now DAT wuz funny! :)

<<<< border collie

<<<< border collie


:D

I hope Rudy Guilianni is part border collie



I'll play along. Here are some other dog incarnations:

http://www.etherbinge.com/dog1.jpg
The Donald

http://www.etherbinge.com/dog2.jpg
Tony Soprano

http://www.etherbinge.com/dog3.jpg
Willie Nelson

http://www.etherbinge.com/dog4.jpg
Shaq

http://www.etherbinge.com/dog6.jpg
The Carolina Crew

Here is a list of signature studies in which researchers were able to distinguish natural warming from warming due to human burning of fossil fuels.

� In 1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming.
Citation: "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al.

� A second "smoking gun" was published in 1995 when a team of scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center verified an increase of extreme weather events in the US. They concluded the growing weather extremes are due, by a probability of 90 percent, to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Those extremes -- which reflect an intensification of the planet's hydrological cycle from atmospheric heating -- are not consistent with natural warming and, instead, resemble the changes that were projected for emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers declared the climate in the US is becoming more "greenhouse-like" -- with more intense rain and snowfalls, more winter precipitation, more droughts, floods and heat waves. It concluded: "The late-century changes recorded in US climate are consistent with the general trends anticipated from a greenhouse-enhanced atmosphere."
Citation: Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century, Consequences, Spring, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1, Thomas Karl et al. Also: "The Coming Climate," by Thomas R. Karl, Neville Nicholls and Jonathan Gregory, Scientific American, May, 1997.

�A third contribution to our understanding of the global climate appeared in the spring of 1995 when David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century�s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns "of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate."
Citation: "The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession," by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, "Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance," David J. Thomson, 1997

� In 1997, a research team led by David Easterling of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found the night-time and winter-time low temperatures are rising nearly twice as fast as the daytime and summer-time high temperatures. Easterling called the findings a "fingerprint" study of "greenhouse warming." The research was based on data from 5400 observing stations around the world. "The rise in [minimum-temperatures] is due to higher humidity and more water vapor, especially in the winter in northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In an increasingly 'greenhouse' world this is the kind of rise you�d expect to see," Easterling said. He added that if the warming were natural, and not driven by fossil fuel emissions, the high and low temperatures would more or less rise and fall in parallel.
Citation: "Temperature Range Narrows between Daytime Highs and Nighttime Lows," Science, July 18, 1997, David Easterling et al.

� In 1998, researchers examining weather records for the previous 600 years declared that 1997 was the hottest year at least since the 1400s. Using written records and information gleaned from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs, researchers reconstructed the world's climate record for the past 600 years. The record revealed that the warmest years in that span were 1997, 1995, and 1990. Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, of the University of Arizona, examined the correlation between temperature changes and other factors such as volcanic activity and variations in the sun's brightness. Those other factors showed a strong relationship with temperatures in earlier centuries, 'but during the 20th century, with its abrupt warming, there is little relationship between any of the natural factors we looked at' and the rising temperatures, Mann said. In the past century, he said, 'we see a remarkable correlation with carbon dioxide emissions, which swamps these natural factors.'
Citation: "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 23, 1998, No. 392 pp 779-787, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes

� Mann, Bradley and Hughes followed their Nature study with another climate reconstruction from the year 1000 AD to 1998. They found that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest in the last millennium. Strikingly, the team found that the planet had been undergoing a slight but steady cooling trend from 1000 to about 1880. That trend was abruptly reversed as temperatures began to rise rapidly in tandem with large-scale industrialization based on our use of coal and oil.
Citation: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations" Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999, Volume 26 Issue #6 Pages 759-762

�In June, 1999, British researchers examined the planet's temperature record between 1900 and 1998. In particular, they assessed the relative roles of four "climate forcing" components -- solar irradiance and stratospheric volcanic aerosols (which occur naturally) and greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols (which are generated by human fossil fuel combustion). The team, led by Simon Tett of the Hadley Centre in the U.K., found: "The temperature changes over the 20th century cannot be explained by any combination of natural internal variability and the response to natural forcings alone." A commentary in Nature concluded: "The researchers� findings were unambiguous. All in all, it seems we can lay to rest the idea that recent climate warming is just a freak of nature."
Citation: Nature, Vol. 399, pp 569-572 10 June 1999

� An analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 year published in the July 14, 2000 issue of Science suggests that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century. The study, by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests. These twin lines of evidence provide further support for the idea that the greenhouse effect is already here," Dr. Crowley wrote in describing the work in today's issue of the journal Science. Several climate experts said his findings offer the most direct link yet between people and the 1.1 degree rise in average global temperature over the last 100 years.
Citation: "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years," Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, Science, 14 July 2000, v. 289

�In March, 2001, researchers found a significant increase between 1970 and 1997 in the amount of CO2 and Methane in space -- which had migrated out from earth's atmosphere. The study was published in the journal Nature.
Citation:Nature, 15 March, 2001, v. 410, pp. 355-357 "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

�In 2005, a team of researchers, lead by NASA's James Hansen, found that the earth had become a "net importer" of heat -- due to the build-up of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Hansen called the study a "smoking gun" proof that humans are changing the climate.
"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005

Subsequent studies have only made the case more robust.

I have a question for all the skeptics out there. I know it will be very difficult for many of you, but please try to be honest:

What if you are wrong?

I have a question for all the skeptics out there. I know it will be very difficult for many of you, but please try to be honest:

What if you are wrong?



Wrong about what? Attribution of the slight warming to manmade co2? Don't care. The only point is, if there is a warming, so what? Is it going to continue? What are the consequences? Is it a good thing to ward off the naturally occurring ice age, which is due? Is it a good thing for crops world wide?

The easiest thing to buy from the discussions is the possibility that man made CO2 is responsible for a slight atmospheric warming in the northern hemisphere. There is a fairly well documented increase in CO2, possibly 100% and yet only a slight atmospheric warming. The amount of man's contribution is debatable, but okay. The catastrophes, and run away global warming, ice caps melting, drowning the coasts, hurricanes, lions, tigers, and bears, are the hard things to swallow. From what I have read about past ages, the warmest ages with the most CO2 have been the most idyllic, with the nicest weather.

www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)

Canada and Russia become the world leaders in agriculture. Chicago becomes a tropical vacation destination. My heating bill goes down.

There are a couple of good stories on Drudge today explaining what actually causes global warming and cooling. Global warming and cooling has been going on in long and short cycles for a lot longer than anyone has been driving SUVs.

The planet is frigid compared to the days when tropical plants were growing in Antarctica. Before we were around to notice the warming of the last 40 years, dinosaurs were enjoying a planet ten degrees warmer. Global cooling didn't do a lot for their species.

From time to time science gets hijacked by religion and politics. Global warming is an example.

My question is what if they are wrong? What does it really matter? What can we really do to make a difference? I agree, I believe in global warming. I believe the planet will be a fireball before my son can die of old age. I believe we are killing our planet and ourselves slowly. However, unless everyone changes, it won't change. Even if everyone changed dramatically, it won't change the outcome that much just prolong the fireball a little while longer - perhaps another 1000 years.

Dave,
Check your sources. The link you provide references essentially an op/ed piece by the George C. Marshall Institute. This is NOT scientific research published in a scientific journal after passing the test of peer review. Here is what it is:

Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change.

George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1999
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'support for science and public policy education programs'
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 1999 IRS 990

2000
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$60,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'climate change work'
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$80,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
'global climate change program'
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2002
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change Program
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$25,000 Exxon Corporation
Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005
$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner and General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

Who are we going to believe when it comes to the truth about climate change? Big oil? Bad government? Drudge? Ed Wallace? Neal Boortz? Morgan? A pizza man? Or, perhaps, the vast majority of the world�s scientists who have spent their lives working to understand this issue?

lauraq, I hear you loud and clear. Below is a list of things a concerned person can do. But you are certainly correct: unless everyone makes changes, it will not make much difference. I feel this acutely every time an Excursion pulls up next to me in my Prius. Perhaps the best you can do is act as an example: �We must be the change we wish to see in the world.� The solution must be political. We need to speak with our votes, our letters and our pocketbooks and tell our so called leaders that we want action. If we make dramatic changes now maybe, just maybe, we can slow this train down. It�s not much, but right now it is all we got.


TEN THINGS YOU CAN DO TO SAVE THE CLIMATE
1) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle: paper, plastic, newspaper, and aluminum cans. If there isn�t a recycling program at your work, school, or in your community, ask about starting one.
2) Insulate Your Home
Add extra insulation to your walls and attic, and install weather stripping or caulk around doors and windows. This step alone can reduce your home heating costs by more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.
3) Be Thrifty with Heating and Cooling
Turn down the heat while you�re sleeping at night or away during the day, and aim for moderation with heating and cooling at all times. Try pulling on a sweater before rushing to the thermostat.
4) Leave the Car at Home Whenever You Can
Less driving means fewer emissions. And besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community�s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.
5) Buy Energy-Efficient Products
When it�s time to buy a new car, choose one that gives you the best gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are now designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.
6) Turn Down Your Appliances
Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save water. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.
7) Don�t Leave the Water Running
Remember to turn off the water when you�re not using it. For example, while brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog, or soaping up your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You�ll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital natural resource.
8) Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
Many utility companies provide home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.
9) Be an Informed Consumer
Learn more about environmental issues so that you can make wise choices for yourself and your family.
10) Encourage Others to Conserve
Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.

TEN THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP SAVE THE EARTH FOR OUR CHILDREN
1) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle: paper, plastic, newspaper, and aluminum cans. If there isn�t a recycling program at your work, school, or in your community, ask about starting one.
2) Insulate Your Home
Add extra insulation to your walls and attic, and install weather stripping or caulk around doors and windows. This step alone can reduce your home heating costs by more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.
3) Be Thrifty with Heating and Cooling
Turn down the heat while you�re sleeping at night or away during the day, and aim for moderation with heating and cooling at all times. Try pulling on a sweater before rushing to the thermostat.
4) Leave the Car at Home Whenever You Can
Less driving means fewer emissions. And besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community�s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.
5) Buy Energy-Efficient Products
When it�s time to buy a new car, choose one that gives you the best gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are now designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.
6) Turn Down Your Appliances
Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save water. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.
7) Don�t Leave the Water Running
Remember to turn off the water when you�re not using it. For example, while brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog, or soaping up your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You�ll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital natural resource.
8) Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
Many utility companies provide home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.
9) Be an Informed Consumer
Learn more about environmental issues so that you can make wise choices for yourself and your family.
10) Encourage Others to Conserve
Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.



I made a small modification you the title. We can't change the climate as easy as you think. A natural forest fire or Volcano, or even a meteor can change the climate more than we can.

As far as bashing the last link posted ( here (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) ) read what it has to say. All the data in that summary, comes from 'Global Warming' Theorists. Read the references at the bottom.

BTW, all this thread has done for me is prove to me even more that the "Global Warming' theory is nothing to worry about.

I think it's really lame to accuse anybody who doesn't believe the global warming myth works for Exxon Mobile. It's really #$*&$! lame. Politics is so #$*&$! lame. So you think scientists are liars for Exxon, then who do all the global warming scientists work for? They must be paid by the media. It's the media that make millions selling global warming scare reports in magazines, boox, and TV, they pay the scientists to make up all this crackpot nonsense.

Gore's best line so far. "It was 120 degrees in South Dakota. Hello!" (It tied the record set in 1936 (http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/south-dakota-july2006-record-high-state-temperature.html) . Hello! Second highest temperature recorded in 1910. Hello!)



That's not what I said. What I said is that the scientists, psuedo and otherwise, who've come out against global warming took money from the energy industry. I'd think that would tell you something.

When I read most of the global warming stuff, it seems biased, as if they are trying to make a case. Global warming might actually be happening, but the way many people (Gore) are making a case for it seems exaggerated. Most of the increase in mean surface temperature might be an artifact of heat islands brought about by urbanization. If the increase was measured from the last little ice age, which ended in 1850, that's cheating. Most of the increase ended in 1940, I have read. All the focus is on CO2, yet aerosols, methane, and water vapor are much more potent green house agents. I believe our global weather is much more predicated on ocean temperatures and currents than it is on northern hemisphere warming.

Like I said, there actually might be something to this global warming related to CO2, but I am not convinced that it is much, or that it will lead to anything past bumper crops in Canada and Russia. The problem is sifting through all the crap data. It just doesn't seem to point to anything conclusive, and the harder the Al Gores point, the more suspicious I get of their "case". YMMV



I don't know about the lay public, but the scientists, the ones who study this stuff, aren't selling anything. The problem is that you have a bunch of lay people trying to convince other lay people.

Let me give you an example. When I was doing research I studied chromosome segregation. I was looking at events that occurred a few times in a million. Making a convincing argument out of that, to a lay audience is tough. For other scientists I simply have to do a Chi Squared test to show the data is significant.

The lay people who are trying to convince the public realize that they aren't going to be impressed with the data so they move it around to make the argument more compelling. Now, that sounds bad, but it isn't. As long as they don't change the data, or manipulate falsely, it's O.K. The problem is that the "we don't believe" crowd presents what they're doing as falsifying data.

The way it works in science is you can present data in any fashion you like. However, you have to state clearly:

1) how the experiment was conducted

2) how the data was analyzed or crunched


As long as you do that, someone reading the data can judge for themselves whether it's valid.

The scientists doing this work have done this, consistently.

The only red herring here is how those against the theory have treated it. They pull out what they consider to be inconsistencies and say the environmentalists are lying. All they are really doing is showing that they don't have the acumen to read a scientific paper and judge it's merits. That isn't so bad, few do, even scientists outside of their purview have trouble judging the science in other arenas.

However, in this case we see huge consistencies.

1) This type of research has been going on since the 70s. Basically, over 30 years of research paints a consistent picture.

2) The body of environmental scientists as a whole agrees (remember, the dissenting voices, for the most part aren't scientists, they're lay people presenting themselves as scientists).

3) Scientists per say are well aware of the story and work diligently to shoot it down. None has.

4) In order to believe this isn't true, you'd have to believe in some grand conspiracy on the part of all these scientists to fool us. To what end? Yes, I know, Morgan is convinced they're doing it for funding. Think about the scientist who proves them wrong; how much funding is he going to get? Plenty! So why not? The why not is because there is no credible counter evidence.

Scientists are like cattle. One minute they are grazing and making meadow muffins, then one eats loco weed and starts a stampede. They all run for a while, following each other as they run in one direction. They are afraid to step out of line for fear of being trampled by the others, but they have no idea where they are going, they are only going the way the others are so they don't get trampled. This is what izink calls "concensus."

Sooner or later a little border collie rounds them up, and they all go back to grazing and making meadow muffins again. I hope Rudy Giulianni is part border collie



I think you've mistaken scientists for the lay public... :D Or perhaps politicians voting to go to war...

I have a question for all the skeptics out there. I know it will be very difficult for many of you, but please try to be honest:

What if you are wrong?



Wrong about what? Attribution of the slight warming to manmade co2? Don't care. The only point is, if there is a warming, so what? Is it going to continue? What are the consequences? Is it a good thing to ward off the naturally occurring ice age, which is due? Is it a good thing for crops world wide?

The easiest thing to buy from the discussions is the possibility that man made CO2 is responsible for a slight atmospheric warming in the northern hemisphere. There is a fairly well documented increase in CO2, possibly 100% and yet only a slight atmospheric warming. The amount of man's contribution is debatable, but okay. The catastrophes, and run away global warming, ice caps melting, drowning the coasts, hurricanes, lions, tigers, and bears, are the hard things to swallow. From what I have read about past ages, the warmest ages with the most CO2 have been the most idyllic, with the nicest weather.



How naive!

You sound like an optimist though. One doesn't have to build models, one simply has to look at history, that written in stone, i.e. geology. Even when such events occur naturally, they are catastrophic. The notion that we're all going to live in a warmer cozier world is pretty mistaken.

Take the study done here in Texas (good old conservative Aggies did this one, see the cover of today's Houston Chronical). The modest changes we're seeing now predict that there will be huge droughts in the South with a large loss of agricultural income.

www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)



Go back and read the early post I made about pseudo-scientists. This is one of them. They don't even have any real scientists. Cave Junction Oregon is a little town with a couple of thousand people and no University, College, or even Community College.

You're reading junk by Rush Limbaugh equivalents.

BTW - these guys get cited over and over and they've not even done an ounce of research. Pretty pathetic. BTW - I'll have to check, but I think these guys are a recipient of an Exxon Mobil grant...

I just realized, Iz already addressed this sorry!

I�ll accept that change to the ten things you can do list. It is not easy to change the climate, I agree. It has taken close to two hundred years of industrial pollution to change the climate the way we have. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reverse those effects very quickly.

As for those references, the whole piece has been painstakingly crafted to look like real science, but it flat out is not science. Tacking a list of references onto the end that have no relation to the premise of the article is part of that whole deceit.

Here is the summary:

�Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.�

If you really believe that, then I have some oceanfront property in Kansas that you might be interested in buying.

Yes Za, they reference real scientists, and then they interpret it. Remember who Iz said these guys are. They are a paid think tank, paid by EM.

Remember, the data they are commenting on was published in peer reviewed journals that every scientist in the world has the right to comment on. Notice how these guys didn't do the same thing? That's because no "real" journal would have accepted their "findings." That's because, they aren't really doing anything but saying... it's all bs. Just saying something is bs doesn't make it so.

I've done all but #8. I don't think I trust our utility company, but we do usually have lower bills than anyone I know. So, I still feel confident that the Q household has done all we can, except for having produced another consuming human.

There have been a number of cultures that over extended the use of their environments. Easter Island, the Incas etc. In each case, the archeologists that study those cultures find a consistent pattern. Denial (let's party like it's 1999) followed by awakening. In every case, awakening happened when it was too late. In every case, the culture started recycling, cleaning up, trying desperately to save itself. In each case the culture failed.

As they say, those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it.

"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
Let me go on record that this is my most hated quote. I still remember the first time I heard it in 10th grade history class.
BTW, does anyone know who the first perso to say it was?

There are two theories behined Easter island.

1st, is exactly what you said, they cut down all the trees and used up all there natural resorces.

2nd, The didn't actually live (other than the stone cutters and movers) on the island. The people lived on other islands and Easter isle was there "church" or burial ground.

At least that two theories I have heard.

Yes Za, they reference real scientists, and then they interpret it. Remember who Iz said these guys are. They are a paid think tank, paid by EM.

Remember, the data they are commenting on was published in peer reviewed journals that every scientist in the world has the right to comment on. Notice how these guys didn't do the same thing? That's because no "real" journal would have accepted their "findings." That's because, they aren't really doing anything but saying... it's all bs. Just saying something is bs doesn't make it so.

That is so naive.

Yes Za, they reference real scientists, and then they interpret it. Remember who Iz said these guys are. They are a paid think tank, paid by EM.

Remember, the data they are commenting on was published in peer reviewed journals that every scientist in the world has the right to comment on. Notice how these guys didn't do the same thing? That's because no "real" journal would have accepted their "findings." That's because, they aren't really doing anything but saying... it's all bs. Just saying something is bs doesn't make it so.

That is so naive.



Why? Give me a credible reason Bruce and I will accept that I am naive.

"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
Let me go on record that this is my most hated quote. I still remember the first time I heard it in 10th grade history class.
BTW, does anyone know who the first perso to say it was?



Actually, it was philosopher and poet, Georges Santayana.

From a Yahoo search.

I think it is a very important comment, although to no effect. It proves true over and over. Is your irritation with it because it has no impact or because you think it's wrong?

I think it�s a shame that the global warming debate has taken the front seat on discussions surrounding man�s negative impact on the environment. The mainstream media love a polarizing debate, especially when some are over-hyping doomsday scenarios to �wake people up� and those addicted to the pursuit of short term profits are attributing the entire body of work of the scientific community to the �ozone man� who�s co-opted the scientific process for his own gain.

Telling most U.S. citizens that they should drop their SUV for a hybrid and a bicycle to reduce the chances of future ecological disasters is just like telling kids they shouldn�t smoke pot because it�ll turn their brain into fried eggs.

The tragedy is that, putting aside the entire global warming questions for now, human beings have been and are continuing to degrade our natural environment on a daily basis and we are feeling profound, negative impacts TODAY. Many waters are unfit to swim in and those fish are unsafe to eat. Many of us have a significantly higher chance of developing lung diseases, cancer, heart disease, and stroke due to proximity to pollutants from cars and industry. Aside from particulate pollution, noise and traffic jams in most U.S. cities leads to increased stress-related illnesses and road rage. The news tells us that if our economy isn�t growing at more than 3% per year we�re not doing well. It fails to tell us that spending billions of dollars blowing stuff up and then giving billions to a couple select companies that may or may not actually fix the stuff they blew up isn�t really producing �goods�. Put simply, our addiction to the pursuit of MORE has created an unsustainable living situation for humans on this planet.

�I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure . . . Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability�

Because you talk like one group of scientists are whores and the other group are nobly pursuing pure science.

There are whores for money on both sides. There's plenty of money on both sides. You read the news? If you are taking leftist money to be a state climatologist or a university professor and you take the contrarian view, you get canned.

That isn't science. That's religion and politics. Science delights in contrarian views. That is what moves science forward.

out of frustration...it matters not how much history you and I know... we are relatively powerless to change the future...

The tragedy is that, putting aside the entire global warming questions for now, human beings have been and are continuing to degrade our natural environment on a daily basis and we are feeling profound, negative impacts TODAY. Many waters are unfit to swim in and those fish are unsafe to eat Better than 30 years ago, several creeks and rivers that were heavily poluted are in great shape now, however I would still not eat the fish. ago Many of us have a significantly higher chance of developing lung diseases, cancer, heart disease, and stroke due to proximity to pollutants from cars and industry. Some would argue that it is all the foods we eat. We eat a ton of cemicals compaired to years ago. Also life expantcy is must longer now, more time for the Big C to grow Aside from particulate pollution, noise and traffic jams in most U.S. cities leads to increased stress-related illnesses and road rage. Nothing can be done about this. We have to live somewhere and there will always be traffic. If you spread everyone out even more, more traffic than even now. The news tells us that if our economy isn�t growing at more than 3% per year we�re not doing well. It fails to tell us that spending billions of dollars blowing stuff up and then giving billions to a couple select companies that may or may not actually fix the stuff they blew up isn�t really producing �goods�. Put simply, our addiction to the pursuit of MORE has created an unsustainable living situation for humans on this planet.



Well lets just put a limit on how many kids we can have. Better yet, lets do a Logans Run and kill everyone over the age of 40.

Well lets just put a limit on how many kids we can have. Better yet, lets do a Logans Run and kill everyone over the age of 40.



Well, that would reduce the number of divisions in disc golf....

okay

but I think the thread would die soon . . . most posters here are above age 40 . . . and Logan's Run was age 35, wasn't it?
ahhh, the deadly Fort Worth Water Gardens

okay

but I think the thread would die soon . . . most posters here are above age 40 . . . and Logan's Run was age 35, wasn't it?
ahhh, the deadly Fort Worth Water Gardens



yea, I was thinking it was 38. 40 just seemed like a good numer and that means my wrist would be blinking.

here, you want to stop this thread???

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HJpB4EO55mM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HJpB4EO55mM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I thought the Nazis were to blame for global warming. Thanks Pizza. :)

3
Because you talk like one group of scientists are whores and the other group are nobly pursuing pure science.

There are whores for money on both sides. There's plenty of money on both sides. You read the news? If you are taking leftist money to be a state climatologist or a university professor and you take the contrarian view, you get canned.

<font color="red">Show me some examples, and please make it a larger sample size than one. Say a good half dozen cases will be convincing. Remember, we're talking about 100's of research labs. If there is really a conspiracy, I'd expect there'd by a number of people who would know the fix was in.</font>

That isn't science. That's religion and politics. Science delights in contrarian views. That is what moves science forward.

<font color="red">Absolutely! Take a look at the process that Climate warming went through. A contrarian view sprung up around a new theory and the researchers batted it around trying to prove and disprove it for years. Indeed this happened to global warming years ago (back in the 80s). However, after a while the evidence became so compelling that most of the debate centered around the details, not whether it's real or not.

For comparison puposes, take the theory that it is the earth that revolves around the sun and not vice versa. No one debates this any more, it's accepted fact and yet at one point, a scientist was shunned and caged in a tower for supporting the idea. There was huge debate about it.

A more modern view might be tabacco, debate raged during the 60s and 70s, even into the 90s. Now, it's pretty much accepted, tabacco causes cancer. However, it was well known in the 60s that there was a connection. Only the efforts of tobacco companies kept the debate going. </font>



That one group of scientists has the answer, and the others are full of it is not a postition I would ever want to take! If that is the impression I gave then you're absolutely correct! Neither side is noble! The difference between the two sides is the process. The scientific method with peer review was constructed to deal with exactly your concern. It assumes that people will act in their own self interest and thereby provides a mechanism to check and recheck their work. It's been shown to be highly effective if accepted. Research following this process showed clearly that tabacco caused cancer. Yet the public didn't accept that for years. Why? Effective marketing on the part of the tabacco industry. Do we really believe that the "researchers" they hired were telling us the truth? Do we really think their work was vetted?

The "noble" scientists work within the context of the scientific method and peer review, they have no choice, public funding requires it. The Exxon Mobil guys don't any more than the tabacco guys did. No one who plays by the scientific/peer review rules has as of yet come out with credible data showing the theory is incorrect.

Now, here's an interesting study for you. They looked at how funding effected scientific results in in bio-medical research, and as you would expect, the source of the funding impacts the results. That is, your results, even in peer reviewed journals tend to reflect what your funder wants them to. Pretty scary right. No. That's what peer review and the scientific method does for us. The only reason we knew that research was biased by the funding source was because there were multiple sources of research that showed alternative results in a different funding context.

Now, you might say the same thing is going on here except, the counter voices haven't even done any research, or psuedo-research for that matter. All of the labs who have done reseach have come to the same conclusion. We're talking about thousands of studies.

The only contradicting voices aren't scientists (I know you said they were, but they aren't [with one or two exceptions]). The contradicting voices aren't presenting data, simply looking through the accepted data for what they feel are contradictions [even the one or two real scientists who are involved weren't doing real reseach, they were simply commenting on other's data]. Even that would be O.K. if they actually showed a contradiction, but they don't. What they do do is present the data as if it isn't significant. "Oh look, that small change can't really mean anything," is their battle cry. And yet they have no idea whether that small change means anything.

BTW - the study that showed funding sources changed the results you get were comparing public funding with private, for drug safety and efficacy. As you might speculate, publicly funded labs were much more conservative than privately funded ones. While I do not think that public funding is without fault, it is certainly less biased than direct funding from a "concerned" source.

out of frustration...it matters not how much history you and I know... we are relatively powerless to change the future...



I see your point and disagree with you. A Lyle born in the 1930s would never have questioned if it weren't for the teachers he had who taught him that history was important. It's a slow process, but one well worth pursuing.

here, you want to stop this thread???

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HJpB4EO55mM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HJpB4EO55mM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>




Pizza, I haven't figured out your point on that one, but here's what a real leader has to say on the subject:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_uNIDWvUkX4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_uNIDWvUkX4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

out of frustration...it matters not how much history you and I know... we are relatively powerless to change the future...

That sounds like religion too. Of course we cannot change the future. From our perspective the future is just a concept.

We can change the present. We can change what we do. When we were kids, those of us who are old, there was no such thing as recycling. When I was kid I could not have imagined everyone up and down the street putting recyclables in special bins so the garbage company could pick them up with a special truck and then resell that stuff to scrappers.

A whole lot more convincing needs to be done to convince me that global warming is anything we have to do anything about. The planet was once ten degrees warmer and life flourished everywhere. I think last year there were two weeks here when ten degrees warmer would have been uncomfortable and eight months where ten degrees warmer would have worked for me! You SoCal types are just going to have to move north.

While you cut back on CO2 emissions, I'm outside burning brush trying to kick this global warming thing into overdrive! It has not been warmer than freezing here for about four weeks.

Global warming is not a problem. If we burn up the finite amount of petroleum and coal, until there is none left, and turn it all into CO2 and raise the temperature of the earth by 2 or 3 degrees max, that might delay the next ice age long enough so we can find some **other** way to kill ourselves and destroy the earth.

Izink, your whole argument seems to be, "All the scientists says its true and I'm a real scientist so I agree with them (so I don't get trampled), they are real scientists and we are all in agreement and we have studied this for years blah blah" but you haven't answered the basic questions I posed:

1. Earth's CO2 levels have been high for 100 years. I cited a 1907 reading of 336 ppm, much higher than the 280 from the ice cores. I asked you whether you believe there's a 100-year lag between CO2 rise and temperatures rise?

2. I told you that water vapor is 300 times more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, why do the global warming alarmists even care about it? Who cares about 1/300, it's a trace gas and negligible. Earth is 300 degrees above absolute zero. The first 299 degrees were done by water vapor and the 300th degree by CO2. Who the #$*&amp;$! cares about one degree? It's -75 in Greenland, do you think a 1 degree rise in temperature is going to melt all the ice in Greenland when the temperature rises from -75 to -74? I think
-74 is still frozen. How much more frozen can you get than -74? Oh yeah I know, -75! Woo hoo!!!!!! We should all ride horses and eat bark so Greenland can stay -75 instead of -74.

3. I told you the earth doesn't have enough fossil fuels left, we've already burned half of them and it didn't do anything, we will burn the other half and that won't do anything either, and after that there won't be anything left we can do to raise CO2 even if it did matter. Since the first half didn't matter, who cares about the second half? But the alarmists are saying, "Yeah OK, I admit the first half didn't do anything, but the second half will cause runaway global warming and the earth will be like venus and cooked like brocoli in a giant wok until it catches fire and Pluto won't be the only planet taken off the list, pretty soon the earth will be burned up and there will only be 7 planets left, Earth will join Pluto as a dwarf planet after it's all cooked"

4. In ice core data, why does the CO2 level always lag behind the changes in temperature? If CO2 levels cause global warming you'd think they would happen before the rise in temperatures, not after it.

5. Some more questions I forgot

How is this for some unbelievable stupidity by scientists? Some of the brightest scientific minds are working on measuring the CO2 levels of the atmosphere over time. For reference in tabulating CO2 levels over the past 50 years, they chose the top on Mauna Loa, an active volcano in Hawaii, as the benchmark. They might have chosen Mauna Kea, an extinct volcano only a few miles away, but no, they chose, of all the places on earth to measure the CO2 levels, the top of an active volcano only 5 miles from the worlds most active vent, Kilauea, that spews CO2 into the atmosphere by the megaton. Here's the amazing text:

"The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases."

Now keep in mind, people, the year 1997-1998 is the largest yearly jump in CO2 they measured. Do you know why? That's because the Kilawea vent which is on Maua Loa itself was erupting actively that year.

I'm starting to wonder, who PICKS these genius scientists who do things like this? I think a better place to sample the CO2 level of the atmosphere, to get an artificially high reading and cause panic, might be downtown Los Angeles, or NE New Jersey right downwind from the Standard Oil refineries. No, actually, of all the places on the entire planet that I can think of, the top of Mauna Loa is the absolute worst place on earth to measure CO2 levels. Unbelievable. But it's the best place to get data Al Gore can use.

on top of that Mogan, the mesurments from thousands of years ago are from the Antartic Circle, 1/2 a world away. On top of that, it is in an area that has been frozen over for all that time (hence why the ice is still there)

This is one of the reasons I have a hard time with the "theory" of co2 being a cause of a slight increase in only NORTHERN half of the world.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BjrOi4vF24"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BjrOi4vF24" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m0vetY_3RKQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m0vetY_3RKQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

This amazing piece was written by a global warming advocate, trying to explain why the CO2 levels seem to lag behind the warming temperatures by 800 years in ice core data. Ice core data shows that each warming period after an ice age takes about 5000 years to complete, but the first 800 years of it the CO2 levels are still low, then they rise. The guy believes that the next 4200 years of the warming are caused by CO2 but the first 800 years aren't. HUH??????? And he equally has no answer to why the next ice age starts again when the CO2 level is at its highest! Here's the amazing text:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

But he has no idea what causes the first 800 years of warming. He's basically saying, well, earth warms up which releases CO2 which is a greenhouse gas and causes the next 4200 years of warming!!!!!!!!!!!!.

That's like the woman who breaks up with her boyfriend, so he slaps her. Then she says she broke up with him because he slapped her.

Who are we going to believe when it comes to the truth about climate change? Big oil? Bad government? Drudge? Ed Wallace? Neal Boortz? Morgan? A pizza man? Or, perhaps, the vast majority of the world�s scientists who have spent their lives working to understand this issue?



I don't believe anybody. I believe in data. I want to see the math. I don't give a #$*&amp;$! what anybody says, I want to see their math. I want to see the original charts not the fudged data. I don't care if 10000000000 people agree on something if it doesn't agree with the data. If 1000000000000 people are wrong and 1 person is right then I don't give a #$*&amp;$! about the 1000000000000 wrong people. Millions of doctors thought stomach ulcers were caused by stomach acid. Then, oops, they were wrong, it was bacteria. Millions of astronomers said the world was flat, then oops! Millions of laywers said silicone implants were dangerous. Then, oops! They're safe.

I don't believe anybody. People need to shut up I don't believe them. 5000 people saw Jesus rise from the dead. I don't believe it because they didn't show their math.

If 10000000 alligators believe my dog is good to eat, should I eat my dog? Just look at her face

<<<<<<<<<<<<

the alligators are all wrong!

Thanks, Bruce & Lyle. I guess I got frustrated and have been for a while now.
My 10th grade history teacher made me write an essay on the importance of learning history when I refused to watch WW II propaganda films they showed in class.
(BTW, Lyle, I know I'll slap myself upside the head when you tell me, but whom is the Lyle to which you referred in your post that was born in 1930's?)

Al Gore's a Pimp Daddy!


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BjrOi4vF24"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5BjrOi4vF24" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Understanding climate change is not rocket science . . . it is MUCH more complicated than that. As Lyle has said numerous times now, the connection between CO2 emissions and global warming is not a linear relationship. Perhaps this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/) explanation will help you understand the rather complicated math involved.

I believe in global warming.
I believe we are slowing killing our planet and all that it contains.
I am not sure I make much difference, but whether you believe in global warming or not is your choice. To believe what you want is always your choice. However, basic logic should tell you that it is beneficial at this point from a financial aspect, if none other, to:
1) reduce, reuse, and recycle;
2) insulate your home;
3) use energy efficient products;
4) drive less;
5) turn down your water-heater;
6) don't leave the water running;
7) evaluate your home for its efficiently; and,
8) become an informed consumer.
My dad preached most of those to me when I was growing up and that was just because he grew up in the depression and wanted to save wherever he could, including on the utility bills. No one ever heard of global warming when Daddy told me to turn off the water when I was brushing my teeth or told me I don't need my water that hot or that it would be better for me to walk to school or work and did not need to take the car or be driven there by my mom. So, heck, if you don't believe in global warming, fine. Surely, you can believe in wallet padding. :)
I don't really care what you believe in.
However, I would really like it if you would do what you can to save our resources for whatever reason you choose.

It is an inconvenient truth precisely because it forces us to confront ourselves. When something comes along and challenges the basic assumptions we have about the world, it makes us very uncomfortable, angry perhaps. People go about their lives clinging to the deep-seated belief that the world will continue to exist pretty much as it always has. I can see why many people have such a strong antipathy to this idea.

But this argument is over: Earth is warming. Humans caused it. We cannot stop it. If we make dramatic changes right now maybe, just maybe, we can slow it down. Why don�t we bury this dead horse; it�s starting to stink.

If all the brainpower wasted on this argument were instead directed at finding innovative ways to cut greenhouse emissions, we might be able to avert at lease some of the more dire consequences of impending climate change.

1. Get a white car because white reflects heat back into space. Wear a white hat and bleach your hair blond. Paint the roof of your house white or use reflective metal.

2. Turn your air condition up really high and open the window so the air conditioner can cool the outdoors

3. Peel lots of lemons and squeeze them into the ocean so the ocean cools off from the lemons, we know lemons cool things that's the whole point of lemonaid.

4. Inhale more than you exhale. Every time you exhale you release CO2, so when you exhale use a handkerchief to block the CO2 just like germs

5. Next time you drink soda, remember that the soda has lots of CO2 so you should just drink the soda part and leave the CO2 in the bottle. Every sip you take, let the CO2 fizz into your cheeks, swallow the soda, and use your lips to gently put the CO2 back into the bottle where it can't harm the globe

6. Don't let your dog get hot. When dogs get hot they pant and that makes too much CO2. Keep your dog cool!

I am impressed that you started this thread.
I am amazed that there are 48 pages to it.
The problem with the movie is that very few people will actually change their beliefs soley based upon that inconvenient truth. Whether you read the book, see the movie, or listen to the lectures, the truth is there. Perhaps it is too inconvenient for the average American to take. You know, most Americans like their conveniences and well, you know, can't handle the truth. More people are getting skin cancer. More people are dying from lung cancer. More children are diagnosed with autism, which is being linked to the environment. The list goes on as far as actual daily point-to symptoms of our dying environment killing us too.
The list is just as long on evidence that most Americans are lazy and just won't adjust to incovenience. That list contains everything from driving more, more divorces, to a friend shooting himself last weekend because of the inconvenience of his mother having a stroke.

Thank you Wayne, Laura, and Lyle!

Morgan, you might want to have a scientist come over and check your home water and air, cuz somethings causing your neurons to misfire.

That is humorous.
However, you will be happy to know I always try to keep my dog cool. :cool:
If you are a dog lover, you can't be too bad a person. ;)

That came from when I was a teenager I huffed Carbona not glue after hearing the Ramones song.

http://mp3how.com/ramones-leave-home/Ramones-Leave-Home-Carbona-Not-Glue_mp3.php

Worth a listen

out of frustration...it matters not how much history you and I know... we are relatively powerless to change the future...

That sounds like religion too. Of course we cannot change the future. From our perspective the future is just a concept.

<font color="red"> This is philosophy. What we can do is change what the future is going to be as determined by our actions now.
</font>

We can change the present. We can change what we do. When we were kids, those of us who are old, there was no such thing as recycling. When I was kid I could not have imagined everyone up and down the street putting recyclables in special bins so the garbage company could pick them up with a special truck and then resell that stuff to scrappers.

A whole lot more convincing needs to be done to convince me that global warming is anything we have to do anything about. The planet was once ten degrees warmer and life flourished everywhere. I think last year there were two weeks here when ten degrees warmer would have been uncomfortable and eight months where ten degrees warmer would have worked for me! You SoCal types are just going to have to move north.

<font color="red">Yes, but you're not thinking about it in a global context. So you get warmer temps in the North, what does that mean in comparison? What happens in Alaska? What happens to the great lakes? What happens to disease spread and animal migrations? What happens to New Orleans? What happens to Houston if you change the rain patterns here? Do you effect Hurricane production? Do you effect rain patterns elsewhere, including where you live?

Like many, you're focusing on one or two of the potential outcomes, and only the one or two that seem beneficial to yourself.
</font>
While you cut back on CO2 emissions, I'm outside burning brush trying to kick this global warming thing into overdrive! It has not been warmer than freezing here for about four weeks.



As I responded to Za before, global warming doesn't predict a straight line increase in warming and disasters. It predicts greater variation. For example, in Houston, last year it snowed, then we had one of the coolest starts to our summer ever, then some of the hottest days ever. December was one of the warmest ever, January was one of the coldest. As Za has pointed out, all of these things have happened before, just not in an eight month period. They were spread out over decades.


You keep mentioning religion. Religion is belief without evidence. The notion that your or my instincts, or the instincts of people hired by Exxon Mobil, are better than scientific measurement is exactly that... religion.

BTW - do I believe that Global Warming is going to be prevented? Not on your life, it's coming. For me, this is a debate on getting people to accept fact over fiction.

The reality is that we will probably survive global warming. There is a measurment of the ability of biological beings to adapt to new environments. Only two species have greater adaptability than we do, rats, and cockroaches. However, we, and the world will be very different after the changes are over. For sure, there won't be nearly so many of us. There will also be a change in politics, social structure, and religion. If nothing else, it will be interesting.

BTW - when I point out there won't be nearly so many of us, I'm taking into account what we see with disease spread during warming periods. Yep, you might be toasty, but the spread of things like ebola virus jumps way up. The spread of malarial carrying mosquitoes goes way up as does the spread of a number of other diseases. It won't be all fun and games.

That came from when I was a teenager I huffed Carbona not glue after hearing the Ramones song.

http://mp3how.com/ramones-leave-home/Ramones-Leave-Home-Carbona-Not-Glue_mp3.php

Worth a listen



Word. I've been a bit "unbalanced" ever since I blew my eardrums out during Iron Maiden's "Powerslave" tour.

I know we will survive global warming, but will we survive the ice age that is scheduled to start any day now? We are past due!!! Remember my favorite chart? (I added the CO2 level up to 377, look hard for the green vertical line). Look where we are now, ready to fall off the cliff to the next ice age!! We're overdue for it!!

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif

Thanks, Bruce &amp; Lyle. I guess I got frustrated and have been for a while now.
My 10th grade history teacher made me write an essay on the importance of learning history when I refused to watch WW II propaganda films they showed in class.
(BTW, Lyle, I know I'll slap myself upside the head when you tell me, but whom is the Lyle to which you referred in your post that was born in 1930's?)



Allegorical. When I write fast, I lose my train of coherant thought. I'm simply saying that if I had been born then, I would have been a very different person, one without a knowledge of the importance of history.

BTW - I had the same WWII films, and was made to watch them by my history teacher, a WWII vet. He's also the one who gave me the "those who don't learn history" quote.

He had a different perspective though. The films we saw were of American's burning Japanese soldiers out of their caves on Iwo Jima, something he participated in. He didn't like it and felt war should be avoided at all costs. He felt that the history of war would teach us that we should do everything we could to find an alternate way to solve conflicts. He made it clear that was our job!

Ah Mr. Williams, I still remember him to this day!

BTW - Mr. Williams taught in a small high school in red neck rural Oregon. He wasn't a progressive or even a Democrat; he simply had learned the hard way that war is not a good thing and should be avoided at all costs.

I know we will survive global warming, but will we survive the ice ace that is scheduled to start in about 1000 years? Remember my favorite chart? (I added the CO2 level up to 377, look hard for the green vertical line)

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceages.gif



Frizbee has a good point, one way or another we are going to have some environmental change. Change happens, the poles have switched, we've been hit by meteors etc. etc. etc. However, doesn't it seem a little risky to rush such things if they can be avoided?

Rush things? Global warming doesn't rush the ice age, it delays it!

Changing our diet (http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/pages/page.cfm?page_id=66) can be healthier for our bodies and our planet.

true.
had a chicken for the last year...best eggs ever.
my husband is planting a garden. . . tried it last year, but the chicken dug it up
it is difficult, however, to live in our crazy, fast-paced society without buying into the same lifestyle as everyone else with the drive-through dinners, eat on the go, etc.
I hope I get to meet you in at the Seneca Soiree in April. I am going to sign my husband up to play. I'll be attending a conference. Know of anyone able to pick him up from the Shady Grove metro stop?

What are Americans and Canadians and Europeans and Japanese and Chinese going to do when they are all covered by glaciers in 2000 years? Move south and take over equatorial third world countries? Move into S America and Indonesia and Africa and kill off the natives? Too ghastly. Maybe we will just accept the fact that our countries will be covered with sheet ice and commit suicide? Not likely. The best thing we can do is produce as much CO2 as we can, while we still can, to postpone the ice age as long as we can.

OK I projected the earth's temperatures and CO2 levels 10,000 years into the future. You see the CO2 levels (green line) went way up due to humans, but plateaued off when we ran out of fossil fuels. You also see the inevitable ice age began right about 1,000 years from now and was delayed slightly by all the CO2 that we wisely put into the atmosphere. However, the ice age came anyway and we froze our assses off (will freeze out assses off).

http://www.hyzercreek.com/iceagesfuture.gif

Now that the debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change has been settled in the minds of rational people, the time has come to find solutions to the inconvenient truth. Here is a start: Tackling Climate Change in the US: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030 (http://www.ases.org/climatechange/)

Now that the debate has been settled in the minds of rational people, it's time to start preparing for the ice age. We need to start buying up equatorial countries and learn how to move our houses 5000 miles to the south

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=AkFNvoTajAmob7k4blMSj4 YDW7oF

Let me get this straight: It's OK for parents to lie to their kids about the existence of the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and santa claus. it's politically incorrect to make fun of people for believing that christ was born to a virgin mother, came back to life after being hung on a cross, and will come back to earth for the rapture at which point all the "saved" will suddenly vanish causing a 2 million car pileup on our interstates.

BUT, if someone believes that there's intelligent life anywhere in this infinite universe, but earth (other than our "father, son, and holy ghost") and we might be able to learn something from said life, then it's perfectly A-OK to call that person a "Whack job" while taking a not-so-subtle stab at Al Gore and/or anyone else that wants to prevent the destruction of our planet.

You got two out of three, anyway. There is no political incorrectness in making fun of Christians. Its Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and pretty much every other religion you have to treat with kid gloves.

did morgan bash this guy????????

I think it was funny, I guess you don't believe in UFO's? The real question is, are governments really hiding existince of them?

Children are OK, but any adult who believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus, Jesus coming down from the clouds, or space aliens with government cover ups, is definitely a whack job. Definitely.

Children are OK, but any adult who believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus, Jesus coming down from the clouds, or space aliens with government cover ups, is definitely a whack job. Definitely.



I'm OK with that as long as christians and ufo-believers are both fall under the umbrella of whack. I get a little worked up when a nation of christians points it's collective finger at the "believers" and snickers.

Now you can snicker at me, cuz I believe there's a reasonable chance that extraterrestrial aliens have visited earth. If they have, they certainly utilized more advanced technology to get here and we might want to learn about that.

ever think that UFO's are ourselves from the future????

That is not out of the relm of posibility.

Yes, it is. Study Einstein

Ok, I did not read the subject line till now. I would not call the former government employee, who may know something, a "whack job"

BTW, did you know that almost every government in the world has some sort of UFO investigation unit.

Some like Italy treat them like they are all real. They show up even in uniform.

Most governments do this through the military.

Don't forget our own military used Romote Viewing for years. (and still does in a dark room somewhere)

ever think that UFO's are ourselves from the future????

That is not out of the relm of posibility.



If they are us from the future then why are they in the air? Things in the air are coming from some PLACE not some TIME. If they are us from a different time they would be on the ground.