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.




Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue. No explanation and there's no point in looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness. You know the way everybody is into weirdness right now? Books in all the supermarkets about the Bermuda Triangle, UFO's, how the Mayans invented television, that kind of thing? Well the way I see it it's exactly the same. There ain't no difference between a flying saucer or a time machine. People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on seeing the whole thing


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews20/a%20Alex%20Cox%20Repo%20Man%20Emilio%20Estevez%20D VD%20Review/a%20Alex%20Cox%20Repo%20Man%20Emilio%20Estevez%20D VD%20Review%20PDVD_015.jpg

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.



Actually if someone was able to figure out how to go back in time the universe would most likely cease to exist. The only known substance (that isn't the right word) in the universe that can travel without time is light, and nothing can go back in time (unless you believe in tachyons which are absurd). If anything with a rest mass (aka everything except for light) travels faster than the speed of light (only way to go back in time) all matter in the universe would collapse onto said substance. This is because as matter gains acceleration it also increases in mass, so if something traveled the speed of light (or faster) it would become infinitly massive causing infinite gavity. So if all this happened the everything in the universe would be so attracted to said substance that the universe would collapse into its self (big bang) and theorectically start over (if you believe that).

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.

Earth isn't sitting still, Gallileo. The past is in a fairly distant place from here. One hour ago is about 900,000 miles away. If you were traveling through time from future earth to present earth you'd have to figure out where earth was when you wanted to be there, and then you'd have to travel through space too.

Different astronomers throw out different numbers. I'm getting 900,000 miles from this guy: http://www.sciencemusings.com/musingsarchive/2005_03_13_musings.html

I wonder if solar systems and galaxies are understable and overstable as they whirl through space?

Anyway, the third possibility is that they just want us to think they are space aliens.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/angelicconspiracy.html :D

And then there are those who think they are from Inner Earth. You can do your own googling on that.

In order for matter to go back in time it has to duplicate itself, all the atoms you are made of used to be somewhere else, like the water in your glass you drink now the water is in you, so if you go back in time the water is in you and in the glass at the same time, you have to duplicate all the atoms for it to be possible which is not possible so that glass of water has to come out of you. Go back far enough, say one year, and all the water you drank for the past year will be in all the glasses and so when you got there you'd be all dried up. And all the food you ate for the past year would be on all the plates and in all the chickens and cows and broccoli plants and not in you, so you'd starve to death too.

Another reason, the motion of the molecules in your body, if you went back in time, would be moving much slower than the molecules around you as you are passing through them, all the molecules you pass through are movind faster relative to your molecules, and since motion of molecules is heat you would burn up. If you went into the future you would freeze to death.

Even worse, the clothes you are wearing weren't made yet so you'd be naked. He he.

I get it. People from the year 3056 came back to this time because they want to check out the human race right now when we are destroying the earth with global warming. They went to New Mexico and were seen by all the acid head whack jobs there, but they were really there to check on the nuclear testing we were doing at Los Alamos, becaue they know that only nuclear energy will prevent global warming.

nope, they just wanna take our jobs!
http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/806/806_image_12.jpg

Repo Man?

You think you know so much. When was the last time you actually travelled in time, huh?

Repo Man?



I was riding on a concrete slab,
Down a river of useless flab
It was such a beautiful day
I heard a witchdoctor say,
Ill turn you into a toadstool . . .

planet emergency (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/washington/21cnd-gore.html?ref=us)

Channel 4 in the UK recently aired a documentary refuting the "man-made global warming" theory:

The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html)

Watch the entire 75 minute documentary here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm)


Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags behind temperature rise by 800 years, therefore cannot be the cause of it. The documentary exposes how Al Gore, in his film An Inconvenient Truth, deliberately reverses these figures to claim CO2 causes temperature change, when in fact the opposite is the case.



For shame, Mr. Gore...

Jupiter, Mars, Titan, Pluto, every planet and moon in the solar system that has an atmosphere is warming up. But if global warming is your religion, all of that is just coincidence.

CO2 levels go up when the planet warms up because CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. Warm water cannot hold as much dissolved gas as cold water.

its kinda funny in a way to watch you frogs just sit there and boil. sad, but funny.

The Great Global Warming Swindle turns out to be the real swindle (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/) . One of the scientists interviewed, Carl Wunsch (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/) , complains publicly that his views were misrepresented. This is not the first time director Martin Durkin has done this. The Independent Television Commission condemned Durkin for misrepresenting the views of interviewees in his previous work Against Nature .

Sorry I don't have time to look it up, but today on the radio they talked about a scientist who was going to write a book on Global Warming, but when he started working on it and looking at the evidence, he changed his mind and scrapped the book. He stated there was not enough scientific evedence that the "Global Warming' is true.

Well I guess that settles it then. There is no way to refute such compelling evidence from such an esteemed expert.

Sorry I don't have time to look it up, but today on the radio they talked about a scientist who was going to write a book on Global Warming, but when he started working on it and looking at the evidence, he changed his mind and scrapped the book. He stated there was not enough scientific evedence that the "Global Warming' is true.



Convincing enough for me! I'm online checking out Hummer leases right now.

me too. in fact, i also reinstated my order for a few thousand tons of CFCs just to make sure the hole in the ozone layer doesnt close

me too. in fact, i also reinstated my order for a few thousand tons of CFCs just to make sure the hole in the ozone layer doesnt close


Uhhhh....except it already has.

I guess changing out all of our car air conditioning systems really did make a difference!

Sorry I don't have time to look it up, but today on the radio they talked about a scientist who was going to write a book on Global Warming, but when he started working on it and looking at the evidence, he changed his mind and scrapped the book. He stated there was not enough scientific evedence that the "Global Warming' is true.



Convincing enough for me! I'm online checking out Hummer leases right now.



Here's (http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188) an interesting perspective...

Sorry I don't have time to look it up, but today on the radio they talked about a scientist who was going to write a book on Global Warming, but when he started working on it and looking at the evidence, he changed his mind and scrapped the book. He stated there was not enough scientific evedence that the "Global Warming' is true.



Convincing enough for me! I'm online checking out Hummer leases right now.



Here's (http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188) an interesting perspective...



Nice read.

Definitely -- I usually find that the most reliable scientific information is published in the Central Connecticut State University newspaper.

Um, what about trying not to drive and consume so much?

Sorry I did not get more information, I got 2 hours sleep last night and was on my way to work. They were talking about the Gore talking to the House and Senate committies yesterday.

I prefer to the 'wait and see' method. There is no way to know if the "Global Warming" theory will come true. Obviously I don't buy into it and hope it is not true.

BTW, another thing they mentioned is one of the Scientists that Gore supports findings from got mega bucks for saying it.

Again, a scienntists that comes out publicly that is supported by those that believe what he says. If a oil company supports your work, you are automaticly the devil. (of course after what the tobacco companies did, I understand the point being made)


web page (http://www.cecilwhig.com/articles/2007/03/22/ralph/58.txt) please read this and realize this is a conservitive writer. If you read and listen to Gore, you have to read this too and get the other points not mentioned by Gore. (and other)

mmmm, when I was in Vegas a few days ago, we drove out to "Area 51".

We personally saw the Grey Ford 150 pick up trucks parked on the hilltops around the entrance of this area. We also could see the radar/camera system set up on the other hill. We also took a picture of the sign that says "Deadly force Authorized"

Out of curiosity, I looked up some stuff on the Groom Lake area.

Did you know that in the 1990's, several workers out at the Groom lake base got sick. When asked what they were contaminated with, the government would not say. There were reports of stuff being buried out there before these symptoms accured.

When sueing the government for damages (and too find out what they were exposed to so they could treat it) the PRESIDENT OF THE USA, CLINTON, signed this order


I hereby exempt the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, from any Federal, State, interstate or local provision respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that would require the disclosure of classified information concerning the operating location to any unauthorized person



The USAF claims they can't tell what the substance is due to national security so the lawsuits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.


Isn't that just great, a company can be fined and someone who knowingly polutes can be arrested, but the President of the USA can exempt the government from a lawsuit.

And before you say anything, this was first signed by Clinton, however Bush has kept it valid by resigning it.

hey its laws like that that keep america safe for pizza, so if you wanna fight them over here then go ahead and require the military to follow rules meant for the public.

hey its laws like that that keep america safe for pizza, so if you wanna fight them over here then go ahead and require the military to follow rules meant for the public.



So you are saying that the government is above the law??? No, the military need to follow the same laws as the rest of us. If they polute and dump illegaly, then they need to be held responsible.

I found an interesting law on the books today. I will post it shortly when I find conformation on it.

Ah, I found a cover up??


Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations
1211.100 Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space

Part 1211 - Extra-terrestrial Exposure

1211.100 - Scope


This part establishes: (a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body; and (b) security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are necessary in the interest of national security.
1211.101 - Applicability


The provisions of this part to all NASA manned and unmanned space missions which land or come within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body and return to the Earth.
1211.102 - Definitions


(a) "NASA" and the "Administrator" mean, respectively the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or his authorized representative.

(b) "Extra-terrestrially exposed" means the state of condition of any person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever, who or which has:

(1) Touched directly or come within the atmospheric envelope or any other celestial body; or

(2) Touched directly or been in close proximity to (or been exposed indirectly to ) any person, property, animal or other form of life or matter who or which has been extra-terrestrially exposed by virtue of paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

For example, if person or thing "A" touches the surface of the Moon, and on "A's" return to Earth, "B" touches "A" and, subsequently, "C" touches "B", all of these - "A" through "C" inclusive - would be extra-terrestrially exposed ("A" and "B" directly; "C" indirectly).

(c) "Quarantine" means the detention, examination and decontamination of any persons, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever that is extra-terrestrially exposed, and includes the apprehension or seizure of such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever.

(d) "Quarantine period" means a period of consecutive calendar days as may be established in accordance with 1211.104 (a).



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Administrative Actions. The Administrator or his designee..shall in his discretion:

(1) Determine the beginning and duration of a quarantine period with respect to any space mission; the quarantine period as it applies to various life forms will be announced.

(2) Designate in writing quarantine officers to exercise quarantine authority.

(3) Determine that a particular person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever is extra- terrestrially exposed and quarantine such person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever. The quarantine may be based only on a determination, with or without the benefit of a hearing, that there is probable cause to believe that such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever is extra-terrestrially exposed.

(4) Determine within the United States or within vessels or vehicles of the United States the place, boundaries, and rules of operation of necessary quarantine stations.

(5) Provide for guard services by contract or otherwise, as many be necessary, to maintain security and inviolability of quarantine stations and quarantined persons, property, animals or other form of life or matter whatever.

(6) Provide for the subsistence, health and welfare of persons quarantined under the provisions of this part.

(7) Hold such hearings at such times, in such manner and for such purposes as may be desirable or necessary under this part, including hearings for the purpose of creating a record for use in making any determination under this part for the purpose of reviewing any such determination.

(b) (3) During any period of announced quarantine, no person shall enter or depart from the limits of the quarantine station without permission of the cognizant NASA officer. During such period, the posted perimeter of a quarantine station shall be secured by armed guard.

(b) (4) Any person who enters the limits of any quarantine station during the quarantine period shall be deemed to have consented to the quarantine of his person if it is determined that he is or has become extra-terrestrially exposed.

(b) (5) At the earliest practicable time, each person who is quarantined by NASA shall be given a reasonable opportunity to communicate by telephone with legal counsel or other persons of his choice.
1211.107 Court or other process


(a) NASA officers and employees are prohibited from discharging from the limits of a quarantine station any quarantined person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever during order or other request, order or demand an announced quarantine period in compliance with a subpoena, show cause or any court or other authority without the prior approval of the General Counsel and the Administrator.

(b) Where approval to discharge a quarantined person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever in compliance with such a request, order or demand of any court or other authority is not given, the person to whom it is directed shall, if possible, appear in court or before the other authority and respectfully state his inability to comply, relying for his action on this 1211.107.
1211.108 Violations


Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate any provision of this part or any regulation or order issued under this part or who enters or departs from the limits of a quarantine station in disregard of the quarantine rules or regulations or without permission of the NASA quarantine officer shall be fined not more that $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.




This regulation was inacted on July 16th, 1969 and repealed in 1991 saying it was no longer needed.

The section is listed as "Reserved" on the books now. web page (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/14cfrv5_01.html)

So, was this a cover up?? Did the government delete this off the books because A) contact with ET/UFO is not harmfull to your health or B) to quite the UFOlogists??

Why I posted this here??? I have no idea.

mmmm, when I was in Vegas a few days ago, we drove out to "Area 51".

We personally saw the Grey Ford 150 pick up trucks parked on the hilltops around the entrance of this area. We also could see the radar/camera system set up on the other hill. We also took a picture of the sign that says "Deadly force Authorized"

Out of curiosity, I looked up some stuff on the Groom Lake area.

Did you know that in the 1990's, several workers out at the Groom lake base got sick. When asked what they were contaminated with, the government would not say. There were reports of stuff being buried out there before these symptoms accured.

When sueing the government for damages (and too find out what they were exposed to so they could treat it) the PRESIDENT OF THE USA, CLINTON, signed this order


I hereby exempt the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, from any Federal, State, interstate or local provision respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that would require the disclosure of classified information concerning the operating location to any unauthorized person



The USAF claims they can't tell what the substance is due to national security so the lawsuits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.


Isn't that just great, a company can be fined and someone who knowingly polutes can be arrested, but the President of the USA can exempt the government from a lawsuit.

And before you say anything, this was first signed by Clinton, however Bush has kept it valid by resigning it.



Za, sometimes you just amaze me! Not only is the government above the law, so is big business and for the most part the rich.

Have you looked at the Patriot Act? Basically it exempts any manufacturer from suit if they hose the military or military personnel.

BTW - All Presidents, Dem and otherwise have followed similar courses to the one Clinton took. Pathetic at best.

Ah, I found a cover up??


Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations
1211.100 Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space

Part 1211 - Extra-terrestrial Exposure

1211.100 - Scope


This part establishes: (a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body; and (b) security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are necessary in the interest of national security.
1211.101 - Applicability


The provisions of this part to all NASA manned and unmanned space missions which land or come within the atmospheric envelope of a celestial body and return to the Earth.
1211.102 - Definitions


(a) "NASA" and the "Administrator" mean, respectively the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or his authorized representative.

(b) "Extra-terrestrially exposed" means the state of condition of any person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever, who or which has:

(1) Touched directly or come within the atmospheric envelope or any other celestial body; or

(2) Touched directly or been in close proximity to (or been exposed indirectly to ) any person, property, animal or other form of life or matter who or which has been extra-terrestrially exposed by virtue of paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

For example, if person or thing "A" touches the surface of the Moon, and on "A's" return to Earth, "B" touches "A" and, subsequently, "C" touches "B", all of these - "A" through "C" inclusive - would be extra-terrestrially exposed ("A" and "B" directly; "C" indirectly).

(c) "Quarantine" means the detention, examination and decontamination of any persons, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever that is extra-terrestrially exposed, and includes the apprehension or seizure of such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever.

(d) "Quarantine period" means a period of consecutive calendar days as may be established in accordance with 1211.104 (a).



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Administrative Actions. The Administrator or his designee..shall in his discretion:

(1) Determine the beginning and duration of a quarantine period with respect to any space mission; the quarantine period as it applies to various life forms will be announced.

(2) Designate in writing quarantine officers to exercise quarantine authority.

(3) Determine that a particular person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever is extra- terrestrially exposed and quarantine such person, property, animal, or other form of life or matter whatever. The quarantine may be based only on a determination, with or without the benefit of a hearing, that there is probable cause to believe that such person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever is extra-terrestrially exposed.

(4) Determine within the United States or within vessels or vehicles of the United States the place, boundaries, and rules of operation of necessary quarantine stations.

(5) Provide for guard services by contract or otherwise, as many be necessary, to maintain security and inviolability of quarantine stations and quarantined persons, property, animals or other form of life or matter whatever.

(6) Provide for the subsistence, health and welfare of persons quarantined under the provisions of this part.

(7) Hold such hearings at such times, in such manner and for such purposes as may be desirable or necessary under this part, including hearings for the purpose of creating a record for use in making any determination under this part for the purpose of reviewing any such determination.

(b) (3) During any period of announced quarantine, no person shall enter or depart from the limits of the quarantine station without permission of the cognizant NASA officer. During such period, the posted perimeter of a quarantine station shall be secured by armed guard.

(b) (4) Any person who enters the limits of any quarantine station during the quarantine period shall be deemed to have consented to the quarantine of his person if it is determined that he is or has become extra-terrestrially exposed.

(b) (5) At the earliest practicable time, each person who is quarantined by NASA shall be given a reasonable opportunity to communicate by telephone with legal counsel or other persons of his choice.
1211.107 Court or other process


(a) NASA officers and employees are prohibited from discharging from the limits of a quarantine station any quarantined person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever during order or other request, order or demand an announced quarantine period in compliance with a subpoena, show cause or any court or other authority without the prior approval of the General Counsel and the Administrator.

(b) Where approval to discharge a quarantined person, property, animal or other form of life or matter whatever in compliance with such a request, order or demand of any court or other authority is not given, the person to whom it is directed shall, if possible, appear in court or before the other authority and respectfully state his inability to comply, relying for his action on this 1211.107.
1211.108 Violations


Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate any provision of this part or any regulation or order issued under this part or who enters or departs from the limits of a quarantine station in disregard of the quarantine rules or regulations or without permission of the NASA quarantine officer shall be fined not more that $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.




This regulation was inacted on July 16th, 1969 and repealed in 1991 saying it was no longer needed.

The section is listed as "Reserved" on the books now. web page (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/14cfrv5_01.html)

So, was this a cover up?? Did the government delete this off the books because A) contact with ET/UFO is not harmfull to your health or B) to quite the UFOlogists??

Why I posted this here??? I have no idea.



Huh? You do realize that extraterrestrial means not of earth. It doesn't mean alien intelligence.

Remember that in 1969 we thought that there might be bacterial life in space (remember the andrameda strain?). NASA was afraid they would bring some contaminating virus from space that would wipe out mankind hence the rule. Once we got out there we realized there was nothing there that could survive the harsh radiation and vaccum so they eliminated the rule.

No, I don't believe that extraterrestrials have visited earth. If they had we'd either be an alien resort destination or a source of cheap matterials and labor. If we were discovered, unlike in Star Trek, there'd be no "let them develop on their own." We'd have been used!

I do think there is intelligent life out there. There has to be. Being as there isn't any here!

The Prius vs. Hummer editorial in the Recorder rehashes some of the main points of a report done by CNW Marketing Research that has been endlessly circulated on the internet and shamelessly referenced by conservative radio hosts.

Unfortunately, Chris Demorro repeats assertions that have already been debunked. He claims the Hummer will last three times as long as a Prius without supporting documentation. He insinuates that all the environmental degradation in Sudbury, Ontario comes from Toyota purchasing nickel. INCO has been mining nickel near Sudbury for over 100 years and produces about 125,000 tons per year. Toyota purchases 1000 tons per year. Also, INCO has cleaned up its operations in recent years (notice the article slips into past tense when it refers to the pollution). The editorial fails to mention that all Prius batteries are recouped and recycled. Demorro draws attention to the 25% decrease in estimated gas mileage for the Prius due to the new EPA test, but fails to mention that the estimated mileage of all cars will be dropping due to the new test. The list goes on.

The Toyota Prius is essentially a prototype, a step towards producing the low emission cars that we must develop to deal with our huge carbon dioxide problem. The Hummer is an extended middle finger directed towards all future generations.

Until now, I hated the H2 and H3. They are not Hummers, this is the ONE TRUE HUMMER (http://www.firstdefense.com/html/hummer_Ballistic_glass.jpg).

The Hummer is an extended middle finger directed towards all future generations.


But after reading this, I really want one now!

The Prius vs. Hummer editorial in the Recorder rehashes some of the main points of a report done by CNW Marketing Research that has been endlessly circulated on the internet and shamelessly referenced by conservative radio hosts.

Unfortunately, Chris Demorro repeats assertions that have already been debunked. He claims the Hummer will last three times as long as a Prius without supporting documentation. He insinuates that all the environmental degradation in Sudbury, Ontario comes from Toyota purchasing nickel. INCO has been mining nickel near Sudbury for over 100 years and produces about 125,000 tons per year. Toyota purchases 1000 tons per year. Also, INCO has cleaned up its operations in recent years (notice the article slips into past tense when it refers to the pollution). The editorial fails to mention that all Prius batteries are recouped and recycled. Demorro draws attention to the 25% decrease in estimated gas mileage for the Prius due to the new EPA test, but fails to mention that the estimated mileage of all cars will be dropping due to the new test. The list goes on.

The Toyota Prius is essentially a prototype, a step towards producing the low emission cars that we must develop to deal with our huge carbon dioxide problem. The Hummer is an extended middle finger directed towards all future generations.




Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The Hummer is in reality a giant phallic symbol for men with tiny reproductive organs... and the whole middle finger thingy.

Good lookin' out, Wayne!

Until now, I hated the H2 and H3. They are not Hummers, this is the ONE TRUE HUMMER (http://www.firstdefense.com/html/hummer_Ballistic_glass.jpg).

The Hummer is an extended middle finger directed towards all future generations.


But after reading this, I really want one now!



I've never quite understood the fascination with this vehicle, other than the phallic symbol thingy. I mean it looks like a school bus after all. My 4 year old likes to point out school buses on the road and Hummers always get a, "look dad, a school bus!" If even my 4 year old can get it, why can't the average American Male?

I've got no problem with the H2, H3, H256, etc....

They should just never be driven. Just something to sit in the driveway and make the lawn look nice. Like an oversized garden knome.

I've got no problem with the H2, H3, H256, etc....

They should just never be driven. Just something to sit in the driveway and make the lawn look nice. Like an oversized garden knome.



Kind of like a pink cadillac?

it's all he said/she said......it's all a conspiracy

it's all he said/she said......it's all a conspiracy


has a term already been coined for someone that pops his/her head into an online discussion, says something cryptic to stir the pot, and then vanishes?

it kinda reminds me of the time somebody ran into the student radio station where about a dozen of us were hanging out for a techno show and yelled, "stop you must, the discrimination against people with rubber heads!" They happened to be dressed like this:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/yoda.gif

This (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-sheep-albedo-feedbacki/) just in.

This (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-sheep-albedo-feedbacki/) just in.



Now that was some pretty funny reading.

The IPCC report on the impacts of climate change will be released tomorrow. A preview of the still emerging document can be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6524251.stm) . Expected lowlights include fresh water shortages for billions, lower crop yields in most regions, mass extinctions and more floods and drought. The key point is that many impacts of climate change are being observed now.

Cool, can't wait for the heat wave...

Yeah for real, we have snow in the forcast tonight.....in Arkansas. This global warming thing is a [censored]! We've had more snow this winter then the last 5 combined.

It must be all that.......oh, dang, what's trendy right now......Atkins, no......Britney Spears.......Justin......no......Starbucks......oh , CO2....that's it.....all that CO2 is causing this snow....I mean global warming.....

It must be all that.......oh, dang, what's trendy right now......Atkins, no......Britney Spears.......Justin......no......Starbucks......oh , CO2....that's it.....all that CO2 is causing this snow....I mean global warming.....



I believe that an understanding of global warming theory would clear this up for you.

BTW - I wouldn't call global warming trendy, starting a war with Iraq to avenge your perception that your daddy lost face, now that's trendy!

Well I have to admit I don't know much about global warming theory, but could you tell me how this fits into it?
http://drought.unl.edu/risk/us/%25droughtlg.gif

Here's some fun reading for you, that is, those of you who believe in science. It's the report based on a survey sent to Environmental Scientists asking about what changes they've had to make in their publications to placate the White House or White House political appointees...

Now, if the White House doesn't believe, why are they manipulating the science, and why are they appointing Exxon employees to monitor scientific publications?

Summary: http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=853

Report: http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

Why don't you tell us the point you're trying to make and then we can address it?

Nice chart though. Do you think the same areas are experiencing drought today that were 100 years ago? Do you think the severity and pattern of drought is the same? Do you think the overall climate picture is the same?

Why does everyone assume that by asking a question that I am secretly stating a fact or trying to make a point?
izink made a statement about more droughts. I found a study that showed drought severity for each year. I see a very regular pattern with anomolies around 1935 and 1955. I was simply asking how this fits into global warming theory as I know very little about it.

Why does everyone assume that by asking a question that I am secretly stating a fact or trying to make a point?
izink made a statement about more droughts. I found a study that showed drought severity for each year. I see a very regular pattern with anomolies around 1935 and 1955. I was simply asking how this fits into global warming theory as I know very little about it.



Ahhhh! I see, well since you aren't making a point perhaps you can explain to us why you think your chart shows a regular pattern? Perhaps you should talk to your advisor about statistical analysis? Also, is your chart indicitive of the world as a whole? Just curious.

dang I wish I had more time for research on this subject, that way I could name names of scientists who have changed there mind or at least said that Co2 has ZERO to do with the current slight warm up of ONLY the Northern part of the planet.

Co2 is up, no question about that. But is it up because of the heat or our actions on the planet. That is the real question.

Anyone, including scientists saying that the current high levels of co2 are going to cause more global warming are GUESSINIG.

This is not based on facts, but computer models that are not working, and have not worked before.

Shoot, last year we were suppose to have more large hurricanes than the year before. When in fact there were MUCH LESS.

BTW, the same people are saying the same thing about this years hurricane season. Who knows, they could actually get it right.

Don't forget that in the 1970's, scientists were saying we were headed into a ice age or global cooling. Well guess what, there same reasons for that perdiction are what they are now saying is causing global warming.

BTW, I do have a problem with the Bush Administration attidude on the subject. As per par, they have handled it wrong again.

How much longer till 2009????? It will be nice having some one differant to complain about.

Ahhhh! I see, well since you aren't making a point perhaps you can explain to us why you think your chart shows a regular pattern?


I'm just saying, there "might" be a linear trend towards our current year. But it looks like every 10-15 there is a peak and it oscillates with anomolies around '35 and '55.

Perhaps you should talk to your advisor about statistical analysis?


That would be a waste of both our times. My advisor's research, as well as my research, is pretty black and white. We don't need to fudge numbers, we'll leave that to insurance companies.

Also, is your chart indicitive of the world as a whole? Just curious.


Lyle, I know you can read. Read the title of the chart.

mmmm, aaah, snowed in Dallas today. Must be that Warming trend :D

mmmm another thing to ponder.

Scientists believe the tempature of Mars has increased recently.................

Must be our Global Warming.

Those stupid martians and their **** SUVs!

yea, the atomosphere of Mars is 95% Co2.

BTW, the Polar Dry Ice Caps have been shrinking the last few years.

Those stupid martians and their **** SUVs!


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Oops, wrong thread. :)

mmmm, aaah, snowed in Dallas today. Must be that Warming trend :D

its CLIMATE CHANGE, za, not "global warming". the problem with calling it global warming is that is gives the uninformed and misguided an opportunity to say things like "oh wow dude, it snowed in dallas one day in april. sound like its getting colder not warmer. stupid scientists."

what you are not grasping is that there is more water in the air cuz ice has melted. with more water in the air it is more likely that it will condense. a little north breeze comes down and meets a wetter than usual atmosphere, and you have snow.

dont fear global warming. fear what comes after it.

mmmm, aaah, snowed in Dallas today. Must be that Warming trend :D

its CLIMATE CHANGE, za, not "global warming". the problem with calling it global warming is that is gives the uninformed and misguided an opportunity to say things like "oh wow dude, it snowed in dallas one day in april. sound like its getting colder not warmer. stupid scientists."

what you are not grasping is that there is more water in the air cuz ice has melted. with more water in the air it is more likely that it will condense. a little north breeze comes down and meets a wetter than usual atmosphere, and you have snow.

dont fear global warming. fear what comes after it.



Especially given that I've posted in the past that global warming doesn't mean a constant upward trend in overall temps, but a general upward trend with more overall variabiliy in temperatures, like snow in Dallas in April. Your snow Za, is indicitive of global warming, not contrary to it!

BTW - the concept that global warming might result in an ice age isn't far fetched. One result of the warming trend is that a stable oceanic current that warms England and Greenland is being disrupted. That current keeps England and Greenland a lot warmer than they would otherwise be. If that current stops then life in England and Greenland is going to be a lot less... warm.

Thinking simplistically about global warming is a mistake! The concept that experimenting on the world you live in because afterall, a little bit of warmth is a good thing, seems irresponsible.

I just want to point out that I still don't believe that "We" are causing the weather. It is all natural, that is the problem I have with the "Global Warming" theory.

Who here thinks we humans are having NO effect on our planet with fossil fuel/coal burning?

I'm sure it's been mentioned here: warmer ocean waters hold less oxygen in solution - thus making less oxygen available to marine life.

I also remember reading back in the early 90s how commercial overfishing has resulted in less fish 'poop' which plankton feed on...yielding less photosynthesis/conversion of CO2 to oxygen. Some of his oxygen stays in solution for ocean life, and some is released into the atmosphere.

za, in that case everything is "natural" and can thus excused. taxes, war, slavery... after all "we" didnt cause those events, they just happened.

No Taxes were government made, war is government made, and slavery was man made. They were all controled by someone.

You can not control the weather, you can not control the spin of the earth, you can not control the our orbit around the sun. You can not control the solar flares. You can not control the ocean currents.

This is what effects our weather.

nonsense.

you can control the weather. the problem is that an individual's contribution to a global problem is so small the individual cannot see his contribution directly. he does not notice a worldwide temperature rise every time he drives his car.

but Za, take a look at the brown haze you are breathing. we'll have some good opportunities to see it as soon as early summer hits. tell me that aint manmade and tell me man did not cause it.

you can also control the ocean currents. not control like building a "fast/slow" knob that responds instantly, but control as in doing things that change those currents - just like doing things that create that brown air.

your post makes is sound like you believe that there are only four inputs to weather: Spin of the Earth, the planet's orbit, solar flares, and ocean currents.

gnats affect horses. the end up getting swatted with a tail, but the relative size of the gnat does not render it meaningless to the horse. it would be highly foolish to believe that Man is so small he cannot influence the climate

I just want to point out that I still don't believe that "We" are causing the weather. It is all natural, that is the problem I have with the "Global Warming" theory.


So, you're saying that the squirrels created this thick, nasty weather phenomenon, called smog:

http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/US-Los-Angeles-Smog-1-2.jpg

ok, lets take giant icebergs and pull them into the gulf of mexico so we don't get huge hurricains. It's the warm water of the Gulf that make the hurricanes bigger.

yes, the Co2 amount is huge right now, however, has much as it has risen, the tempature has only slightly risen???

You really want to do something, plant more tree's and plants. They use up the Co2. They actually thrive on it. One result of more co2 should be healthier plants.

And don't say that more Co2 will cause it to rain less, because one of the biggest droughts our country has ever seen was 70 years ago.

I have never said pollution is a good thing. In fact it is a bad thing. Our cars put out less polution now than ever before. As I have pointed out before, if you spill 1 tablespoon of gas, you just poluted more than your new car will for a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weather effects polution more than polution could ever effect the weather. If you have a windy day, you have less "smog".

Did anyone notice that the days after 9/11 how clear the skys were in most of the country. There were no airplanes!!!!

Weather effects polution more than polution could ever effect the weather. If you have a windy day, you have less "smog".

wrong again - your downwind neighbors have your smog. but way to think like a Libertarian.


Did anyone notice that the days after 9/11 how clear the skys were in most of the country. There were no airplanes!!!!

OMG. i just snarfed AND [censored] my pants just from reading that one sentence.

I am done....

I just posted things I have come across or heard about. It was food for thought. But when you are set in your ways, nothing can be said or done to make you see the other point of view.

Read about the IPCC study and the way it was developed. You might change your opinion on there study.

IPCC Study error (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/05/an-error-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers-on-the-2005-global-average-radiative-forcing/)

____________________________________

mmm, when I was away from my computer, my DSL connection stopped working. I had to call Verison to get it working again. I have never had to do that at work. Coincidence???? That is the question. :D

BTW, read the comments below the article, there is a good debate between the guy from another web site and the guy from this article/web sit. (along with other links and comments)

This scientist says exactly what I have been trying to say.

Article (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)

Another artical about Allegre (http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art1210)

FYI..... The Tyler Environmental Prize, that was started in California by the late John and Alice Tyler in 1973 in 1996 went to three researchers whose work on measuring isotopes of elements in polar ice core samples is the basis for much of today 's climate change research.

Some of that work leads researchers in opposite directions, for example, isotopes Oxygen-18 and Deuterium in accumulated glacier ice is used as an indicator of past climate, while the isotope Berryllium-10 indicates a record of solar activity. The Beryllium-10 study has also been backed up by moon soil samples returned to earth by the Apollo moon landings.

This is why there's still an ongoing debate in science, despite what some say. Study of the polar ice cores yield results that point to opposite climatic mechanisms, depending on what the researchers are looking for. Things are never as they seem. But one thing is for sure, the Main strean media will push doom and gloom, end of the world is nye, left-wing news right down your throat every day without any real common ground scientific fact to back it up,,,,,

But one thing is for sure, the Main strean media will push doom and gloom, end of the world is nye, left-wing news right down your throat every day without any real common ground scientific fact to back it up

ok, back up that claim... i'll wait

I don't have to, just turn on your radio, TV or open up any news paper, and the spin doctors are working hard to make the masses believe, right along with Algore the energy eating cookie monster who uses 50 times as much much energy in his so called (and soon to be taxed) "personal carbon footprint" than any other household on the planet...

What exactly is "real common ground scientific fact"? Just curious...

Scientific fact that has actually been acepted by the entire scientific community. As I was pointing out (and as usual) the system being used to prove global warming is flawed and can be interpreted in several ways and points to more than just human interaction and gas emissions as the cause for what has been happening on our planet for thousands of years before we even started recording weather data......

The politicians like Gore are just out to make a buck and Tax the you-know-what out of us for our carbon footprint. The Global Warming Scare is the vehicle for the tax crazy politicains to get their money... Meanwhile say goodby to the ecomomy when they get their way and restrict our processes and factories to the point that they up and move to China/India and start emitting gases there instead of here..... Final effect... No actual environmental change except we have no commerce and are a soon to be third world nation :confused:

And you know this from attending atmospheric science conferences and reading the peer-reviewed literate regarding climate change? Maybe interacting with scientists in the field? Or do you get it from newspapers? Again, just curious...

I have been reading articles from searching the topic on the interent and in the online news paper articles.. I do not claim to be an expert on any of this. I had to do some lengthy term papers in college a few years back on global warming and deforestation and reseached the topics back then. The evidence I compiled led me to believe that there are many changes in the climate that were happening just like today 100,000 of years ago, before man was out driving his Hummer around with a can of hair spray in his hand. There needs to be more conclusive evidence in regards to the coorellation between man and the effects of the global warming for me to believe it.... :DBottom Line: It is my opinion. However, I do agree that there are some interesting weather anomalies occuring lately...

I will give you an example of the Liberal Media showing doom and gloom

Which have you heard more about on the news.

Yesterdays celibratiton of the ousting of Sadam, celibrated by most of the country, or the Todays group lead by Al-Sadr in protest of the American Ocupation. (Al-Sadr's father was killed by Sadam's men, ungrateful bastard)

4 years ago, they could not have protested like that. Now they can.

I saw one quick news broadcast on the celibration of Iraq independance from Sadam. Then all they talked about was Al-Sadr and his protest scheduled for today. Today, that is all I am seeing and reading about.

BTY, I see that you list yourself as a scientist, so I suspect that you have interaction with other scientists, where I do not?But I do see the political connections and motivations in this issue, Do you? Just curious....

One problem with scientists comming out and saying that the data could be wrong or read wrong is that others denounce them. Peer pressure, if you want to call it that. I have read about several scientists and weather guys who have lost jobs or be chastise for saying that the data is wrong or even could be wrong.

Remember, "Global Warming" is a theory, having it caused by man is a bigger theory.

A Theory is not a stated fact.

definitions of Theory

A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.



A Theory can be based on facts, but it can also be wrong. I don't like what the global warming theories are based on. It all looks like natural change in climate. This is why I say we will just have to wait several years to know if there theory is true. I hope it is not true, but it could be, that is why it is a theory.

I remember reading about how scientists back in the day thought the world was flat. That the sun rotated around us. In fact, if you came out saying otherwise, you were cast out. (BTW, I do believe they have been proven wrong and that you will not fall off the end of the earth. I think they have also provene that we rotate around the sun instead of it rotating arounds us)

BTY, I see that you list yourself as a scientist, so I suspect that you have interaction with other scientists, where I do not?But I do see the political connections and motivations in this issue, Do you? Just curious....



Sure, I worked for the EPA for nearly three years. It is the opinion of many there that the political pressures are primarily in the opposite direction from the one you suggest.

The Global Warming Scare is the vehicle for the tax crazy politicains to get their money...



Substitute "Iraq" for "Global Warming" and "war" for "tax"

I don't have to, just turn on your radio, TV or open up any news paper, and the spin doctors are working hard to make the masses believe, right along with Algore the energy eating cookie monster who uses 50 times as much much energy in his so called (and soon to be taxed) "personal carbon footprint" than any other household on the planet...

50 times more than any other household? puhlease. thats not even an attempt at dialog. and you criticize the "biased media".

This is my favorite thread! Listening to 2 non-scientist texans argue about the weather is classic.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/lilshorty6478/arguing.jpg

I think they have also provene that we rotate around the sun instead of it rotating arounds us

the only thing wrong with thinking the sun revolves around the earth is that the math gets a lot tougher.

I think they have also provene that we rotate around the sun instead of it rotating arounds us

the only thing wrong with thinking the sun revolves around the earth is that the math gets a lot tougher.


This is a fact! It's not that much of a problem with 2-body systems, but if you were to try and solve the orbits of the 7 (really 8) other planets using the earth as the center of coordinates it would be a nightmare.

[QUOTE]
50 times more than any other household? puhlease. thats not even an attempt at dialog. and you criticize the "biased media".



So I exagerated... It's all in fun. The bottom line for me is just that. I love posting stuff in these discussion boards to read the lovely responses I can generate with my form of logic. I am not a scientist. I am not a politician. In fact the only thing I am really good at is playing disc golf, and I am not even that good, but it sure is fun. So if anyone happens to drive by Al Gores house, get ready for a hair raising experience, because you might just get amped up by being in the mere presence of his energy eating super home. Just remember, most of us don't have the position to use a debated theory and a movie to bilk millions of dollars from the public with, and we couldn't even afford the electricity he uses to run half the lights in his house :D

I don't have to, just turn on your radio, TV or open up any news paper, and the spin doctors are working hard to make the masses believe, right along with Algore the energy eating cookie monster who uses 50 times as much much energy in his so called (and soon to be taxed) "personal carbon footprint" than any other household on the planet...

50 times more than any other household? puhlease. thats not even an attempt at dialog. and you criticize the "biased media".



Actually, Za is right, the day after 9/11 they saw a huge decrease in a number of pollutants. It's truly frightening how much of an impact air travel is having on the air we breath.

BTW - for those that feel that the political scene is impacting us towards supporting global warming, peruse this thread back a few days. There has been a study showing how the Bush Administration has imposed direct editing on science studies to downplay global warming. I posted a link.

It's absolutely hilarious to read the anti-global warming posts here. You've got to be pretty hard core to look beyond what is happening. It gives me great faith that when all else fails, the only constants are death, taxes, and an inate desire to ignore the obvious if it isn't what you want to believe.

The liberal media thing gets really old. The media in this country, including NPR, is very conservative. Is there anyone out there that really thinks Viacom, General Electric, and Disney are liberal? Fox, CNN, or Murdock?

The stuff that we learn in our news gets covered months in advance in the rest of the world. We get it when it becomes so obvious that our news orgs can't ignore it any more. You want real news listen to the CBC, BBC or at least Democracy Now; they knew about Enron years before we did. They knew that Bush lied about WMD years before our news admitted it. The fact that our news is just now realizing that Global Warming is real means the rest of the world has been talking about it for years.

The reality is that Global Warming is coming, the sad part is that those causing it will pay the lowest price for their hubris. As always it will be the poor and unprotected who will suffer the most. Ain't it a beautiful world.

If the media is liberal, why did they show Bush's little tet-a-tet on the aircraft carrier without pointing out that the war wasn't really over? The news likes a good story, but it's better if it gets them a war. Global warming is too hard for the public to understand.

This is my favorite thread! Listening to 2 non-scientist texans argue about the weather is classic.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/lilshorty6478/arguing.jpg



On the other hand, you still haven't explained to us why you think your chart has a repeated pattern. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif At least Za has an excuse.

Well if I had the raw data I could do a Fourier analysis/transform and see what the frequencies of oscillations were, if any, but I don't. But, as I said before, it "looks" (meaning visual inspection) like a cycle that repeats every 10-15 years with anomolies around 1935 and 1955.

BTW, Lyle, I am not arguing against global warming. That's something that easy to measure and seems to be true. But proclaiming that we are the cause is vain, at best.

Hello again, it's me.. The "Californian" Non-scientist no-it-all dude with more words of wisdom (Hi Lyle)... I agree with Colin, there are and have been signs of global warming even before man was a factor (nothing new).... But the big hype about man being the main cause is something I have a problem with. The methods are flawed and just like many other things being presented in schools (like evolution) are based on fudged data... Theories that have been presented as fact to the world.... So at the base of the towering evidence presented as fact is no foundation, only speculation and fudge :D(fudged data I mean)

Actually, Za is right, the day after 9/11 they saw a huge decrease in a number of pollutants. It's truly frightening how much of an impact air travel is having on the air we breath.



no more worries about "Global Warming', hell has frozen over :D

The methods are flawed and just like many other things being presented in schools (like evolution) are based on fudged data...



Yep, Darwin completely made up everything.

He was a godless data fudger. ;)

BTW, Lyle, I am not arguing against global warming. That's something that easy to measure and seems to be true. But proclaiming that we are the cause is vain, at best.



As oppossed to assuming that the scientific data that shows the addition of pollution to our atmosphere is contributing?

Instead, you post a chart that gives an impression but means nothing to support your point. Please refer to my signature.

The observation that global warming has occurred in the past and will occur in the future isn't exactly a keen one. Are you saying that you know better than the climatologists who study this and conclude that we are impacting global weather? If I didn't know better I might think that vain.

Hello again, it's me.. The "Californian" Non-scientist no-it-all dude with more words of wisdom (Hi Lyle)... I agree with Colin, there are and have been signs of global warming even before man was a factor (nothing new).... But the big hype about man being the main cause is something I have a problem with. The methods are flawed and just like many other things being presented in schools (like evolution) are based on fudged data... Theories that have been presented as fact to the world.... So at the base of the towering evidence presented as fact is no foundation, only speculation and fudge :D(fudged data I mean)



Hey Senior, my Aggie friends tell me a joke about California but repeating it here would get me banned. To my knowledge, no one has said that man is or isn't the main contributor to global warming, just a contributor. If you live in a house made of wood and it's on fire do you continue to pour gas on the doorstep simply because, "well, the main contributor to the fire is the fuel oil in the basement that started the fire?" If we are contributing, why not stop? For the most part it is easy enough. Heck, just turn off the lights at night and you'd cut our use by 25%. Seems kind of stupid to me not to.

Now, as for fudged data. So what you're saying is that every scientist from what was it, 1859 to today has bought into some global conspiracy about evolution perpetrating a mass fraud on the entire world? WOW! That's incredible! Did you know that it wasn't planes that brought down the World Trade Center? Yep, the government planted bombs so they could start a war with the Middle East.

Actually, Za is right, the day after 9/11 they saw a huge decrease in a number of pollutants. It's truly frightening how much of an impact air travel is having on the air we breath.



no more worries about "Global Warming', hell has frozen over :D



What I like most about Za is that no matter how rude you are to him he is always polite... and funny. Thanks Za!

BTW, Lyle, I am not arguing against global warming. That's something that easy to measure and seems to be true. But proclaiming that we are the cause is vain, at best.



As oppossed to assuming that the scientific data that shows the addition of pollution to our atmosphere is contributing?

Instead, you post a chart that gives an impression but means nothing to support your point. Please refer to my signature.

The observation that global warming has occurred in the past and will occur in the future isn't exactly a keen one. Are you saying that you know better than the climatologists who study this and conclude that we are impacting global weather? If I didn't know better I might think that vain.


Lyle, I am saying that if one were to look at the BIG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png) picture, and not just the last 20 years' data, one might just see how insignificant our impact will be. Does that mean we should pollute to our hearts content? No, of course not. Do I think we'll change the planet in some catastrophic way? No. Do I think that we're only hurting ourselves and some animal life? Yes. When mother nature is tired of having us here, she'll let us know.....If we don't kill ourselves first. When we are gone, we will have been like a drop of water in the ocean, and the earth will take maybe a week to heal from what we have done.

BTW, Lyle, I am not arguing against global warming. That's something that easy to measure and seems to be true. But proclaiming that we are the cause is vain, at best.



As oppossed to assuming that the scientific data that shows the addition of pollution to our atmosphere is contributing?

Instead, you post a chart that gives an impression but means nothing to support your point. Please refer to my signature.

The observation that global warming has occurred in the past and will occur in the future isn't exactly a keen one. Are you saying that you know better than the climatologists who study this and conclude that we are impacting global weather? If I didn't know better I might think that vain.


Lyle, I am saying that if one were to look at the BIG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png) picture, and not just the last 20 years' data, one might just see how insignificant our impact will be. Does that mean we should pollute to our hearts content? No, of course not. Do I think we'll change the planet in some catastrophic way? No. Do I think that we're only hurting ourselves and some animal life? Yes. When mother nature is tired of having us here, she'll let us know.....If we don't kill ourselves first. When we are gone, we will have been like a drop of water in the ocean, and the earth will take maybe a week to heal from what we have done.



O.K., now you have me! In my defense though, I will say that evolution does make us want to take care of ourselves, i.e. the survival instinct is strong. Two other points, first, I don't think we would die out, take a look at the species with the highest survival index, we're right up there with rats and cockaroaches. It is also true, IMO, that the rich will survive this nicely and the poor will suffer. From a moral point of view, this kind of bugs me.

As for the rest, I concede your points and agree. We're just another meteor, volcano, alien invasion... whatever.

There was a sci fi book written in the 70s that looks at a post apocalyptic world where we've been just smart enough not kill ourselves off but kept polluting right along. The image is pretty ugly. One might say that such a situation is our just deserts. On a larger scale, Earth is a pretty small corner of existence afterall.

Last point, my wife lives her life with a certain philosophy, it's sort of a waste not want not philosophy. While your view is correct, again in my opinion, it's also pretty pessimistic. My wife might argue that we should do better and I'd have to say, I agree.

Not to say that your point was incorrect, just an alternate way of looking at it.

I should dig up a paper written by some yahoo with 11k+ posts called "The Case Against Man" where it is argued that the only logical choice we have to save the planet is to completely rid the planet of humans. Bio-diversity would certainly be grateful.

I should dig up a paper written by some yahoo with 11k+ posts called "The Case Against Man" where it is argued that the only logical choice we have to save the planet is to completely rid the planet of humans. Bio-diversity would certainly be grateful.



Now that I want to read!

I do have to say, in retrospect, you're all a bunch of pessimists! No wonder ya can't make yer putts! I'm gettin' me a t-shirt that says save the world and followin' you around on the golf course! :D

I know I come off as pessimistic, but I prefer to think of it as "realism". So many people (not talking about anyone specifically) do not live in the real world.
People have blinders that tend to make them think that their immediate surroundings and timeframe are the most significant. That's why everything in our culture is either "the best" or "the worst" of all time. Many people really believe this.
I think its great that people take up causes and need to feel that they are a part of something much more significant than themselves. However, in reality they are not. The reason I was asserting that the idea of "global warming" was trendy, is because many people pick this cause just to have a stage and some time in the spot-light, and I'm not just talking about Mr. Gore.
At the end of the day, none of us really have an impact on our influence on the environment. The people in charge of Big Oil, Transportation, Energy Plants, etc have us where they want us and they know it. I think that people have the power and they don't know it. If EVERYONE in the world decided not to drive their car for one day, we could cripple Big Oil, but many people will not abandon their lifestyle for even one day to make a difference.

BTW, Lyle, I respect your and everyone else's opinions on this and other topics and I wasn't trying to win the argument. I just wanted everyone to realize where I was comming from and see the big picture. I try not to pollute or use earth's resources anymore than I have to, but then again, I am a product of my environment.

me, I think "Global Warming" is overblown and we really can't do anything about it either way.

BTW, More Climatologists (however you spell it) disagree than you think. In fact they are mostly the ones saying it is being overblown.

Fact is, we don't know what, if any, effect Co2 is going to have on our climate. Only theories.

I'm gettin' me a t-shirt that says save the world...


That's sooooo 1992. :D

I'm pretty sure I have 5 or 6 of 'em in the closet from around then. Maybe they say "Save the Earth". I didn't have a mortgage back then... :cool:

Freaking long hair hippy :D

It's not the short term warming trend that worries me, it's the prolonged Ice Age right behind it.....

dont fear global warming. fear what comes after it.

I know I come off as pessimistic, but I prefer to think of it as "realism". So many people (not talking about anyone specifically) do not live in the real world.
People have blinders that tend to make them think that their immediate surroundings and timeframe are the most significant. That's why everything in our culture is either "the best" or "the worst" of all time. Many people really believe this.
I think its great that people take up causes and need to feel that they are a part of something much more significant than themselves. However, in reality they are not. The reason I was asserting that the idea of "global warming" was trendy, is because many people pick this cause just to have a stage and some time in the spot-light, and I'm not just talking about Mr. Gore.
At the end of the day, none of us really have an impact on our influence on the environment. The people in charge of Big Oil, Transportation, Energy Plants, etc have us where they want us and they know it. I think that people have the power and they don't know it. If EVERYONE in the world decided not to drive their car for one day, we could cripple Big Oil, but many people will not abandon their lifestyle for even one day to make a difference.

BTW, Lyle, I respect your and everyone else's opinions on this and other topics and I wasn't trying to win the argument. I just wanted everyone to realize where I was comming from and see the big picture. I try not to pollute or use earth's resources anymore than I have to, but then again, I am a product of my environment.



I also am big on realism, and am a pretty robust pessimist, but that also includes being informed as to what is happening. Realism here includes the fact that we're messing up the planet and contributing to Global Warming. Even if it is minor it's still true. Understanding the whole picture gives us the best information to determine how we should act, even if our actions only make the world cleaner and IMO a nicer place to live.

On the other hand, the realism comment convinces me you are a scientist... loser! :D However, I strongly suggest optimism, it's a lot funner and less depressing. And you'll make more putts!

I am an advocate of education. Think about the excellent points you make from the viewpoint of education. What if everyone knew, really knew what was going on? How long would big oil remain in power? We'd all be driving smaller cars or taking public transportaion. The world would be very different and much better. Don't fool yourself, real information can turn the biggest idiot into a believer. Discussing or arguing is fine and fun but the secret is education. We've lost this in the last 20 years but in my generation they did a better job.

When I was 15, I was senior... plus. I got educated in a small school in Oregon where the teachers showed me how big oil (business) worked and how our government could mislead us. Ulitimately, it lead me to science and more thinking. I went from a gung-ho conservative to a mix of conservative and liberal values. Education can really change who you are.

As for winning arguements. That's irrelevant. A good point, whether you agree with it or not, should be acknowledged. If it's right, so much the better. Otherwise you look like a donkey. there are two guys that I "discuss" things with on this board, who make points that are hard for me to acknowledge; Pat and Morgan. In those arguments I almost always look the most foolish. In this case I didn't see it as a won or lost argument, rather as acknowledging a great point.

I'm gettin' me a t-shirt that says save the world...


That's sooooo 1992. :D

I'm pretty sure I have 5 or 6 of 'em in the closet from around then. Maybe they say "Save the Earth". I didn't have a mortgage back then... :cool:



1992, Yep, I was 32 and my mind was still flexible. Now it's fixed and I have to use what I have. :D Save the Earth works.

BTW I have two mortgages... :cool: I got in on land in the hottest neighborhood in Houston before the boom. Darn lucky! Now I couldn't afford half a mortgage in my neighborhood. :o

It's not the short term warming trend that worries me, it's the prolonged Ice Age right behind it.....



I think we'll survive even this possibility. Remember that during past ice ages we still did O.K. Of course we'll be leaving all those illegal immigrants here in North America as we move South to Central America. As I said before, the rich won't suffer, not much, as always the poor will.

Envision this, a nuclear powerplant running the world's biggest greenhouse.

In the end, it comes down to liking the world the way it is. We will survive pollution, ice ages and warming trends, but the world won't be what it is today. I like the world I grew up in and want to keep it like it is.

Last point - I don't think an ice age or even global warming per say is our downfall, it will be disease. We will take some hits but it won't be too bad; eventually something like ebola will walk onto a plane and all of this will be moot. Soooo Colin, I match your pessimism and raise. :D

ok, two things (food for thought)

Items I saw on the news.

Yesterday, I saw this on the news article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/07/AR2007040700698.html?nav=rss_print/style) on TV. The problem I have is they they blame "Global Warming" when there is ZERO proof.


Second was on BBC just a few minuets ago (enough to make me log on and post)

interview and story from the Inuit of norther Canada. The reporter goes out with a hunting party on the ice to see what they do. In the story they start talking about "Global Warming" and what it would do to Polar Bears and seals. In interviewing a Inuit game warden, he talks how (in a VERY canadian accent btw) when he goes to the big city he gets mad because of all the cars and polution they cause.

Then he gets on his SNOWMOBILE and rides off to check on other hunters.

Do you get the irony in that??????

Pat.....

Whatever, not worth it

"As I said before, the rich won't suffer, not much, as always the poor will."
Sure, the poor in America will suffer, but the poorest in the world will continue to suffer the most. The poorest nations with the already poor conditions, in Africa, are most likely to suffer the most. Add to Africa, Indonesia and surrounding areas where the Tsunamis will intensify and many villages will be underwater. The humans won't be the ones to really suffer, though, it is the other species that will die out.

"In the end, it comes down to liking the world the way it is. We will survive pollution, ice ages and warming trends, but the world won't be what it is today. I like the world I grew up in and want to keep it like it is."

The world is already not like it was when I grew up. How many species are not here that were in 1965? How much more likely is my son to get skin cancer than my grandparents? Heck, I just liked the idea that i could go crawdad fishing in the fields across the street when I was in elementary school. However, now I can't find field <u>s</u> in my city anymore. Fort Worth seems to value businesses more than parks and gas wells over water and gladly allow clear cutting for home developers.
I agree with Lyle and the scientist ( sorry can't remember your name right off -- 28003?) . What we do individually really won't make that much difference. However, I do believe it is better to make a microscopic positive difference than to make a microscopic negative difference. I do miss the crying Indian ads and the Woodsy Owl --"give a hoot don't polute" campaigns.
Lyle, you wear your "save the Earth" t-shirt and I'll get out my Woodsy Owl lightswitch plate and my love trash can and we can all have a party while sitting around my husband's original Earth Day poster while sitting on the hillside of one of the last fields left in my fair city and watching the cars drive by on the highway below.

tropical diseases will proliferate as temperatures continue to rise. if the worst comes true and water levels rise 20-40 feet, a significant portion of the world's population will head for higher ground - inland and north will be popular. coastal property? not so much. competition for resources will initially lead to inter-national conflicts that threaten the remaining infrastructure, and later cause disintegration of national identities as we fight for food, water and shelter. we will return to a tribal structure. nearly as soon as the survivors get settled away from the rising seas, the ice age starts and forces another mass migration back towards the equator. these two migrations will touch every human on the planet, many of whom may be alive already. god bless 'em.

So, Pat, I'm just curious, for your daughter and for my son, which is worse in your opinion? Perhaps I should rephrase to which is the most important topic of concern for his/her parent.
sex, drugs, global warming (meant to encompass all results from pollution), or something else?
All this really does it take me (help me escape) from the present reality of the parental question I am trying to tackle at the moment:
teething = lack of sleep
so, if you have ideas on that one, I'd love to hear it too. :)

One well placed explosive device could immediately raise sealevel 10 feet.

There is a ridge on Antarctica that is holding back the ice from the ocean and it is thin enough to be blasted away. Thankfully there is no SPECTRE group that has thought about doing this (or had the means).

Happy thought, no?

a very good question, Laura. its difficult to say which one is more important. the sex/drugs thing isn't new, and will continue to be releveant regardless of the impact of climate change. after all, humans will procreate (and wish to practice) until we're extinct, and hemp grows just about everywhere. so i cant escape those topics.

after a lot of thought, i've concluded that preparing my daughter to grow her own food and developing the skills needed to survive in society that is somewhere between agrarian and third-world needs to be part of the overall parenting equation at this point. its kinda wierd (and sad), but preparing to contribute to the international business scene does not cover the range of realistic possibilities anymore.

a very good question, Laura. its difficult to say which one is more important. the sex/drugs thing isn't new, and will continue to be releveant regardless of the impact of climate change. after all, humans will procreate (and wish to practice) until we're extinct, and hemp grows just about everywhere. so i cant escape those topics.

after a lot of thought, i've concluded that preparing my daughter to grow her own food and developing the skills needed to survive in society that is somewhere between agrarian and third-world needs to be part of the overall parenting equation at this point. its kinda wierd (and sad), but preparing to contribute to the international business scene does not cover the range of realistic possibilities anymore.



Sandalman knows what's coming...

So, Pat, I'm just curious, for your daughter and for my son, which is worse in your opinion? Perhaps I should rephrase to which is the most important topic of concern for his/her parent.
sex, drugs, global warming (meant to encompass all results from pollution), or something else?
All this really does it take me (help me escape) from the present reality of the parental question I am trying to tackle at the moment:
teething = lack of sleep
so, if you have ideas on that one, I'd love to hear it too. :)



Reminds me of the American Indian adage, "We don't inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children." I hope our children aren't upset with its condition when we 'return it' to them.

As for teething, I remember cold things helping out. From this site: Teething Tots (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/teeth/teething.html)


"Give your baby something to chew on. Make sure it's big enough so that he or she can't swallow it and that it can't break into small pieces. A wet washcloth placed in the freezer for 30 minutes makes a handy teething aid"

We used one of those liquid filled rings that was chilled down, but I see they don't recommend those due to the potential of leaking. Good luck with it

Thanks, Pat. I agree completely. To me, education is the key for our children. Informing them and giving the tools to know how to research on their own to find correct information on all various subjects from business to agrarian lifestyle and from sex to drugs.


ps - thanks, keiffer, for the teething tips, but we've got 4 teeth already. the problem now is the pain is in the nerves going to the ear canal and is effecting sleep. we pain med ear drops at the dr's office yesterday.

We were lucky with teething on our first and now on our second. Both got a little cranky but not too bad. On the other hand, neither sleeps well... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Boy this thread really got depressing. I had a professor who once gave a lecture on the good old days vs. the bad new days. His basic message was things weren't that good back then. As stupid as we are acting in regards to the world around us, in general the species is going to do just fine. We're way to good at surviving not to. Unfortunately, suvival of the individual isn't the same thing, i.e. what about my kid? Teaching your kid to survive in the wilderness or a more primitive society isn't the answer (IMO). Have you seen the life span and quality of life of people who live in the wild? Not good. Even the marginal improvement to an agrarian society isn't much better. It's a romantic notion that we like to escape to. Even with heaps of pollution, diseases, and worst of all, politicians, living in civilization is better.

As Laura said, education is everything. Knowing what you're eating, knowing when to put on that mask, knowing what threats are really out there are keys to surviving in the world that is coming. Think Brazil or Blade Runner if you will. That is, I don't think we will fall that far.

In such a world, a cautious approach to life is key. The downside is that life won't be as free and unrestricted as it is now, but it will be quite survivable, if significantly uglier.

I agree with you Laura, even today, the world is very different than when I was a kid. I remember walking the Skykomish river in Washington when I was a kid and there were so many Salmon that you couldn't see water. That's all gone down. Nonetheless, the world is still beautiful, and I think keeping as much of it as possible is important.

to keep everything from being too pessimistic, overall these aren't the worst of times nor the best of times, just different times. somethings are better, others much worse.

as my co-workers told me today, the same goes for sleepless nights due to teething...wait for the teen years they warn.

as with global warming and parenting, I'll continue to view both with the same attitude of just doing my own personal best to make the best positive impact and the least negative impact.

The way I see it, teaching survival in the wilderness is similar to teaching to live as if poor. If you live like you are poor, then you have money to save. If you live like you are rich, then you live beyond your means and become poor. Similarly, if you teach to grow your own vegetables and eggs and use compost instead of commercial fertilizers and teach to walk or bike or bus as much as possible and limit un-necessary driving and teach disc golf rather than supporting chemically-manicured ball golf and go on eco-friendly family vacations rather than driving just to see the biggest ball of yarn (for example), then I believe you have prepared the child to survive better in either environment he/she ends up having given to him later in life.

But, heck, we'll just have to get all our teeth first. Well, we are already giving home-grown green beans and home-grown squash to him as part of his finger foods. He has his first trip to DC in a couple weeks. One day of the trip is designated as a lobby day, so hope to teach him how to do that, and he doesn't even speak a word of English yet! :D

Thanks, Pat. I agree completely. To me, education is the key for our children. Informing them and giving the tools to know how to research on their own to find correct information on all various subjects from business to agrarian lifestyle and from sex to drugs.


ps - thanks, keiffer, for the teething tips, but we've got 4 teeth already. the problem now is the pain is in the nerves going to the ear canal and is effecting sleep. we pain med ear drops at the dr's office yesterday.



Wish I could recommend something further. We were also very lucky with our two where teething rarely resulted in much more than wanting to chew on things and a lot of drool. Good luck with it!

I'm gettin' me a t-shirt that says save the world...


That's sooooo 1992. :D

I'm pretty sure I have 5 or 6 of 'em in the closet from around then. Maybe they say "Save the Earth". I didn't have a mortgage back then... :cool:



1992, Yep, I was 32 and my mind was still flexible. Now it's fixed and I have to use what I have. :D Save the Earth works.

BTW I have two mortgages... :cool: I got in on land in the hottest neighborhood in Houston before the boom. Darn lucky! Now I couldn't afford half a mortgage in my neighborhood. :o


I cleaned out the closet a little bit today and ditched some "Save the Earth" t-shirts with BodyGlove logos on them, as well as some "Save the Rhino Walk" and "Earth Day" shirts.

I moved my "Peace through Superior Firepower" and "U.S.S. Ronald Reagon" teeshirts up to the front of the rotation. :)

I'm gettin' me a t-shirt that says save the world...


That's sooooo 1992. :D

I'm pretty sure I have 5 or 6 of 'em in the closet from around then. Maybe they say "Save the Earth". I didn't have a mortgage back then... :cool:



1992, Yep, I was 32 and my mind was still flexible. Now it's fixed and I have to use what I have. :D Save the Earth works.

BTW I have two mortgages... :cool: I got in on land in the hottest neighborhood in Houston before the boom. Darn lucky! Now I couldn't afford half a mortgage in my neighborhood. :o


I cleaned out the closet a little bit today and ditched some "Save the Earth" t-shirts with BodyGlove logos on them, as well as some "Save the Rhino Walk" and "Earth Day" shirts.

I moved my "Peace through Superior Firepower" and "U.S.S. Ronald Reagon" teeshirts up to the front of the rotation. :)



Maybe we need to send you a "Put Ronnie on the Dime" shirt!

Fallout from the latest IPCC Report on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf) continues to swirl around the various media outlets, blown this way and that by the spin doctors. Much has been made of future impacts: food and fresh water shortages, increased drought and flood risks, mass extinctions, sea level rise and loss of wetlands, spread of infectious diseases. The list goes on.

The critical point of the document, in my mind, is this: climate change is happening now and scientists are currently observing and measuring impacts on natural systems. These observed impacts are affecting physical and biological systems and include: growing numbers and size of glacial lakes, earlier spring peak discharge in glacier-fed rivers, earlier timing of spring events such as leaf-unfolding and bird migration, poleward shifts in ranges of plant and animal species.

These current impacts are based on over 500 peer-reviewed studies and 90% of the observations are consistent with what would be expected according to the climate models. Modeling studies that include anthropomorphic forcing (greenhouse gases from human sources), simulate the observed impacts much better than modeling studies with only natural forcing. Not only are scientists now measuring the impacts of climate change, but those observations show that the climate models are accurate.

Remember, this report is a very conservative assessment. This is especially true with regard to sea level rise. Government officials from the US and China did some serious arm-twisting (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6341&amp;Method=Full) to get scientists to soften the grim summary of the report. For every scientists interviewed this week that thought the report was too alarmist, there are many others who believe the conclusions fail to show the true extent of the problems we face.

The people in charge of Big Oil, Transportation, Energy Plants, etc have us where they want us and they know it. I think that people have the power and they don't know it.




Colin has hit the nail squarely on the head. This profound truth became painfully real for me the other night as I watched Who Killed the Electric Car (http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/) . Big oil and bad government conspired to kill the EV1, a plug-in electric vehicle that would have taken us a long way toward solving the dire problem we find ourselves in now.

This is one reason why I am so passionate about the issue of climate change. I see this as a watershed issue that could wrestle control away from these heartless bean counters. Big oil interests see this as well and that is why they are fighting so hard to keep people in the dark.

Tonight�s broadcast of the Frontline program on Hot Politics (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/) promises to shed some light on the incomprehensible lack of action by bad government and the pervasive influence of big energy on climate change policy. Check your local listings.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wq_Bj-av3g0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wq_Bj-av3g0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Thanks for the ExxonMobil propaganda there Pizza. I�ve seen the �carbon dioxide is not pollution, its what we breathe out and what plants breathe in� red herring on TV commercials. Its not what comes out of our lungs that is the problem, its what comes out of our smokestacks and tailpipes. These guys just never give up. They are really grasping at straws now because the argument is lost and the threat to their power and their profits grows daily.

What EM ingnores is that there is a balance. How much is there and how much should there be. It's like sunshine, it's there, we need it, it's great. If you lie out in it 8 hours a day you'll get skin cancer and die.

Too much of a good thing makes a bad thing.

Welcome back Lyle. Tell me, did you experience anything like the DTs during your time away?

That was from a year ago and was NOT an Exxon/Moble propaganda. It came from a watchdog group that works on debunking junk science. They fight the government regulations mostly, and have attended several "Global Warminng" conferances. (Funny how when this propaganda is different that yours, you dismiss it automaticly instead of thinking you could be wrong about something)

BTW, I heard last night that 2011/2012 is beinng predicted to be the largest year of sun spots/solar flairs in recorded history. The sun activity goes in waves and this is predicted too be the peak of our current increase of activity.

So I would say YES, the world temp is going to increase a little more in the next few years. Maybe quite a bit, however, it will cool down after that. (I would say you heard it hear first, however several scientists I have read about already have been predicting this)

a watchdog group that works on debunking junk science




several scientists I have read about



Pizza, you need to name your sources.

Welcome back Lyle. Tell me, did you experience anything like the DTs during your time away?



Nope, I have DTs while I'm here, 24/7. :D

That was from a year ago and was NOT an Exxon/Moble propaganda. It came from a watchdog group that works on debunking junk science. They fight the government regulations mostly, and have attended several "Global Warminng" conferances. (Funny how when this propaganda is different that yours, you dismiss it automaticly instead of thinking you could be wrong about something)

BTW, I heard last night that 2011/2012 is beinng predicted to be the largest year of sun spots/solar flairs in recorded history. The sun activity goes in waves and this is predicted too be the peak of our current increase of activity.

So I would say YES, the world temp is going to increase a little more in the next few years. Maybe quite a bit, however, it will cool down after that. (I would say you heard it hear first, however several scientists I have read about already have been predicting this)



I didn't dismiss it, simply pointed out the flaw in the logic. The hypothesis that more CO2 is good because it is "natural" ignores the fact things out of balance aren't good.

Your definition of junk science and mine are very different. Science that is a) backed by credible research, and b) peer reviewed by credible scientists is acceptable. Science that has no base in science and isn't logical is junk science. This notion that CO2 is good because it's natural is by my measure... junk.

The propaganda is pretty much EM, that's where this watchdog groups get their funding, directly from EM. We know from our experience with tobacco that groups who take money from companies tend to be their mouthpieces.

BTW - the quote I read is that the peak in sun activity starts in 2008, and is winding down in 2011.

Fear

Fear is used to control

Fear was used to invade Iraq

Fear was used to take your liberties away with the Patriot Act.

Al Gore is using Fear to control you.

Fear of the future.

Fear of something that may or may not come true

Don't let the Fear control you.

Don�t fear lung cancer; smoke three packs of cigarettes a day.

Don�t fear heart disease; eats at McDonalds every meal.

Don�t fear auto accidents; drink lots of beer and drive real fast.

There is a huge difference between reasonable fear and foolish disregard of established consequences.

I fear auto accidents. I ride a motorcycle in a college town and more than half the people on the road are talking on the phone, drinking, eating, putting on make-up, singing, or all of the above. I'll almost been hit 6 times and had to kick in a couple of doors because people tried to change lanes without looking or signaling.

They already have you

Don�t fear lung cancer; smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. <font color="blue"> why would I do that, I don't likee to smoke. I have lost too relitives do to smoking. </font>

Don�t fear heart disease; eats at McDonalds every meal. <font color="blue"> I do, well not McDonalds, but I eat fast food almost every day. That is not the reason I am slightly over weight. Soft Drinks, with all those empty calories do it to me. </font>

Don�t fear auto accidents; drink lots of beer and drive real fast. <font color="blue"> this is just a bad example. An no, I drive everyday and don't fear other driver. I just always keep my eyes open. </font>

There is a huge difference between reasonable fear and foolish disregard of established consequences.

But all your examples are of resonable fears. No one is using any of thoses to Make you do something, or take your rights away. (ok, you could argue some of them, but you can still smoke, drink and eat)

Don't get me started on the Fast food thing. My wife eats pizza almost every day and she can still wear clothes she had when I first meet her 21 years ago. (in fact she is in better shape now)

Our culture is not fat because of fast food, we are fat because of lazyness. (I know I fall into that catagory)


Now if you really want to worry about something, what is happining to the honey Bee's. They can't figure it out yet. 25% of the bee population has just dissapeared in the last 6 months in the US. There are also reports of missing bee's in Europe, Brazil, and Tiwain.

and before you try to blame the "Global Warming" Theory, this has happened before. But in the past they were able to figure out what happened. In this case, the bee's are not comming back to the hive, so you don't have any dead bees, just missing ones.

Me, I think the aliens are taking them. :D

I agree that the recent and widespread collapse of bee colonies is a reason for concern � one might even say reasonable fear. Without bees, people won�t eat.

But don�t rule out any connection to climate change just yet. Scientists are focusing their research on two things right now. One possibility is the emergence of some currently unrecognized pathogen. One of the predicted outcomes of climate change is a spread of disease vectors as a result of shifting climate zones. The other thing researchers are looking at as a factor in bee colony collapse is stress. This stress could be related to pesticides. There is also the possibility that the bees are stressed by some factor related to climate change. I�m not saying that changing climate is the cause, but I am saying it is too early to rule it out.

the "scientists" are proven wrong about the pace of polar melting! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/sc_nm/globalwarming_ice_dc;_ylt=AoQ0UPiECXq0BspUcpASxKgD W7oF)

those silly scientists

If their models are that far off, can you really trust anything they say ???

So...how much have the oceans risen over the last 10, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 years?

Don�t blame the scientists. The IPCC process is driven to very conservative conclusions primarily because government officials have control over the wording of the reports. This latest report was hijacked by US and Chinese government officials, among others. Another reason is that the IPCC is only looking at scientific studies that have already passed through the time consuming review process. Recent studies were not included because of the plodding nature of the IPCC. Most climate scientists are acutely aware that the conclusions of the IPCC are out of date when released.

The conclusions of the IPCC are known to be very low regarding sea level rise as well. There are recognized feedback loops that, once activated, could drive climate change to accelerated levels.

If climate scientists predict rapid melting of arctic sea ice or rising sea levels, skeptics accuse them of being alarmist. If they report conservative conclusions and then update those conclusions as new data come in, skeptics say the scientists are wrong about everything.

Things are worse, perhaps much worse then what is being reported in the press.

Things are worse, perhaps much worse then what is being reported in the press.



Ouch, I think I just got hit by a chunk of sky.

It must have hit you in the butt then, because your head is deep in the sand.

and before you try to blame the "Global Warming" Theory, this has happened before. But in the past they were able to figure out what happened. In this case, the bee's are not comming back to the hive, so you don't have any dead bees, just missing ones.

Me, I think the aliens are taking them. :D



The last report I heard is that they think it's cell phones. The hypothesis is that radio transmissions are messing with the bee's directional sense and they are getting lost.

BTW - note that I used hypothesis here, not theory. That's because the model is still being tested, there is some evidence to support it but the picture isn't clear, as oppossed to global warming, where the picture is clear...

I love this quote


Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.



mmmm, lets put a ton of ash (which is pollution) and Co2 (another gas put off by a valcano) and it will hold back the Arctic ice melting.

Or maybe we could just pollute more..... :o:D

For those of you with cable, watch Glenn Beck's special tonight.

Exposed: The Climate of Fear
CNN Headline News
7 p.m. and 9 p.m., and again at midnight ET.

I am sure someone will throw it on Youtube and I will get to see it.

BTW, when I posted the "FEAR" stuff, I did not know the name of this show. I posted the "FEAR" stuff after watching the movie "Children of Man" In the extras, they quote lots of people, one of them talked about how governments use FEAR to controle the population. Hitler used it, Bush has used it, and now others are using it.

What this hour long show tonight is going to show is the other side of the story.

Don�t blame the scientists. The IPCC process is driven to very conservative conclusions primarily because government officials have control over the wording of the reports. This latest report was hijacked by US and Chinese government officials, among others. Another reason is that the IPCC is only looking at scientific studies that have already passed through the time consuming review process. Recent studies were not included because of the plodding nature of the IPCC. Most climate scientists are acutely aware that the conclusions of the IPCC are out of date when released.

The conclusions of the IPCC are known to be very low regarding sea level rise as well. There are recognized feedback loops that, once activated, could drive climate change to accelerated levels.

If climate scientists predict rapid melting of arctic sea ice or rising sea levels, skeptics accuse them of being alarmist. If they report conservative conclusions and then update those conclusions as new data come in, skeptics say the scientists are wrong about everything.

Things are worse, perhaps much worse then what is being reported in the press.



You also need to remember that the theory has an element of variation in it. The cycle of ice loss on the poles exacerbates the process so that it can speed up dramatically. Remember that the process is a dynamic multifactoral one. Drawing an acurate time line in such a case is hard. The overall trend is clear, but the intimate details can't be as easily predicted.

Now Gary, let me pose a question back. If the best argument that can be made against global warming is, "if their predictions on the rate of ice loss on the poles are that far off, how can we trust anything they say," couldn't it be said that you're ignoring the bigger point, that the poles are melting at an alarming rate and will be essentially gone by 2020?

The fact that they can't dot the eye on the timeline means nothing to me; the fact that the ice is going to be gone in 15 years and by all measures due in "some" part to global warming caused by man seems much more important to me.

Oh, you got to love this editorial.


Skeptics Score Points in Global Warming Debate
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
May 01, 2007

With great fanfare, in March, Al Gore took Capitol Hill like a conquering hero as he testified on Global Warming before both houses of Congress.

Fresh from conquests at the Academy Awards where his adoring Hollywood elites showered him with coveted golden statues for spreading their favorite propaganda, Gore was determined to turn his personal conquest into draconian federal law and ultimate human misery.

Gore's words to Congress were predictable. The earth is warming. The polar ice caps are melting. Polar bears are on the run. And it's man's fault. Solution? Ban or control human activities.

The mantra of the religion of Global Warming is getting a little boring. It's quite possible, however, that Gore's appearance on the Hill actually represents the beginning of the end of his influence on climate policy rather than the start of a legislative tsunami.

Why? Because even after the Global Warming storm troopers, armed with billions of dollars, the backing of the Hollywood elite, the news media and most of academia have done everything possible to threaten, bully and force their one-sided propaganda on us, the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change.

As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism. Here are just a few of the latest developments.

Item: Just days before Gore's charge up Capitol Hill, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner. Before the start of the debate, held in New York City, the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a crisis.

But following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. Conclusion - when people hear both sides they can easily judge for themselves what is truth.

Item: On March 13, The New York Times, one of the most adamant promoters of the Global Warming gospel, published a landmark article stating "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

Item: French scientist Claude Allegre, a prominent French Socialist and supporter of Global Warming dogma, recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money.

Item: One of Israel's top young scientists, Nir Shaviv, recently reversed his opinion, declaring that the link between emissions and climate variability has nothing more that "circumstantial evidence."

Item: The United Kingdom's famed environmental activist David Bellamy also recently converted to skepticism, as did Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who has switched from the 1970's global cooling scare to a global warming skeptic.

Item: A report by the Heartland Institute, entitled "What Climate Scientists Really Say About Global Warming," exposes the weakness of the "consensus" claims of Global Warming shock troops. To reach its findings the report examined two surveys conducted among climate scientists; the first in 1996, and the second in 2003. Both surveys confirm scientists are divided on the issue. Says the report -

-- More climate scientist "strongly disagree" than "strongly agree" with the notion that climate change is caused by humans.

-- Most climate scientists do not believe "the current state of knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability" over 100-year periods.

-- Only 2 percent of climate scientists surveyed "strongly agree" that modeling programs designed to predict climate changes are accurate, and

-- Almost all climate scientists agree that climate change could have "positive effects for some societies."

Item: After Global Warming propagandists rushed to declare that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report proved conclusively that Global Warming was caused by human action, (a report by the way that won't be released until May) the just released summary predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.

Item: New research by international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) sums it up, "The usual suspects will still insist that there is a 'consensus' of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but rank and file scientists are now openly rebelling.

As real debate finally forces fact over headline-making one liners, the truth will become ever more inconvenient to Al Gore and his Global Warming zealots.

(Tom DeWeese is the editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va.)

Copyright 2007, Tom DeWeese

I love this quote


Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.



mmmm, lets put a ton of ash (which is pollution) and Co2 (another gas put off by a valcano) and it will hold back the Arctic ice melting.

Or maybe we could just pollute more..... :o:D

For those of you with cable, watch Glenn Beck's special tonight.

Exposed: The Climate of Fear
CNN Headline News
7 p.m. and 9 p.m., and again at midnight ET.

I am sure someone will throw it on Youtube and I will get to see it.



Let's make a deal Za. I'll bet you a calzone the guy doesn't have a credible scientist or scientific source on his show. If anything, he'll have the same industry cronies that EM owns, that you most typically reference.

At least do a little searching Za,

Claude Allegre has stated uncategorically that antartica is actually gaining ice. Are you sure this guy isn't a nutjob? Look at his overall C.V. He's a much raker who likes attention, and goes out of his way to get it.

David Bellamy never converted from a postion supporting global warming to one of being against it, like Claude, he as all along support the quaint idea that glaciers are getting bigger, not smaller. You don't have to be a scientist to know they're getting smaller, you only have to be a school aged child with a ruler.

At least do a little searching Za,

Claude Allegre has stated uncategorically that antartica is actually gaining ice. Are you sure this guy isn't a nutjob? Look at his overall C.V. He's a much raker who likes attention, and goes out of his way to get it.


Actually I have read a lot of what Allegre has said. He also took a little research money about 10 years ago from Exxon/Moble, but stopped because of the critisizm (If I remember correctly)

I have not quoted him because of it.

I just came across that editorial and posted it, I make no claims by it and it is Anti "Global Warming" propaganda.

However, he points out better than I have, some of the things I have been trying to say.

David Bellamy never converted from a postion supporting global warming to one of being against it, like Claude, he as all along support the quaint idea that glaciers are getting bigger, not smaller. You don't have to be a scientist to know they're getting smaller, you only have to be a school aged child with a ruler.


If I heard correctly, one of the things the show is going to talk about tonight is how our schools are teaching "Global Warming" as fact and not teaching it as a theory.

I am sorry, it is a theory and not proven fact............. yet.

Reid Bryson is the most, actually the only credible source here. But even he has problems. The first thing is his stance on the item. He doesn't deny global warming, he simply says that man has no influence on it. He acuses those who support the theory as saying man is the only factor. This has two problems, first, the proponents of the theory don't say man is the only factor, rather, they say that man is the only factor over which we have control. Second, while he rightfully points out that many things can impact global warming, he fails to discuss or even think about the notion that man may be upsetting the balance.

Lets accept what we know about environmental cycles; that is they occur. Now, we don't really know all of the factors that influence the cycle but we know what the cycle is. The average temperatures go up and down over centuries staying within a band that allows habitability on large parts of the globe. The factors that influence that cycle have remained relatively unchanged for eons. Those factors include: the sun, atmosphere, makeup of the planet, and a few external factors. Now, we've seen a couple of cases of what happens if something comes along and disrupts the cycle, massive volcanoes and meteors are two favorites. A look at the geological record shows that when one of these things happens you get a huge die off of species with relatively few surviving and then rediversifying to fill the open niches that then occur. The earth becomes rather boring for a while but life goes on.

The question at hand is "will man's influence disrupt the normal cycle? Will we cause a catastrophic change in a normal cycle that will result in a huge die off of species?"

The truth is we don't know. And while finding out is an interesting enough experiment, it seems a foolish one to me.

As far as tonights show, I don't listen to Glenn Beck much, so I don't know exacly what he is going to show. I do know he agrees with me that we don't trust Global Warming theorists. You can thank Al Gore for that. No because of his political stance, but because he exaturaed and fudged the numbers for his movie. I can no longer trust him.

BTW, don't rule out a late entry into the presidential race, when thrown into the choices, he polls better than all the other Dem's.

Tom DeWeese (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1158) is no scientist.

David Bellamy never converted from a postion supporting global warming to one of being against it, like Claude, he as all along support the quaint idea that glaciers are getting bigger, not smaller. You don't have to be a scientist to know they're getting smaller, you only have to be a school aged child with a ruler.


If I heard correctly, one of the things the show is going to talk about tonight is how our schools are teaching "Global Warming" as fact and not teaching it as a theory.

I am sorry, it is a theory and not proven fact............. yet.





ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

Criminies Za

How many times do I have to define what a theory is to you? What you want to be saying, incorrectly I might add, is that global warming is a hypothesis. Hypothesis are unproven ideas. Theories are proven ideas based on scientific observation. All of the data supports the "concept" hence essentially making it fact. The notion that a theory isn't fact is like saying "the theory that mankind can use tools isn't proven, it might just all be in our minds." Well, on a philosophical level yes, but on a practical level, I'm pretty confident we can use tools.


BTW - something that is a theory is always a theory. After a great deal of time theories come to be taken as fact. For example, it is still only a theory that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. You never know, tomorrow you might wake up and find out that Gallileo (Coperincus) was wrong.

As usual Lyle, you are correct, Hypothesis then :D


(But I can't spell it without cutting and pasting)

Tom DeWeese (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1158) is no scientist.


Cool, I like this guy even more after reading this article. We need more people like him.

No, i didn't look up who wrote the editorial, I stated it was an editorial, I even stated the article is properganda for Anti "Global Warming" Alarmists.

No one ever said he was any type of scientist.

Actually, Gore's Got it Right (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/)

opps, I missed a few posts.

Lyle, I can totally agree with this quote from you

Lets accept what we know about environmental cycles; that is they occur. Now, we don't really know all of the factors that influence the cycle but we know what the cycle is. The average temperatures go up and down over centuries staying within a band that allows habitability on large parts of the globe. The factors that influence that cycle have remained relatively unchanged for eons. Those factors include: the sun, atmosphere, makeup of the planet, and a few external factors. Now, we've seen a couple of cases of what happens if something comes along and disrupts the cycle, massive volcanoes and meteors are two favorites. A look at the geological record shows that when one of these things happens you get a huge die off of species with relatively few surviving and then rediversifying to fill the open niches that then occur. The earth becomes rather boring for a while but life goes on.

The question at hand is "will man's influence disrupt the normal cycle? Will we cause a catastrophic change in a normal cycle that will result in a huge die off of species?"



Thank you, I think that paragraph is exactly what I have been trying to say. We don't know if the current, very small, increase in temperature is because of what we have done, or some outside factor. (IE, the current sun activity)

As usual Lyle, you are correct, Hypothesis then :D


(But I can't spell it without cutting and pasting)



Well, that was completely unsatisfying... :D

The problem with calling global warming a hypothesis is that it isn't, it's a theory. Honestly speaking, I don't know when something goes from being a hypothesis to being a theory, and I'm not sure it is defined. But when years of research and thousands of observations accumulate, the scientific community starts calling the "notion" a theory. Global Warming isn't today's hot item. It's been discussed for over 30 years now. Most of the first 20 years or so it was seen as an issue for those crackpots, the few environmental scientists who championed it. Over time the sceptics realized that the evidence was clear and overwhelming. It became a theory. The simple fact is that there is too much evidence that makes it a theory and it should be treated as such. It matters not that a few or even a great number don't want it to be.

No one except Copernicus, Gallileo, and a couple of other scientists supported the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. The fact that the pope didn't support it didn't make it untrue.

I love this quote


Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.



mmmm, lets put a ton of ash (which is pollution) and Co2 (another gas put off by a valcano) and it will hold back the Arctic ice melting.



This is not far fetched. One of the reasons the earth has not warmed up more has to do with what climate scientists refer to as aerosols, particulates like the dust from volcanoes. These aerosols reflect the sun�s energy before it reaches the surface of the earth and help keep things cooler. As humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, they have also been releasing aerosols as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

Here�s the quandary: as we move forward and eventually begin to reduce CO2 emissions, we will also be reducing aerosols. Since aerosols fall out of the atmosphere rather quickly and CO2 does not, the cooling effect of aerosols will decrease long before the warming effects of CO2 begin to decrease. In other words, reducing smokestack and tailpipe emissions could actually cause things to get much warmer in the relative short term.

Actually, Gore's Got it Right (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/)



Lyle, in this article posted by izink, in the comments section is this paragraph. I read this after your post (and my comment)

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth's orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.


Eric is the author of the article.

Exposed: The Climate of Fear

did anyone watch it????

No one has posted it on YouTube so I have not been able to see it yet.


Tonight is another big night. Republican Debates and Disc Golf on Late Night with Conan.

The latest IPCC Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf) on Mitigation of Climate Change was released Friday. The bad news:

"If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble," said Ogunlade Davidson, the co-chair of group responsible for finalizing the report this week.

The good news: the technology exists to solve this problem and, providing we act now, the cost is relatively low. We can do this, but we need to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions within the next decade or two if we hope to avoid the most serious consequences.

The analogy of the compact florescent light bulb is apt: the initial cost that the consumer must lay out for the CFL is higher than the incandescent bulb, but in the long run, when energy costs are factored, the CFL will actually save the consumer money. And using the CFL will reduce CO2 emissions. Take this analogy and apply it to the entire global economy and you get an idea of the path we need to pursue.

So, we have the technology and the means to dramatically reduce emissions and the worst effects of climate change. All we need now is political will. Does this make me hopeful that we will reduce greenhouse emissions enough to avoid catastrophe? No.

Does this mean I will stop doing all I possibly can to reduce my carbon footprint and to raise awareness of this issue? No again.

I went out to mow the lawn this weekend and instead of grabbing the electric mower, I dug back into the garage for the old manual push mower. I used this in the past mainly to cut base paths for our wiffle ball field when my son was younger. I cut the entire yard using the push mower Saturday and it actually took less time. The electric mower cuts better when you push slowly; the push mower cuts better the faster you walk. Not only did I cut the grass, but I also got a pretty good cardiovascular workout. Cutting with the push mower was like a dance, whereas mowing with the electric was more of a march. Why did we ever get away from these wonderful machines?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejtj-dVJ3pU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejtj-dVJ3pU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

BTW, has anyone noticed that there is not nearly the hype on this subject. More and more scientists have been coming out and saying that the global warming may be more natural than man made.

That would be great, except for the fact that those guys coming out against it being man caused aren't scientists, they're ExonMobil lacky's. As soon as you find a real scientist who comes out against the notion that we are the primary cause of our current warming trend let me know...

BTW - watch this interview with Ed Wilson, possibly the greatest Biologist of all time.

Iz will like this!

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07062007/watch.html

Gore awarded Nobel Peace Prize (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html)

Will the Supreme Court vote to take it away and give it to Bush?

Mike Peters Editorial Cartoons 10/12/07 (http://www.grimmy.com/editorials.php)
you might have to scroll "previous cartoons" if he puts another up.

Grimmy ROCKS!

Gore awarded Nobel Peace Prize (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html)

Will the Supreme Court vote to take it away and give it to Bush?



they 'stole' your joke and used it on Saturday Night Live last night!!! :eek:

More importantly,

The Pope believes. He has decided that the Vatican City is going to go carbon neutral. Doesn't the Pope = God's voice on earth?

Only if you believe in purgatory (which isn't in the Bible, btw).

Only if you believe in purgatory (which isn't in the Bible, btw).



no its in colorado. :D

sorry i couldnt resist.

Only if you believe in purgatory (which isn't in the Bible, btw).



Wouldn't that depend on whether you're a protestant or not? :D

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_FI0U5JOtoo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_FI0U5JOtoo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I live this short video, blows the IPCC argument right out of the water.

Classic

Classic is correct. Za, did you even bother to check any of this guy's claims? Have you watched Gore's video? You get an exact breakdown on the number of articles that say Global Warming is a hoax vs. those that agree it is real? There's no comparison that the media machine is being driven by the "it's a hoaxers." Even worse, the scientists who work on this topic have shown clear evidence that they were bullied and cowed and watched by the Bush Admin so that their reports and information was whitewashed. Pull your head out of the sand Za.

BTW - it doesn't even take much of a search to find out that this guy's comment's about polar bear populations rising was a lie.

John Christy - gets funding from numerous Exxon Mobile sponsored organizations much through guest lectureships. Oh, so they didn't make him rich. Is it our fault he didn't do a better deal.

Roy Spencer is the same.

So, they lied about funding from Exxon but they aren't lying about... global warming. Whew, good thing we got that straight.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19


Oh gee, so did Tim Ball

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

I'm still looking on Rider.

Let's step aside and think a little logically. Although the narrator scoffed at the thousands of scientists who support not just global warming, but the concept that mankind is affecting the process, think about what that means. You've got thousands of scientists who have come to consensus on this issue and four guys, three of whom we already know have funding from Exxon-Mobile and lied about it who say it isn't true. Hmmmmm.

Of course you could go with the the all to real possibility that there is a global conspiracy amongst these thousands of climate scientists to mislead the public into believing this myth...

As for the IPCC, I don't know it's exact composition, heck, it might even have some GreenPeace guys on it, but look a lot more closely at it and it's composition before you agree with this guy that it's a joke. At least take the time to go to Wiki and read about it.

No one expects there to be absolute consensus on Global Warming and our affect on it. But a consensus of thousands vs. a couple of corporate sponsored hacks is pretty clear.

Last point, who was this guy and who paid for his video...

The Video was by a goofball name of John Strossel. Wiki him too. He makes Rush L. and Bill O'. look normal.

If you're going to argue against something Za, you should at least make a credible argument, not a slickly produced piece of propaganda with no real source of science behind it.

BTW - take a look at the CVs of the scientists interviewed. None of them has done any research in the area of climate change. Sad.

Global Warming? Show me:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
Oh, you are talking about the Pliocene Era. Those [censored] dinosaurs had a brilliant plan to heat our earth an almost indetectable amount 100 million years later. And they would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for that pesky Mr. Gore!

Do you think it was their poo that heated the earth up so much? Those dinosaurs made huge piles of poo, huge i tell ya! Much like the diarrhea that comes out of every politicians mouth? :eek:

I love it...nice post HERO!

It was the dinosaur's and their **** gas hogging SUVs! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY GROUND-UP PTERODACTYLS IT TAKES TO RUN A 100 FOOT HUMMER?!?!?! ALOT!

No I didn't look who he was talking to, I only know the tree huggers were bashing the reporter on the thread on YouTube.

I just came across it and figured it belonged here.

Personally, I think Al Gores movie is Propaganda, the same as this guys reporting is. and yes, this report could be considered propaganda. Specially if what you say is correct.

Tear your eyes away from YouTube for a few minutes and take a look at what is happening around you: severe draught consuming the entire southeast US, torrential rain and flooding in New Orleans, unprecedented wildfires in southern California. These are precisely the kinds of events that are predicted by global warming scientists, but the way these stories are reported in the anemic American press makes it seem like they are totally unrelated.

And by the way, what are the Bushites (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7021077,00.html) trying to hide from us anyway?

Tear your eyes away from YouTube for a few minutes and take a look at what is happening around you: severe draught consuming the entire southeast US, torrential rain and flooding in New Orleans, unprecedented wildfires in southern California. These are precisely the kinds of events that are predicted by global warming scientists, but the way these stories are reported in the anemic American press makes it seem like they are totally unrelated.



Practically every time it rains in New Orleans it floods. The city is below sea level. When the Santa Ana wins blow every fall there are usually fires. Conditions are generally very dry after the long summer.

How are recurring Santa Ana winds in California and morons building cities below sea level on the Gulf of Mexico related? How does this prove global warming?

Global warming alarmists grab on to headlines about weather related problems and say: "See, it's happening. Global warming caused these problems." Never mind the FACTS that the Santa Ana winds blow every year or New Orleans floods when it rains hard enough.

Try Again!! I'm not buying this one.

There is no way to describe these events without using the word extreme. Eight inches of rain fell in New Orleans at a rate of 1.6 inches per hour earlier this month. This happened while the rest of the southeast remains in the grip of unprecedented draught. Last year was the worse fire season ever recorded in the American west and this year will probably top that. You cannot tell me that the fires raging across southern California are normal: $1,000,000 in damages in San Diego County alone, over 500,000 people evacuated, the second largest evacuation ever after Katrina. Over 300,000 acres of land have already been scorched, an area bigger that New York City. My God, things are so bad that W is actually going to take a helicopter ride to show the people of California how much he cares.

I�m not saying these events prove climate change. Rather, these events merely add to the overwhelming and growing evidence that climate change is real and that it is happening much faster than even the IPCC scientists had predicted.

Fires raging across Southern California are normal. Combine Santa Ana winds (every fall around this time) with some five decades of fire suppression strategy and hundreds of thousands of homes built in areas proximal to canyons where the previous two factors combine and you have what we have right now. (Not unlike building a major metropolitan complex below sea level and letting the protective infrastructure rot.)

Arsonists in their sickness prey upon these conditions and the attendant loss of life (particularly) and property (tragic but replaceable) grieves us all as we shudder.

But these things in themselves don't require global warming in the least, being resultant of normal conditions (not the arson). Climate change is real but identify it where it actually relates.

This is the problem with not understanding math and statistics. See, those Republicans who carp on about the lack of basic skills in our schools are right, we can see it here.


You are judging the situation based on individual events and issues, instead of on a global scale using statistics. billmh is right. That said:

First, while Colin is posting that global warming is not happening, he's admitted it is in the past and has attributed it to natural cycles. That is, there's no way man could be affecting the climate of the world, it's all part of a natural cycle.

That global warming is occurring is unquestioned. You can make the argument that it's due to a natural cycle, but you can't deny the simple measurements of temperature that show it's happening.

The concrete belief here that we, that is people-kind, could never do something to affect our environment in a global way is very reassuring. Thanks. Glad that I don't live in L.A. where the local micro-environment is so bad. Oops, I live in Houston where the local micro-environment is just as bad. Of course then you've got Seattle, Portland, the Bay area, L.A. and San Diego all with bad pollution problems. So, how many micro-environments where cancer, asthma, and birth defect rates, just to name a few, are higher than normal, do we have to have before we can say, Oh, well, it's global? Just curious... Oh by the way, let's not forget that between all those cities, the run off from farms includes copious amounts of pesticides, and fertilizer that at least in Australia are killing the great barrier reef. Oh wait, that's probably due to the natural global warming cycle that's occurring. And the observation that the greatest death is where the most runoff occurs is because the sun spots focus the rays on those areas the most.

Our undying belief that we aren't affecting the world around us is truly amazing, wonderful, stupid, but fun.

I think I'll stick with the scientists, pardon Collin, the ones who study climate change, who at a rate of 4/2000 = 99.8% agree that we're affecting our planet's temperature.

How many individual extreme weather events does it take before you can say that there is a global trend toward more extreme weather events due to climate change? I�ve mentioned only a few of the most recent extreme weather events that have occurred in the US, but there are similar instances of extreme weather events happening all over the globe and they are occurring at a far greater frequency than they have in the past. We need to look at the global trend and stop looking at these events as isolated.

word!
Here are some images from nasa.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/arctic/ice_animation1_med.gif

BTW - just for fun. Did anyone check out the recent to-do with the CDC? The report on the effects of global warming on health that got scrubbed, I mean made more accurate, by the Bush Administration?

Apparently not only don't they believe, but they're proactive about their disbelief...

Santa Ana Winds are not an extreme weather event. The FACT is Santa Anas occur every year at this time when high pressure moves in over the Four Corners region. It is a common and predictable annual weather pattern. It is not evidence of global warming by any stretch of the imagination.

A power line falling down and sparking a fire in Malibu is in no way related to global warming and is NOT an extreme weather event. Some arsonist dillhole starting wildfires in San Diego County has absolutely zero to do with global warming and is NOT an extreme weather event.

The world and weather follows predictable cycles and global warming is one of those cycles. I don't doubt global warming is happening. I do doubt that man is the sole cause of such warming. Mother Nature did a fine job of warming and cooling the Earth to extremes for millions of years before man came along.

As much as I hate to site Wikipedia, it gives a brief and factual description of what causes the Santa Ana winds and the fires that often accompany them. It also sites reference to the winds in media and art for over 40 years.

Wikipedia - Santa Ana Winds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_wind)

Try Again!!!

Some people actually keep of the extreme weather events happening all over the globe:

Extreme Weather Profile: July - December, 2007

In July in southern China, the worst flooding in decades forced the evacuation of some 400,000 people, killing more than 150. While in Texas, more than a foot of rain fell in less than a day, stranding railroad passengers and forcing rescue crews to save more than 50 people. While England was suffering through its second flood in less than a month, leaving some $4 billion in damages and 350,000 people without drinking water, temperatures in southern Europe soared, topping 107* F. Meanwhile, officials announced that the temperature in Tibet is rising faster than anywhere else in the world, with warming rising at a speed of 0.3* Celsius every 10 years. In Indonesia, flash floods and landslides inundated villages, destroyed bridges and drove thousands from their homes. In the last week in July, temperatures in southern Europe soared, leaving more than 500 fatalities in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece. At the same time, as floodwaters began to recede in Britain, officials estimated the damages at over $6 billion. The heat in southern Europe was intensified by a wave of wildfires that swept through the region. At the end of July, Britain's weather office announced that the summer of 2007 was the wettest in that country's recorded history. At the same time, rising flood waters in China killed more than 500 people. In Montana, a wildfire burned out of control, consuming more than six square miles of land. While intense flooding in the southern Sudan displaced more than 12,000 people. As continuous rains forced three major rivers to overflow, the flooding displaced thousands of people in Bihar province in India. Storms linked to climate change have displaced some 200 million people in China, while drinking water shortages in drought-hit regions of the country have affected another million Chinese residents.

As rains continued to swamp India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, officials reported that the flooding has displaced at least 20 million people in South Asia. At the same time, officials declared a state of emergency in the Greek islands of Mykonos and Santorini when prolonged drought cut into drinking water supplies. At the same time, flash floods destroyed buildings, washed away houses and displaced thousands of residents of Lagos, the capital city of Nigeria. In central Vietnam, at least nine people died when the region received two feet of rain in four days. In August, the UN reported the first half of 2007 was marked by a significant increase in weather extremes around the world, including heat waves in Europe, flooding in Asia and snowstorms in South Africa. The same period saw an increased outbreak of dengue fever in Asia, which claimed 98 lives in Myanmar alone.

In August, the UN reported that the first half of 2007 saw a virtually unprecedented number of record-setting extreme weather events during that period. In New York City, an intense downpour flooded subways, delayed flights and stranded thousands of commuters. The same storm saw the first tornado ever recorded in the area tear through a southern section of Brooklyn. At the same time, the temperate wine-growing central valley in Chile was hit by its first snowstorm in 50 years. As Australia's relentless drought entered its ninth year, officials declared it was the worst such drought in that country in the past 1,000 years. In mid-August, a series of storms and tornadoes swept through Ohio and Pennsylvania, cutting power to tens of thousands, tearing rooftops off buildings and uprooting trees. Meanwhile, the toll from the record-setting floods in south Asia soared, reaching 575 fatalities and stranding 19 million people. Those floods were followed by another round of downpours which killed 22 people in Pakistan and destroyed large areas of crops in Bangladesh.

At the same time, a persistent drought in Ankara, the capitol of Turkey, left four million people with only about three months worth of drinking water. In mid-August, a stifling heat wave with triple digit temperatures blanketed much of the US. By Aug. 16, the heat wave had visited triple-digit temperatures for 10 consecutive days on the southern US, killing at least 33 people. In North Korea, the heaviest rains in 40 years destroyed buildings, flooded wide areas of farmland and left 600 people dead. While farmers in Senegal worried about a crop-destroying drought, the country was hit by torrential downpours that destroyed thousands of homes and killed more than 100 people. With temperatures exceeding 105*, a stifling heat wave in Japan killed seven people and stretched power supplies to the breaking point. Tropical storm Erin dropped nearly 10 inches of rain on Houston and San Antonio, as anxious residents tracked the Caribbean progress of Hurricane Dean. The rain added to a storm-related death-toll that has taken 22 lives in Texas and Oklahoma since June. In Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio flash floods washed away roads and bridges, forced nursing home evacuations and left 22 people dead.

Hurricane Dean left a swath of destruction in the Caribbean, barely missing a direct hit on Jamaica and crashing into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Experts determined that Dean, which amazingly left no fatalities, was the third most intense Atlantic hurricane on record. Meanwhile half way around the world, Typhoon Sepat hit the south coast of China, killing 14 people driving one million others from their homes. Meanwhile, the death toll in the Midwestern US rose to 26 as floodwaters in Ohio drove at least 1,000 people from their homes.

In southern Greece, continuing drought enhanced by temperatures exceeding 100* F. triggered at least 170 wildfires which killed 51 people. Meanwhile a new round of severe winds and intense rainstorms cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in the Midwestern US. In late August, intense flooding in Ethiopia displaced 100,000 people and contributed to the deaths of 17 others. By the end of August, Phoenix had suffered through one of its hottest summers in history with 29 days at 110* F or higher. The UK's Met Office reported that the summer of 2007 was the wettest in Britain since 1914 when records began to be kept.

In early September, Hurricane Felix, packing winds of 160 miles-per-hour, slammed into the Honduran-Nicaraguan border. The Category 5 storm marked the first time in recorded history that two top-scale storms have made landfall in the same season. At the same time, California struggled through the sixth day of a killer heat wave which cut power to hundreds of thousands and left at least 14 people dead. In Tokyo, that city's strongest typhoon in five years killed one person, injured 69 others, snarled traffic and cut power to thousands. In mid-September, a powerful typhoon targeted eastern China, prompting the evacuation of 1.6 million people as ships and boats were called back to port. The storm lost power as it made landfall, but still left almost 2,000 villages without power. Across West and Central Africa, torrential rains and flash floods displaced hundreds of thousands of people in 17 countries, leaving at least 200 casualties. In southern India, an intense monsoon left dozens of villages underwater and killed 63 people. Across Minnesota, torrential rains, hail and high winds cut power to thousands of people, shut down air travel and left one boy drowned.

In Vietnam, more than 50 people were killed or missing after a typhoon, floods and landslides cut power and closed roads in what officials described as some of the worst flooding in decades. At the same time, a massive typhoon crashed into the Chinese coast, cutting power to more than two million residents and forcing the evacuation of 1.6 million people and leaving more that $1 billion in damages. As the torrential downpours continued in West and Central Africa, it destroyed crops from Senegal to Ethiopia. In mid-October, persisting rains triggered floods that killed at least 45 people in Haiti, Costa Rica and other Central American countries. While in Tunisia, rain swollen rivers overflowed, leading to at least 11 deaths.

In the southern US, the worst drought in more than 100 years is threatening drinking water supplies at a number of cities. In Atlanta, where drinking water supplies dwindled to 90 days' worth, officials were scrambling to come up with new sources even as Georgia's governor declared a state of emergency due to the drought. Even as scientists warned of the emergence of of "mega forest fires" in the western US, wildfires destroyed tens of thousands of acres in California, driving at least one half million people from their homes around San Diego and leaving more than $1 billion in losses.

yea, I guess global warming caused the Dust Bowl too

BTW, Dallas has had a very mild summer, mostly thanks to all the rain we got back in June.

Yes, a day in September rained 8 inches in a very very short time, however, I have seen it MUCH MORE FLOODED and nearly got there again earlier this week. Flooding in Texas is worse when the ground is already saturated.

This week we keep getting red flag days. This is why we are not sending our brush fire fighting equipment to CA.

That and CA is not even using all they have, they have not even called in everyone they can.

The rain we got this year ended a very long drought we have had over the last several years

How is human activity causing the global warming being experienced on Mars, Titan, Jupiter and every other planet and planetoid in our solar system where we have been able to observe melting polar caps and increased storm activity?

The global warming hysterians' fallacy is not that it is warmer than it was a century ago, but that it is attributable to human activity. Meanwhile, it is still much colder than it was in the 1300s and in the 100s. Compared to the dinosaur ages, we're still deep in the throes of the ice age.

How is human activity causing the global warming being experienced on Mars, Titan, Jupiter and every other planet and planetoid in our solar system where we have been able to observe melting polar caps and increased storm activity?

The global warming hysterians' fallacy is not that it is warmer than it was a century ago, but that it is attributable to human activity. Meanwhile, it is still much colder than it was in the 1300s and in the 100s. Compared to the dinosaur ages, we're still deep in the throes of the ice age.



Yes, but the dinosaurs didn't have a beach house in Florida. Nor did they have agribusiness in areas that turned to desert. We are much more tied to and affected by changes in the weather than dinosaurs were in the sense that we place a high value on each human life.

As Colin has posted in the past, the changes will come, and millions will die. If you are a survival of the fittest type, so be it. Of course in this case fittest means richest.

If we are causing a change that will result in these kinds of problems the least we could do is feel guilty about it... BTW - when I say we I mean the good old USA since we've done the most damage.

BTW Bruce please give me a citation on the temp changes on Mars etc. In fact give me two. One from a credible source that shows it's happening. And two one that compares the changes there with the changes occurring on earth so we can determine that the causative agent is the same and obviously non-man made. Keep in mind that the analyst will have to be good enough to compensate for the differences in Earth's and Mars' positions relative to the sun.

I'll start for you.

This article cites the proponent of the model that it's the sun. He neglects the natural cycles that occur in Mar's spin that result in a natural melt cycle for it's polar ice caps.

Enjoy the read.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming �Greatest Scam in History� (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/)

just a few quotes from this blog


Global Warming; It is a SCAM
environmental whacko type
bogus global warming claims
steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going
this wild �scientific� scenario
I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam
high priest of Global Warming

Obesity and Climate Change (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING_DIET?SITE=FLROC&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLA TE=DEFAULT)

Americans would be healthier and happier if they burned more calories and less gasoline.

YAWN!

Za, you're not paying attention. You've got tons of evidence collected by and analyzed by scientists who come to one conclusion. Then you you've got the CEO of the Weather Channel saying that 2000 scientists are perpetrating a scam. This is sort of like saying the government perpetrated 9/11. You could never keep such a thing secret.

All of this is irrelevant. It's coming, get our your waders, drought resistant knickers, whatever it takes to weather what's coming your way. That's the real travesty. While we argue whether it's man caused or nature causes, we're doing nothing to prepare for it coming.

Now, I've got this used bomb shelter in my back yard that I can sell you. It's got a sump pump in case it rains...

Seems like we hear this argument every time an expert speaks out on the other side of this debate. Right before he loses his tenure or his job, too. "Everyone but this one guy agrees. Blah, blah, blah."

It's not always the same guy, you know.

If you pause for a moment and think about what makes science what science is, and what separates science from religion, culture, politics and other matters of opinion, you have to see that there is no scientific evidence for the human caused global warming theory. Anyone who has had a scientific methods class in college can explain this to you.

In fact, if you look at what most closely resembles scientific evidence, you see that simultaneous with Earth warming up, you have Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan and another methane covered planetoid whose name I forget all warming up too.

It is the opposite of science to search for five separate explanations for one similar phenomenon. Every planet and moon in the solar system with ice caps or an atmosphere shows signs of global warming. Therefore, global warmiong on Earth and Earth alone is caused by human activity.

Could be true, but it is not science.

Any references from peer-reviewed journals to back this up? I didn't find much on Pubmed.

Hey I just post what I find. Funny thing is, he knew when he came out of the closet, he was going to be attacked.

Look, there are so many holes in Inconvenient truth, and there were NON scientist in the study, I just have a hard time taking it for granted.

I am no doom and gloom kind of guy, the world has been MUCH hotter than it is today, we will survive.

Same goes to terrorism. You have a better chance of being killed in your bathtub than by terrorism. I am not going to worry about it.

Bruce,

I haven't yet seen an argument made by an expert. Are you saying that you think the CEO of the Weather Channel is a climate expert?

Hey I just post what I find. Funny thing is, he knew when he came out of the closet, he was going to be attacked.

Look, there are so many holes in Inconvenient truth, and there were NON scientist in the study, I just have a hard time taking it for granted.

I am no doom and gloom kind of guy, the world has been MUCH hotter than it is today, we will survive.

Same goes to terrorism. You have a better chance of being killed in your bathtub than by terrorism. I am not going to worry about it.



Actually Za,

There aren't many holes in an Inconvenient Truth. Just like there aren't any holes in the reality that a handful of Terrorists pulled off 9/11. Well, there is the hole that Bush and his cronies acted so slowly and stupidly that a lot more damage was done than need be, but that's pretty obvious from reading the 9/11 report.

BTW Bruce, you still haven't posted any credible information showing that Global Warming is Solar System Wide; I did find a great article in the Examiner about Big Foot on Mars though, something about global warming making it more comfy for him there.

BTW - maybe the point you guys are missing is the knowledge base. Climate scientists pretty much know what causes ice ages, there are several factors including earth cycles (i.e. minor disruptions in how the earth rotates). The problem is that none of those factors is in play here in the same way. You have a phenomena occurring that doesn't have the "natural" factors that typically drive such events surrounding it. The only factor that you have associated with this global warming is CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), being generated by mankind...

BTW - there are past events that mimic what is going on, but always with some other event, say a series of volcanoes going off. Such events do occur in a natural cycle. You can make the argument that "well, this could happen anyway at any time in the future" (any time being undefined because we still don't know how to predict every geological event).

However, this ignores two things. 1) why experiment if you don't have to? Why cause a disruption that might or might not happen just based on the supposition that it could happen anyway? That's like saying, well, there could be a bird flu pandemic, so lets go ahead and cause one. 2) All of the arguing prevents two things, meaningful actions to limit the damage and to prepare for what is coming.

The fact is that we've never seen the kind of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere that we are now seeing in the measurable history of the planet. We aren't on a natural cycle or to say it differently, none of the perturbations that have occurred in the past have resulted in this much CO2 being in the atmosphere (we're talking during the period of animal dominance on the planet). We don't know what is going to happen when it is all said and done. The result could be gentle global warming. It could be an ice age. It could be that we will push the planet's temperature cycles to a point that mankind can't exist. We just don't know. It seems pretty stupid to try it just to see.

Even if you don't buy any of that, why in the world would you want to significantly change your planet's atmosphere? Why do something that may have results you can't predict. That's like taking a dump in your bed and saying well, poop is natural after all. I mean, every animal does it and it's part of the natural cycle so why not?

One other thing, Colin's nice chart from earlier, shows global warming clearly. What he's done there is presented a chart that shows huge planetary variations that have occurred in the past. He neglects to tell you that during those perturpations that millions of animals died off and that the very nature of the species on the planet changed. During one of those disruptions we went from a dominance by dinosaurs to a dominance by mammals. Maybe when we're done we will go from a dominance by mammals to one by insects. I can see it now, sophisticated cockroaches drinking a tea equivalent saying, "stupid mammals, they actually drove themselves to extinction. At least the dinosaurs didn't do it to themselves."

Anybody who cares about the truth probably already knows how to use google. Anyone who boldly states that there are no experts who disagree with his position is wearing blinders.

The Inter~web: where one can conveniently support or refute ANYTHING...with 'facts'.

The overwhelming percentage of reputable scientists working in fields related to climate change agree that climate change is real, is happening now, is happening much faster that predicted and is caused by human activity. Google searches totally disregard that fact and make it seem like all opinions are equal. The plain truth is they�re not.

Come on people: the argument that climate change is not happening or that it is a natural phenomenon has been over for some time. Even W &amp; ExxonMobil now concede that anthropomorphic climate change is real.

Lyle hits it right on the button: �All of the arguing prevents two things, meaningful actions to limit the damage and to prepare for what is coming.�

A recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient has suggested ten initial steps to address climate change now:

1) An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a 90% reductions by 2050.

2) Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.

3) Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.

4) Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.

5) Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

6) Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.

7) Raise automobile CAFE standards.

8) Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

9) Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.

10) Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."

A shift must occur...and a shift AWAY from 'oil~based~wars' toward a concerted global effort to assist our planetary home makes a lot of sense...to me, anyway.

Anybody who cares about the truth probably already knows how to use google. Anyone who boldly states that there are no experts who disagree with his position is wearing blinders.



Then it should be easy for you to give us one Bruce. I'm not going to waste my time looking at the names of four minor scientists who all take money from Exxon Mobile while decrying that they don't as a realistic counter. Find me a main stream climatologist who disagrees with the position - Google or otherwise.

In lieu of that, tell me how the several thousand climatologists out there have kept the cat in the bag on this most excellent scam they are pulling off.

I'd still prefer something peer-reviewed, preferably from a journal with a high impact factor. The google is not science!

I'd still prefer something peer-reviewed, preferably from a journal with a high impact factor. The google is not science!



Let me clarify, I'm assuming you can find a peer-reviewed scientist by Googling. That is how I define credible. Thanks for the correction Ceph

How can a person that lives 30 miles from his office with no real system of mass transit eliminate his carbon footprint ?

How can a person that lives 30 miles from his office with no real system of mass transit eliminate his carbon footprint ?



Teleportation. Gary, haven't you been watching Star Trek?

When I lived in Boston I rode to work, about 25 miles each way, along the Charles River. I was 20 lbs lighter and women hadn't figured out that I was revolting. :D

Just to be clear, I'm more interested in the what we're going to do part of this. Whether it's us or aliens or natural, it's coming. No matter what we do, the path, IMO, is set. So, what is it we can do to protect my home here in Houston? I mean, you Dallas guys are set but I'm lookin' at a high reduction in my home value if we get 10 to 20 feet of extra ocean.

lyle, you might have shore front property, when you do, sell baby sell.

izink, I have a few things to say about that plan

1) An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a 90% reductions by 2050.

<font color="blue"> only one question, how. By 2050, we will be out of fossil fuel anyways </font>

2) Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
<font color="blue"> may be the stupidest idea I have ever seen </font>

3) Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
<font color="blue"> typical socialist idea, tax the rich and give to the poor. </font>

4) Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.

<font color="blue"> yea, good luck with that. Why in the world does anyone sign on to a treaty that lets other countries pollute more then we can. It does not help. China is the WORST polluter in the world, and it does nothing to change that.</font>

5) Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

<font color="blue"> I don't have a problem with this one so much. </font>

6) Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.

<font color="blue"> You can already do this, I have heard of people doing it out in the country. </font>

7) Raise automobile CAFE standards.

<font color="blue"> yea, what ever, a new car put out the same pollution as dropping a teaspoon of gas on the ground. </font>

8) Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

<font color="blue"> stupid idea, as new lighting gets cheaper and lasts longer, they will go the way of the dinosaur anyways. </font>

9) Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.

<font color="blue"> as long as the government has nothing to do with it, including regulations. </font>

10) Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."

<font color="blue"> another crackpot idea that is not going to happen.

Now I know why they call Gore a nut job. </font>

Now I know why they call Gore a nut job. </font>



You actually needed proof?

Actually Za,

It's not shore front. But what's going to happen is the water is going to push back up into the bayous here. The flow will be impeded overall and there will be a lot more flooding. Alison will be the norm. My house is pretty high but if you had Alison + 12 inches I'd be in trouble

How can a person that lives 30 miles from his office with no real system of mass transit eliminate his carbon footprint ?



Teleportation. Gary, haven't you been watching Star Trek?

When I lived in Boston I rode to work, about 25 miles each way, along the Charles River. I was 20 lbs lighter and women hadn't figured out that I was revolting. :D

Just to be clear, I'm more interested in the what we're going to do part of this. Whether it's us or aliens or natural, it's coming. No matter what we do, the path, IMO, is set. So, what is it we can do to protect my home here in Houston? I mean, you Dallas guys are set but I'm lookin' at a high reduction in my home value if we get 10 to 20 feet of extra ocean.



I'm just saying that implementing policies that seem reasonable in the northeast, make absolutely no sense when applied to situations in the rural south or midwest where driving a personal vehicle is pretty much a requirement.

How can a person that lives 30 miles from his office with no real system of mass transit eliminate his carbon footprint ?



Teleportation. Gary, haven't you been watching Star Trek?

When I lived in Boston I rode to work, about 25 miles each way, along the Charles River. I was 20 lbs lighter and women hadn't figured out that I was revolting. :D

Just to be clear, I'm more interested in the what we're going to do part of this. Whether it's us or aliens or natural, it's coming. No matter what we do, the path, IMO, is set. So, what is it we can do to protect my home here in Houston? I mean, you Dallas guys are set but I'm lookin' at a high reduction in my home value if we get 10 to 20 feet of extra ocean.



I'm just saying that implementing policies that seem reasonable in the northeast, make absolutely no sense when applied to situations in the rural south or midwest where driving a personal vehicle is pretty much a requirement.



Absolutely. However, I might also point out that the South, and even the "liberal" West has asiduously avoided rational actions that would have metered the situation. Take Houston where the developers control city hall. They've carefully crushed any plan that would significantly expand public transportation in a meaningful way. At one time there were rail lines running along every major freeway in the city that could have been converted relatively cheaply (we're talking millions of dollars) to mass transit lines. Instead, they were torn out to put in widened freeways that studies show will be outdated before they are finished at the cost of billions of dollars. Houston isn't alone in this. GM pushed out mass transit in LA in the 30s and many other Western Cities have allowed similar influences to drive them down poor pathways. Now, I spend 3 hours a day in traffic in one of the most congested freeway systems in the country.

Practically speaking, you're correct Gary, but shouldn't we hold our elected officials accountable for their actions?

Uh, the citizens control City Hall, via the ballot.

James, you're old enough to know better than that.

James, you're old enough to know better than that.



What Tony said with the addition that the public often doesn't know what's best. They are easily manipulated by good marketing. Presumably, our elected leaders would be beyond such things... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Check this (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071106.html) out....

I wish I had tim to read this.
US Senate Committee Report (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord_ id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&amp;IsPrint=True)

Anybody who cares about the truth probably already knows how to use google. Anyone who boldly states that there are no experts who disagree with his position is wearing blinders.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord_ id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb