Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OCA said:Look up the word cyclical.
Fuck Barbara Streisand, she's a dyke.
oh... that was baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-d!Abbey Normal said:But I always liked her ode to liberals:
"Sheeple, sheeple who need sheeple,
Are the luckiest sheeple, in the world."
Nuc said:Unfortunately for you guys and the world, she's right.
fuzzykitten99 said:HEY Nuc!
thought you would like this. it is from the official National Hurricane Center...
notice the total average numbers of cat 4 & 5 storms are both less than 2?
global warming huh? storms worse than even last century huh? ok, yeah, sure.
ignore facts and make up your own shit.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml[/QUOTE
Wow Fuzzy,
Quite an eye opener! Kind of makes the global warming arguement look a bit weak. . . then again do we really believe in "scientist" with obvious political agendas and hands held out wide for government grants to continue their faulty research.
Funny how little the media reported the 2003 study by Harvard researchers below. . .
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200304\CUL20030408a.html
A new scientific review of climate history contends that the earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today, supplying ammunition to one critic of the environmental movement who claims concern over "global warming" has been "sheer folly."
A team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages.
"This new study merely affirms the obvious: climate alarmism based on a few years' or even a century's data is sheer folly, reminding us again that geological cycles spanning millennia do not share the rush of agenda-driven scientists or activists," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free-market environmental think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, told CNSNews.com.
The Harvard study is set to be published this spring in the journal Energy and Environment. According to the study, a global medieval warming period lasting from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was followed by a Little Ice Age between the years 1300 to 1900. The study also states that the earth has been warming slightly since 1900.
sitarro said:Wow Fuzzy,
Quite an eye opener! Kind of makes the global warming arguement look a bit weak. . . then again do we really believe in "scientist" with obvious political agendas and hands held out wide for government grants to continue their faulty research.
Funny how little the media reported the 2003 study by Harvard researchers below. . .
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200304\CUL20030408a.html
A new scientific review of climate history contends that the earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today, supplying ammunition to one critic of the environmental movement who claims concern over "global warming" has been "sheer folly."
A team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages.
"This new study merely affirms the obvious: climate alarmism based on a few years' or even a century's data is sheer folly, reminding us again that geological cycles spanning millennia do not share the rush of agenda-driven scientists or activists," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free-market environmental think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, told CNSNews.com.
The Harvard study is set to be published this spring in the journal Energy and Environment. According to the study, a global medieval warming period lasting from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was followed by a Little Ice Age between the years 1300 to 1900. The study also states that the earth has been warming slightly since 1900.
The ClayTaurus said:While I agree with the conclusion, it should be noted that basing your opinion only on the # of storms that hit the United States is hardly proof for or against global warming.
manu1959 said:why is that? 20% fewere storms have hit the united states post 1950s than pre 1950s......hurricans are fed by warm water....warm water is a byproduct of global warming....the use of fossile fuels has exploded post WWII .....why then is not the number of storms up by 20% rather than down?
The ClayTaurus said:Simply because global warming is exactly that, global. It's not gulf of mexico warming. I don't have the statistics on world storms to see what the trend is, but just because the gulf is warmer or colder does not imply the same is true for the rest of the world. Relax, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the evidence is weak.
manu1959 said:it was clear that you were not disagreeing...i am relaxed....and come on...america is the center of the universe...if the US is hit by two storms in two weeks there must be global warming....
The ClayTaurus said:Would you agree that claiming there is or is not global warming based solely on the number of storms that hit the United States is rather silly?
The ClayTaurus said:Simply because global warming is exactly that, global. It's not gulf of mexico warming. I don't have the statistics on world storms to see what the trend is, but just because the gulf is warmer or colder does not imply the same is true for the rest of the world. Relax, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the evidence is weak.
sitarro said:Did you read the Harvard study that I posted. Do you understand that just because a person has scientist on their business card it doesn't mean that they can't be bought off(I believe the tobacco industry can find plenty of "scientist" to show research that cigarettes cause no damage at all). It is in the world community's interest, especially China and India, that the U.S. economy gets screwed by signing that bullshit Kyoto treaty. How fair is a treaty that omits the 2 largest growing populations/economies that also have abhorent environmental and human rights records?
I know Euros love to cite that the U.S. has blah, blah population and uses blah, blah amounts of energy and produces blah, blah amounts of pollution. Should we in the U.S., knowing the jealousy and hatred directed at us, believe some Belgian or French psuedo scientist that could be bribed with a croissant? I don't believe most of what is regergetated by the French, my ancestors fled that mold eating country for a reason.
Europe hates the U.S., a cowboy culture of unwashed, arrogant, uneducated throwaways that took less than 200 years to become the country that not only feeds the world but also leads the world in technology and compassion for the needy. We are the first on the scene of any disaster even if it takes place in an enemy's country(Iran after the earthquake, Indonesia after the Tsunami). Only 200 years to become The country that the rest of the world flocks to. It must suck to have so much history and culture and let your arrogance allow you to become a second rate country.