global warmongering

[flaja]

Bush Ruined My Sex Life
Last night, I swung by the home of my significant other, Ashley "Peaceblossom" Phelps, who may or not be a member of the transgendered community.

"I'm here to pah-tay," I said when she opened the door, "with your boo-taaaay!"

"Pee Ewwww!" she replied, her face scrunching up with disgust. "What's that stench? Is that YOU?"

"I CAN'T HELP IT!" I cried. "THIS DAMNED GLOBAL WARMING'S GOT ME SWEATING LIKE A PIG! I'VE GONE THROUGH 14 JARS OF PATCHOULI IN TWO DAYS!!!"

The past few weeks have been unbelievable hot, indeed. Ever since Bush refused to sign the Kyoto accords, I've noticed a dramatic change in the weather. Starting right around the month of March and April, the mercury slowly rises higher and higher, right through July when the heat is unbearable and my own cats won't even come near me. Then just as mysteriously, the thermometer begins to drop around September, continuing to decline well into January until the whole region is covered in a thick frost. These bizarre fluctuations in temperatures lends credence to the consensus among French scientists that we're just one generation away from either a second ice age or solar incineration unless we sign our economy over to the U.N.

But try to explain that to Ashley. All she wants to do is stand there, holding her nose, screaming: "GET AWAY GET AWAY GET AWAY!"

So thanks, Shrub, for depriving me of yet another one of life's little pleasures.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/environment/index.html

How does global warming explain the fact that central Florida had snow flurries 2 days before Thanksgiving? My local TV weatherman commented on it and I thought he was joking, but then I saw the same thing reported in my local newspaper.

The earliest any part of Florida has had snow before was Christmas Day 1990. Any other time during my life no part of Florida has had snow before January or February.

 

[red states rule]

How does global warming explain the fact that central Florida had snow flurries 2 days before Thanksgiving? My local TV weatherman commented on it and I thought he was joking, but then I saw the same thing reported in my local newspaper.

The earliest any part of Florida has had snow before was Christmas Day 1990. Any other time during my life no part of Florida has had snow before January or February.

Wrongo! I lived in Daytona beach and they had snow flurries in 1983

It is normal climate patterns. Global warming is a fairy tale manufactured by libs to scare people into forking over money for their insane programs

 

[CockySOB]

I’ve explained how I use quotes in a previous thread. I don’t use nested quotes for the sake of saving some typing; I have arthritis in my shoulders.

Sacrificing clarity for comfort is rarely appropriate. The fact remains that intelligent participation on a board such is this requires effort and perhaps a little pain. But even the pain can be alleviated to a point by taking your time when posting - I know it helped me this past year as my carpal and radial impingements got worse, and during my recovery period after surgery.

 

[red states rule]

Sacrificing clarity for comfort is rarely appropriate. The fact remains that intelligent participation on a board such is this requires effort and perhaps a little pain. But even the pain can be alleviated to a point by taking your time when posting - I know it helped me this past year as my carpal and radial impingements got worse, and during my recovery period after surgery.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.


Tom Harris is a mechanical engineer and Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), a new Canadian environment and natural resources non-profit group. He can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

[theHawk]

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

I like the idea of government setting the example. I've avocated similar in the past. We need to get the large commercial trucks changed over to biodiesel. The problem is it has to be profitable for companies to make that change.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

I don't see how we can do that, companies and people aren't going to be willing to reduce the amount of money that flows to them.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

Sounds good, just need to find people willing to pay for it.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

It would be nice if there was more mass transportation available. Out west its very rare for large cities to have some kind of rail system.


And instead of car companies pushing the lame ass hybrid cars, they should be making all-electric vehicles. With a range of over 200 miles, they aren't the best for long distance travel but would be perfect for cities/going to work.
If they were more affordable I'd buy one today.

 

[glockmail]

If my ideas won't stop global warming, what will?

Nuclear power and unbridled capitalism.

 

[glockmail]

My ideas are meant to achieve conservative goals. You do see national security and saving money and natural resources as conservative goals, don’t you?

Yes I do. But your ideas would have the opposite effect as I and others have proved to you.

 

[glockmail]

Wrongo! I lived in Daytona beach and they had snow flurries in 1983

...

Back then the whackos were all screaming about the coming ice age, their theory was that smog would block out the suns rays.:happy2:

 

[red states rule]

Back then the whackos were all screaming about the coming ice age, their theory was that smog would block out the suns rays.:happy2:

On Fox News, I saw RFJ Jr say "global warming will cause the next ice age"

He must be wacked out on drugs and booze - like most of the Kennedy's

 

[flaja]

Wrongo! I lived in Daytona beach and they had snow flurries in 1983

What time of the year? I remember having record cold at Christmas here in the northern end of the state in 1983, but it was clear and dry. But, even if you had snow flurries at Christmas 1983, my points stands- Christmas is the earliest Florida has ever seen any kind of snow until last week. When snows (at least in my part of the state) it is not usually before January or February.

 

[flaja]

Sacrificing clarity for comfort is rarely appropriate. The fact remains that intelligent participation on a board such is this requires effort and perhaps a little pain. But even the pain can be alleviated to a point by taking your time when posting - I know it helped me this past year as my carpal and radial impingements got worse, and during my recovery period after surgery.

Other boards I have been on have quote functions that will quote the entire post you are responding to. If you are responding to a post that quoted from yet a previous post, this board’s quote function will repeat only the new material. To get the quote history of a particular post you have to use your word processor’s cut-and-paste function.

 

[flaja]

:
Originally Posted by flaja
3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

I don't see how we can do that, companies and people aren't going to be willing to reduce the amount of money that flows to them.

The difficulty simply illustrates the power we have allowed large corporations to accumulate. I live in a city where Wal-Mart has been fighting citizens groups over a Wal-Mart store being put at a particular location for about 5 years now. When the city council said no Wal-Mart began lobbying the state cabinet. I fear that Wal-Mart will eventually win because its pockets are likely deeper than anything a citizens group can muster.

Originally Posted by flaja
4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

Sounds good, just need to find people willing to pay for it.

If anything I’d say that a biological-based wastewater recovery plant would cost far less to build and operate than a new conventional plant would cost. There are some design companies that have developed household-sized treatment units, but I envision the creation of non-profit, neighborhood based treatment plants established with government grants.

Originally Posted by flaja
5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

It would be nice if there was more mass transportation available. Out west its very rare for large cities to have some kind of rail system.

What about a nationwide rail network connecting every U.S. city with a population of 5000 or more? Then integrate this rail network with buses and subways and commuter rail within urban centers.

And instead of car companies pushing the lame ass hybrid cars, they should be making all-electric vehicles. With a range of over 200 miles, they aren't the best for long distance travel but would be perfect for cities/going to work.

I’m not a fan of personal automobiles because they promote urban sprawl and social isolation. The more people there are who ride public transportation the more people will have to interact with each other.

 

[flaja]

Nuclear power and unbridled capitalism.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl- not to mention terrorist strikes.

 

[flaja]

Yes I do. But your ideas would have the opposite effect as I and others have proved to you.

How so? Explain in detail.

 

[flaja]

On Fox News, I saw RFJ Jr say "global warming will cause the next ice age"

He must be wacked out on drugs and booze - like most of the Kennedy's

Actually an ice age caused by global warming is gaining acceptance as part of the standard environmental hysteria. Supposedly the warming will melt the polar ice caps which will flood the oceans with fresh water thereby disrupting ocean currents- mainly the Gulf Stream that keeps Western Europe warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.

 

[glockmail]

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl- not to mention terrorist strikes.

No one died from 3 mile. Chernobyl design was only used by the USSR, a non-capitalist state. How many people have died for oil? No terrorist has ever sucessfully attacked a nuke station. A direct hit by a fully loaded 747 would hardly scratch the containment dome.

 

[glockmail]

How so? Explain in detail.

Read posts 2 and 5. In detail.

 

[flaja]

Read posts 2 and 5. In detail.

You offered nothing to document your claims in post #2- a tactic you have apparently perfected because you have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact and persist in doing so even when you are asked for documentation. Furthermore, post #5 is not even yours- or are you saying you let other people do your talking because you are so bad at doing your own?

 

[Gunny]

The difficulty simply illustrates the power we have allowed large corporations to accumulate. I live in a city where Wal-Mart has been fighting citizens groups over a Wal-Mart store being put at a particular location for about 5 years now. When the city council said no Wal-Mart began lobbying the state cabinet. I fear that Wal-Mart will eventually win because its pockets are likely deeper than anything a citizens group can muster.



If anything I’d say that a biological-based wastewater recovery plant would cost far less to build and operate than a new conventional plant would cost. There are some design companies that have developed household-sized treatment units, but I envision the creation of non-profit, neighborhood based treatment plants established with government grants.



What about a nationwide rail network connecting every U.S. city with a population of 5000 or more? Then integrate this rail network with buses and subways and commuter rail within urban centers.



I’m not a fan of personal automobiles because they promote urban sprawl and social isolation. The more people there are who ride public transportation the more people will have to interact with each other.

If your last line doesn't just say it all, I don't know what does. I don't suppose it ever occurs to you that just maybe there are people who don't want to interract with other people? Enforced social interaction is bullshit.

I socialize with who I want to, when I want to.

Seems you're more than willing to step all over someone else's freedoms in pursuit of your political/social ideology.

 

[glockmail]

You offered nothing to document your claims in post #2- a tactic you have apparently perfected because you have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact and persist in doing so even when you are asked for documentation. Furthermore, post #5 is not even yours- or are you saying you let other people do your talking because you are so bad at doing your own?

Post 5 opinion agreed with my Post 2 opinion which disagreed with your post 1.