Somewhere in cyberspace, a a small cartoon-type violin is being misused and abused.
Printable View
Somewhere in cyberspace, a a small cartoon-type violin is being misused and abused.
Well stop playing the victim.
It's not a conspiracy to attack conservatives.
Damn jk24, you repeatedly keep gettin' pwned by people and refuse to admit it.
Oh well, the first step is always denial.....
Are you sure? Do you have documented proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
This, as opposed to what you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Maybe no one cares to figure that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4This, as opposed to what you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
You still haven't figured out what I think.
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
Ditto :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Maybe no one cares to figure that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Maybe no one cares to figure that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.
All of this is an argument based on politics as to what can be done, and is also a misrepresntaion of what most are suggesting taking worst cases (from your viewpoint) and suggesting that if one thinks global warming is real then they think that is the only solution..playing the victim againQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
So given that the scientist are not actually saying that man is the only cause of the warming global trend (remember it's overall global warming not local examples) but that man is speeding up the process.
do you deny that man has any effect whatsoever?
Because it always seems that "conservative skeptics" always bring up "the cost issue" and "why should we do something when other pollute as well"
Again, you muck up your posts with "You still haven't figured it out."Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Maybe no one cares to figure that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.
Besides that, man is not being practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.
Why? The dollar many times overrules simple safety protocols already in place. What the hell do you think happens with pollution?
So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.
i'm sorry i've kept out of this too long because i knew i'd get wound up. why is J2 still bumping this? i'm pretty sure that when i was following this he was doing his CnP from a guy who's paid by the oil giants. A guy that uses irrelevant points like because ice on high up mountain summits is not melting; that means the actual facts of rising sea levels from melting sea ice and record temperatures are untrue.
so like, someone sum it up for me plz
Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.
That sounds so cryptic...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
I thought that was what this was all about:
Man broke it, man must fix it.
Isn't that right?
And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
Literally, figuratively or both :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by kazaaman
As I've read the sentiment, it seems the global-warming fear-mongers qualify it thus:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyLiterally, figuratively or both :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If we can, we should.
If we can't, then we still should, as penance.
If it develops that the tide recedes on it's own, history will be revised accordingly.
71 degrees today in the DC area.
Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.:dabs:
Nope I didn't read it. If you wanna talk about ignorant, bring up the fact that you have nary a word to say until there is finally something backing your stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
When there's overwhelming scientific backing of an opposing stance well.......
"There is global warming because the globe is getting warmer" thus spake Zarathustra.
Actually it was GW but I was close :)
If the globe is getting warmer, and certainly my garden seems to think so, then we have to decide what this means for us and make adjustments accordingly (without panic). If we are responsible, wholly or in part, then it might be an idea for us to at least stop digging until we see where where the hole has got us to and what if any impact we can muster to change things. Although the world is warmer place than when I was a kid I would not say it is any worse or better - just different. My Uncle is in his 70s and has a large kitchen garden - he is growing plants he would not have considered possible 50 years ago. However, there comes a point when too much of anything is enough.
I don't subscribe to the idea that it is all some ghastly conspiracy but neither do I think media panics are of much help. If anything the latter just make people cynical and consequently ignore advice that might be genuinely useful.
scientific theory changes. in 1902 we didn't have satellites FFS. in 1976 the fastest computer in the world was 80mhz and cost $5million.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
nowadays hundreds of thousands of people are analyzing possible paths the climate could take to work out the most likely outcome. by making an average of the results of more theories than has been done since we started even started to care, we see that global temperatures are rising.
you should check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
maybe if you try and understand how stuff works you'll be able to make up your own mind instead of just listen to your local exxon employee
i do think it's cute though that you have "The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
two inches away from Tell you what...we'll do it your way.
Afterward, when we're standing amid the wreckage, I promise I won't say, "I told you so..."
:happy:
You didn't read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Who's ignorant, then?
BTW-
If I have had "nary a word" to say about global-warming, then where have all these global-warming threads come from?
Find for me such a thread in which I have not participated.
Honestly, I have to give you credit...merely being wrong isn't enough for you, you're always willing to go that extra mile, aren't you? :)
I'll bet you won't, though, 'cuz it would be out of season. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Here's a question:
What if the polar ice caps start to melt, but then stop?
What if the "carnage" of our impending inundation claims nothing beyond the odd island here or there?
Lake Superior is waaaaaaaaaaay down...I have heard that a few eskimo entrepeneurs have started a huge new glacier, with the aim of ransoming it Bush for large cash.
As you are closer to the Halls of Power, I was wondering if you'd heard anything?
So, by way of attempting to relieve me of my ignorance, you refer me to a wikipedia link, wherein is contained the word "prediction"?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Tell me:
Why do you think it isn't called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate.we're.fried.net?
Anyone who refers anyone else to anything with the word "wikipedia" in it is pretty weak.
oh that's nice. selective quoting to make me look good. please to be doing more of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4So, by way of attempting to relieve me of my ignorance, you refer me to a wikipedia link, wherein is contained the word "prediction"?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Tell me:
Why do you think it isn't called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate.we're.fried.net?
Anyone who refers anyone else to anything with the word "wikipedia" in it is pretty weak.
the wikipedia article describes the scientific process involved. it's not an article that tries to pass off opinion as fact nor does it even speculate anything. it just says this is how it works, this is what sets it apart from other experiments. you should like it, it's probably a direct copy and paste. the page also contains links to other stuff about the experiment.
prediction would be the word used by people for prediction, btw
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.Quote:
Originally Posted by J2k4
Which word you obviously define as "sure thing".Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Ah, wikipedia.
It's good for what ails you, isn't it? ;)
oh, so we're playing that game.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Which word you obviously define as "sure thing".Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Ah, wikipedia.
It's good for what ails you, isn't it? ;)
i'll have a turn then i'll fuck off and do something useful.
how about...
prediction is the word used to describe a probable outcome.
absolute bollocks is the word used to describe the bullshit and obfuscation used to keep the right wing herd in place. they gotta be fed a nonsensical editorial every so often because if you don't give someone their fix they might think.
Now, let's try this:Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankinsoh, so we're playing that game.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
i'll have a turn then i'll fuck off and do something useful.
how about...
prediction is the word used to describe a probable outcome.
absolute bollocks is the word used to describe the bullshit and obfuscation used to keep the right wing herd in place. they gotta be fed a nonsensical editorial every so often because if you don't give someone their fix they might think.
You and I disagree on very little, as regards the actual facts of global warming.
Is it warmer?
Yup.
That is the sole verifiable fact.
The rest is up to one's individual sensibilities:
Is global warming irreversible?
Some say yes, some say no.
Is global warming (to a measurable degree) caused by man?
Again, some yes, some no.
Can global warming be affected positively by man (that is to say, can man, by virtue of his living habits, lower the earth's temperature)?
Some yes, some no.
Should man exercise discretion and economy as regards consumption?
You would say "Yes, so that we might save the planet!"
I would say "Yes, because it only makes sense to do so."
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
Well, if it gets hot enough, it gets really cold, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Melt enough of the glaciers of our poles and the colder water released from them will mess up the gulf stream and eventually prompt a new ice age.
I don't know how far off we are tho', too many nutters on both sides messing with the facts.
As for history, well, I don't suppose people in venice getting closer to losing their homes matters much.
if we both agree that we should do something about it, why do you keep insisting that we shouldn't? why do you keep posting stuff to try and make out the scientific process is completely useless. why act like it's an attack on republicans?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Now, let's try this:Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
You and I disagree on very little, as regards the actual facts of global warming.
Is it warmer?
Yup.
That is the sole verifiable fact.
The rest is up to one's individual sensibilities:
Is global warming irreversible?
Some say yes, some say no.
Is global warming (to a measurable degree) caused by man?
Again, some yes, some no.
Can global warming be affected positively by man (that is to say, can man, by virtue of his living habits, lower the earth's temperature)?
Some yes, some no.
Should man exercise discretion and economy as regards consumption?
You would say "Yes, so that we might save the planet!"
I would say "Yes, because it only makes sense to do so."
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.
i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.
right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.
change really would be quite a bad thing
Thank you for your response.
If you'd taken the time to notice, every one of my posts (close to fifty in this thread, only 2 C & Ps, and one link) has as it's main thrust the idea that we cannot be at all sure of the precise reasons we should be alarmed, nor whether being alarmed will be of any use, in and of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Personally, I feel it to be of little use.
If it is happening, I suspect it is happening alongside, and in spite of, any trespasses of man.
In one case, we fight the effects of our own excesses.
In the other, we're choosing off God, Mother Nature, Allah, or any other force to which you would attribute the warming trend.
In the first instance, perhaps we can have some effect.
In the latter?
Tell me how we can even try?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
It is merely a piece of land which has become less hospitable to/compatible with human existence, at a time when lands previously inhospitable/incompatible (think polar) would become viable.
Right?
You are correct, Britain is indeed a small island when compared with Saharan Africa, which is a bit dryer, I think you'll agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Hot weather evaporates water?
Right again!
The water rises into the atmosphere, where it re-condenses as vapor, forming clouds, which release precipitation, and also, uh, cools the Earth...
So there's no hope whatsoever for Africa, is there? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Terrifically reasoned, really... :whistling
Yes, in fact, I'm sure the dinosaurs thought so, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4You didn't read it?
Who's ignorant, then?
BTW-
If I have had "nary a word" to say about global-warming, then where have all these global-warming threads come from?
Find for me such a thread in which I have not participated.
Honestly, I have to give you credit...merely being wrong isn't enough for you, you're always willing to go that extra mile, aren't you? :)
I'll bet you won't, though, 'cuz it would be out of season. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Here's a question:
What if the polar ice caps start to melt, but then stop?
What if the "carnage" of our impending inundation claims nothing beyond the odd island here or there?
Lake Superior is waaaaaaaaaaay down...I have heard that a few eskimo entrepeneurs have started a huge new glacier, with the aim of ransoming it Bush for large cash.
As you are closer to the Halls of Power, I was wondering if you'd heard anything?
Oh I need to rephrase then. You have participated but now you trumpet a CNP as "proof".
Btw, one dresses for the weather, not the season.
There was this dumbass lady on the subway all wrapped up in a scarf and skull cap telling me that I should have coat on. I told I don't need one, she said it's fall season. I said so what it's 75 degrees outside. I asked her that if it hit 80 in the winter would she still wear a coat.
She said yes cuz it would be winter.:dabs:
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
Already there.:unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I think there needs to be a middle ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnYWell, if it gets hot enough, it gets really cold, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Melt enough of the glaciers of our poles and the colder water released from them will mess up the gulf stream and eventually prompt a new ice age.
I don't know how far off we are tho', too many nutters on both sides messing with the facts.
As for history, well, I don't suppose people in venice getting closer to losing their homes matters much.
There are those that would have us totally go green in a heartbeat with no care of any other consequences.
On the flip side, you've got the big corporations who don't follow the current regulations. You've got politicians who are working too slowly in affecting change and pushing for enforcement of those regulations.
:lol::earl:Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I'm really hoping Kev hadn't thought that thro'. The alternative would be appaling.
I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
How do you gauge "truthiness", osmosis not being an option? :huh:
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
It is kind of throwing words on the page and see how it works out.
However you have to bear in mind that to wish someone to attempt decent spelling, grammar and syntax in now frowned upon. Apparentement.
...are reassessing, huh?
sourceQuote:
Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.
Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.
Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.
For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now.
I would like to see the actual ExxonMobil statement instead of this article, but if accurate.................