All of you inbred sister sleeping rednecks that think global warming is a myth [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : All of you inbred sister sleeping rednecks that think global warming is a myth

Spider

08-21-2007, 08:06 PM

But on the bright side , more real estate to develop ;D
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070820/ts_nm/climate_ice_dc_1
Islands emerge as Arctic ice shrinks to record low

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Mon Aug 20, 6:28 PM ET

NY ALESUND, Norway (Reuters) - Previously unknown islands are appearing as Arctic summer sea ice shrinks to record lows, raising questions about whether global warming is outpacing U.N. projections, experts said.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Polar bears and seals have also suffered this year on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard because the sea ice they rely on for hunts melted far earlier than normal.

"Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate," Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy said at a seminar of 40 scientists and politicians that began late on Monday in Ny Alesund, 1,200 km (750 miles) from the North Pole.

"This acceleration may be faster than predicted" by the U.N. climate panel this year, she told reporters at the August 20-22 seminar. Ny Alesund calls itself the world's most northerly permanent settlement, and is a base for Arctic research.

The U.N. panel of 2,500 scientists said in February that summer sea ice could almost vanish in the Arctic towards the end of this century. It said warming in the past 50 years was "very likely" the result of greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuel use.

"There may well be an ice-free Arctic by the middle of the century," Christopher Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, told the seminar, accusing the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of underestimating the melt.

The thaw of glaciers that stretch out to sea around Svalbard has revealed several islands that are not on any maps.

"Islands are appearing just over the fjord here" as glaciers recede, said Kim Holmen, research Director at the Norwegian Polar Institute, gesturing out across the bay. "We're already seeing adverse effects on polar bears and other species."

UNCLAIMED

"I know of two islands that appeared in the north of Svalbard this summer. They haven't been claimed yet," said Rune Bergstrom, environmental expert with the Norwegian governor's office on Svalbard.

He said he had seen one of the islands, roughly the size of a basketball court. Islands have also appeared in recent years off Greenland and Canada.

Rapley also said the IPCC was "restrained to the point of being seriously misleading" in toning down what he said were risks of a melt of parts of Antarctica, by far the biggest store of ice on the planet that could raise world sea levels.

Still, in a contrast to the warnings about retreating ice and climate change, snow was falling in Ny Alesund on Monday, several weeks earlier than normal in a region still bathed by the midnight sun. About 30 to 130 people live in the fjord-side settlement, backed by snow-covered mountains.

Bjoernoy said it was a freak storm that did not detract from an overall warming trend.

The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said on Friday that Arctic sea ice had "fallen below the 2005 record low absolute minimum and is still melting." Arctic sea ice reaches an annual minimum in September before freezing again.

The U.S. records are based on satellite data back to the 1970s.

Rapley said that shrinking ice was bad for indigenous peoples and for much wildlife but could help anyone wanting to hunt for oil and gas or open short-cut shipping lanes between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Norway hopes the seminar, with delegates from countries including top greenhouse gas emitters the United States and China, may put pressure on governments to agree to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Bjoernoy said.

Bronco Bob

08-21-2007, 10:26 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-21-2007, 11:52 PM

SoCalBronco

08-21-2007, 11:53 PM

I don't believe Bob has expressed a viewpoint on global warming, but I might be wrong.

DomCasual

08-22-2007, 12:21 AM

I wonder if Saddam was hiding his WMD on one of those new islands.

It's something to consider.

Bronco Bob

08-22-2007, 12:55 AM

Judge Orders Bush Administration to Issue Global Warming Report

Karen Gullo
Tue Aug 21, 5:30 PM ET

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration violated U.S. law by failing to produce a study on the impact of global warming and must issue a summary by March,
a federal judge ruled.

District Judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland, California, said the U.S. government ``unlawfully withheld action'' required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to update a research plan and scientific assessment of climate change.

The law mandates the research plan should be revised every three years and the assessment every four years. The last research plan was in 2003 and the last assessment was published in 2000. Greenpeace International and two other environmental groups who say the U.S. government suppresses science on climate change sued in November seeking a court order to produce the reports.

"As the research plan is now more than a year overdue, the court orders that a summary of the revised proposed research plan be published in the Federal Register no later than March 1,'' Armstrong said in the order today.

The scientific assessment must be produced by May 31, she said.

The administration will review the ruling before commenting, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. Calls to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Martin LaLonde, a Justice Department attorney involved in the case, weren't immediately returned.

President George W. Bush, citing economic reasons, in March 2001 rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty among industrialized nations that would have required cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and other gases linked to global warming.

Government `Wrong'

The Bush administration said in court filings that it determined ``only recently that the initiation of a process to revise the research plan has become necessary and advisable'' and that the government has discretion about how to handle the revised reports, which Armstrong said was ``wrong.''

The reports may be completed by the end of the year, government lawyers said in court filings.

``This is the first court order specifically rebuking the Bush administration for suppressing climate change science,'' said Matthew Vespa, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued. ``The report will provide updated information that all federal agencies will have to look at when assessing the impact of climate change.''

The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Brennan, 06-7062, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/) .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070821/pl_bloomberg/a98_skntk5cg

DBruleU

08-22-2007, 02:15 AM

broncos_mtnman

08-22-2007, 03:15 AM

I think that the global warming "naysayers" are not saying that GW is a sham, they are saying that it isn't cause solely by humans. Meaning, it isn't cause we drive cars, or fart. And good luck ever reversing the effects of GW. I'm actually more concerned with what crap we need to do in order to "reverse" anything. I'm not going to pay more in order to be more "green."

I believe GW is happening, I just don't believe we'll ever change it, and I certainly don't think the big bad evil humans are the sole cause of it.

*Cue the name calling*

I hear ya, bro!!

As you're aware, we are in the middle of a pine beetle epidemic. In the paper recently, there was a quote from Gov. Ritter that said we were helpless to do anything about it (of course, waiting 10 years to make a decision didn't help any. But hey, you've got to make sure the enviro-wackos tie everything up in court before you decide that you can't do anything).

Anyway, in the same day's paper, there was an article about how using those new lightbulbs would help stop global warming.

It made me think of Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if" routine. Only it would go like this...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you can change the climate of the globe by changing your lightbulbs, but you're helpless to do anything to stop an insect from eating a tree.

Or to say it simpler...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you think you can save the globe, but you can't save a pine tree.

Hilarious!

broncos_mtnman

08-22-2007, 03:41 AM

Here's a great opportunity for you GW fanatics....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0

broncos_mtnman

08-22-2007, 04:00 AM

Now watch the global warming deniers start spouting some apples and oranges nonesense about Mars getting warmer or some undocumented claim that scientists were predicting global cooling back in the 70's. The global cooling one is especially hilarious because when pushed, all they can come up with is a single sensational Newsweek article.
An article that Newsweek has since retracted because it was so poorly done.

LOL

Yeah, here's a bunch of "deniers" who have no credibility.

Scientists who believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
rather than human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007)

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[16] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003)

David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[18] Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic organization and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006)

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006)

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004)

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.") "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.") "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007)

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006)

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120)

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson , paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "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. 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?"

Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001)

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003)

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth)

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.)

These believe cause of global warming is unknown and that it's too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006)

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003)

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to "If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?"): "No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations."

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Colorado said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006)

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006)

Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-22-2007, 04:38 AM

File the previous post under...

Bush Pays for Good News

How much is good press worth? To the Bush administration, about $1.6 billion.

That's how much seven federal departments spent from 2003 through the second quarter of 2005 on 343 contracts with public relations firms, advertising agencies, media organizations and individuals, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

The 154-page report provides the most comprehensive look to date at the scope of federal spending in an area that generated substantial controversy last year. Congressional Democrats asked the GAO to look into federal public relations contracts last spring at the height of the furor over government-sponsored prepackaged news and journalism-for-sale.

Armstrong Williams, the conservative commentator, had been unmasked as a paid administration promoter who received $186,000 from the Education Department to speak favorably about President Bush's No Child Left Behind law in broadcast appearances.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/02/13/PH2006021301899.jpg

Around the same time, a spat erupted between the GAO and the White House over whether the government's practice of feeding TV stations prepackaged, ready-to-air news stories that touted administration policies (but did not disclose the government as the source) amounted to "covert propaganda." The GAO said that it did. The administration disagreed, saying spreading information about federal programs is part of the agencies' mission, and that the burden of disclosure falls on the TV stations.

Congress sided with the GAO. Lawmakers inserted a provision into an annual spending bill requiring federal agencies to include "a clear notification" within the text or audio of a prepackaged news story that it was prepared or paid for by the government.

The new report reveals that federal public relations spending goes far beyond "video news releases." The contracts covered the waterfront, from a $6.3 million agreement to help the Department of Homeland Security educate Americans about how to respond to terrorist attacks; to a $647,350 contract to assist the Transportation Security Administration in producing video news releases and media tours on the subject of airport security procedures; to a $6,600 contract to train managers at the Bureau of Reclamation in dealing with the media.

"Careful oversight of this spending is essential given the track record of the Bush administration, which has used taxpayer dollars to fund covert propaganda within the United States," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), ranking Democrat of the House Government Reform Committee, said in a statement yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021301897.html

atomicbloke

08-22-2007, 05:25 AM

Spider

08-22-2007, 08:44 AM

I hear ya, bro!!

As you're aware, we are in the middle of a pine beetle epidemic. In the paper recently, there was a quote from Gov. Ritter that said we were helpless to do anything about it (of course, waiting 10 years to make a decision didn't help any. But hey, you've got to make sure the enviro-wackos tie everything up in court before you decide that you can't do anything).

Anyway, in the same day's paper, there was an article about how using those new lightbulbs would help stop global warming.

It made me think of Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if" routine. Only it would go like this...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you can change the climate of the globe by changing your lightbulbs, but you're helpless to do anything to stop an insect from eating a tree.

Or to say it simpler...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you think you can save the globe, but you can't save a pine tree.

Hilarious!
LOL you are a simple man , no might be to it .......... But besides that , why does Bush play his game of hide and seek with the truth about global warming ......?
and what does Pine beetles have to do with Global warming ?

TailgateNut

08-22-2007, 09:32 AM

I hear ya, bro!!

As you're aware, we are in the middle of a pine beetle epidemic. In the paper recently, there was a quote from Gov. Ritter that said we were helpless to do anything about it (of course, waiting 10 years to make a decision didn't help any. But hey, you've got to make sure the enviro-wackos tie everything up in court before you decide that you can't do anything).

Anyway, in the same day's paper, there was an article about how using those new lightbulbs would help stop global warming.

It made me think of Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if" routine. Only it would go like this...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you can change the climate of the globe by changing your lightbulbs, but you're helpless to do anything to stop an insect from eating a tree.

Or to say it simpler...

You might be a liberal Democrat if you think you can save the globe, but you can't save a pine tree.

Hilarious!

What an *^%^%&*((*!

Changing your GD lightbulb does in fact make a difference. Maybe, if you are so concerned about the ****ing beetles, you should get off of you half moon and do something about it!

In-activity allows the same destructive behavior to continue.

.....and Dbrule.....I should have guessed you wouldn't spend a dime to make a difference. You are the classic Repuke. "If it doesn't affect me, who cares".
Sad, sad personality!

Bob

08-22-2007, 11:00 AM

Spider

08-22-2007, 11:08 AM

Spider, I get the idea of an inflammatory intro to illicit a response – however, if one does not “believe” in something like man-made global warming (hook-line-and-sinker) don’t imply that “those people” are ingrates – there is another side of the story. It does seem like a religion substitute. Simple question: As there have been major shifts in earth temps throughout history, like the “global warming” that took place at the end of the last ice-age.

of course there is natural cycles , Ice age , warming , hell Wyoming was tropical , along long time ago , But the question remains is man speeding up the process?
but Bob come on , for along time we had people on the right saying Global warming is a myth ........
I am in the camp of Yes it is happening , I dont know the cause , just know it is here , and if it is warming faster then nature can cope with the changes , we are in deep **** .........

Meck77

08-22-2007, 11:15 AM

Global warming is very real. I just haven't seen any scientific study that all scientists can agree on as to what is causing it.

Hell yeah it's hot. When it's 90 degrees in the mountains I can't imagine what it's like in the city.

There is going to be an unprecedented shift of people in this country heading to cooler ground. Get yours before it is too late!

Bronco Bob

08-22-2007, 11:45 AM

broncos_mtnman (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=5481), I could post all the scientists who contend global warming
is happening, that it is caused by increasing C02 emissions, and that human
activity is the reason for the increase in CO2 in the air. But the list
would be so huge it would overwhelm this website and I don't think
Taco John would appreciate that, especially now that football season
is starting up. I mean big deal you found a couple dozen people
that question GW. That's what scientists do, they question each
other. That's what keeps them honest. But when you have hundreds
saying one thing, and a few dozen being contrary, I would tend to
go with the consensus.
If you are an honest person, go to this website:
http://www.realclimate.org
and you will find many scientists who can document GW and give
rebuttels to the GW deniers claims. Here are just a few:

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Caspar Ammann is a climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Rasmus E. Benestad is a physicist by training and work with climate analysis on a Norwegian project called RegClim, and have affiliations with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no) and the Oslo Climate Group (OCG)

Ray Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences.

William M. Connolley is a climate modeller with the British Antarctic Survey.

Stefan Rahmstorf A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.

He has done research at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany (in Potsdam near Berlin).

His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change, past and present.

Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

Dr. Thibault de Garidel-Thoron is currently a post-doctoral associate at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. His main scientific interest is to reconstruct past tropical climate changes using micropaleontological and geochemical proxies from oceanic sediment records.

David Archer is a computational ocean chemist at the University of Chicago. He has published research on the carbon cycle of the ocean and the sea floor, at present, in the past, and in the future.

Raymond Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, having earlier served on the atmospheric science faculties of MIT and Princeton. He is principally interested in the formulation of idealized models which can be brought to bear on fundamental phenomena governing present and past climates of the Earth and other planets. His recent research interests have included water vapor feedback, baroclinic instability, the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth, the climate of Early Mars, and methane hydrological cycles on Titan. He is director of the Climate Systems Center, a US National Science Foundation Information Technology Research project aimed at bringing modern software design techniques to the problem of climate simulation. He has also collaborated with David Archer on the University of Chicago's global warming curriculum.

Spider

08-22-2007, 11:56 AM

Rigs11

08-22-2007, 01:19 PM

Amazon forest sold off in housing scam, claims Greenpeace
By Sophie Morris
Published: 21 August 2007
The Brazilian government stands accused of selling off huge swaths of the Amazon rainforest - including its oldest protected national park - to unscrupulous logging companies, under the cover of a flawed sustainable development project.

The Brazilian President, Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva, won power in 2003 with a promise to settle 400,000 homeless families during his four-year term, an unrealistic target he is accused of reaching in last-minute deals prior to last year's election.

An eight-month investigation by Greenpeace into the land scam, revealed that the Brazilian land reform agency, INCRA, had set up large settlements in rainforest areas instead of placing them in already deforested areas, and settling urban families who promptly sold logging rights to major timber conpanies.

"Instead of helping, the official efforts are putting in place mechanisms to ensure the supply of timber to loggers. This opens the door to further forest destruction and climate change," says Greenpeace's André Muggiati.

In 2006, INCRA created 97 "sustainable development settlements" (PDS) in Santarém in the west of the Amazonian state of Pará, in areas of primary forest of huge value to loggers. These settlements cover 2.2 million hectares and have been assigned to 33,700 families.

"All these settlements were created in the last three months of last year," says an INCRA employee. "It was the end of Lula's first term so he had to accomplish the targets. It is politicians who will benefit from the PDS system." In October Mr Da Silva won a second term in office.

As well as politicians, the scheme benefits the settlers, who receive land and sell their logging rights to large timber firms; the loggers, who gain access to valuable timber; and INCRA, which is close to reaching the government targets.

Only last week the Brazilian government boasted a drop in deforestation levels for the third year running; it has now opened the floodgates to increased deforestation and its knock-on effect on global climate change.

Brazil is the world's fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. A large proportion of emissions come from deforestation in the Amazon and 15 per cent of all deforestation is caused by the creation of land settlements.

INCRA is creating settlements so quickly it cannot afford to provide the necessary infrastructure for residents. It is cutting corners by encouraging residents' associations to make deals with logging companies, who provide roads and sanitation.

The PDS concept was conceived in 1999 by Raimundo Lima, a director of INCRA, as a way of sustaining traditional families and enabling them to live off the land. Each family was to receive housing and a number of financial credits to get them started along with the permission to farm 20 per cent of their land and log the remaining 80 per cent in accordance with a strict forest management plan. These plans are now dictated by the loggers, which means they can flaunt sustainable logging guidelines and pay way under market value for the timber.

Felipe Fritz Braga, Santarém's federal prosecutor, says the original outline of the PDS as a settlement for traditional families has fallen way off track and that loggers funded last year's governmental elections to safeguard the programme. "Ten years ago, a series of PDSs were created that were thought to be for traditional communities. Over the years they have undergone a legal metamorphosis and they are now being used in the Amazon to settle people who are not traditional communities," he explains. "The government's source of money for the elections came from the loggers."

At INCRA's Santarém office, which quadrupled in size in 2005 ahead of the current settlement drive, staff are unhappy about the underhand methods they have been encouraged to follow to get the green light for so many settlements in such a short space of time. Two informants say they have been forced to falsify the dates on important documents, that they have seen maps on internal computers created by an INCRA official for a landgrabber and that the research behind the creation of one PDS was done in the aircraft of a wealthy logger.

They also claim 11 settlements have been created in the national park of Amazonia where not a single family is living, at the behest of a powerful farmer, and are worried the situation around Santarém is an indication of further devastation across the Amazon: "We believe that what is going on here is a lab test, and the model will be replicated all over the Amazon later on."

The outspoken environmental campaigner Sister Dorothy Stang was murdered defending two such settlements in 2005. Because of Sister Dorothy's support, the PDS scheme has wrongly become synonymous with good environmental practice.

The Amazon has long been under threat from large industry: logging companies clear-cut the dense jungle before farmers move on to the land to raise cattle; huge soy plantations then exhaust the soil.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2881400.ece

ant1999e

08-22-2007, 04:19 PM

"All of you inbred sister sleeping rednecks" Ain't you from Wyoming? Who you trying to fool spider?

Spider

08-22-2007, 05:09 PM

"All of you inbred sister sleeping rednecks" Ain't you from Wyoming? Who you trying to fool spider?

the answer we were looking for was sheep ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-22-2007, 06:33 PM

These days people claiming that GW is a myth and evlution is a myth ranks right up there with those people still claiming the world is flat and the moon landings were faked.

Yep.

The things you have to believe to be a republican, eh?

broncos_mtnman

08-22-2007, 07:11 PM

These days people claiming that GW is a myth and evlution is a myth ranks right up there with those people still claiming the world is flat and the moon landings were faked.

www.theflatearthsociety.org (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)

I don't see any need in convincing the flat earth folks that they are wrong. Why should anyone have any need to argue with the intelligent design and the anti-GW folks?

LOL

Oh wait, you're serious aren't you?

Well, actually, you prove a very valid point. And it's mine....

You see, at one time, the MAJORITY of people thought the earth was flat. A small minority who were willing to look deeper at the data, developed another POV, and over time, proved the earth was round.

Today, the MAJORITY of people think GW is caused by mankind. A small minority whe are willing to look deeper at the data, have another POV.

So actually, you have it backwards....

Those who believe (without definitive proof) that GW is caused by excessive CO2 are the flat earth folks.

Ha!

Bronco Bob

08-22-2007, 09:52 PM

..

You see, at one time, the MAJORITY of people thought the earth was flat. A small minority who were willing to look deeper at the data, developed another POV, and over time, proved the earth was round.

Today, the MAJORITY of people think GW is caused by mankind. A small minority whe are willing to look deeper at the data, have another POV.

So actually, you have it backwards....

Those who believe (without definitive proof) that GW is caused by excessive CO2 are the flat earth folks.

As I have told you GW deniers countless times, the educated people knew all
along the world was round. Just like the educated people know that
GW is caused by humans.

The strongest adherents of the idea the world was flat was the Bible thumpers,
because they felt it said in the Bible the world was flat. Oddly enough this
is the right's biggest constituency, and interestingly the right is also
the only deniers of GW. Face it, when is the right ever right?

By classical times an alternative idea, that Earth was spherical, had appeared in ancient Greece. Pythagoras (6th century BC).

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene (now Aswan), in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual circumference.

By the 1st century AD, Pliny the Elder was in a position to claim that everyone agrees on the spherical shape of Earth.

In the Second century the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy advanced many arguments for the sphericity of the Earth.

BroncsRule

08-23-2007, 12:20 PM

.."and what does Pine beetles have to do with Global warming ?"

You're kidding, right? The Pine Beetle problem in CO is a direct result of Global Warming - the little critters have been around for milenia, but the first frost of the year used to kill 'em off in early/mid September, while the pupa were still in the bark.

Now that it's been warmer longer for the last dozen years in a row (first frost in mid/late October, into November some years), that gives the pupa several more weeks to burrow deeper into the tree - killing it.

Hotrod

08-23-2007, 12:32 PM

You're kidding, right? The Pine Beetle problem in CO is a direct result of Global Warming - the little critters have been around for milenia, but the first frost of the year used to kill 'em off in early/mid September, while the pupa were still in the bark.

Now that it's been warmer longer for the last dozen years in a row (first frost in mid/late October, into November some years), that gives the pupa several more weeks to burrow deeper into the tree - killing it.

Correct

Some estimates say Colorado will lose between 40-60% of its forests in the next 20 years. Look around in the mountains lots of bright red (dead) pines already popping up everywhere. Get used to it because it aint gonna stop anytime soon.

Bronco Bob

08-23-2007, 12:41 PM

Correct

Some estimates say Colorado will lose between 40-60% of its forests in the next 20 years. Look around in the mountains lots of bright red (dead) pines already popping up everywhere. Get used to it because it aint gonna stop anytime soon.

And every one of those trees dying is one less tree taking CO2 out of the
air, meaning that the climate is just going to get hotter and even more
trees are going to die.

BucklandBronco

08-23-2007, 01:38 PM

Bronco Bob

08-23-2007, 02:21 PM

Unfortunately the notion of global warming has become so much of a partisan issue that it’s difficult to extract the unbiased facts anymore. Moreover, it has become a religious issue. And, for the record, I’m agnostic on it. Yes, there is global warming. And, yes, there has been global cooling. But how does one put this into perspective in relation to the bigger picture over eons?

Just for fun, here is a “Global Warming Test.” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Unfortunately, while the “facts” expounded upon herein appeal to the intellect, the author of the quiz is without apparent documented credentials.

[And, Mntman, you already took this quiz over in Broncomania (before they went all PC on us), so you are excluded from retaking the test!] notsofast
;D

The flaw in that quiz is that GW is increasing in a more rapid rate than
natural phenomena can account for. He is trying to contend that
this is a natural long term trend. Yes, there have been increases
and decrease in the earth's temperature in the past. Obviously.
This is the whole basis of the concept that increases in CO2 level
cause the earth to heat up and decreases cause the earth to cool off.
The point is we are putting unnatural amounts of CO2 into the air
and the earth is heating up at an unnatural rate, far faster than
any warming trends in the past. What took thousands of year in
the past is now happening in only a few decades.
But you know what happened in each of those cases? Millions of animals
died and wholes species were wiped out. Is that what you want to happen?
Whole ecosystems destroyed, millions, perhaps even billions of people dying
when simply changing our lifestyles can mitigate the damage?

Bob

08-23-2007, 02:42 PM

Correct

Some estimates say Colorado will lose between 40-60% of its forests in the next 20 years. Look around in the mountains lots of bright red (dead) pines already popping up everywhere. Get used to it because it aint gonna stop anytime soon.

Bull Crap! When it does not happen -- like "the population bomb" that should have gone off by now, there will be another prediction of doom -- which will serve as another distraction/subsitute.

Bob

08-23-2007, 03:02 PM

The flaw in that quiz is that GW is increasing in a more rapid rate than
natural phenomena can account for. He is trying to contend that
this is a natural long term trend. Yes, there have been increases
and decrease in the earth's temperature in the past. Obviously.
This is the whole basis of the concept that increases in CO2 level
cause the earth to heat up and decreases cause the earth to cool off.
The point is we are putting unnatural amounts of CO2 into the air
and the earth is heating up at an unnatural rate, far faster than
any warming trends in the past. What took thousands of year in
the past is now happening in only a few decades.
But you know what happened in each of those cases? Millions of animals
died and wholes species were wiped out. Is that what you want to happen?
Whole ecosystems destroyed, millions, perhaps even billions of people dying
when simply changing our lifestyles can mitigate the damage?

And how much is the temp predicted to go up over the next 100 years? Your statement sounds like a really poorly written apocalyptic evangelical sermon --

I say we should sue Exxon, Conico et all because of the "proven" global warming, they have caused -- oops, too late they the (lawyers, and other gainsayers are getting in that line to win a lottery.) NOT because they are good and noble – bull crap! They see dollar signs on this one. There is a ton of money to be gained by pumping this up beyond what intellectually honest science might suggest. And the "science" and those running non-profit research groups certainly stand to gain $ when they conform to an idea that will fill up their bank accounts with money. So if they beat the drum that there will be less than the actual 1% gain in global temps over the next 100 years it would not be dramatic enough to gain financially from it. The sea has to go up by 20 feet to make things interesting. There is a religious tone to this second flood and fire routine, couched in “science.” So are you sponsored by Gore’s "massive education campaign?" This Druid faith is built partially on money, control and increasing the scope of governmental control over personal actions, and the $ resources of large companies connected to big oil.

Hotrod

08-23-2007, 03:37 PM

Bull Crap! When it does not happen -- like "the population bomb" that should have gone off by now, there will be another prediction of doom -- which will serve as another distraction/subsitute.

1. I live here
2. I spend countless hours hiking/camping/fishing & hunting the forests in CO
3. I'm watching the trees die at an alarming rate.

You dont have to like it but its happening right before our eyes. Patches of timber that I've hunted my whole life are dying tree by tree year after year. Whole mountain sides that were beautiful shades of pine green are now spotted with red dead trees.

defenseman

08-23-2007, 03:48 PM

1. I live here
2. I spend countless hours hiking/camping/fishing & hunting the forests in CO
3. I'm watching the trees die at an alarming rate.

You dont have to like it but its happening right before our eyes. Patches of timber that I've hunted my whole life are dying tree by tree year after year. Whole mountain sides that were beautiful shades of pine green are now spotted with red dead trees.

Pretty sad actually. Before and after pictures of the mountains tell the tale. It is very distressing to me to watch it all die. Looked at property up in winter park a month or so ago. After looking at some photos my brother in law had from eight and five years ago (He's had a vacation home up there for about 10 years), compared them to a month ago. I declined the deal. If anything, land value may go down eventually up there in them mountains. Simply not worth the risk as the country side literally dies in front of our eyes......dman

W*GS

08-23-2007, 04:41 PM

loborugger

08-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Hey Spider, I dont have a sister. Soooo, if I decide not to believe in global warming, can I sleep with your sister instead???

Bronco Bob

08-23-2007, 05:06 PM

The above quiz is worthless, and I say that as someone who has spent 20+ years in the area of climate modeling and climate change.

It's a mix of half-truths, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty. It's not worth much.

I came to the same conclusion myself, and without even the benefit of your experience.
But I'm sure it will have the oil company pawns nodding their
heads in agreement with it. If Hannity or Limbaugh says GW is a fraud,
then as far as they are concerned GW must be a fraud.

BucklandBronco

08-23-2007, 05:23 PM

The above quiz is worthless, and I say that as someone who has spent 20+ years in the area of climate modeling and climate change.

It's a mix of half-truths, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty. It's not worth much.

As I stated as a disclaimer, the quiz is without credentials. It does make some points, however, that appeal to common sense. And, again, as of now, I'm personally agnostic on the whole issue of global warming.

But, just as this "quiz" was without satisfactory documentation, it doesn't do the issue of "global warming" much justice when you have some self-appointed buffoon like Al Gore speaking out on it. One would think that the global warming advocates could do better in the way of a figurehead.

(Oh, but then the guy DID invent the Internet? Sorry)

Bronco Bob

08-23-2007, 05:46 PM

But, just as this "quiz" was without satisfactory documentation, it doesn't do the issue of "global warming" much justice when you have some self-appointed buffoon like Al Gore speaking out on it. One would think that the global warming advocates could do better in the way of a figurehead.

Al Gore feels strongly about GW. He has as much right to speak about
it as anyone else. Al Gore just happens to be one of the most famous
people speaking about GW. But none of the scientists involved in
climate research appointed him as their spokesperson. Frankly this
seems to be the GW deniers strongest reason for their stubborn denial
of GW, they don't like Al Gore. Because the deniers certainly don't
have any legitimate science on their side. Every feeble attempt
to dispute the science gets shot down like a turkey on thanksgiving.

(Oh, but then the guy DID invent the Internet? Sorry)

If you say so, because Al Gore was never the one that said he did.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Hotrod

08-23-2007, 05:53 PM

Anyone find the episode of Lil Bush where Gore is trying to prove to Bush GW exists quite funny Ha!

BucklandBronco

08-23-2007, 07:08 PM

Al Gore feels strongly about GW. He has as much right to speak about
it as anyone else. Al Gore just happens to be one of the most famous
people speaking about GW. But none of the scientists involved in
climate research appointed him as their spokesperson. Frankly this
seems to be the GW deniers strongest reason for their stubborn denial
of GW, they don't like Al Gore. Because the deniers certainly don't
have any legitimate science on their side. Every feeble attempt
to dispute the science gets shot down like a turkey on thanksgiving.

If you say so, because Al Gore was never the one that said he did.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Just to calibrate a bit here:

1. Nobody is denying Al Gore’s right to speak out on GW, anymore than you might deny Ann Coulter’s (I don’t like her either) right to say mean things about people on the Left. This isn’t a matter of “rights,” but a matter of credibility. I don’t know how sincere Mr. Gore is in regard to GW. I do know that he is a career politician. I’m not a big fan of career politicians. I feel that Al Gore has politicized an issue that should never be politicized.

2. Yes, I do not like Al Gore. This much I know. I also do NOT know the true extent of humankind’s impact on GW. I’m agnostic on the issue, if you recall. I certainly intend to educate myself further on the topic and, further, believe that the issue should not be taken lightly. I also know that, based upon astronomical (thus scientific) evidence, combined with common sense, there is a real likelihood that humankind (and all animal forms) could be wiped out by a future asteroid or comet. As an aside, this is just one of a couple of reasons why scientific study should always move forward, and nuclear weaponry should never be moth-balled.

3. I’m sure that with the understanding that I’m agnostic on the issue of GW (while still not a fan of Al Gore) you DO understand that I’m not one of those “deniers.” If Al Gore were the one who produced evidence that Michael Vick was a dawg serial killer, I would accept the evidence and join in on the piling-on against Michael Vick. But it’s a lot easier to prove that Vick has engaged in grossly inhumane acts of cruelty than it is to prove than we CO2 emitters are significantly altering the Earth’s climate.

But I still wouldn’t like Al Gore.
:oyvey:

Spider

08-23-2007, 09:32 PM

Bob

08-23-2007, 11:34 PM

Just to calibrate a bit here:

1. Nobody is denying Al Gore’s right to speak out on GW, anymore than you might deny Ann Coulter’s (I don’t like her either) right to say mean things about people on the Left. This isn’t a matter of “rights,” but a matter of credibility. I don’t know how sincere Mr. Gore is in regard to GW. I do know that he is a career politician. I’m not a big fan of career politicians. I feel that Al Gore has politicized an issue that should never be politicized.

2. Yes, I do not like Al Gore. This much I know. I also do NOT know the true extent of humankind’s impact on GW. I’m agnostic on the issue, if you recall. I certainly intend to educate myself further on the topic and, further, believe that the issue should not be taken lightly. I also know that, based upon astronomical (thus scientific) evidence, combined with common sense, there is a real likelihood that humankind (and all animal forms) could be wiped out by a future asteroid or comet. As an aside, this is just one of a couple of reasons why scientific study should always move forward, and nuclear weaponry should never be moth-balled.

3. I’m sure that with the understanding that I’m agnostic on the issue of GW (while still not a fan of Al Gore) you DO understand that I’m not one of those “deniers.” If Al Gore were the one who produced evidence that Michael Vick was a dawg serial killer, I would accept the evidence and join in on the piling-on against Michael Vick. But it’s a lot easier to prove that Vick has engaged in grossly inhumane acts of cruelty than it is to prove than we CO2 emitters are significantly altering the Earth’s climate.

But I still wouldn’t like Al Gore.
:oyvey:

Gore did bring the issue to the public, but I think any politician naturally is going to taint the message -- I think that most folks acknowledge that there are several exaggerations in his "documentary" i.e. 20 feet rise in ocean levels. NO ONE ON THE PLANET has gained more from re-hitching his wagon to environmentalism politically than Al Gore -- power is an excellent motivator for anyone.

I notice that you feel the need to frame your argument and remind the new religionists that you are "not one the deniers" and that you are "agnostic" on the issue -- I think it is good to be a skeptic on this issue -- especially when there is a ton of money to made on both sides of the issue, "when the fate of billions is in the balance" it is hard to not think there is a religious tone that I see intertwined in this “scientific” issue -- a science where if you express any doubt, and don’t fall into line some folks are inclined to imply you are a red neck (when I suspect I have at least two more degrees than the one making the accusations of inbreeding.) It is insulting to me when folks assign stupidity as the reason why folks have not adopted this new faith with open arms.

10,000 years ago Gorg (a distant relative of another famous alarmist) franticly attempted to covert his Neanderthal buddies demanding that they put out their fires – immediately! “Cant you see what your parasitic, selfish behavior is doing to the glaciers!”

Meck77

08-23-2007, 11:37 PM

You're kidding, right? The Pine Beetle problem in CO is a direct result of Global Warming - the little critters have been around for milenia, but the first frost of the year used to kill 'em off in early/mid September, while the pupa were still in the bark.

Now that it's been warmer longer for the last dozen years in a row (first frost in mid/late October, into November some years), that gives the pupa several more weeks to burrow deeper into the tree - killing it.

It is true that the only way to control the pine beetle is to have the right temps to freeze them. But your theory is WRONG.

Here is your problem. There was a pine beetle outbreak 80 years ago that wiped out much of Colorado. You mean to tell me it was human caused CO? BS

It just so happens I went on a hike with a local expert on the subject. One thing I didn't know is that we have various types of beetles killing different trees. It's not just one type.

Even Aspen are dieing mysteriously and the scientists cannot figure out why.

Bob

08-23-2007, 11:48 PM

It is true that the only way to control the pine beetle is to have the right temps to freeze them. But your theory is WRONG.

Here is your problem. There was a pine beetle outbreak 80 years ago that wiped out much of Colorado. You mean to tell me it was human caused CO? BS

It just so happens I went on a hike with a local expert on the subject. One thing I didn't know is that we have various types of beetles killing different trees. It's not just one type.

Even Aspen are dieing mysteriously and the scientists cannot figure out why.

People see changes over a 20 year snap shot, and myopically observe "trends." And that these trends MUST be caused by humans...

The fact is that the trend is less than a 1 degree increase in temp increases in a 100 year span.

I care about "the planet." I try to conserve because I am a steward, not because I am a parasitic, self-flagellating, cosmic cancer, as the new religionists believe.

Bronco Bob

08-24-2007, 12:29 PM

People see changes over a 20 year snap shot, and myopically observe "trends." And that these trends MUST be caused by humans...

Not sure where you got the 20 year snapshot idea from. These are
temperature trends that have been observed since the 1800's.
If the overall trend in your house is the room temperature varies from
74 degrees to 78 degrees and all of a sudden it shoots up to 120 degrees,
wouldn't you suspect something might be wrong?
That's basically what we have with the C02 levels in the atmosphere.
So where is all this extra CO2 coming from if not from people burning
fossil fuels? And why has the amount increase so much in the last
few years? What natural process can account for this much of a
CO2 increase?

The fact is that the trend is less than a 1 degree increase in temp increases in a 100 year span.

That's the average world temperature. In some places it has gotten hotter.
And even with this seemingly slight increase we are seeing profound effect,
such as the melting of glaciers and the melting of the polar ice caps.
And it's not just that the temperature has increased, it's that the rate of
temperature increase is rising in direct correlation to the rising amounts
of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now project what can happen if the predicted temperature increases
of 2 to 11 degrees come to pass.

I care about "the planet." I try to conserve because I am a steward, not because I am a parasitic, self-flagellating, cosmic cancer, as the new religionists believe.

Not sure what that has to do with climate scientists using climate science
to study the earth's climate and telling us what they have found going on
with the earth's climate and what the implications of the changing climate
of the earth is.

Bob

08-24-2007, 06:06 PM

Not sure where you got the 20 year snapshot idea from. These are
temperature trends that have been observed since the 1800's.
If the overall trend in your house is the room temperature varies from
74 degrees to 78 degrees and all of a sudden it shoots up to 120 degrees,
wouldn't you suspect something might be wrong?
That's basically what we have with the C02 levels in the atmosphere.
So where is all this extra CO2 coming from if not from people burning
fossil fuels? And why has the amount increase so much in the last
few years? What natural process can account for this much of a
CO2 increase?

That's the average world temperature. In some places it has gotten hotter.
And even with this seemingly slight increase we are seeing profound effect,
such as the melting of glaciers and the melting of the polar ice caps.
And it's not just that the temperature has increased, it's that the rate of
temperature increase is rising in direct correlation to the rising amounts
of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now project what can happen if the predicted temperature increases
of 2 to 11 degrees come to pass.

Not sure what that has to do with climate scientists using climate science
to study the earth's climate and telling us what they have found going on
with the earth's climate and what the implications of the changing climate
of the earth is.

A very rational response to my rant – thank you. The later at night I post the more mean I get. However, the first paragraph implies a 42 degree difference, when we are talking about a 1% change over a 100 year span. Worth noting, but hardly reaches the levels that Gore implies when he says the seas are going to rise by 20 feet. I have several concerns with Mane-made (sorry, I mean man-made) global warming. I think that we can have some impact but in the past earth temp changes CO2 levels came from the earth itself, and not man -- In past eruptions many, many times the levels of CO2 were spewed out in one volcanic event, than what we would generate at current levels over a 10 year span. So, when these past volcanic events happened did it affect the weather? From what I have read it did, but none of it was man-based, and many events were much more dramatic --- so this is what does not add up to me:

1. those that claim billions are going/could die because of this 1 degree change over the next 100 years

2. I would think that those that are left of center would think it a little creepy that there is a religious, coercive, overtone this "movement" has taken, and at least consider the fact that there is a ton of money in play here. If one suggests that these changes will be cataclysmic it does make acquiring more funding more likely doesn’t it? A 20 feet sea rise, and billions of lives hanging in the balance does make getting that grant, and more money being put in the pipeline more likely.

3. If temps are rising what do reputable sources say we can do that will lower our emissions considerably with out breaking the bank? There are things that folks can do like drive less, car pool etc, that I think can reducing our oil consumption -- not because I think it will have a huge environmental(if any) impact that wouldn’t be erased in 3 seconds if the earth farted. But we should conserve because as we do so we become less reliant on foreign countries that hate our guts and want us dead. I am surprised that more folks are not more honest about what they don’t know on this issue, and stop trying to convert, but rather find common ground. If you want folks to conserve, there any many angles that one can take that might be more appealing than implying there are inbreeding mongrel, intellectual midgets, if they don’t convert to the new faith (you haven’t implied this, but others have.)

4. And lastly, What is to be gained by world governmental entities through using this movement? Can money be shifted from the pockets of big-business to the UN, or another governing body that we the people didn’t elect? It sure seems like a trend right now to want into the pockets of big oil, not because of good intention, but because they are vulnerable, and because attorneys and others think that they might be able to win this lottery. The fact that it is even being talked about should be scary.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-24-2007, 06:13 PM

But I'm sure it will have the oil company pawns nodding their
heads in agreement with it. If Hannity or Limbaugh says GW is a fraud,
then as far as they are concerned GW must be a fraud.

Bingo.

When you listen to the right-wing, pro-Bush bozos' takes on GW, it's almost like they're all reading from a script that was written for them by the oil companies.

Spider

08-24-2007, 07:26 PM

Hey Spider, I dont have a sister. Soooo, if I decide not to believe in global warming, can I sleep with your sister instead???

all 325 pounds of her ....... and I am not kidding

Spider

08-24-2007, 07:28 PM

Even Aspen are dieing mysteriously and the scientists cannot figure out why.

Plant fake trees ......... ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-24-2007, 10:36 PM

http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/repubglobal.gif

broncos_mtnman

08-26-2007, 06:29 PM

http://www.briscoe.org//comics/2002/sw061402.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-26-2007, 07:49 PM

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/a8/Republican-koolaid.jpg

broncos_mtnman

08-26-2007, 08:34 PM

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-looney.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-26-2007, 08:42 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-kool-aid06.jpg

broncos_mtnman

08-26-2007, 09:00 PM

http://www.conservativeshirts.com/images/sku-pa30.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-26-2007, 09:03 PM

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5083/evolutionfinalfa5.jpg

broncos_mtnman

08-26-2007, 09:09 PM

http://www.conservativeshirts.com/images/sku-pa61.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-26-2007, 09:21 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/katrina-seal.jpg

W*GS

08-26-2007, 09:28 PM

Typical hard-right and hard-left "thinking"...

Pictures for the politically illiterate.

Bronco Bob

08-27-2007, 11:46 AM

Typical hard-right and hard-left "thinking"...

Pictures for the politically illiterate.

Reminds me of Dueling Banjos from the movie Deliverance.

broncos_mtnman

08-27-2007, 05:24 PM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/8/e/1/gore_losingit.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-27-2007, 06:55 PM

Reminds me of Dueling Banjos from the movie Deliverance.

I was thinking more like "(ditto) monkey see, monkey do."

;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-27-2007, 06:57 PM

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2444/8kinds9va.jpg

Spider

08-28-2007, 09:57 AM

ROFL! BroncoMtMan , you got to feel real stupid , if not then get medication ....... on my home last night , I was listening to Fox news on seris sat Radio , pretty much all day , and guess what goof ....Fox is playing P.S.A.'s called cool down tips ....... It iis all about global warming and how people in cars can reduce their Carbon pollution ...........

cheese1

08-28-2007, 10:06 AM

Spider

08-28-2007, 10:14 AM

whats seris sat? talk about stupid

LOL the typo Police is out I see ...... Sirius Satellite Radio dork .......

baja

08-28-2007, 10:40 AM

LOL you are a simple man , no might be to it .......... But besides that ,<b> why does Bush play his game of hide and seek with the truth about global warming ......?</b>
and what does Pine beetles have to do with Global warming ?

Why, you ask, because GW gets rid of that pesky ice covering all that new OIL so his buddies tell him.

Spider

08-28-2007, 10:43 AM

Why, you ask, because GW gets rid of that pesky ice covering all that new OIL so his buddies tell him.

maybe after his ass is out of office , he can reopen Harkin oil ........

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-28-2007, 06:20 PM

Spider

08-28-2007, 07:30 PM

:giggle:

The mental contortions you have to do these days to be a republican. :D

what was funny was , right before the Ad , they was talking about how good of a man Gonzalez was , then said Democratic attack Dog Sen. Patrick Lahey was out to destroy him , while I was wiping away the tears from laughing so damn hard , some talking head popped up and asked , what planet these people were living on , went through the list of **** ups .......The the ad about Global warming .....

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-28-2007, 08:07 PM

what was funny was , right before the Ad , they was talking about how good of a man Gonzalez was , then said Democratic attack Dog Sen. Patrick Lahey was out to destroy him , while I was wiping away the tears from laughing so damn hard , some talking head popped up and asked , what planet these people were living on , went through the list of **** ups .......The the ad about Global warming .....

:rofl: :giggle:

That's too f*@king funny!

W*GS

08-29-2007, 01:09 AM

The mental contortions you have to do these days to be a republican.

They're of the same magnitude as those required to be loony lefty...

Still embarrassed over your kneeling and bobbing for Chavez?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-29-2007, 04:26 AM

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2715/georgesays8wm8.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-29-2007, 04:28 AM

For W*GS, anything that deviates from the Fox News narrative is "loony left."

Such is the bubble in which W*GS exists.

W*GS

08-29-2007, 09:15 AM

For W*GS, anything that deviates from the Fox News narrative is "loony left."

Thanks for the a.m. chuckle. You despise the Bush/Rove-ian "Either you're with us or against us" stance, yet you embrace it and use it all the time. You're far more like Rove and his ilk than you recognize (or understand).

Oh, and "loony left" fits you to a "T". You're just about the only person here who put up unadulterated pro-Chavez propaganda, with a straight face, and who believed it to be the truth. Why are you so ashamed of being a lefty that you attack those who point out the painfully obvious?

Such is the bubble in which W*GS exists.

Your residence is a cesspool.