All of you inbred sister sleeping rednecks that think global warming is a myth

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

.."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]

Originally Posted by BroncsRule

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]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

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]

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/Gl...est/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!]

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by BucklandBronco

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/Gl...est/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!]

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]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

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]

Originally Posted by BucklandBronco

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/Gl...est/start.html

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

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.

[loborugger]

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]

Originally Posted by W*GS

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]

Originally Posted by W*GS

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]

Originally Posted by BucklandBronco

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]

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

[BucklandBronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

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.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by BroncsRule

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.

so plant more aspens .........Damn do I have to think of everything around here ?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by BucklandBronco

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.

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]

Originally Posted by BroncsRule

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]

Originally Posted by Meck77

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]

Originally Posted by Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

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]

Originally Posted by loborugger

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]

Originally Posted by Meck77

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

Plant fake trees .........