Global warming convention snowed out
Patrick Cleburne
was delayed by a huge snowstorm overnight and into this morning. The
National Weather Service reports that Boston has received 83 inches of snow
so far this year-- just over double it's annual average of 42. The record
though, was in 1996 when they received 107.6 inches.
Guess the global warming attendees won't have too much to talk about at the
meeting-- other than their knee-jerk reflexive bashing of our country and
economic development;-)
Cleburne
kstahl
That's dumb. The only place that snowstorms have in global warming only
exists in the minds of conservatives. There isn't a genuine scientist
(not the conservative parroting kind) who would ever think that. Before
you venture into political pronouncements, at least take time to
understand science correctly first. There is wide agreement in the
scientific community that global warming is occurring and there is a
preponderance of evidence that can be cited in support. The only open
question is whether it is being hastened by mankind and
industrialization or whether we are caught in a natural cycle that has
nothing to to with industrial pollutants.
Please try to avoid knee-jerk pronouncements on things that you really
are able to discuss intelligently.
Jim
I'msure this will astonish you, but the theory of global warming is not
based on what happened around Boston last week. It's based on an analysis
of weather data gathered in places around the world over decades.
Eric Greene
>
>I'msure this will astonish you, but the theory of global warming is not
>based on what happened around Boston last week. It's based on an analysis
>of weather data gathered in places around the world over decades.
And the possibility that global warming, by increasing evaporation from
the seas, could trigger an ice age. More evaporation, more cloud
cover, more sunlight reflected back into space and a gradual buildup of
unmelted snow in the higher latitudes. If this continues, the glaciers
start building up and moving again.
I think the evidence that the earth is warming is pretty solid. While I
do not believe we can continue to pump millions of tons of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere without suffering some consequences, I'm also
unsure if the current warming trend is not just yet another weather
cycle or directly caused by man's intervention.
The global climate does go through cyclic changes; we don't really know
what effect, if any, the human produced greenhouse gases are having on
the current cycle. We know for the past few million years that the
earth has sustained widely varying weather patterns, but I think it
extremely foolish to toss aside the millions of tons of gases produced
by man as a factor in future changes.
What I worry about most is a cascade effect: one where we have small,
incremental changes in the earth's temperature until a certain level of
greenhouse gas concentration is reached and the same runaway greenhouse
effect as seen on Venus kicks in. How much gas is necessary? We have
no idea. But, government and industry is betting - on no better data -
that it will not happen.
kstahl
The biggest battle is just to get conservatives to look at real science
and understand the evidence of what is happening with the climate.
Forget the political part, just concentrate on the preponderance of
evidence. If they can come up with a satisfactory scientific explanation
for why glaciers are disappearing, the polar ice caps are melting and
there were exposed areas of our coast a couple hundred years ago that
are now submerged with water, then I'm willing to listen. But as long as
they make science subject to their political whims there isn't much
change of getting them to use a bit of common sense. But, if they were
to become educated on the scientific level and then want to argue the
effect of greenhouse gases and such then at least both sides would be
firmly rooted in the science of what has already taken place regardless
of why.
Without really trying to launch into an entirely divergent subject, I
started to see the way they think from talking to a conservative
acquaintance recently. He was making a big deal about abortion and
planned parenthood and as the conversation progressed I started to
realize that his problem wasn't with the physical process of abortion,
what he objected to was that Planned Parenthood receives about 33% of
its budget from tax dollars. So, we couldn't really talk about the
subject in a meaningful way because while I support a woman's right to
choose, even I can't understand why Planned Parenthood has to be
dependent on tax dollars. But, he was willing to completely ban
abortions simply because he didn't like the financial aspect of abortion
clinics. So, to get back to this discussion, conservatives are willing
to completely abandon good science simply because they perceive that
liberals keep making points about greenhouse gases and the environment
and they are determined to take an opposite tact at all cost - including
honesty.
Patrick Cleburne
news:422f...@mustang.speedfactory.net...
As no doubt you will be astonished as well to realize that data gather "over
decades" is as insignificant as a fart in a hurricane. The planet has been
heating and cooling for millions of years-- and will continue to do so...
Cleburne
John Y. Iselin
science
You lose again, kornholer.
Liberal lie, we'll wait until they die.
(since they abort most of their babies, soon there will be none)
kstahl
>>Please try to avoid knee-jerk pronouncements
>>on things that you really are able to discuss intelligently.
>>
>>
>
>Who's on first, I'm just a kornholer.
>
>
>
27
A good runner leaves no tracks.
A good speech has no flaws to censure.
A good computer uses no tallies.
A good door is well shut without bolts and cannot be opened.
A good knot is tied without rope and cannot be loosed.
The Wise Man is always good at helping people,
so that none are cast out; he is always good at saving things,
so that none are thrown away. This is called applied intelligence.
Surely the good man is the bad man's teacher; and the
bad man is the good man's business. If the one does not
respect his teacher, or the other doesn't love his business,
his error is very great.
This is indeed an important secret.
--Tao Te Ching
John Y. Iselin
> on things that you really are able to discuss intelligently.
You first, kenny kornholer.
kstahl
>>The biggest battle is just to get conservatives to look at real
>>
>>
>science
>
>I lose again since I am a kornholer.
>Liberal don't lie, they can't wait until conservatives die.
>(since they have their mistresses abort most of their babies, soon there will be none)
>
>
>
28
Be aware of your masculine nature;
But by keeping the feminine way,
You shall be to the world like a canyon,
Where the Virtue eternal abides,
And go back to become as a child.
Be aware of the white all around you;
But remembering the black that is there,
You shall be to the world like a tester,
Whom the Virtue eternal, unerring,
Redirects to the infinite past.
Be aware of your glory and honor;
But in never relinquishing shame,
You shall be to the world like a valley,
Where Virtue eternal, sufficient,
Sends you back to the Virginal Block.
When the Virginal Block is asunder,
And is made into several tools,
To the ends of the Wise Man directed,
They become then his chief officers:
For "The Master himself does not carve."
--Tao Te Ching
John Y. Iselin
Who fucking cares?
John Y. Iselin
Real big of you to admit that, dolt.
Jim
Your original point of reference was the weather in Boston last week. So,
your evidence would be more like a gnat's fart in a galaxy. And the
evidence gathered over decades is not limited to the weather of those
decades, but includes analyses of ice cores that date back thousands of
years. But of course if the conclusions based on all this evidence is
inconvenient to a few business leaders and the Republican Party, it must
necessarily be false. Meanwhile, in the scientific community, the theory of
global warming has stronger support than ever.
Patrick Cleburne
"Jim" <jimm...@SPAMspeedfactory.net> wrote in message
Like most of your dull, knee-jerk liberal, Kerry-loving compadres, you lack
any sense of humor and don't recognize satire when you read it.
How can anyone give any credence to your assessment of climate analysis or
what the scientific community thinks? You don't even realize that there was
no global warming conference in Boston last week! I just made that up
because I though it was funny-- given all the snow they've had.
You and your ilk don't even know when you're having your leg pulled...yet
you'll storm the ramparts at the drop of a hat-- spewing your junk science
and anti-American drivel.
Go back to your bong you silly twit...
Cleburne
Brett
>Jim <jimm...@SPAMspeedfactory.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'msure this will astonish you, but the theory of global warming is not
>>based on what happened around Boston last week. It's based on an analysis
>>of weather data gathered in places around the world over decades.
>And the possibility that global warming, by increasing evaporation from
>the seas, could trigger an ice age.
Actually the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was
originally supposed to trigger an ice age. It took Hansen's course
mathematical model (with questionable boundary conditions) of the atmosphere
to screw that up. That model gave the wacky environmental fringe groups a
new almost religious dogma, Hansen's model blamed human activity. From that
point on all rationale discussion about the subject disappeared.
Crichton in his latest book "State of Fear" compares the blame humans,
environmental fringe groups (nuclear power isn't even a solution to carbon
dioxide production) with the eugenics movement of the late 19th/most of the
20th century that almost destroyed one ethnic group and left nasty
footprints wherever it existed. In a hundred years time the only group that
will actually "suffer" from global warming will be the third world, the west
will spend its wealth trying to eliminate emissions that do little to no
damage, and there will nothing left over to drag the third world into the
21st century, let alone the 22nd. Global warming will then become the 22nd
centuries equivalent of the eugenics movement.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Iceball theory. The earth's heat is generated from a pre-existing big
warm thing in the center of the earth.
Space is very cold. So the earth circles another big warm thing called
the sun. And like children sitting around a fire... Both fires WILL
die, eventually. And the earth WILL become an iceball. That WILL
happen w/no doubt. Ask the scientists. 10,000 years from now, or
however long it takes, the human race will be evicted from the earth.
It's like telling me not to smoke... Because I might get cancer, and
not die in a "home" at a hundred and 50. While I am quite concerned
about the future of the human race.... I do not plan on being around for
the iceball. If the human race is still around at the time, best be
ready to move when that eviction notice comes in the mail. Best be
ready to move from earth. Otherwise the human race dies, and God hates
failure.
Clip from, Deep Blue Sea.... "Do you wanna be around for that?"
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
(Pro space exploration speech. No leader of any nation can ignore it.
Survival of the race. You're not a "winner" if you can't see it coming.
The eviction notice is in the mail. It has a deadline.)
kstahl
I think it will take more then another 10,000 years. It isn't even
scheduled to start becoming a red giant for about another 5 million
years. And you don't have to worry about Earth becoming a colossal
popsicle because once it becomes a red giant it will probably expand in
size and completely engulf the earth.