PDA

View Full Version : Could AlGore Be Correct???



M&K's Retrievers
01-01-2012, 06:25 PM
Nah! But it was 73 degrees here on New Years Eve. Nice! People wearing shorts in January rocks! :cool:

smillerdvm
01-02-2012, 01:02 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.

Those who choose to ignore science in favor of what the talking heads want you to believe need to pull their heads out of the sand and start questioning the agendas of their supposed scientists.

My favorite argument of the man made global warming deniers is that the temperature recordings are skewed because too many are taken in urban areas;drumroll please

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA

Gerry Clinchy
01-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Well, if you confine a large enough number of people in a small enough area, just body heat will raise the temperature in that room.

OTOH, normal temperature variations due to other cyclical events are also known to occur, even when man wasn't around.

So, global temperature change is likely a reality (when they decide whether it's getting hotter or colder) ... but some of it would happen with or without human involvement. The question is: how much of it is a result of human involvement?

Eric Johnson
01-02-2012, 02:56 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
My favorite argument of the man made global warming deniers is that the temperature recordings are skewed because too many are taken in urban areas;drumroll please

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA

The examples in line with this argument are generally within close proximity of heat sources/generators. The best example is that a local TV station had a remote weather station on one of our campuses mounted in the fenced area for a pair of 150 ton screw chillers. The temp was at least 5 degrees hotter than right outside the fence. I pointed this out to them and they removed the system. Their comment was they had always wondered why the temp on that side of town was so much warmer than elsewhere....particularly in the summer. Duh!

Eric

Marvin S
01-02-2012, 04:20 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.

You got the 1st sentence right - but where do you get verification of your 2nd sentence?

As this has been parsed seriously on this forum, I breathlessly await a reply :-P.

M&K's Retrievers
01-02-2012, 04:52 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.I'm afraid you are going to have to back this up.

Those who choose to ignore science in favor of what the talking heads want you to believe need to pull their heads out of the sand and start questioning the agendas of their supposed scientists.

My favorite argument of the man made global warming deniers is that the temperature recordings are skewed because too many are taken in urban areas;drumroll please

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA It's called concrete.

Remarks in red.

road kill
01-02-2012, 05:03 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.

Those who choose to ignore science in favor of what the talking heads want you to believe need to pull their heads out of the sand and start questioning the agendas of their supposed scientists.

My favorite argument of the man made global warming deniers is that the temperature recordings are skewed because too many are taken in urban areas;drumroll please

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA

NASA astrophysicists have determined a mean temperature increase to the surface of the sun.
This information is easily accessable but commonly avoided by the likes of Man bear pig and smillerdvm.

The mystery, of course, is how man-made global warming caused the surface temperature of the sun to increase......wait, maybe that is backwards, oh never mind.

RK



RK

caryalsobrook
01-02-2012, 06:15 PM
Al Gore has never been right about very many things.
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.

Those who choose to ignore science in favor of what the talking heads want you to believe need to pull their heads out of the sand and start questioning the agendas of their supposed scientists.

My favorite argument of the man made global warming deniers is that the temperature recordings are skewed because too many are taken in urban areas;drumroll please

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA

Talk about someone with their head in the sand!!

Have you ever heard of Prof. Michael Mann who was one of the foremost authorities on man made global warming??? Famous for studying the rings on trees to determine the temperature over the last 2000 years. he came up with the famous Hockeystick graph showing that the global temperature for the last 2000 years had remained relatively constant until the industrial revolution and invention of the internal combustion engine. Only problem is THAT HE FALSIFIED HIS DATA!!!! The data ACTUALLY showed that the global temperature was as great or greater during the medieval period THAN IS IS TODAY. there was colusion between many scientists professing significant man made global warming scurring to erase their e-mails of their complicity with Prof Mann of Penn State Univ. The most famous which was a renowned scientist from England who finally stated "THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WAS AS HIGH OR EVEN HIGHER DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD THAN IT IS TODAY BUT THAT HE STILL BELIEVES THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING." He also resigned his position for the fraud he commited.The key word in the discussion is the word "SIGNIFICANT"

Prof. mann's study to my knowledge encompassed the longest period of time studdied and the true data is probably the best arguement AGAINST man made significant global warming. It is pretty hard to argue man made golbal warming when the temperature preceding the invention of the internal combustion engine was in fact as warm or warmer than it is today.

I have seen where it has been claimed that the gobal temperature in the year 2010 was as cool as it was in 1995. funny, I can't find the global temperature for 2010 and it is already 2012.

I have not seen any scientists who argue against significant man made global warming caught lying and falsifying their data. Prof. Mann did and also coluded with others of his persuation to cover it up.

Cowtown
01-03-2012, 08:06 AM
Nah! But it was 73 degrees here on New Years Eve. Nice! People wearing shorts in January rocks! :cool:

The Earth has had warm and cold trends for billions of years...and long before humans.

No, Algore is not right. These same folks were on the coming of the ice age bandwagon in the 70's...ie cover of Time Magazine.

Arguing about how cold or hot it was 15, 20 or 100 years ago is self aggrandizing or shortsighted or just plain dumb.

road kill
01-03-2012, 09:50 AM
The Earth has had warm and cold trends for billions of years...and long before humans.

No, Algore is not right. These same folks were on the coming of the ice age bandwagon in the 70's...ie cover of Time Magazine.

Arguing about how cold or hot it was 15, 20 or 100 years ago is self aggrandizing or shortsighted or just plain dumb.

I believe they are the same ones that were behind the "Paraquat" scare of the early 70's as well!!!:cool:



RK

Golddogs
01-03-2012, 10:06 AM
Global climate change is real. One needs only to look at the receeding glaciers and ice caps as well as the rapid loss of coral reefs. Each is an early indicator of a massive change in the weather patterns around the globe.

The prolem of denial stems, IMO, from the catch phrase " global warming" because not only are we warming, but some places are cooling. It is change.

Would this be happing if only animals lived on the earth? Of course. But the presence of man and all of the baggage we have introduced, has sped up the process and we need to address it. Climate change is real and can be tempered.

Pull your head from the sand regards

smillerdvm
01-03-2012, 02:43 PM
You got the 1st sentence right - but where do you get verification of your 2nd sentence?

.

Pretty simple Marvin read any truly independent {that is not subsidized by big fossil fuel companies} and they are all in agreement that man made global warming is happening..

The U.S. National Academy Of Sciences does in fact call the data upon which man made global warming is based "settled facts".

Is that good enough for you?

I breathlessly await your response:)

smillerdvm
01-03-2012, 02:49 PM
Remarks in red.

See above, or better yet pull your head out of the sand & do some research of your own.

By the way is it your theory that the concrete you refer to is not man made and doesn't help contribute to the generally higher temps seen in metro areas?:) Follow that logic out to its rational conclusion

Cowtown
01-03-2012, 02:58 PM
Global climate change is real. One needs only to look at the receeding glaciers and ice caps as well as the rapid loss of coral reefs. Each is an early indicator of a massive change in the weather patterns around the globe.

The prolem of denial stems, IMO, from the catch phrase " global warming" because not only are we warming, but some places are cooling. It is change.

Would this be happing if only animals lived on the earth? Of course. But the presence of man and all of the baggage we have introduced, has sped up the process and we need to address it. Climate change is real and can be tempered.

Pull your head from the sand regards

Sped up the process and we need to address it huh? That's pretty hilarious.

You nor anyone else can say for certain that man has sped up the process. A degree or two either way over the course of a few hundred years can't be proven as being the effect of man and not a naturally occurring thing.

So tell me...what has changed these same folks opinion in a short 40 years that the Ice Age was upon us?

smillerdvm
01-03-2012, 03:06 PM
NASA astrophysicists have determined a mean temperature increase to the surface of the sun.
This information is easily accessable but commonly avoided by the likes of Man bear pig and smillerdvm.

The mystery, of course, is how man-made global warming caused the surface temperature of the sun to increase......wait, maybe that is backwards, oh never mind.

RK



RK
Try to keep your eye on the ball Stan. If you go ouside at night and look up in that Wisconsin sky you will see millions of round "global" shaped objects.

However none of those other billions of "global" shaped objects are what the discussion about "global warming" are about.

That discussion is referring to the global shaped object that the Wisconsin "unionistas" and the rest of humanity reside on. Its the one we refer to as "EARTH"

Now Back to your regularily scheduled programming.

P.S. Don't you believe that left wing propaganda about "Sponge Bob Squarepants" being gay

M&K's Retrievers
01-03-2012, 03:08 PM
...

By the way is it your theory that the concrete you refer to is not man made and doesn't help contribute to the generally higher temps seen in metro areas?:) Follow that logic out to its rational conclusion

Concrete after it is poured and sets up is not generating heat or cold but retaining it. Perhaps it is you who should pull their head out of the sand or where ever it is stuck.

Your statement that "global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists" needs verification which you have yet to provide. In the words of Judge Smails, "Well, We're waiting".

smillerdvm
01-03-2012, 04:59 PM
Talk about someone with their head in the sand!!

Have you ever heard of Prof. Michael Mann who was one of the foremost authorities on man made global warming??? Famous for studying the rings on trees to determine the temperature over the last 2000 years. he came up with the famous Hockeystick graph showing that the global temperature for the last 2000 years had remained relatively constant until the industrial revolution and invention of the internal combustion engine. Only problem is THAT HE FALSIFIED HIS DATA!!!! The data ACTUALLY showed that the global temperature was as great or greater during the medieval period THAN IS IS TODAY. there was colusion between many scientists professing significant man made global warming scurring to erase their e-mails of their complicity with Prof Mann of Penn State Univ. The most famous which was a renowned scientist from England who finally stated "THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WAS AS HIGH OR EVEN HIGHER DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD THAN IT IS TODAY BUT THAT HE STILL BELIEVES THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING." He also resigned his position for the fraud he commited.The key word in the discussion is the word "SIGNIFICANT"

Prof. mann's study to my knowledge encompassed the longest period of time studdied and the true data is probably the best arguement AGAINST man made significant global warming. It is pretty hard to argue man made golbal warming when the temperature preceding the invention of the internal combustion engine was in fact as warm or warmer than it is today.

I have seen where it has been claimed that the gobal temperature in the year 2010 was as cool as it was in 1995. funny, I can't find the global temperature for 2010 and it is already 2012.

I have not seen any scientists who argue against significant man made global warming caught lying and falsifying their data. Prof. Mann did and also coluded with others of his persuation to cover it up.

Yes Cary I have heard of Prof Mann..
Your post is so wrong on so many levels that I could spend an hour poking holes in it.
I don't have the time or inclination to do a thorough debunking. Besides it would do you and the other deniers on here some good to do your own research; as opposed to being spoon fed lies by Rush, Fox News and other fossil fuel junk science idiot whores.

For starters you may want to look up what the U.S. Academy of Sciences says in relation to global warming. They call the data upon which man made global warming is based as "settled facts"
As far as your allegations as to Prof Mann please do some objective research of your own. For starters he isn't credited with cooming up with the "hockey stick" graph That was actually Climatoligist Jerry Mahlman.

Your erroneous allegation that he "Falsified data" has been spread around for years. Probably most famously by Republican Congresscritte Jim Inhoff who famously crowed that global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. In response to his bellowing Congress requested the National Research Council to make investigate and make a report on the credibility of the global warming science.

Much to their chagrin their report and a dozen or so subsequent studies instead confirmed the science.

Most recently the email scandal got all the wackos panties in a wad. They insisted that an investigation be done by the National Science Foundation of Mann and his data collection & reports.

Once again the Wackos were sorely disappointed in their efforts to suppress the truth when the NSF released th results of their investigation. They reaffirmed Mann' and found no evidence of scientific misconduct in their report released on Aug 15 2011.

If you look at the history of the global warming debate it is frightening the lengths the self serving crowd will due to suppress objective scientific research. What is even more unsettling is that after getting egg on their faces repeatedly they still have any credibility with even one person.

Your closing paragragh in which you claim that there are no examples of the anti global warming faction erroneously reporting data is truly amazing. Please do some research and get back to me on that one HAHAHA!!:)

You stated: "I have seen where it has been claimed that the gobal temperature in the year 2010 was as cool as it was in 1995, funny, I can't find the global temperature for 2010 and it is allready 2012".

In reply I must admit I am shocked. I had no idea of the depth of this conspiracy. To think they got every single climatoligist, weatherman, statistics junkie in the world to participate in and suppress this relevant data.

One would have thought that at the least one of the debunkers would have leaked that piece of info. I also must admit that I am vastly overmatched in any scientific argument with a person who could base an argument starting with the phrase:

"I HAVE SEEN WHERE IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED"............... Tough to argue with such sound based scientific arguments and facts. i have a bit of a toothache, I can only hope that Dental Schools are still only accepting the best and the brightest!!

I'm gonna put my tin foil hat back on now.
Anxiously awaiting your reply

road kill
01-03-2012, 05:06 PM
Try to keep your eye on the ball Stan. If you go ouside at night and look up in that Wisconsin sky you will see millions of round "global" shaped objects.

However none of those other billions of "global" shaped objects are what the discussion about "global warming" are about.

That discussion is referring to the global shaped object that the Wisconsin "unionistas" and the rest of humanity reside on. Its the one we refer to as "EARTH"

Now Back to your regularily scheduled programming.

P.S. Don't you believe that left wing propaganda about "Sponge Bob Squarepants" being gay

So, the temperature of the sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth??

Really???


All righty then..........

RK

smillerdvm
01-03-2012, 05:08 PM
Concrete after it is poured and sets up is not generating heat or cold but retaining it. Perhaps it is you who should pull their head out of the sand or where ever it is stuck.

Your statement that "global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists" needs verification which you have yet to provide. In the words of Judge Smails, "Well, We're waiting".

DUH!! Was the heat holding concrete naturally occuring or man made? What about the millions of heat generating motors, appliances, generators etc that are massed in urban areas where temperatures are always higher?

For verification read posts #11, 12, 13, 15, &17. If that doesn't work pull your head out of the sand and take a reading comprehension class then do your own research

road kill
01-03-2012, 05:09 PM
DUH!! Was the heat holding concrete naturally occuring or man made? What about the millions of heat generating motors, appliances, generators etc that are massed in urban areas where temperatures are always higher?

For verification read posts #11, 12, 13, 15, &17. If that doesn't work pull your head out of the sand and take a reading comprehension class then do your own research
What about the sun???

RK

M&K's Retrievers
01-03-2012, 06:09 PM
DUH!! Was the heat holding concrete naturally occuring or man made? What about the millions of heat generating motors, appliances, generators etc that are massed in urban areas where temperatures are always higher? What don't you understand about concrete not creating heat or cold??:confused:

For verification read posts #11, 12, 13, 15, &17. If that doesn't work pull your head out of the sand and take a reading comprehension class then do your own research Wonder why we should have to do any research when we have all of your unfounded "facts" to rely on?

I hope it's OK if I don't take your word for anything when you refuse to back it up.

Cowtown
01-03-2012, 07:26 PM
As W.C. Fields so aptly put it: There's a sucker born every minute.

I ask again, what happenend to the 1974 Time Magazine and the 1975 Newsweek warnings of the coming Ice Age?

caryalsobrook
01-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Yes Cary I have heard of Prof Mann..
Your post is so wrong on so many levels that I could spend an hour poking holes in it.
I don't have the time or inclination to do a thorough debunking. Besides it would do you and the other deniers on here some good to do your own research; as opposed to being spoon fed lies by Rush, Fox News and other fossil fuel junk science idiot whores.

For starters you may want to look up what the U.S. Academy of Sciences says in relation to global warming. They call the data upon which man made global warming is based as "settled facts"
As far as your allegations as to Prof Mann please do some objective research of your own. For starters he isn't credited with cooming up with the "hockey stick" graph That was actually Climatoligist Jerry Mahlman.

Your erroneous allegation that he "Falsified data" has been spread around for years. Probably most famously by Republican Congresscritte Jim Inhoff who famously crowed that global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. In response to his bellowing Congress requested the National Research Council to make investigate and make a report on the credibility of the global warming science.

Much to their chagrin their report and a dozen or so subsequent studies instead confirmed the science.

Most recently the email scandal got all the wackos panties in a wad. They insisted that an investigation be done by the National Science Foundation of Mann and his data collection & reports.

Once again the Wackos were sorely disappointed in their efforts to suppress the truth when the NSF released th results of their investigation. They reaffirmed Mann' and found no evidence of scientific misconduct in their report released on Aug 15 2011.

If you look at the history of the global warming debate it is frightening the lengths the self serving crowd will due to suppress objective scientific research. What is even more unsettling is that after getting egg on their faces repeatedly they still have any credibility with even one person.

Your closing paragragh in which you claim that there are no examples of the anti global warming faction erroneously reporting data is truly amazing. Please do some research and get back to me on that one HAHAHA!!:)

You stated: "I have seen where it has been claimed that the gobal temperature in the year 2010 was as cool as it was in 1995, funny, I can't find the global temperature for 2010 and it is allready 2012".

In reply I must admit I am shocked. I had no idea of the depth of this conspiracy. To think they got every single climatoligist, weatherman, statistics junkie in the world to participate in and suppress this relevant data.

One would have thought that at the least one of the debunkers would have leaked that piece of info. I also must admit that I am vastly overmatched in any scientific argument with a person who could base an argument starting with the phrase:

"I HAVE SEEN WHERE IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED"............... Tough to argue with such sound based scientific arguments and facts. i have a bit of a toothache, I can only hope that Dental Schools are still only accepting the best and the brightest!!

I'm gonna put my tin foil hat back on now.
Anxiously awaiting your reply
First, I will deal with the personal assumptions you have made concerning me that are idiotic if not absolutely stupid. Concerning Rush, I listened to him for maybe an hour or two about 10 years ago and haven't listened to him since. actually, I thought he was boring. I don't even listen to his interviews on TV. Concerning Congressman Inhoff, I know the name but have no clue as to the state he from which he is a Congressman, much less have I heard him speak on global warming. I make no assumptions how you came up with such false, idiotic and stupid "facts".

Concerning Prof. Mann and his orrigination af the famous hockey stick graph, I got that information from Penn State Univ. which states that he was one of the contributors. Maybe you are calling PSU liars, I have no idea. I read not only the report issued by the investigating committee of PSU but also the objections of scientists that were not allowed to testify before the committee. It has been a couple of years since I read all of this but to the best of my memory, the committee found that Prof. Mann was a little haphazard(my word, not theirs) in his assimilation of data and any error was mostly in his modeling. They saw no reason to fire Prof. Mann. Needless to say, those that were not allowed to testify about his data called it a whitewash.

I have never read any of the e-mails that were hacked and caused the scandel(?). prof. Phillip Jones of England was one of the primary authors of the subject e-mails and resigned his position, stating that his remaining would cause great controvery. He did state that the global temperature during the medieval period was as great or greater than today but that he still believed that man made global warmng was significant. I did assume that he made his conclusion of the global temperature based on the research of the rings of trees. I know of no other study other than that based on the rings of trees that goes back as far as 2000 years, so I do assume that that is how Prof Jones came to the conclusion that the temperture was as warm or warmer during the medieval period as it is today. I would think one would have a hard time argueing that the global warming during the medieval period could be attributed to fossil fuels since the internal combustion engine had not been invented. I do know that if Prof Phillip Jones, a renowned advocate of man made global warming is to be believed that the famous hockey stick graph is in fact a missrepresentation of the true facts. I also know that only making the raw data available to all and the source of the data to all to be verified, will provide a true answer.

Like many, I was highly concerned about the possibility of global warming, especially about the possibility of man contributing a SIGNIFICANT amount to it. I did not and will not listen to those who call the opposing side "kooks", "whores", ect as their defense for their positions. I prefer FACTS, honest facts without political policies to be propagated.

As to my profession, hopefully I have never done anything to dishonor it, espesicially not intentionally. Many people hired me, a few fired me, and a few I refused to work for. If you were a patient that I did not satisfy, then I am truly sorry that I could not meet your expectations. If you were never a patient of mine, then I really don't care what you think of my performance.

smillerdvm
01-11-2012, 09:53 AM
I hope it's OK if I don't take your word for anything when you refuse to back it up.

I've backed it up with statements from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences & fron the NSF. Those aren't exactly fly by night outfits. They are the standard in the scientific community If those credentials are not good enough for you then you are beyond help. You just keep believing the twisted drivel that the self serving fossil fuel industry mouthpieces like Fox & Rush have been peddling

Check them out. While you are checking them out you also may want to look up a study that was recenty published, wherein a long time global warming denier who was funded largely by Koch industries changed course and admitted that man made global warming is in fact real.
Imagine that he got a pang of conscious and integrity and decided he could no longer ignore sciencetific fact. I'm sure his funding has been cut off and Koch is searching for a new "scientist" who is more interested in money than scientific fact.

Get back to me on what you find.

road kill
01-11-2012, 09:59 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/speed2794/rod_serling.jpg

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead -- your next stop, the Twilight Zone."


RK

M&K's Retrievers
01-11-2012, 11:51 AM
I've backed it up with statements from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences & fron the NSF. Those aren't exactly fly by night outfits. They are the standard in the scientific community If those credentials are not good enough for you then you are beyond help. You just keep believing the twisted drivel that the self serving fossil fuel industry mouthpieces like Fox & Rush have been peddling

Check them out. While you are checking them out you also may want to look up a study that was recenty published, wherein a long time global warming denier who was funded largely by Koch industries changed course and admitted that man made global warming is in fact real.
Imagine that he got a pang of conscious and integrity and decided he could no longer ignore sciencetific fact. I'm sure his funding has been cut off and Koch is searching for a new "scientist" who is more interested in money than scientific fact.

Get back to me on what you find.

Nope. You backed them up with your statements. Links please 'cause I'm not wasting my time checking out your BS.

caryalsobrook
01-11-2012, 01:22 PM
I've backed it up with statements from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences & fron the NSF. Those aren't exactly fly by night outfits. They are the standard in the scientific community If those credentials are not good enough for you then you are beyond help. You just keep believing the twisted drivel that the self serving fossil fuel industry mouthpieces like Fox & Rush have been peddling

Check them out. While you are checking them out you also may want to look up a study that was recenty published, wherein a long time global warming denier who was funded largely by Koch industries changed course and admitted that man made global warming is in fact real.
Imagine that he got a pang of conscious and integrity and decided he could no longer ignore sciencetific fact. I'm sure his funding has been cut off and Koch is searching for a new "scientist" who is more interested in money than scientific fact.

Get back to me on what you find.

I got back to you with what I found and you have ignored it. So much for your BS.

Henry V
01-11-2012, 11:45 PM
smillerdvm. Do not even try to present scientifically based arguments about climate change here. You can post all the scientific evidence you want, the fact that most all nations acadamies of sciences have concluded man made climate change is real, that there is a consensus among climate scientists, etc, etc.

All you will get in response is the ever so predictable deniers arguments, as evidenced here - the hockeystick graph was a lie, its the concrete by the weather stations, there was that email scandal that proved the scientists are wrong, the earth has been warmer before, it is just a theory, and of course, its the sun.

If you had posted a response to the unsupported "it's the sun" claim such as this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
you would have then found out that they really do not like graphs. You also could have posted links that provide clear evidence that this Sun claim is without merit such as:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm, or
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html, or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm or,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/06/sun-cause-climate-change or what NASA says at
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

This is a reality free echo chamber and they really do not like science or graphs and they especially like dislike this one...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Have fun........

caryalsobrook
01-12-2012, 05:19 AM
smillerdvm. Do not even try to present scientifically based arguments about climate change here. You can post all the scientific evidence you want, the fact that most all nations acadamies of sciences have concluded man made climate change is real, that there is a consensus among climate scientists, etc, etc.

All you will get in response is the ever so predictable deniers arguments, as evidenced here - the hockeystick graph was a lie, its the concrete by the weather stations, there was that email scandal that proved the scientists are wrong, the earth has been warmer before, it is just a theory, and of course, its the sun.

If you had posted a response to the unsupported "it's the sun" claim such as this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
you would have then found out that they really do not like graphs. You also could have posted links that provide clear evidence that this Sun claim is without merit such as:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm, or
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html, or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm or,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/06/sun-cause-climate-change or what NASA says at
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

This is a reality free echo chamber and they really do not like science or graphs and they especially like dislike this one...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Have fun........
kGo back 2000 years and look at the results. Use Prof. michael Mann data(which was in the least distorted). LISTEN TO Prof. Phillip Jones , another man made global warming advocate who ADMITTED that the global temperature was as high and probably higher DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD, than it is today.

SHOW me in your graph that part of golbal warming that is ATTRIBUTED to man. SHOW me where it is stated how much CO2 must be reduced to make a SIGNIFICANT difference in climate change.

Prof Phillip Jones RESIGNED as a result of erasing e-mails between himself and others who advocate significant man made global warming(I have not read any of the e-mails but I know what the result of them was).

Nobody would deny that man affects global warming or global cooling for that matter, as well as polar bears, cattle, deer, and all other animals. The wuestion is IS IT SIGNIFICANT.

Note that I quote nor refference those who reject SIGNIFICANT man made global warming. I quote and refference those who advocate man made global warming(note omission of the word SIGNIFICANT).

smillerdvm
01-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Nope. You backed them up with your statements. Links please 'cause I'm not wasting my time checking out your BS.

I'm Not really here to do your research. If you'd like to make a wager of something worthwhile I'd be happy to do it for you
If you wish to remain ignorant that is your choice. Besides you and people like you choose to ignore any facts that don't agree with what you have been spoon fed by your sources.

Sheeple like you who fail to think for themselves and can be led around by their nose ring by whatever ideology they subscribe to, are the reason the country is in this mess.

M&K's Retrievers
01-12-2012, 05:41 PM
I'm Not really here to do your research. If you'd like to make a wager of something worthwhile I'd be happy to do it for you
If you wish to remain ignorant that is your choice. Besides you and people like you choose to ignore any facts that don't agree with what you have been spoon fed by your sources.

Sheeple like you who fail to think for themselves and can be led around by their nose ring by whatever ideology they subscribe to, are the reason the country is in this mess.

It would appear that it is you who is being led around by your nose ring.

Chicken Little regards,

smillerdvm
01-12-2012, 05:49 PM
smillerdvm. Do not even try to present scientifically based arguments about climate change here. You can post all the scientific evidence you want, the fact that most all nations acadamies of sciences have concluded man made climate change is real, that there is a consensus among climate scientists, etc, etc.

All you will get in response is the ever so predictable deniers arguments, as evidenced here - the hockeystick graph was a lie, its the concrete by the weather stations, there was that email scandal that proved the scientists are wrong, the earth has been warmer before, it is just a theory, and of course, its the sun.

If you had posted a response to the unsupported "it's the sun" claim such as this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
you would have then found out that they really do not like graphs. You also could have posted links that provide clear evidence that this Sun claim is without merit such as:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm, or
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html, or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm or,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/06/sun-cause-climate-change or what NASA says at
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

This is a reality free echo chamber and they really do not like science or graphs and they especially like dislike this one...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Have fun........

Henry you are so correct. When Roadkill posted his sun is hotter stuff I was so amused. I was going to ask him for the link, but his posting history made me realize that would be fruitless.
Rush {or someone similar} said that the sun is getting hotter and that; not man, is the reason for global warming. It becomes unassailable in their little heads!! Their type hypnotically follow the drivel that they are spoon fed. The fact that scintific fact says otherwise is irrelevant to them.

It is somewhat amusing to witness their manipulation. PT Barnum would have loved to do business with them. Sadly however when enough of these sheeple drink the kool-aid and jump off the cliff like so many lemmings it can harm us all.

Hew
01-12-2012, 06:03 PM
LOL...the Punxsutawney Phil of RTF pokes his head out of his hole for his annual appearance; foreboding 10 more days of nasty negativity on every subject he deigns to lecture on. Spread that sunshine, doc! :p

smillerdvm
01-12-2012, 06:03 PM
I got back to you with what I found and you have ignored it. So much for your BS.

Speaking of BS, reread what "you got back to me" with.

You talk about you may have read something from PSU or somebody, and it was a few years ago , but to the best of my recollecion it may have said something about something.

What in the world is there to talk about or rebut? You ramble on about Prof Jones as being an expert; but you admit that his conclusion is that man made global warming is SIGNIFICANT.

I know you went to Dental School you must have had some science and logic sometime didn't you?

As to your assumption that I was slurring your profession, you are incorrect.
Everyone knows that Dental Schools only accept the best and the brightest.

Always have and always will. You sir are a shining example of that

smillerdvm
01-12-2012, 06:06 PM
LOL...the Punxsutawney Phil of RTF pokes his head out of his hole for his annual appearance; foreboding 10 more days of nasty negativity on every subject he deigns to lecture on. Spread that sunshine, doc! :p

Good one Hew. Nasty negativity gives us something in common

Nor_Cal_Angler
01-12-2012, 07:21 PM
Climate Change is real.......

Historically it has occured if I am not mistaken, from the beginning of recorded time....we have accurate data to back it up!!!!!!

I believe scientific data suggest's it occurs repeatedly and fluxuates yearly...I think the most recent data says it changes 4 times a year

Those of us with lesser brain compacity to absorb the big words and graphs sum it up like this.....

SEASONS, there are four of them....

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter


Climate change indeed regards,

Jake

caryalsobrook
01-12-2012, 08:51 PM
Speaking of BS, reread what "you got back to me" with.

You talk about you may have read something from PSU or somebody, and it was a few years ago , but to the best of my recollecion it may have said something about something.

What in the world is there to talk about or rebut? You ramble on about Prof Jones as being an expert; but you admit that his conclusion is that man made global warming is SIGNIFICANT.

I know you went to Dental School you must have had some science and logic sometime didn't you?

As to your assumption that I was slurring your profession, you are incorrect.
Everyone knows that Dental Schools only accept the best and the brightest.

Always have and always will. You sir are a shining example of that

You misquote me falsely. I NEVER said "I may have read something". I SAID I read the findings of an investigating committee appointed by PSU consisting of PSU faculty and administrators". YOUR word "may", puts an entirely different meaning of what I said. It has been 3 years since I read the report and cannot and will not attempt to give the EXACT WORDING or even try to paraphrase its findings. I did give the conclusion of the committee that they found no justification to fire him. That I do remember. I did search the internet to find the report again but was unable to find it. I have no idea why it is now unavailable nor who how how it was made unavailable and will not speculate.

Concerning Prof. Phillip Jones, a climatologist and former Prof. of the Univ. of East Anglia, I gave his complete quote, even that he still believed(he never said concluded based on scientific data) he did admit the inaccracy if not falshood of the famous hockeystick graph showing a stable global temperature over the last 2000 years up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. He certainly entiled to his opinion.

As far as science and logic reuirements, they are pretty much the same for all dental schools. the courses of science and logic taught in dental schools are pretty much the same since they are included in the national boards which to my knowledge are required to graduate from all dental schools. Dental schools like all post graduate schools only accepted the best and brightest of those THAT APPLIED, discounting affirmative action.

Given your knowledge, maybe you can explain the global temperature during the medieval period being as high and maybe higher than it is today. I guess one might argue that man secretely invented the internal combustion then and caused significant global warming and then bannned it, you think??

road kill
01-13-2012, 10:45 AM
Now I know where smillerdvm gets his data and why he references sponge bob!!!;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkprv-Upco


RK

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 12:35 PM
Now I know where smillerdvm gets his data and why he references sponge bob!!!;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkprv-Upco


RK

Well Stan it appears you've got plenty of time to search the web for youtube videos about Sponge bob.

Why don't you use some of that time to come up with and post the source of your alleged NASA's sun warming theory?

Or does your mommy have your computer filtered to only access cartoon stuff? That might explain a lot

road kill
01-13-2012, 12:39 PM
Well Stan it appears you've got plenty of time to search the web for youtube videos about Sponge bob.

Why don't you use some of that time to come up with and post the source of your alleged NASA's sun warming theory?

Or does your mommy have your computer filtered to only access cartoon stuff? That might explain a lot
My Mom passed away.
Nice post.
Do you ever think, or is it all emotion???

Just askin'.........
(that means it is a rhetorical question, I already know the answer, even if you don't)

I know you thought you were being clever and funny, but your not.

RK


P.S.--solar activity is not the same as surface temparature

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 12:47 PM
It would appear that it is you who is being led around by your nose ring.

Chicken Little regards,

Brilliant!!
Your ability for deep independent thought and factual analysis is overwhelming

Uncle Bill
01-13-2012, 01:07 PM
Brilliant!!
Your ability for deep independent thought and factual analysis is overwhelming

There ya go...spoken like a true member of the sheeple generation. I hope you are backing your beliefs with a generous contribution to the Algore slush fund.:rolleyes:

UB

JDogger
01-13-2012, 01:13 PM
They are just goading you smiller. Don't take the bait. Stay :-|

JDogger

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 01:41 PM
You misquote me falsely. I NEVER said "I may have read something". I SAID I read the findings of an investigating committee appointed by PSU consisting of PSU faculty and administrators". YOUR word "may", puts an entirely different meaning of what I said. It has been 3 years since I read the report and cannot and will not attempt to give the EXACT WORDING or even try to paraphrase its findings. I did give the conclusion of the committee that they found no justification to fire him. That I do remember. I did search the internet to find the report again but was unable to find it. I have no idea why it is now unavailable nor who how how it was made unavailable and will not speculate.

Concerning Prof. Phillip Jones, a climatologist and former Prof. of the Univ. of East Anglia, I gave his complete quote, even that he still believed(he never said concluded based on scientific data) he did admit the inaccracy if not falshood of the famous hockeystick graph showing a stable global temperature over the last 2000 years up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. He certainly entiled to his opinion.

As far as science and logic reuirements, they are pretty much the same for all dental schools. the courses of science and logic taught in dental schools are pretty much the same since they are included in the national boards which to my knowledge are required to graduate from all dental schools. Dental schools like all post graduate schools only accepted the best and brightest of those THAT APPLIED, discounting affirmative action.

Given your knowledge, maybe you can explain the global temperature during the medieval period being as high and maybe higher than it is today. I guess one might argue that man secretely invented the internal combustion then and caused significant global warming and then bannned it, you think??

Cary, I didn't quote you, so how could I misquote you?
I loosely paraphrased what you said. It was basically a sream of consciosness about people something you think you read from PSU. Now you admit that you can't even find what it was you had a vague recollection of. So how in the world am I to engage you or try to rebut your mysterious missing source?
You also made conclusions about testimony of people who weren't even allowed to testify. How you make assumptions or conclusions about people not allowed to testify is beyond me.

You do understand how testimony works dont you? If the trier of fact won't allow someone to testify that is rather telling as to their credibility or agenda. Furthermore if you get to testify your testimony is subject to cross examination. Without that cross examination its not terribly credible, and is liable to just be biased politicical spin.




I now will quote you. You said: I prefer FACTS, honest facts without political policies to be propogated"

How does that quote jibe with you pontificating on about your recollected memory of something you think you read about years ago, that you now admit you can't even produce.
How would you propose that we would fairly debate that rather ethereal stream of consciousness? Where are your "preferred facts"



Also how does it jibe with you drawing conclusions from those who weren't even allowed to testify and be subjected to cross examination?

Additionally you have stated that in spite of the fact you have never read the deleted emails that you know what the result of them were. Please Learned One share with us all how it was that you did that!!

I also am at a loss as to your fascination with the fact that the temperatures in the middle ages may have been close to as warm as they are today. The debate is about mans activities affecting global temperature today and in the future

I would be happy to debate man made global warming, using your "Preffered"
"FACTS", honest facts without political policies to be propogated" I believe that unlike Roadkill and M&K that you may be capable of having an intelligent discussion on the subject.

In light of the fact that you were able to draw conclusions from testimony that wasn't even allowed or subjected to cross examination; as well as thje fact that you can know the result of emails that were never read I would say that I am a bit skeptical of your desire for FACTS

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
My Mom passed away.
Nice post.
Do you ever think, or is it all emotion???

Just askin'.........
(that means it is a rhetorical question, I already know the answer, even if you don't)

I know you thought you were being clever and funny, but your not.

RK


P.S.--solar activity is not the same as surface temparature

Dodge and duck the issue all you want to, but I'm Still waiting on your sun warming studies from NASA.

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 01:49 PM
P.S.--solar activity is not the same as surface temparature

Duh. More Brilliance from the doubters!

Save us a post that tells us the sun rises in the East and sets in the West

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 02:10 PM
Look it up yourself, You knowit's true.
I'm not your momma, if I was you'd have been taught some manners!!



RKUnlike you I don't regurgitate unsupported BS I hear from my thinking guru. I prefer to think for myself.

You stated that NASA scientists have verified that the sun is getting hotter and implied that is the cause of global warming. I called BS on your assertions

It is now time for you to prove up your assertions and post a link to your NASA study.
Do you need a few minutes to call Rush or whoever your thinking guru is?
If Rush is feeling honest and unbeholden and tells you its BS and the study doesn't exist, don't ask him about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. It'll be too much for you to bear all at once


This is the way productive intelligent debate works.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

road kill
01-13-2012, 02:12 PM
Duh.

Brilliant!!!



RK

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 02:14 PM
Why did you pull the post I quoted Stan?
I'm done with this, it is time to enjoy the weekend

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 02:16 PM
Brilliant!!!



RK

Before I leave for the weekend I'm gonna have to give you an F for Independent Thinking and an F for Original Thought

Peace out

road kill
01-13-2012, 02:16 PM
Unlike you I don't regurgitate unsupported BS I hear from my thinking guru. I prefer to think for myself.

You stated that NASA scientists have verified that the sun is getting hotter and implied that is the cause of global warming. I called BS on your assertions

It is now time for you to prove up your assertions and post a link to your NASA study.
Do you need a few minutes to call Rush or whoever your thinking guru is?
If Rush is feeling honest and unbeholden and tells you its BS and the study doesn't exist, don't ask him about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. It'll be too much for you to bear all at once


This is the way productive intelligent debate works.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Posting links is a failed progressive tactic.
All you leftys do is whine about the source.

The surface temp of the sun has risen quite a bit since 1976.
YOU look it up son, I'm busy.;-)


You post political BS because it feels good.
After all, you saw it on a sponge bob cartoon.





RK

road kill
01-13-2012, 02:23 PM
Why did you pull the post I quoted Stan?
I'm done with this, it is time to enjoy the weekend
Because I thought it over and decided you aren't worth the effort.

You just ain't got game so to speak.

I am used to more worthy opponents, you ain't there yet.
Your workin' on it, but you ain't there yet.

BTW--for the most part, we leave family and dogs out of the personal insults.
(you know, you progressives #1 tactic)

You may want to learn that.

Your apology is accepted.
Even though you weren't man enough to post it, I refuse to believe you are that rude.

RIP Mom........


RK

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 02:30 PM
Posting links is a failed progressive tactic.
All you leftys do is whine about the source.

The surface temp of the sun has risen quite a bit since 1976.
YOU look it up son, I'm busy.;-)


You post political BS because it feels good.
After all, you saw it on a sponge bob cartoon.





RK
You say for me to look it up because you are busy.

Now lets be honest here Stan. You are closing in on 7000 posts on here in less than 3 years; you ain't busy!!!!
The problem is you have already looked it up and just don't want to post up what you found about your supposed NASA study do ya? Hope we didn't slay to many of your idealized thinking gurus. But I have no doubt you will rely on that proven strategy of keeping your head in the sand and ignoring the facts and keep believing the ones who you now KNOW are lying to ya

And linking me to Sponge bob. REALLY...... REALLY????

You wanna poach both my "Brilliant" & "Sponge bob" digs???

Is there a creative thought in that head of yours?

Or are you truly........







BRILLIANT

road kill
01-13-2012, 02:32 PM
You say for me to look it up because you are busy.

Now lets be honest here Stan. You are closing in on 7000 posts on here in less than 3 years; you ain't busy!!!!
The problem is you have already looked it up and just don't want to post up what you found about your supposed NASA study do ya? Hope we didn't slay to many of your idealized thinking gurus. But I have no doubt you will rely on that proven strategy of keeping your head in the sand and ignoring the facts and keep believing the ones who you now KNOW are lying to ya

And linking me to Sponge bob. REALLY...... REALLY????

You wanna poach both my "Brilliant" & "Sponge bob" digs???

Is there a creative thought in that head of yours?

Or are you truly........







BRILLIANT

I knew you couldn't leave.:D
Is this all you got?

Let's see if you can get even more personal..........

BTW--what kind of dog do you have?
What venues do you run??


Just askin'.......



RK

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 02:45 PM
Because I thought it over and decided you aren't worth the effort.

You just ain't got game so to speak.

I am used to more worthy opponents, you ain't there yet.
Your workin' on it, but you ain't there yet.

BTW--for the most part, we leave family and dogs out of the personal insults.
(you know, you progressives #1 tactic)

You may want to learn that.

Your apology is accepted.
Even though you weren't man enough to post it, I refuse to believe you are that rude.

RIP Mom........


RK

Speaking of not having game you are the leader in that category.
You got called out on your NASA BS; you can't produce the goods, and so you start whining about a personal insult that never occurred. Poor and ineffective diversionary tactic, that you must of learned from your brain guru.

Once again there was no personal insult. It appears you are trying to make one up about my tongue in cheek comment about your mommy limiting your computer access to cartoons. The fact that you are trying to create a personal insult where there was not one proves that you are real weak on the facts, and in fact have no game

I said nothing about your mother and did not insult your mother. I'm very sorry that your mother predeceased you. May she Rest in Peace

The fact of the matter is that is the normal course of events. Parents generally predecease their offspring. Once you get into your 60's as you are it is very rare to still have your parents.

road kill
01-13-2012, 02:48 PM
Speaking of not having game you are the leader in that category.
You got called out on your NASA BS; you can't produce the goods, and so you start whining about a personal insult that never occurred. Poor and ineffective diversionary tactic, that you must of learned from your brain guru.

Once again there was no personal insult. It appears you are trying to make one up about my tongue in cheek comment about your mommy limiting your computer access to cartoons. The fact that you are trying to create a personal insult where there was not one proves that you are real weak on the facts, and in fact have no game

I said nothing about your mother and did not insult your mother. I'm very sorry that your mother predeceased you. May she Rest in Peace

The fact of the matter is that is the normal course of events. Parents generally predecease their offspring. Once you get into your 60's as you are it is very rare to still have your parents.

You still here?



RK

M&K's Retrievers
01-13-2012, 03:05 PM
It's funny how the original post about how nice the weather was on New Years Eve can turn in to a slug fest. :p

smillerdvm
01-13-2012, 03:17 PM
I knew you couldn't leave.:D
Is this all you got?

Let's see if you can get even more personal..........

BTW--what kind of dog do you have?
What venues do you run??


Just askin'.......



RK

Once again keep your eye on the ball Stan.

This thread is about man made global warming. In the course of the discussion you alleged that NASA says that the sun is getting hotter; and implied that & not man is the cause of global warming.

I called BS to that allegation and asked you to divulge your sources and give us a link.

You have now used at least 3 diversionary tactics, which prove that you really have got no game.

1.) You said that you are too busy to look it up. Pushing 7000 posts that is laughable. You already have spent way more time since you said you were too busy on this thread alone. If in fact NASA had said what you said a google search would have taken seconds to find it. However as you have undoubtedly found out it takes a LONG LONG LONG time to find something that doesn't exist

2)You said I used a personal insult about your mother. Wrong again & VERY SAD

3) Now you want to divert and act like this is a dog site and imply that I don't run dogs and shouldn't be on here. This may be your most laughable attempt to divert and prove that YOU HAVE NO GAME. You of all people. Of your nearly 7000 posts very few of them deal with dog training. I would imaginge your POTUS to the real forum % is easily in the bottom 1%.

Now I don't know how many childish, transparent diversionary tactics you have up your sleeve, I would suspect your next tactic will be to ask if I played college football, or if I like Scott Walker or some other inane thing.

I do have and train a dog, and I did play college football and I could care less about Gov Walker. I would bet that both my dog and college football career are far more impressive than yours. Neither of those subjects is germane to the topic herein, and would be better left to another day.

Therefore, I will ask you once again Stan to keep your eye on the ball. Do you have a quote, or a link, or ANYTHING AT ALL to your supposed NASA study showing that hotter sun temperatures are occurring and are the cause of global warming. Or are you just Wrong and using these transparent diversions to try avoid the truth that YOU GOT NO GAME.

If you do have some GAME then lets see the proof

Once again its time to Put up or Shut Up!!

IM OUTTA HERE

starjack
01-13-2012, 03:23 PM
Smillerdvm Does the Dvm mean you are veterinarian Because if you are potus had a nother type of doctor on here sometime ago. He was adocter of what you are being if you know what i mean.


BTW. He is no longer on potus because of some of his comments.


NOR CAL ANGELER said it best winter spring summer and fall

charly_t
01-13-2012, 03:30 PM
Smillerdvm Does the Dvm mean you are veterinarian Because if you are potus had a nother type of doctor on here sometime ago. He was adocter of what you are being if you know what i mean.


BTW. He is no longer on potus because of some of his comments.


NOR CAL ANGELER said it best winter spring summer and fall

Good post ! I knew that smdvm reminded me of somebody. Knew a girl like him in high school..........was not fond of her ways either, oh well. Hubby says it takes all kinds to make up the whole world. vbeg

p.s. okay so I can't spell :-)

M&K's Retrievers
01-13-2012, 03:34 PM
Smillerdvm Does the Dvm mean you are veterinarian Because if you are potus had a nother type of doctor on here sometime ago. He was adocter of what you are being if you know what i mean.


BTW. He is no longer on potus because of some of his comments.


NOR CAL ANGELER said it best winter spring summer and fall

Hey, Smillerdvm, wasn't that a Princes on The Howdy Dowdy Show? :cool:

Paul Stensvaag
01-14-2012, 12:34 AM
climateprogress.org

deniers have no idea of what we are in for in the coming years......4WARND.

starjack
01-14-2012, 04:33 AM
It is 2 degrees above 0 this morning its january 14. That is what is known as winter:rolleyes:

duk4me
01-14-2012, 07:26 AM
Smillerdvm Does the Dvm mean you are veterinarian Because if you are potus had a nother type of doctor on here sometime ago. He was adocter of what you are being if you know what i mean.


BTW. He is no longer on potus because of some of his comments.


NOR CAL ANGELER said it best winter spring summer and fall

No dog in this fight but I personally believe it is a combination of man and natural climate change.

My reason to post is how is Smillerdvm being an ass and Stan is not? Is it because you are a homer and Stan is your hometeam?

Just calling it like I seet it regards,

road kill
01-14-2012, 07:53 AM
No dog in this fight but I personally believe it is a combination of man and natural climate change.

My reason to post is how is Smillerdvm being an ass and Stan is not? Is it because you are a homer and Stan is your hometeam?

Just calling it like I seet it regards,

I learned long ago not to trade "links" with progressives.
It never works, I am not changing for the "Big Leaguer."

I didn't bring up "Sponge Bob," the big leaguer did.
I really didn't know about sponge bob, so I searched it.
First thing that comes up??
"The Endless Summer" video about man-made global warming.:D
Pissed the "Big Leaguer" off.

I didn't bring up anyones family members, off limits here on POTUS.
I didn't insult anyones collegiate athletic career (though I never stated here that I participated, according to smillerdvm, his was the better career), the big leaguer did.
I didn't demean anyone's dog training skills or efforts(though mine need vast improvement), the big leaguer did.

As far as deflecting, this angry negative dude has come after Cary, M&K and myself because we don't buy his ideology on man-made global warming.

As far as my sources, you don't have to search too hard to find them.
Like it or not, there are 2 schools of thought on climate change and smillerdvm is not the final word.

I read several of his previous posts.
Almost all are negative, cynical and many critical of the choice (in specific training methods) others have made.

I had not previously criticized his posts, but he indeed critcized mine as not being relevant or having content.
Yet nothing he has ever posted here has had a positive overtone or been helpful or supportive to another poster/dog trainer.

As far as RTF members, I have met several, tested with them, judged a couple, hunted with a few, had meals and possibly a drink and or cigar with some and even have had a few in my home.

My name, phone number, address and trials and tribulations are all out there.
No big deal, no secrets.

smillerdvm functions under a moderate cloak of anonymity.
Or so he thinks...............

If not rushing to his defense after his abrubt, adversarial approach to POTUS makes someone a homer, it is what it is.
Is it possible that some folks here actually like me??

MAYBE!!!!!:shock:
I am sure there are a few that don't, that's how it goes.

If somehow I have offended smillerdvm but not doing his bidding, my apologies, its just the way I roll.;-)
(asked anyone that ever told me what to do:cool:)


Just a quick off the cuff observation.


stan b

duk4me
01-14-2012, 09:03 AM
Aw, I like you Stan but, sometimes you guys have such a pack mentality that anyone with a disenting point of view is disparaged rightly or wrongly.

Probably shouldn't have used your name but you are the leader of the pack.

BTW didn't play college football but did get run over, blocked, tackled, and knocked out by four future Nflers. Ufortunately they were all on my high school team.

Third string quarterback sucks regards,

caryalsobrook
01-14-2012, 09:34 AM
Aw, I like you Stan but, sometimes you guys have such a pack mentality that anyone with a disenting point of view is disparaged rightly or wrongly.

Probably shouldn't have used your name but you are the leader of the pack.

BTW didn't play college football but did get run over, blocked, tackled, and knocked out by four future Nflers. Ufortunately they were all on my high school team.

Third string quarterback sucks regards,
I think his post was initiated more by personal slurs than by dissenting points of view. I try to ignore any personal slurs aimed at me and so far have been fairly successful. I do take issue when someone deliberately misquotes or erroneously parapharases me. I should remember that those who read such posts recognise such actions and ignore those also.

BonMallari
01-14-2012, 09:40 AM
getting in a discussion about global warming is like getting into a discussion about evolution vs creationism...both sides of the argument are virtually indefensible...for every expert opinion and scientific fact that one can give, there is a non scientific and virtually unexplainable phenomena to counter the premise....

Marvin S
01-14-2012, 12:07 PM
However the science of global warming is very real and supported almost 100% by independent scientists.

WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS USUALLY HIGHER DUE TO MANKINDS ACTIVITIES IN A DENSER AREA

Being on the take will skew individual results.
A room full of people will create a short term local temperature rise :eek:!


Nah! But it was 73 degrees here on New Years Eve. Nice! People wearing shorts in January rocks! :cool:

I've been up to 8000' underground numerous times. I have also fought fire underground, the air is really bad, but that's the way it is just under the Earth's mantle. I carried a candle to check air quality, it is interesting to watch a flame lose it's peak because there is no O in the air. More bad stuff is released into the air during any volcanic eruption than all the human caused idealogues can imagine. That is a catalogued fact!

I believe it is bad economics to waste this much money on an issue that is only irreversible by eliminating population!

I'm also reading "Through Green Colored Glasses" by Beckerman from CATO. 55% of the way thru & find it interesting, doesn't give our recent resident name caller any credibility, which she/he has already managed to create for she/heself :-P.

Gerry Clinchy
01-14-2012, 02:44 PM
Marvin wrote:

I believe it is bad economics to waste this much money on an issue that is only irreversible by eliminating population!



Like duk4me, my sense would be that some of what we see in temperature variations is due to humans, some to sun activity, and some to those volcanoes & other natural occurrences over which we have no control. The problem might be how much is due to which of the factors.

Monitoring temp only WRT human population and activity does not address the other factors sufficiently.

Humans might be able to modify their activities to some degree, but can it be done at bearable cost.

I was without electricity for about 4-1/2 days. I have a well and a septic system that uses an electric pump. When I was a kid, most homes that had a well also had a handpump in the event electricity went out. Also had no heat. Thankful for my well-insulated home & weather that didn't dip below 40 during that period.

India and China are willing to burn coal without much in the way of environmental protection. There's a lot more people living in those countries than the US (and Canada!). Those countries are industrializing like crazy. I believe China has even stated that it would be "unfair" to expect them to constrict their development to accommodate the environmental protections we would espouse here.

I can absolutely see using conservation measures and recycling to preserve our environment. However, how much cost increase can our economy bear to switch to solar or wind power? People are of the opinion that everyone is entitled to affordable health care. That's another discussion. I'd say that energy is pretty much a necessity for most people. And the cost of energy affects the cost of EVERYthing in our economy from the cost of food & heat to the cost of health care. And it affects those of the lowest incomes the most. It's perfectly kind of evident that Mr. Gore is not real willing to do his part for energy conservation; and he's got plenty of dough to absorb the increasing cost of energy due to his wealth.

IF humans can ameliorate their impact on climate change, how do we establish a risk/benefit ratio for the cost of doing so?

We do know that energy is more costly in Europe and Canada. We also know that Europeans of "middle income" have a much lower income than the US middle-income. Historically, the US may use the lion's share of energy, but has also provided a lion's share of innovation and prosperity & hope for improvement of their economic situation. Why else would we have such an immense problem with illegal immigration ... lots of people would rather live here than where they are living now.

I guess my vote goes for intelligent conservation and seeking the ways to use energy more efficiently. Certainly find more ways to use alternative energy sources in the most effective ways, but we have to do that without stifling the economies that are capable of producing that kind of progress.

starjack
01-15-2012, 03:00 PM
No dog in this fight but I personally believe it is a combination of man and natural climate change.

My reason to post is how is Smillerdvm being an ass and Stan is not? Is it because you are a homer and Stan is your hometeam?

Just calling it like I seet it regards,

I would of said if you had a dog in this fight

BTW WERE DID YOU EVER READ THAT ICALLED HIM A A$$ .

If the shoe fits wear it

duk4me
01-15-2012, 04:33 PM
I would of said if you had a dog in this fight

BTW WERE DID YOU EVER READ THAT ICALLED HIM A A$$ .

If the shoe fits wear it

Good Gosh have you been drinkin before the game? Try post #59 and quit yelling at me I'm a sensitive guy.

M&K's Retrievers
01-15-2012, 05:12 PM
Good Gosh have you been drinkin before the game? Try post #59 and quit yelling at me I'm a sensitive guy.

That's how I read #59 not that I disagree.;)

duk4me
01-15-2012, 06:24 PM
That's how I read #59 not that I disagree.;)

We agree but I disagree I miss DNF and Yardleyk's alternate opinions. That is what makes Potus fun, when the heavy hitters start throwing haymakers is great.

I'm kinda like the little sucker on Conan the Barbarian. I jump in there throw a jab and get out before I can get knocked out.

We need some diversity on here. Now back to the game.

Marvin S
01-15-2012, 07:16 PM
We agree but I disagree I miss DNF and Yardleyk's alternate opinions. That is what makes Potus fun, when the heavy hitters start throwing haymakers is great.

Yardley was our resident LW bureaucrat - I read that garbage daily as our paper comes out of Seattle. He could give some here a lesson in how to compose a thought that sounds intelligent. & he was civil & tried to bring his A game :).

The other guy brought zilch to the table - the only person I have put on IGNORE as I felt I was missing nothing by failing to read his numerous posts. & I don't miss him :-P.

duk4me
01-15-2012, 07:30 PM
Yardley was our resident LW bureaucrat - I read that garbage daily as our paper comes out of Seattle. He could give some here a lesson in how to compose a thought that sounds intelligent. & he was civil & tried to bring his A game :).

The other guy brought zilch to the table - the only person I have put on IGNORE as I felt I was missing nothing by failing to read his numerous posts. & I don't miss him :-P.

I do he could stir up the sh!t and make it stink. :)

Franco
01-16-2012, 08:35 AM
I too miss Yardley's and DNF's post as I thought they always had points worth consideration. They were willing to at least articulate their thoughts as opposed to just posting "cheap shots".

In regards to global warming;

I'll follow my gut instincts on this one. I just don't see how the buring of fossil fuels at the rate that we do doesn't affect the atmosphere.

I think the left over-plays it and the right is in complete denial. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Gerry Clinchy
01-16-2012, 09:29 AM
I think the left over-plays it and the right is in complete denial. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

The questions then become:
1) How much of this can be attributed to man-made & how much to natural occurrences? Has anyone even studied the parallels between the two over time to make an educated guess about the former ratios?

2) How much are already-developed countries (like US & western Europe) willing to give up, so that the currently developing countries (China, for example) can add to the man-made portion of this factor?

China isn't going to give up coal as long as they have such a large population to support. How much can a country like US give up without stifling its economy with energy cost? It would appear that the US economy is an important force in world economy. If US economy "tanks", then the repercussions are a ripple effect.

I believe that if energy costs run amuck, the lower income levels will suffer the most. Are we willing to accept the kind of subsistence levels that exist in outlying areas of China, or undeveloped countries of the mid-East or other parts of the world?

The most adamant about the measures we should take are those for whom the cost of energy is most easily absorbed. Gore won't change his lifestyle with energy costing twice as much as it does now. But the bulk of the population will have to accept a change.

For example, if nearly 50% of the population pay no taxes now, and the cost of energy doubles ... how much more can middle-income groups subsidize the lower income groups without seriously impairing the lifestyle of the middle income groups?

If the top 10% of income starts at around $350K/year income, (which means 90% earn less), I'd begin to suspect that when being "green" starts costing them enough $, they will be less aggressive in their "green-ness"?

Already, there are a lot of people burning wood for heat that didn't burn wood before. One of my clients (in his 30s) put a coal furnace in his city home last year & saved a bundle on heating. These are middle-income people trying to save $ with the increase in cost of petroleum products. How will this effect offset other efforts to reduce fossil-fuel use? Has anyone of the great minds of government even thought about this stuff? My guess is that since a lot of those great minds are in the top 10%, they will be out of touch with what is going on at lower income levels until it smacks them in the face.

road kill
01-16-2012, 09:47 AM
The questions then become:
1) How much of this can be attributed to man-made & how much to natural occurrences? Has anyone even studied the parallels between the two over time to make an educated guess about the former ratios?

2) How much are already-developed countries (like US & western Europe) willing to give up, so that the currently developing countries (China, for example) can add to the man-made portion of this factor?

China isn't going to give up coal as long as they have such a large population to support. How much can a country like US give up without stifling its economy with energy cost? It would appear that the US economy is an important force in world economy. If US economy "tanks", then the repercussions are a ripple effect.

I believe that if energy costs run amuck, the lower income levels will suffer the most. Are we willing to accept the kind of subsistence levels that exist in outlying areas of China, or undeveloped countries of the mid-East or other parts of the world?

The most adamant about the measures we should take are those for whom the cost of energy is most easily absorbed. Gore won't change his lifestyle with energy costing twice as much as it does now. But the bulk of the population will have to accept a change.

For example, if nearly 50% of the population pay no taxes now, and the cost of energy doubles ... how much more can middle-income groups subsidize the lower income groups without seriously impairing the lifestyle of the middle income groups?

If the top 10% of income starts at around $350K/year income, (which means 90% earn less), I'd begin to suspect that when being "green" starts costing them enough $, they will be less aggressive in their "green-ness"?

Already, there are a lot of people burning wood for heat that didn't burn wood before. One of my clients (in his 30s) put a coal furnace in his city home last year & saved a bundle on heating. These are middle-income people trying to save $ with the increase in cost of petroleum products. How will this effect offset other efforts to reduce fossil-fuel use? Has anyone of the great minds of government even thought about this stuff? My guess is that since a lot of those great minds are in the top 10%, they will be out of touch with what is going on at lower income levels until it smacks them in the face.
To some "degree" (pun intended) I agree with both Franco and Gerry.

However, I have read enough to develop an opinion that nature can do is it wishes, regardless man's best (or worst) efforts.

Volcano's, meteors, hurricanes and sunami's can do more damage in hours than man can in decades or centuries.:shock:
I have read of scientists who speculate that a volcano in the yellowstone region could erupt, soon and cause some serious problems.
I have even read studies that indicate certain UV & Gamma rays are now reaching earth from stars (suns) that didn't exist thousands of years ago and it took this long to reach us.

I am an ardent conservationist and always pick up trash or garbage when in the field, but I will not trade in my F-150 for a Prius!!!;-)

Just my worthless personal opinion.


RK

Mike Smith
01-16-2012, 04:12 PM
At my grandmothers farm there are fossilized rocks with seashell imprints in them. 150 miles from the coast. I don't think Al Gore or scientist had anything to do with it nor could have prevented it. If you think you can change the course of nature I would think you are giving yourself to much credit.

duk4me
01-16-2012, 04:51 PM
I feel so much love in the room.:razz:

duk4me
01-16-2012, 07:16 PM
I would of said if you had a dog in this fight

BTW WERE DID YOU EVER READ THAT ICALLED HIM A A$$ .

If the shoe fits wear it

#59 Ok the head should be clearing by now. Explanation please? lol

charly_t
01-16-2012, 07:16 PM
At my grandmothers farm there are fossilized rocks with seashell imprints in them. 150 miles from the coast. I don't think Al Gore or scientist had anything to do with it nor could have prevented it. If you think you can change the course of nature I would think you are giving yourself to much credit.

We have some in Oklahoma also. Grand kids and I have had a lot of fun searching an area that has been used to get road fill dirt near it.

duk4me
01-16-2012, 07:18 PM
Not to hijack but has anyone ever read "The Hab Theory"?

starjack
01-17-2012, 12:58 PM
No dog in this fight but I personally believe it is a combination of man and natural climate change.

My reason to post is how is Smillerdvm being an ass and Stan is not? Is it because you are a homer and Stan is your hometeam?

Just calling it like I seet it regards,

Its called keep it clean

Henry V
01-17-2012, 07:08 PM
kGo back 2000 years and look at the results. Use Prof. michael Mann data(which was in the least distorted). LISTEN TO Prof. Phillip Jones , another man made global warming advocate who ADMITTED that the global temperature was as high and probably higher DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD, than it is today.

SHOW me in your graph that part of golbal warming that is ATTRIBUTED to man. SHOW me where it is stated how much CO2 must be reduced to make a SIGNIFICANT difference in climate change.

Prof Phillip Jones RESIGNED as a result of erasing e-mails between himself and others who advocate significant man made global warming(I have not read any of the e-mails but I know what the result of them was).

Nobody would deny that man affects global warming or global cooling for that matter, as well as polar bears, cattle, deer, and all other animals. The wuestion is IS IT SIGNIFICANT.

Note that I quote nor refference those who reject SIGNIFICANT man made global warming. I quote and refference those who advocate man made global warming(note omission of the word SIGNIFICANT).
All your answers can be found at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
and also here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
you may also be interested in the 126 publications put out by the U.S. national academies of sciences related to climate change at http://dels.nas.edu/Climate/Reports-Academies-Findings
Can someone please post a link to the NASA study that RK cited but failed to provided the link to as proof that the current change is caused directly by increased solar activity???

road kill
01-17-2012, 07:17 PM
All your answers can be found at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
and also here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
you may also be interested in the 126 publications put out by the U.S. national academies of sciences related to climate change at http://dels.nas.edu/Climate/Reports-Academies-Findings
Can someone please post a link to the NASA study that RK cited but failed to provided the link to as proof that the current change is caused directly by increased solar activity???

That is not what I said.
Not that it would matter.
I stated that I read a study that indicated the surface temperature of the sun has increased (and more specifically the atmospheric temperature, 20,000 ft or so has increased)and posed the question of could there could be some relationship.
Your spin is your spin to help trump your desires for all things Al Gore.
I have also read that some gamma and UV rays may be hitting the earth from stars (suns) so far away that it has taken hundreds if not thousands of years to reach us.

Is it your claim that neither of those things could have any effect on the earths climate??

RK

Henry V
01-23-2012, 10:52 PM
Actually, this is what you wrote originally.

NASA astrophysicists have determined a mean temperature increase to the surface of the sun.
This information is easily accessable but commonly avoided by the likes of Man bear pig and smillerdvm.

The mystery, of course, is how man-made global warming caused the surface temperature of the sun to increase......wait, maybe that is backwards, oh never mind.

RK

RK
Still no one can find any reference to the NASA work you mention..... The gamma ray theory is debunked in one of the links I posted, not that it would matter.......

JDogger
01-23-2012, 11:42 PM
Actually, this is what you wrote originally.

Still no one can find any reference to the NASA work you mention..... The gamma ray theory is debunked in one of the links I posted, not that it would matter.......

Uh, uh Henry. Better watch out.
RK"S got all night to thimk about it. :rolleyes: JD

caryalsobrook
01-24-2012, 04:39 AM
All your answers can be found at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
and also here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
you may also be interested in the 126 publications put out by the U.S. national academies of sciences related to climate change at http://dels.nas.edu/Climate/Reports-Academies-Findings
Can someone please post a link to the NASA study that RK cited but failed to provided the link to as proof that the current change is caused directly by increased solar activity???

I did not read all 120+ articles. Nowhere did I see an explanation for the global temperature being as warm or warmer during the medieval period as it is today. You want to point that out to me????

road kill
01-24-2012, 05:20 AM
Actually, this is what you wrote originally.

Still no one can find any reference to the NASA work you mention..... The gamma ray theory is debunked in one of the links I posted, not that it would matter.......

HAHAHAHA!!!!!
You can't find what you don't look for.
You have searched for NOTHING that doesn't support you spoon fed ideology.

In fact, this is one of the most active periods in years in regard to solar activity.


ALMOST-X FLARE AND CME (UPDATED): This morning, Jan. 23rd around 0359 UT, big sunspot 1402 erupted, producing a long-duration M9-class solar flare. The explosion's M9-ranking puts it on the threshold of being an X-flare, the most powerful kind. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured the flare's extreme ultraviolet flash:
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/sun.jpg



Of course none of these events could have any effect on the earth.;-)

RK

junbe
01-24-2012, 05:22 AM
Earth's Orbit Milankovitch Cycles?

Mike Tome
01-24-2012, 12:06 PM
Uh-hmmmm... however.. solar flares do not affect earth's temperature....

http://nvonews.com/2012/01/24/solar-storm-2012-strongest-solar-flare-to-hit-earth-with-radioactive-particles/

road kill
01-24-2012, 12:40 PM
Uh-hmmmm... however.. solar flares do not affect earth's temperature....

http://nvonews.com/2012/01/24/solar-storm-2012-strongest-solar-flare-to-hit-earth-with-radioactive-particles/

Neither does my SUV.;-)

Doesn't stop your ideology.................

RK

Mike Tome
01-24-2012, 03:32 PM
Neither does my SUV.;-)

Doesn't stop your ideology.................

RK
So, you've figured out a way to stop CO2 emmisions from your SUV? First, realize I'm not busting you for driving an SUV... I drive a full size truck. But, I do recognize that the emissions from vehicles does contribute to climate change, as do the vast majority of scientists who work with this issue. Here are a couple of links that you may chose to read on the matter.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=3&fid=53

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Now, I respect the fact that you may choose to not believe these citations, but the FACT is, that the scientific community does support the notion that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change.

road kill
01-24-2012, 03:39 PM
So, you've figured out a way to stop CO2 emmisions from your SUV? First, realize I'm not busting you for driving an SUV... I drive a full size truck. But, I do recognize that the emissions from vehicles does contribute to climate change, as do the vast majority of scientists who work with this issue. Here are a couple of links that you may chose to read on the matter.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=3&fid=53

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Now, I respect the fact that you may choose to not believe these citations, but the FACT is, that the scientific community does support the notion that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change.
But not the sun???


OK...........


RK

Mike Tome
01-24-2012, 03:59 PM
But not the sun???


OK...........


RK
Well, of course the sun provides our source of energy... but your reference to an increase surface temperature of the sun doesn't seem to appear in the scientific literature, so as far as I know, an increase in solar energy is not contributing to climate change.

Uncle Bill
01-24-2012, 05:00 PM
Well, of course the sun provides our source of energy... but your reference to an increase surface temperature of the sun doesn't seem to appear in the scientific literature, so as far as I know, an increase in solar energy is not contributing to climate change.


And your solution to the problem is????? Will we be hearing youv'e traded in your pickup for a Prius? Or sent in a 4 figure donation to Algore? Turned the heat down in your home so everyone needs to wear three layers of jackets to stay warm...indoors???

What part of this "PLANET'S HISTORY" of weather changes...even long before RK was cruising in his SUV:rolleyes:...do you not believe? Do you believe that since the horse and buggy days, the US populace have been given the power to kill this planet? How easily will you continue to allow the ALGORE followers and his scientists hungry for another grant, to pull the wool over your eyes?

Not being an atheist, I have serious difficulty in believing God has relinquished his contol of this planet to some scientists on the dole, and a self-serving fatass former veep that, I question has a three figure IQ.

Now, as to that pic posted by RK, we had an overcast and snow flurries in the Black Hills last night, so we didn't get a chance to witness the Aura Borealis, that I'd heard from some Nodak relatives, was fantastic. Having lived most of my life in the Dakotas, I've seen some spectacular northern lights, provided by those Sun flares. Dare I thank the Good Lord, or can we expect the Algore crowd to lay claim for that as he has for the internet?:confused:

UB

Mike Tome
01-24-2012, 08:22 PM
UB, why are you attacking me for simply making statements that the scientific community has stated that the climate is in fact changing (I think that we can agree on that) AND that anthropogenic sources are contributing to it. That is simply what I said. I didn't pretend to have any solutions, I just stated what scientists are agreeing upon and gave citations to support my statements.

I did not give any statement criticizing anyone for what their carbon footprint may be. I know mine could be smaller, but I chose to live the way I do. I do not criticize you for living the way you do.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion or change your mind, and I have no argument with your beliefs. You can continue to discredit the scientists. I choose to believe them. No one is pulling the wool over my eyes, and I won't insult you by saying some other faction is pulling the wool over yours.

featherqwest
01-24-2012, 08:29 PM
Well we won't be around for the final freeze but our grandchildren might. The carbon overload is coming from coal burning power plants. The temperature is rising and the seas are coming up slowly. The price of oil is not going to drop. It will be a slow melt of the ice caps. Places under sea level will be underwater soon. The process is beyond the point of no return. My husband is a Green Energy Analyst. We are not so called tree huggers but we do our part to put back what we take like plant lots of cover. I get called all sorts of names for having hunting dogs. I enjoy being outside with my dogs.
I live in a very progressive state of Mass. So you can decide. The women thinks that killing critter is a crime. There is a gun range less than 1/2 mile from my house :-)

featherqwest
01-24-2012, 08:30 PM
HAHAHAHA!!!!!
You can't find what you don't look for.
You have searched for NOTHING that doesn't support you spoon fed ideology.

In fact, this is one of the most active periods in years in regard to solar activity.



Of course none of these events could have any effect on the earth.;-)

RK

The satellite my dear are affected. You know flares that interfere with the "eyes" in the sky...

road kill
01-27-2012, 03:33 PM
No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy..


Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:


A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Interesting.........


RK

Uncle Bill
01-27-2012, 04:31 PM
And about the same consenses from another direction, comes this: UB

Global Warming Is Nothing To Worry About

Rob Port (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/author/admin/) • January 27, 2012






In the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?m od=mostpop) sixteen scientists who dissent from the notion of a “scientific consensus” in favor of global warming say concerns over carbon emissions are overblown:
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.


The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.


The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

What’s more, they point out that some in the scientific community are afraid to speak out for fear of having their livelihoods taken away by vengeful climate alarmists:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
What’s happening in the climate sciences now seems reminiscent of Galileo’s war with the Catholic Church over his theories about the movements of planetary bodies. In Galileo’s day, many scientists had theories and research which ran contrary to the religious doctrine, but they were afraid to go public with their work out of fear of persecution.
Today, those questioning the dogma of the climate alarmists face the same dilemma. Not only are many of the leading alarmists also extremely powerful in scientific communities, but government entities who use climate alarmism as leverage for all manner of policies from higher taxes to larger budgets to more regulatory power also control a lot of the public funding for the institutions these scientists work out.
It is a brave scientist, indeed, who dares question the “consensus” on global warming.

duk4me
01-28-2012, 05:31 PM
Its called keep it clean

Keep what clean? Reread your post #59 where you called him an arse.

Baby Wipes regards,

starjack
01-28-2012, 06:41 PM
Keep what clean? Reread your post #59 where you called him an arse.

Baby Wipes regards,

WHERE IS THE WORD

duk4me
01-28-2012, 07:40 PM
WHERE IS THE WORD

And I quote " He was a Dr of what you are being if you know what I mean".

Oh my I get it if you dont say the word it's not saying someone is an ... kinda like what a firstgraders explanation is. Honest I didn't cuss I said crap.

BS regards but I didn't say the word Star C..p. :rolleyes:

sandyg
01-28-2012, 08:10 PM
Many scientists think CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we need to decrease it in order to save the environment. I'm much more concerned about DHMO. Here are the facts about this dangerous chemical...

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

road kill
01-28-2012, 08:15 PM
Personally, I am gravely concerned about "Paraquat!!"



URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001085.htm
Paraquat poisoningParaquat (dipyridylium) is a highly toxic weed killer once promoted by the United States for use in Mexico to destroy marijuana plants. Research found that this herbicide was dangerous to workers who applied it to the plants.

This article discusses the health problems that can occur from swallowing or breathing in Paraquat.

CausesIn the United States, Paraquat is classified as "restricted commercial use," and people must obtain a license to use the product.

Breathing in Paraquat may cause lung damage and can lead to a disease called Paraquat lung. Paraquat causes damage to the body when it touches the lining of the mouth, stomach, or intestines. You can get sick if Paraquat touches a cut on your skin. Paraquat may also damage the kidneys, liver, and esophagus.

If Paraquat is swallowed, death can rapidly occur. Death may occur from a hole in the esophagus, or from acute inflammation of the mediastinum, the area that surrounds the major blood vessels and airways in the middle of the chest.

Chronic exposure to Paraquat may cause pulmonary fibrosis, a stiffening of the lung tissue.

Symptoms•Burns in throat
•Coma
•Difficulty breathing
•Nosebleed
•Seizures
•Shock
•Shortness of breath
•Sore throat
•Stomach pain
•Vomiting
Exams and TestsYou will be asked if you have been exposed to Paraquat.

Blood and urine tests will be done to determine how much Paraquat is in your system. Other tests that may be done include:

•Arterial blood gases (measures of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and acid-base balance)
•BUN and creatinine (kidney function tests)
•Chem-20
•Chest x-ray
•Lung function tests
•Urinalysis
•Urine toxicology screen
TreatmentThere is no specific treatment for Paraquat poisoning. The goal is to relieve symptoms and treat complications (supportive care).

Remove all contaminated clothing.

If the chemical touched your skin, wash the area with soap and water for 15 minutes, without scrubbing hard, so as not to cause abrasions which will allow greater absorption of the toxin.

If there has been contamination of the eyes, flush them with water for 15 minutes.

If you have swallowed Paraquat, you should receive activated charcoal as quickly as possible. Sicker patients may need a procedure called hemoperfusion, which filters the blood through charcoal to try to remove Paraquat from the lungs.

Outlook (Prognosis)The outcome depends on the severity of exposure. Some people may develop mild breathing-related symptoms and have a full recovery, while others may have permanent changes in the lungs. If a person swallowed the poison, death is likely without immediate medical care.

Possible Complications•Acute respiratory distress syndrome
•Holes in the esophagus
•Inflammation of the area between the lungs (mediastinitis)
•Kidney failure
•Scarring of the lungs (pulmonary fibrosis)
When to Contact a Medical ProfessionalIf you believe you have been exposed to Paraquat, you should seek medical care immediately.

The National Poison Control Center (1-800-222-1222) can be called from anywhere in the United States. This national hotline number will let you talk to experts in poisoning. They will give you further instructions.

This is a free and confidential service. All local poison control centers in the United States use this national number. You should call if you have any questions about poisoning or poison prevention. It does NOT need to be an emergency. You can call for any reason, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Take the container with you to the hospital, if possible.

See: Poison control center - emergency number

PreventionAvoid exposure to Paraquat.

Alternative NamesParaquat lung

ReferencesRobbe WC III, Meggs WJ. Insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides. In: Tintinalli JE, Kelen GD, Stapczynski JS, Ma OJ, Cline DM, eds. Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2004:chap 182.

Update Date: 1/14/2010Updated by: Jacob L. Heller, MD, MHA, Emergency Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc.



This conspiracy was pointed out years ago (the 70's) and it has been swept under the carpet.
Like acid rain, global cooling, bigfoot and now global warming.

Paraquat could have a huge negative impact on one of our Presidential hopefuls entire following!!!!:cool:

What next???


RK

junbe
01-29-2012, 08:39 AM
I just heard the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska. Can that be valid?

caryalsobrook
01-29-2012, 09:13 AM
I just heard the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska. Can that be valid?
Only if it supports Al Gore's assertion of significant global warming while he sits in his Pacific coast home while claiming Carbon credits that he invented(whatever they are) to justify his $2000+ per month electric bills at his house in Tennessee. THEN it would be valid.:p

Henry V
01-30-2012, 11:04 PM
Just a few facts about the WSJ article and the 16 scientists behind it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
and since most of will reject anything from media matters, try forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

Funny, how the WSJ rejected one signed by 255 scientists from the national academies of science but accepts the one from 16 deniers most of whom are not climate scientists.

caryalsobrook
01-31-2012, 01:47 AM
Just a few facts about the WSJ article and the 16 scientists behind it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
and since most of will reject anything from media matters, try forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

Funny, how the WSJ rejected one signed by 255 scientists from the national academies of science but accepts the one from 16 deniers most of whom are not climate scientists.

I read both letters. Funny how the 255 scientists accused the 16 scientists of McCarthy tactics, and at the same time called the 16 SCIENTISTS,"deniers" instead of scientists. I see that you did the same.

Quotes from the 255 scientists. "the planet is warming due to the increased concentration of heat trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact."

"Most of the increase in concentration of these gases is due to human activities especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." My question has to do with the word "most". If this is correct, THEN HOW MUCH?? Ball park percentage will do. If burning of fossil fuels is to be reduced, then "HOW MUCH?? again ball park figures will do, but AT LEAST quantify the reduction of CO2 relating to the reduction of burning of fossil fuels.

"Natural causes always plaay a role in changing earth climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human induced changes" "overwhelmed" is a subjective term. Again by what percentage, ball park figure fine.

As to the scientists, you say that most of the 16 are not climate scientists. My question is "are most of the 255 climate scientists? I don't know but I would suspect they are not. I did see that one of the 16 is currently or formerly a member of the National Science foundation. I can only assume based on his position that he is no longer a scientist but a denier.

I did think it facinating that after giving the evolution of generally accepted theory that the 255 letter then admittes errors and mistakes but then refused to remove the word "incontrovertble" from their position.

Wars have gone on between scientists since the invention of the word scientist. Here one side says that the proof is "incontrovertable". The other says that "you have not proved it". Furthermore you are wrong. Name calling and slurs begin(Your use of the description of one group as scientists and the other as deniers is a typical example of this).

I liked the part of the 255 talking about fame of disproving generally accepted theoryl. Seems to me that this can be applied to both sides.

I will end by referring you to the generally accepted theory of ecological devistation as the result of a volcanic erruption. You, being a biologist are certainly aware of the huge mistakes in predicting the effect of the erruption of Mt. St. helens in the 1980's. I actually thought it facinating that good sound scientific predictions could be so wrong. It reminds you of how little we know about the world we live in much less the workings of the human body.

It would be much nicer if scientists would set aside their arrogance and recognize that generally accepted principles are just that and now necessarily incontrovertble fact. Setting aside egos would be a pleasant event. Probably will never happen, but nothing wrong with wishing.

One last personal note. I intend to make this the last post concerning anyone who does not identify themselves. I believe that one will say things they would never say if it is done with anonimity. If I don't know who you are then I will not respond. Hope I have the decipline to abide by this decision.:)

Hew
01-31-2012, 04:24 AM
Funny, how the WSJ rejected one signed by 255 scientists from the national academies of science but accepts the one from 16 deniers most of whom are not climate scientists.
I'm open-minded to man's effect on climate, however, the above is a very specious argument:

- Most of those scientists were educated in a system that contends that man's actions affect the climate (be it a coming ice age in the 70's or the global warming debate of the last 10+ years).

- Most of those scientists gravitated towards climatology with good intentions ("I want to help mankind and save the plantet!" as opposed to, "Gee, I want to study climatology because it's not that important and besides, there's nothing man can do about it anyway.")

- Most of those scientists are in the academic world and make their money from researching climate change. It's a mulit-million (if not billion) dollar industry. Why would they be inclined to kill the golden goose?

- If you wanted to apply for a research assistant or present your doctoral thesis, do you think a panel of reviewers would be more or less apt to hire you if you didn't think man was causing global warming? In other words, it is a very incestuous field where dissent is neither rewarded or encouraged.

- Therefore, the fact that a majority of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming is no more suprising to note than the majority of dowsers believe dowsing works.