The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 229

Thread: global warming

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,770

    Default

    WOW
    simply remarkable I can't believe people think that way.
    I'll bet there is no link to that global warning stuff though

    Pete

  2. #52
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    WOW
    simply remarkable I can't believe people think that way.
    I'll bet there is no link to that global warning stuff though

    Pete
    Do a search, pendejo, do a search,

    The Pro's here don't wanna answer yer ? again.

    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  3. #53
    Senior Member IowaBayDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

    Oh, and thanks for the update on Iowa's 2008 weather.

    Yes you should ignore all real data and just believe this guy:

    http://newsbusters.org/node/13241

    Jim Hanson is responsible for the majority of the data in this grand hoax and has been proven to be a complete hack. Either completely math disfunctional or a fraud, take your pick.
    ________________________________
    Dan Cram
    No longer live in Iowa but I have a new Bay Dog!!

    Skywatcher Salem Orchard Hard "Cider"

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    Thanks for the continued support IBD.* I expect nothing less.

    Since the charge from you is that I ignore data, please point out anything that led you to believe that I ignored the data provided in your post.

    To the contrary, a careful assessment of my short post clearly shows that I thanked you for providing a report on the 2008 Iowa weather. I am sorry that you did not understand my implications in this response. It was meant to clearly indicate that I acknowledged the data that you provided. Perhaps I should have added as a final statement “So, what’s your point?” to add context to my statement or "Ok, that's a sample size of one".*

    Don’t you agree that in the grand scheme of the world’s climate, your Iowa report is one single data point from one location for one year? Do you really want me to believe that this one data point somehow refutes the evidence that the climate, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is changing? Well, I hate to disappoint you but that’s just not good science. Similarly, if the entire world temperature was cooler in 2008 than the long term average that is just a single data point in a long series of data that describes the climate. Why is it that some folks here repeatedly express the idea that one data point, whether it is a cold day in July, one mean annual temperature measurement or winter ice cover measurement refutes the theory of global warming/climate change? It’s kind of reminds me of a guy whose dog continues to go off line while failing a blind but then he clings to the one or two good casts that the dog took during the entire process to support the idea that he ran a good blind. You know, one or two good data points may look good from your perspective but the trend will lead an objective observer to a different conclusion.

    FYI, here's some of what I have learned about Minnesota’s weather and climate from the state’s climatologist, Mark Seeley, who, I must say, is a rather conservative and skeptical scientist who has relatively recently concluded that the climate is changing. What changed his mind? The data from Minnesota and from around the world. You may want to take a look at a couple presentations he gave the past few years there is one at http://agronomy.cfans.umn.edu/sites/...eeley_Mark.pdf and another at: http://www.tourism.umn.edu/education...tourism_07.pdf I saw him give a similar presentation at a scientific meeting last year. Here are some highlights since we both know it is important to look at the data: Minnesota has warmer winters, higher minimum temperatures, a greater frequency of tropical dewpoints, and greater annual precipitation with more frequent heavy rains and more snowfall than 100 years ago. All conclusions based on real data. Did you know that 11 out of the 20 warmest winters in Minnesota during the past 100 years have occured since 1981? Pretty interesting and probably just a coincidence but it could give some folks something further to think about. Maybe it is just that all the thermometers are different now.*

    Also, you may want to check out this climate website for the upper Midwwest that has more data. http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/climat...ate_change.htm
    This data looks pretty clear too. The upper Midwest is warmer and we are getting more precipitation. Hmmmm, isn’t that just what the climate models predict? Again must be another coincidence or those darn scientists are tuning the models to get the results they want.* There is also a trend toward more intensive weather events. You haven’t had any historic precipitation events in Iowa the last few years have you?* Not that one data point is much on its own.

    Of course, all this regional data and existing global data which makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and the related data that clearly shows that CO2 concentrations are increasing at an accelerated rate since the early 1900s does not prove any direct human causation (I do remember that correlation does not prove causation). Its all just “circumstantial” evidence and besides there is so much uncertainty with all this stuff we should not consider deviating from our current course even though the climate models do mostly suggest that a continued rise in CO2 will increase global temperature further. I know, I know, mother earth will take care of herself like always and insignificant little humans like us simply can’t have much impact on this big old planet.* Heck just look around the country. You can hardly tell that we are even here.* The air, water, and land and the plant and animal communities are almost all just like they were a few hundred years ago.* We simply can’t affect climate anymore than we have affected anything else on this planet, right?* We should all just sit back, stay the course, and bet that the planet will take care of itself rather than even consider the possibility that humans activities are influencing climate or, heaven forbid, support actions to reduce climate change. If your side in this debate is mostly right IBD, great. Sorry in advance for that carbon cap and trade system that will probably be forthcoming that will likely induce an energy revolution. If you are wrong and we do nothing, well, that will be another situation won’t it? Let me see which of these two approach is "conservative"?*

    Also, for future reference, it's James Hansen and that link has been posted here on a GW related thread before. There are lots of websites that take him to task. Funny, that he is still employed by NASA after telling all those apparent lies. But then again, what do you expect from someone who works for the government and received his B.S., M.S., and PhD all from the University of Iowa.*

    Have fun and take care,



    (Note to Hew: in case you read this post, there are several places where I am trying to be sarcastic in this message. Since you requested that it would be helpful to you if I made these instances more clear in my posts, I have added an asterisk at the end of the sentences where sarcasm is generally implied. I hope this helps and I am glad to accommodate in the interest of better communication and understanding)

  5. #55
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    ...Of course, all this regional data and existing global data which makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and the related data that clearly shows that CO2 concentrations are increasing at an accelerated rate since the early 1900s does not prove any direct human causation (I do remember that correlation does not prove causation). Its all just “circumstantial” evidence and besides there is so much uncertainty with all this stuff we should not consider deviating from our current course even though the climate models do mostly suggest that a continued rise in CO2 will increase global temperature further...
    Interesting post.

    I will just look at this particular point.

    Assume the planet is actually warming at the alarming rate that the man caused global warming alarmists like to claim (You know the seas will rise feet or yards not inches or fractions of inches crowd (Al Gore et al)).

    Assume this is wrong and CO2 isn’t the cause? Being from the Midwest, this is tantamount to spending massive amounts of money on a tornado-stopping machine and it doesn’t work when the real solution was just to dig a hole in the back yard?

    I am all for a clean planet. I expect that most here feel the same way (good stewards and all that). But your (the global warming crowd) ideas of how to use the resources needed for good stewardship and linking that to global warming is a waste of those resources.

    BTW, I believe energy policy and issues and environmental issues are two separate things and are not linked by global warming.
    Last edited by subroc; 01-07-2009 at 04:48 AM.

  6. #56
    Senior Member IowaBayDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Also, for future reference, it's James Hansen and that link has been posted here on a GW related thread before. There are lots of websites that take him to task. Funny, that he is still employed by NASA after telling all those apparent lies. But then again, what do you expect from someone who works for the government and received his B.S., M.S., and PhD all from the University of Iowa.*

    Have fun and take care,

    NASA is CF of politics and dunderheads according to the 3 people I currently work with who were previously employed there. Ever try to fire a gov't employee? I did not attend UofI am no fan and work with several from there with degrees and they are no more above reproach than anyone else. Given the political climate of Iowa City it does not surprise me that a hack such as Mr. Hansen would come from there.


    Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

    But I am sure Henry you are spending all your personal wealth on this critical crisis since you are so convinced. If not, well then hypocrisy is thy name.
    ________________________________
    Dan Cram
    No longer live in Iowa but I have a new Bay Dog!!

    Skywatcher Salem Orchard Hard "Cider"

  7. #57
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    NASA is CF of politics and dunderheads according to the 3 people I currently work with who were previously employed there. Ever try to fire a gov't employee? I did not attend UofI am no fan and work with several from there with degrees and they are no more above reproach than anyone else. Given the political climate of Iowa City it does not surprise me that a hack such as Mr. Hansen would come from there.


    Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

    But I am sure Henry you are spending all your personal wealth on this critical crisis since you are so convinced. If not, well then hypocrisy is thy name.

    Surely you jest, Dan. Since when do liberals or socialists spend any of their own money???? They only want government to take it from the sheeple, so it can be spent on their favorite programs. As Mr. Ben Dover has warned us, this is just the beginning.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  8. #58
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    . the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.
    That is why it is refered to as Global warming, not Iowa weather.

    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  9. #59
    Senior Member Richard Halstead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lino Lakes, MN north metro area
    Posts
    2,061

    Default

    If Al Gore says there is global warming then as much as touts this topic he is blowing hot air. We still need to clean the environment.
    cave canem...beware of the dog
    Richard Halstead (halst001 at yahoo.com)

    http://www.browndogmafia.com/finalists.html

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.
    All those slides with raw data summaries, straight temperature trends over the years and that's your response? Weren't you just the one accusing me of ignoring data. Spoken like a true expert on the subject. By the way, the "dude" is a well respected state climatologist. All of his data is sourced. Its mostly weather service data. You know, the actual temperature readings from thermometers. Why don't you just say he made it all up. I am sure if you sent him a note he would give you hard data to analyze yourself. Also, please let me know which slides show he ignored the coldest years or "cherry picked" something. I gave you links to two complete slide shows, I would be glad to look at some specific individual slides and discuss how they are supposedly biased. Also, while he doesn't say "man made" you may want to look up the meaning and consider what he might have said when he came to that ending slide with the bullet "growth of anthropogenic forcing"

    Also, since you make the claim, please provide me with the data that shows the warming trend has drastically reversed itself since 2002 anywhere in the Midwest or arctic. Thanks in advance.

    Oh and just to be clear, in this post you indicate that you believe the climate is changing - "Duh". Then what exactly was the point of posting that news release that cites the Iowa state climatologist (did you source that dude's data) and weather service reports? It seems like you were posting something to show there is no global warming/climate change. From this last post I will assume you believe that climate is changing but anthropogenic forces are not responsible. Certainly a fair position to take.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Global Warming Over?
    By subroc in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2009, 05:03 PM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By Steve in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 02:08 PM
  3. Almost as believable as global warming GDG
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-15-2008, 01:40 PM
  4. Global Warming Talk
    By Steve in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 04:31 PM
  5. Global Warming???
    By badbullgator in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 09:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •