3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

[Luthien]

Never mind then.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1933344' date='Jul 27 2009, 07:23 PM']Never mind then.[/quote]


Don't tell me what to mind

[morostheos]

I don't think these smilies are very good at always getting their intended point across.

Anyway, back to the climate change discussion!

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933334' date='Jul 27 2009, 07:04 PM']Yes. Because denying global warming is occurring goes against a truly massive amount of evidence collected by scientists all over the world.[/quote]


So that in and of itself justifies your air of arrogance? Please clarify. If so, that's pretty sad.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1933334' date='Jul 27 2009, 07:04 PM']So money should be given to uncompelling cases?[/quote]
Money should not go to cases which aren't compelling including those which are publicly compelling but scientifically aren't.

[quote]That would probably depend on what evidence you present.

At the moment there are global warming skeptics who are being generously paid by the energy companies to promote their views.[/quote]
Therein lies the problem. No matter what evidence is raised to the contrary, it's ignored, lampooned, insulted, or all the above. The global warmists have dogmatically dug-in and have claimed any question of their claims is an attack on intelligence, "truth," and even an [url="http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Gore/dp/0143113623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248750980&sr=8-1"]assault on reason[/url]. Why is it okay to question contrary evidence if it comes from energy companies, but not people like Al Gore or global warming alarmists? Don't they have an interest in being right, even a profitable one?
[quote]Yes. Because denying global warming is occurring goes against a truly massive amount of evidence collected by scientists all over the world.[/quote]
And there are scientists who say there are fluctuations in temperature. It's normal, but to conclude it's a straight path to a global meltdown is ridiculous. To say man is responsible for the majority of CO2 is beyond ridiculous. (I do admit that classifying CO2 as a poisonous gas is a clever way for the government to raise taxes, taxing air.)

If all the CO2 in the atmosphere was represented by a crowd of 20,000 in a stadium and they were all standing and cheering, asking those people responsible for all of man's contribution to sit down would result in 645 out of 20,000 people to sit down. That's less than a row of people and would make negligible difference with 19,354 people still cheering. (645 is grossly inflated because it assumes everyone ceases to exist.)

[quote]I think Dr. Crichton should stick to novels and medicine.[/quote]
Yes, and Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and pretty much anyone else who shows contrary evidence. Sit down and shut-up.

From Dr. Moore...
[quote]I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human.

It's become so complicated, there's so much snake oil around the whole subject... [b]the best comment that was ever made was by Michael Crichton[/b] in his book State of Fear: 'I am certain there is too much certainty in the world'. And I am certain that he is right.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Global_warming"]Source[/url][/quote]

[quote]So the idea that a major nuclear exchange could drastically alter the temperature of the planet is vanity?[/quote]
Nuclear exchange is not normal human behavior. The claim by the alarmists is day to day human activity is causing the planet to warm. To be quite honest, when the dust settles, no, a nuclear exchange will not permanently alter the climate.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1933336' date='Jul 27 2009, 07:05 PM']I think that the situation described here is the one we are currently in. Do we know that humans have caused the climate change we are seeing? No. Do we know we can do anything to change it? No. Should we do the best we can with the information we have? I think so.[/quote]
If the global warming alarmists kept their study to information gathering and research, I am all for it. I think it is wrong to use the precautionary principle as a tool to convert uncertainty into absolute certainty and make decisions which massive impact. If we take that route, we would still be taking measures to prevent global cooling. The scope of evidence is minute in comparison to the entire history of the planet. Scientists say earth has gone through four major ice ages, and man was not around to thaw things out with is CO2 exhaling self.

Didn't Bush use the precautionary principle to justify attacking Iraq?

[kamiller42]

Uh-oh. Another knuckle dragger...

Headline:
[quote][b]Global warming is the new religion of First World[/b] urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

[url="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html"]Source[/url][/quote]
I disagree with his claim it's reserved to the urban elites. Mostly urban? Yes. Mostly elites? Only if you consider "elite" a self-appointed title.

[kamiller42]

More global warming skeptics.... in the scientific community.
[quote]Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a recognized expert on the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic, has become persona non grata in the eyes of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) of the IPCC.

He reported that polar bears are thriving and that any Arctic warming is not due to rising CO2 levels but to ocean currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and winds ­blowing in from the Bering Sea.[/quote]
[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html"]More on Dr. Mitchell Taylor.[/url]

And within the ranks of the politicized EPA...
[quote]Dr. Alan Carlin, Ph.D., of the EPA, has been muzzled because he questioned the IPCC's models and conclusions. In a series of directive e-mails from his supervisor he was told, in part, " do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of our office on [carbon] endangerment," and " the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

[url="http://www.thepilot.com/stories/20090731/opinion/letters/20090731WARMING.html"]Source[/url][/quote]
Death by global warming is the administration's policy. Tow the line Dr. Carlin! [url="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/"]More info on Dr. Carlin[/url].

Human caused global warming is hardly conclusive. Don't let anyone tell you you're a cave dweller for thinking so.

[Ash Wednesday]

While I do not think flaws in the global warming theory should be used as an excuse for ecological irresponsibility, I do have a problem with people in the west telling others how many kids a responsible couple should have when it's none of their business. (I can't speak for people's attitudes in the third world, as I have not spent much time there outside of South America.) The number of self-righteous and smug hypocrites I encounter that drive land rovers and moan about how many kids someone has and how it will affect our "carbon footprint" is pretty mind-blowing.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Ash Wednesday

[jkaands]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932515' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:37 PM']That's such an asinine thing to say.


I'm sorry but its just ignorant. I don't mean that personally but good lord.[/quote]

Think global[i] climate change.[/i]

And pray it doesn't come to a theater near you....

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StColette' post='1933015' date='Jul 27 2009, 10:40 AM']It definitely hasn't been low temps in Louisiana. I've seen enough 102+ in June & July to last me for a few years.[/quote]
Your state's weather smells of elderberries. Everyday we got at least 2 thunderstorms EVERYDAY while canoeing through there. Then it blows over and the heat index is 115

[StColette]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1940423' date='Aug 4 2009, 01:24 PM']Your state's weather smells of elderberries. Everyday we got at least 2 thunderstorms EVERYDAY while canoeing through there. Then it blows over and the heat index is 115 [/quote]

lol you must have come through within the past few weeks. lol We didn't have any rain for several months and then out of nowhere we had bad thunderstorms for 2 weeks straight.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1933002' date='Jul 27 2009, 10:56 AM']Last winter was very mild here in Michigan.[/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StColette' post='1940432' date='Aug 4 2009, 01:31 PM']lol you must have come through within the past few weeks. lol We didn't have any rain for several months and then out of nowhere we had bad thunderstorms for 2 weeks straight.[/quote]
Uh yeah. We left on Sunday. Which was a nice day. 1st one since we entered that accursed state. I got rained on more those 10 days than my entire life. Four thunderstorms in one day. Not just once but twice.

[philothea]

Just read this whole topic.

I have a problem with the idea that scientists who promote man-made global climate change, do so solely for profit motives.

That being, [i]there's not really any profit in it[/i]. Oh, sure, tenure or further research, or something, but that's peanuts, really. Easily replaced with some other kind of research, if the scientist was so inclined.

But, there's a LOT of profit in maintaining the current energy system. Oil, coal, electricity, cars, gasoline, roads, the military... we're talking billions of dollars.

If any "side" has serious monetary motives, it's the anti-climate-change folks. By FAR.