Okay, its currently -18F out. Where are all the global warming freaks?

[DrPizza]

Beats me... temperature last night was down around 0 degrees F.
very windy; windchill was around -20 to -25 near our house. On top of the hill, the wind was just whippin through the trees, much lower windchill up there...

As far as global warming goes, this has been one of the warmest winters I can remember. We always have a couple of nice brisk arctic air systems move over during the winter. But, I expected temperatures in the negative teens. I'm quite happy with 0 degrees F.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
im also not sure why people say there's a huge political or financial agenda for promoting global warming. This has been supported by a lot of top notch scientists from around the world, evecryone with different sources of funding. And wouldn't there be more financial support from companies for scientists that can conclude corporate carbon emissions are not causing global warming?

Corn farmers have been profiting a lot from this (I believe 20% of all corn grown in the US goes to ethanol production).

Look at how the presidental canidates will bend over backwards for the corn farmers in the Ohio primary election (a large corn producing state). Look at Bush's state of the union 20% of fuel comes from ethanol in 10 years. Well that means at our current corn output all corn would be used for ethanol--not for food. Billions of dollars goes towards producing and researching "cleaner" fuels.

Sadly, global warming is a political issue and people are profiting from it (on both sides).

 

[thescreensavers]

is 66F here

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: EngenZerO
we are gonna have another ice age,

Another Ice Age?

Funny to think that people were concerned over the possibility of another ice age not too long ago.

Originally posted by: Midlander
I see this as an opportunity to improve our management of resources. :beer:

That's the best idea yet.

Originally posted by: Jawo
Suprising...its one of the first reports that I have seen that look at this warming trend as a natural CYCLICAL pattern of the Earth. What most enviromentalists dont want you to know is that there was a minor Ice Age in the 18th century...therefore, the Earth warms after an Ice Age. DUH!

From Wikipedia: "It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals"

1650
1770
1850
...
1974?

Maybe we're still in this strange cycle, and in 50-80 years there will be another cold spell? If so, we're in a warming cycle which should go on for another 20-30 years before temperatures cool down again.

Or not.

Great Time article! I guess Midlander is most correct...improve our resource management. But in this day and age it is hard to reach a consensus on anything...everyone wants to be right and no one is willing to be wrong!

 

[0]

EDIT: its now -18. Still no global warming freaks...

 

[Pocatello]

I'm not disagreeing that the earth is warming up and it's bad for a lot of cute polar bears, and lowland inhabitants around the world, I'm just wondering why I can't get some of that, maybe I'm just selfish.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I hope everyone here was joking, but I will explain it anyway.


Global warming is the old term. It was long ago realized that the proper term is global climate change, but the old term has stuck. Some areas will get colder, some will get warmer. For example, if the polar ice caps (including Greenland) melt enough, it could cause the upper loop of the warm ocean currents to collapse (there is historic data that suggests that this has happened at least once before). If this happens, Europe would be thrown into an ice age as the only thing keeping it warm in this ocean current.

Yup. People hear "global warming" and assume that it's going to be 90 degrees in Antarctica, and water will be boiling in puddles elsewhere.
No one cares to learn the particulars of it. We're talking about a global increase of only a few degrees. This can cause significant climate change, which is what they want to call it now, to try to counter the ignorance of the majority of the population on this subject.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
http://www.weather.com/maps/news/foreca...indchill_large.html?from=wxcenter_maps


wow. Its fvcking freezing all over the country.

wow. It's winter!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Amused
I'm not going to debate global warming/climate change or it's causes.

I merely want to point out that environmental groups and the cause have destroyed their credibility by allowing themselves to be taken over by anti-capitalist, anti-industry radicals. So much so that anything they say, or anything related to them is bound to be immediately disbelieved by a large chunk of the population. The only thing that separates many of these lunatics from Ted Kaczynski is a Montana cabin and a few bombs.

If they want environmental concerns taken seriously, they need to dump the radicals and nutjobs.

Unfortunetly for your position, it is not Environmentalists that push the Science of GW forward. It is Scientists doing so. Environmental Groups are merely vocal about the issue.

 

[0]

The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: 0
The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

If you're an idiot, can that be because of global warming too, or just because you're an idiot?

 

[43st]

When I was growing up cold weather, and the first frost, in the North East used to come in September, sometimes October. That's when winter weather started and pretty much carried through until March.

Last year, and the last couple for that matter, winter weather started in January and then ended in March. This year we managed to get to February without any real cold spells. This year was an El Nino year of course, which makes the North East quite moderate in the winter.

 

[xtknight]

I certainly wouldn't mind if the world heated up 20 degrees today.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: xtknight
I certainly wouldn't mind if the world heated up 20 degrees today.

i don't fancy 60C instead of 40C we're getting tmrw

 

[0]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 0
The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

If you're an idiot, can that be because of global warming too, or just because you're an idiot?

YOU proved my point rather well Maynard.

Resorting to name calling is the common denominator with that type of attitude. If someone doesn't agree with global warming, they are stupid etc. I'm not going to argue with you on that level, just suffice to say that I'm 95% sure I've got a better education than you, but who cares - this is a forum and you cannot trust people's true intentions or their resume.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 0
The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

If you're an idiot, can that be because of global warming too, or just because you're an idiot?

YOU proved my point rather well Maynard.

Resorting to name calling is the common denominator with that type of attitude. If someone doesn't agree with global warming, they are stupid etc. I'm not going to argue with you on that level, just suffice to say that I'm 95% sure I've got a better education than you, but who cares - this is a forum and you cannot trust people's true intentions or their resume.

I don't give 2 shits about global warming, I just think you're an idiot for starting a troll thread.

So you have something more than a BA? Whatever, here's a ****** cookie

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 0
The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

If you're an idiot, can that be because of global warming too, or just because you're an idiot?

YOU proved my point rather well Maynard.

Resorting to name calling is the common denominator with that type of attitude. If someone doesn't agree with global warming, they are stupid etc. I'm not going to argue with you on that level, just suffice to say that I'm 95% sure I've got a better education than you, but who cares - this is a forum and you cannot trust people's true intentions or their resume.

Nope. you're an idiot and a troll to boot. congratulations, want a cookie? :roll:

 

[yuppiejr]

I find the RABID refusal on the part of Global Warming/Cooling fanatics to accept any sort of contrary argument rather disturbing. Good science does not require name calling or scare tactics to generate support - it stands on the basis of fact which is why the whole Global Warming movement doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

--

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history ? they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide? almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth"

--

*cited from "http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm"

 

[j00fek]

i like the cold

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I find the RABID refusal on the part of Global Warming/Cooling fanatics to accept any sort of contrary argument rather disturbing. Good science does not require name calling or scare tactics to generate support - it stands on the basis of fact which is why the whole Global Warming movement doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

--

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history ? they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide? almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth"

--

*cited from "http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm"

hehe, good joke! :thumbsup:

seriously now, the doubters bring nothing to the table but silly doubts. They need to put up some Science or STFU. The Science is pretty clear and is very conclusive on what GW is and what it likely will result in.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: j00fek
i like the cold

me too, it kills bugs

 

[yuppiejr]

The irony if the "joke" is that even in the face of scientific facts, as stated in my post, people continue to assume that folks outside of the environmentalist movement believe that Global Warming "science" is conclusive. On the contrary, I see a lot of political spin and scare tactics behind Global Warming with inconclusive or even incorrect science backing it up. Just because you BELIEVE something does not make it fact.

The same people who are first to point out the "intelligence failures" that led to the invasion of Iraq seem to be eating the equally flawed data supporting Global Warming right up. Seems a rather pronounced case of hypocrisy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused
I'm not going to debate global warming/climate change or it's causes.

I merely want to point out that environmental groups and the cause have destroyed their credibility by allowing themselves to be taken over by anti-capitalist, anti-industry radicals. So much so that anything they say, or anything related to them is bound to be immediately disbelieved by a large chunk of the population. The only thing that separates many of these lunatics from Ted Kaczynski is a Montana cabin and a few bombs.

If they want environmental concerns taken seriously, they need to dump the radicals and nutjobs.

Unfortunetly for your position, it is not Environmentalists that push the Science of GW forward. It is Scientists doing so. Environmental Groups are merely vocal about the issue.

"My position" is irrelevant. Who is doing the pushing is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, it's an environmental issue and the environmental cause has been irreparably damaged by leftist radicalism.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: 0
EDIT: its now -18. Still no global warming freaks...

Originally posted by: 0
Resorting to name calling is the common denominator with that type of attitude. If someone doesn't agree with global warming, they are stupid etc. I'm not going to argue with you on that level, just suffice to say that I'm 95% sure I've got a better education than you, but who cares - this is a forum and you cannot trust people's true intentions or their resume.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: 0
The thing I hate about global warming freaks is this:

1. If the weather is warming up, "its because of global warming"
2. If there are more hurricanes, "its because of global warming"
3. If there are floods, "its because of global warming"
4. If its too cold out, "its because of global warming"
5. If gay baby seals are dying in Disney Land, "its because of global warming"
6. If Catie Couric's hair is frazzled, "its because of global warming"
7. If Peyton Manning fumbles the ball, "its because of global warming"

See what I mean?

If you're an idiot, can that be because of global warming too, or just because you're an idiot?

YOU proved my point rather well Maynard.

Resorting to name calling is the common denominator with that type of attitude. If someone doesn't agree with global warming, they are stupid etc. I'm not going to argue with you on that level, just suffice to say that I'm 95% sure I've got a better education than you, but who cares - this is a forum and you cannot trust people's true intentions or their resume.

he referred to you as an idiot because you made a rather ignorant comment. you generalize too much and are applying simple ideas to things that blatantly make no sense, stretching the common to try and prove your point. all you accomplished was making a fool out of yourself.

next time, look at it a little less in the eyes of "their wrong and im right" and do a bit of research on the matter as well.