Even most of you far right wing repubs watch Larry King. Did you hear how Bill "the science guy" explained so articulately and accurately how Global warming has everything to do with what has been going on these last few years?
Printable View
Even most of you far right wing repubs watch Larry King. Did you hear how Bill "the science guy" explained so articulately and accurately how Global warming has everything to do with what has been going on these last few years?
This is so far outside of my circle of influence it is off the radar.
No. NEVER watch Larry King. He doesn't come on FoxNews (or The Weather Channel these days) does he?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Haven't watched CNN in years. Never watched L.K.. How far back did the research go?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Are you kidding? Why would anyone want to watch that joker? No, I can't say I have watched that idiot in years and the experience I had before was enough to last a lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
You guys are so funny, and probably a little full of it too! :D
Everybody watches Larry, even you guys once in a while. :icon_wink
Look at his ratings. No. Since the FoxNews Channel came on board I have never ever watched Larry King Live. I don't even know what channel CNN is on in Baton Rouge.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
so bill the childrens' science teacher is better informed on global climate than climate scientists? i don't watch larry king, and seeing who he gets on his show as a science expert, i don't think i will start any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
LOL. How did you know who was on? Besides, many climate scientist believe with his view. Anybody rational does.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Thanks for watching Larry! :icon_wink
I remember when Larry King was King of talk radio. Then came conservative Rush. By, by Larry.
Then he became the King of cable news talk. Then came Fox News. He could be interviewing tumble weeds, because according to the ratings, tumble weeds is all that is watching.
O'Reilly took over Larry's command. I guess people got tired of watching him play patty cake with everyone that comes on. People want news not the freak shows that he has sometimes (the guy that talks to the dead), and they dont want to hear boring crap about politicians and celebs. Larry King was original, and now it is a dinosaur that is not very entertaining. Him bringing on Bill Nye just shows how weak ole Larry is getting. He was Father of the Year, though, even though he has been married 5 times. I guess home stability wasnt taken into account when they nominated people for that award.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
larry king is five-hundred-and-seventy-two years old...hang it up man. i mean he was the man back in the day but now...
for all you insomniacs out there: larry king is one of the most potent sedatives still legal in th US...i've never made it through a whole show...i wind up watching the insides of my eyelids instead.
you guys are pretty damn funny. Larry rules! He's the King!
Channel 34. I always scroll past it while tuning to ESPN.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
He may be King, but the kingdom is largely deserted. Fox News primetime ratings are higher than CNN's and MSNBC's combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
RC, can you provide a link that shows that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/aug2005ranker.pdf
Here's one - I googled it and found it on some site from somebody that clearly doesn't like O'Reilly (he's not my favorite either - obnoxious mostly actually).
Fox has been announcing it on their channel that they are number 1. I would imagine that if it were not true then they would have already been slammed for it. You can call Phil Donahue and ask him about O'Reilly - he put ole Phil off the air quite quickly. Fox rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
To make it a little easier for everyone, here are the primetime schedules for the three networks and their ratings using the August ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Fox News--The O'Reilly Factor (2.2), Hannity & Colmes (2.0), On the Record (2.0)
CNN--Paula Zahn Now (0.6), Larry King Live (1.0), NewsNight with Aaron Brown (0.6)
MSNBC--Countdown with Keith Olbermann (0.3), Rita Cosby: Live & Direct (0.4), Scarborough Country (0.4)
7-8pm--FNC 2.2, CNN/MSNBC 0.9
8-9pm--FNC 2.0, CNN/MSNBC 1.4
9-10pm--FNC 2.0, CNN/MSNBC 1.0
When I first heard that FNC was beating CNN and MSNBC combined several months ago, it was still close. The gap has widened considerably since then.
Well, this thread is supposed to be about global warming but it must be due to all the heat put out by all those TV's watching Fox News.
Here is an link that shows what America is watching. And it ain't the news.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve...weekly,00.html
What is with your "Jesus is King in Louisiana"? You don't live here, so it leaves me wondering if you're making fun of some of our religious beliefs. Sure hope not.
I'm presenting it as a statement of fact. Am I wrong? Seems like everybody and his uncle on this message board is a Bible studying type.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
Doesn't Louisiana have billboards that say that? I know that Muskogee, Ok has a huge billboard that says something very similar.
As a Christian, do you find the statement offensive. If so, I will change it.
Perhaps you should just be able to make the statement that "Jesus is King over Saltydawg". Unless that's true, your statement is meaningless and definitely comes across as insincere at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And, no, I've not seen any billboards in Louisiana saying that "Jesus is Lord over Louisiana" or anything similar.
Well, it would be insincere to say "Jesus is King over Saltydawg". Maybe Louisiana needs some of those huge billboards along the interstate proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah for humankind. Wouldn't hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
Anyway, I don't think it is meaningless and definitely not insincere but I'm going to change it anyway.
So I guess it was intended to be condescending and to make fun of those of us who are Christians. I've been made fun of for worse I suppose, but I don't think I've ever made fun of anyone's sincerely held beliefs even if I didn't agree with them. If you don't even believe Jesus should be LORD or King of your life, then why should Louisiana have such billboards? Wouldn't hurt what for us to have them? You think a billboard would change the view of who has/should have control of your life? Remind the Christians who has control over our lives?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Wait a darn second. According to the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America, this is a Nation under Jesus, so how I can be condescending or ridiculing you and other folks in Louisiana when I state that Jesus is King in Louisiana. The plain fact of the matter is that I can't because you believe that He is and the Pledge of Allegiance says that He is. But if old Salty says that He is, then something is rotten in Denmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
As far as the billboards go, I do think that they can have a positive impact on the general moral fabric of the country. All those tiny signs on private land against abortion put up by the landowners have had a positive impact in the Right to Life/Pro-Choice debate. And yes, since only 20% of Americans attend Church on a regular basis, maybe the billboards could get that number up.
Wait a darn second. According to the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America, this is a Nation under Jesus, so how I can be condescending or ridiculing you and other folks in Louisiana when I state that Jesus is King in Louisiana. The plain fact of the matter is that I can't because you believe that He is and the Pledge of Allegiance says that He is. But if old Salty says that He is, then something is rotten in Denmark.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along to generate an argument. You know that's not what it says.
No, it DOES say that. God is Jesus. They are one and the same. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT God?Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
You are so predictable. I knew exactly where you were going with your tirade.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"One nation under God." - Notice the capital G.
For most Americans that would be Jehovah God. Christians, Jews, Mormans, and others. I suppose that muslims would consider the God mentioned as Ahllah. (sp?).
I don't have time to get into the Trinity thing with you. It would probably fall on deaf ears anyway.
Come on, MD. The history of the Statute that changed the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 is clear that they meant only the Christian God. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and whatever were excluded. What about religions with multiple gods? If they want to be inclusive they would have put in language like "One Nation, relying on spiritual guidance,....."Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I thought the Trinity thing is pretty simple. God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. What am I missing?
Thanks, but no thanks. I respond to no further of your posts - again.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I take it that you agree with me. The "situation" is that Christians think that they have the one and only "answer." And that all other religions are false. Hence, they have no problem with giving the Pledge of Allegiance a Christian foundaton.Quote:
Originally Posted by markay714
i know who was on because you told me. and a rational person would look at all the evidence and draw his own conclusions rather than going along with what 75% of scientists say.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
you know what? you're right. christians do think that they have the only true answer...they must because that is what their holy book says. most religions think that other religions are misguided. if you don't think that it is the answer that is a debate for some other venue (if you have honest questions about it...feel free to private message me and i'll answer them to the best of my ability)...the validity of my God is not something on which i have an open mind. i do believe that christianity is the only answer...there is no purpose in ascribing yourself to a belief if you don't think it is the correct belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for the word "God" in the pledge...most of america doesn't even know it was added in the 50s so they can make "god" to be whatever they want. as far as i'm concerned (and this might earn me a red dot) i don't like the forced recitation of the pledge...with repitition it becomes meaningless. what does the pledge say?---most people only debate the word "god."...there are 30 other words in that statement that nobody ever talks about...why?---because it doesn't mean anything to them anymore, it's just some rhythmic string of words that everybody knows and can recite in their sleep. after i say the pledge do i think about what i just committed to?---not really. leave in the word or take it out, it's not going to change my or anyone else's relationship with God...that's personal and one thing that tampered with by the confines of this world.
anyway, that was a tangent...i appologize.
I don't see the point of arguing with an atheist. Jesus said, if you are not with me, you are against me. And, if you are not with Jesus you'll be on the outside looking in to Paradise for all time.
Jesus says that two men are standing in a field, one is taken, the other left behind. I take that to mean that 50% of mankind will be saved and the other half sent to burn in hell. It is sad. I do "witness" a little bit, not as much as I should probably, but in the end, if 50% are destined to burn, well then, that is His will and who am I dispute that.
Chalk up saltydawg as one of the burners.
i consiser myself to be pretty cynical...but i'm not ready to give up on anyone. i won't debate my faith with a non-christian, though, i don't think that is productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I don't believe in atheist. That makes me a deeper thinker than Salty right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I like Christianity. I like Jesus. I just don't like the Government passing laws that incorporate any one particular religion into a Pledge that children are going to recite in public schools. I like all religions because I think that they all have some spiritual wisdom to share.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
Yes, I would like to return to the Pledge of Allegiance as it was in 1950. I suspect that the reason the original Pledge did not have any religious content was because the country was more aware then that our Nation was originally populated by people escaping from Government established religion.
dawg80, I don't think of myself as an atheist since an atheist is someone who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I'm more of an agnostic. I do think that the primary purpose of a religion is to make society and the human experience the best possible combination. The "here after" is not a particular concern of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Thanks sik- for not giving up on me. I guess it is just you and the Jehovah Witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
salty:
Correct me if I am wrong, but an agnostic is someone seeking proof of God's existence, right? An atheist simply does not believe in God and no amount of "proof" or evidence will convince them. An agnostic, in practice therefore, is in the same boat as atheists since "proof" of God's existence is not readily available.
I KNOW God exists. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and through Him we achieve eternal salvation. If Jesus were to appear in the sky and say, Here I am! Well then, I suppose most people would find it easier to believe. (some still wouldn't) But where is the faith in having tangible proof?
In the end it won't matter. Believers will be saved and the other half of humanity will perish. The nice thing about Jesus is His arms are always open to welcome in the newly saved. It is never too late.
dawg80, I think it is just a question of what one seeks in religion. Most religions have a deity or deities and have some plan for eventually getting eternal salvation. The funny thing is that most religions don't do a really great job at "taking care of things at home". I would like to see more emphasis place on the "here and now" problems and let the "Big Boy Upstairs" take care of the Big Picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That is because most people would rather talk it than walk it. How else could you explain 90% of Americans claiming they are Christians when I would doubt that a fourth of them really believe that Jesus Christ is savior. I do have to say that I am very proud of the churches in the surrounding areas of all denominations and all other religions for their kindness shown after Katrina. If it werent for the religious community as a whole coming together on this one, we would be in much worse shape than we are. Sometimes it takes a wake up call for some people help out "here and now".Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
hey man, augustine lived a life of pure for years hedonism before coming to faith to become one of christianity's most influential leaders; c.s. lewis didn't become a christian until late in life (i believe he said he "was dragged [by God] kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God) and he is possibly the most celebrated christian mind of the 20th century...nobody (in my opinion) is too far gone...you've only got to look to the repentant thief crucified next to Jesus for evidence of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for the jehova's witness reference...you won't catch me knocking on your door, but like i said, you can private message me with anything you have questions about.
just so we can all know what "agnostic" means:
ag·nos·tic http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...GIF/abreve.gifg-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...GIF/obreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...GIF/ibreve.gifk)
n.adj.
- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
- One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj : uncertain of all claims to knowledge [syn: agnostical] [ant: gnostic] n : a person who doubts truth of religion [syn: doubter]
- Relating to or being an agnostic.
- Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).
getting back to the topic of this thread, here is something about the effect of global warming on the ice up in the arctic ocean:
September 28, 2005
Arctic Ice Cap Shrank Sharply This Summer, Experts Say
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The floating cap of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank this summer to what is probably its smallest size in a century, continuing a trend toward less summer ice that is hard to explain without attributing it in part to human-caused global warming, various experts on the region said today.
The findings are consistent with recent computer simulations showing that a buildup of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to a profoundly transformed Arctic later this century in which much of the once ice-locked ocean is routinely open water in summers.
It also appears that the change is becoming self sustaining, with the increased open water absorbing solar energy that would be reflected back into space by bright white ice, said Ted A. Scambos, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which compiled the data along with NASA.
"Feedbacks in the system are starting to take hold," Dr. Scambos said. "The consecutive record-low extents make it pretty certain a long-term decline is underway."
The North Pole ice cap always grows in winter and shrinks in the summer, but the new summer low, measured on Sept. 19th, was 20 percent below the average minimum ice extent measured from 2000 back to 1978, when precise satellite mapping of the ice began, the snow and ice center reported.
The difference between the average ice area and the area that persisted this summer was about 500,000 square miles, or twice the size of Texas, the scientists said.
This summer was the fourth in a row with ice extents sharply below the long-term average, said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the snow and ice center and a professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
A natural cycle in the polar atmosphere, the Arctic Oscillation, that contributed to the reduction in Arctic ice in the past was not a significant factor right now, he said, adding that rising temperatures driven by accumulating greenhouse-gas emissions had to be playing a role.
He and other scientists said that there could be more variability ahead, including some years in which the sea ice will grow. But they have found few hints that other factors, like more Arctic cloudiness in a warming world, might reverse the trend.
"With all that dark open water, you start to see an increase in Arctic Ocean heat storage," Dr. Serreze said. "Come autumn and winter that makes it a lot harder to grow ice, and the next spring you're left with less and thinner ice. And it's easier to lose even more the next year."
The result, he said, is that the Arctic is "becoming a profoundly different place than we grew up thinking about."
Other experts on Arctic ice and climate disagreed on details. For example, Ignatius G. Rigor at the University of Washington said that the change was likely due to a mix of factors, including residual influences from the atmospheric cycle.
But he agreed with Dr. Serreze that the influence from greenhouse gases had to be involved.
"The global warming idea has to be a good part of the story," Dr. Rigor said. "I think we have a different climate state in the Arctic now."
Quite a few magazine articles out this week on Global Warming. I had been saying the Gulf was 2-3 degrees warmer than normal. That's incorrect. Gulf water temps were 4-5 degrees above normal. Water temps worldwide are up 1.8 degrees since 1970.
But noooo, we dont have any problems. Carry on as normal.
Look back as far as the records go prior to 1970. At some point you will see the same pattern that we have seen for the last several years. My debate with you all along is that you and your sources only want to pick and choose most convenient time frame to make a point. Your points are well taken, but they must include COMPLETE data not selected data.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
And your point in well taken but I think you know deep down that I am more right about this than you are. I haven't been picking and choosing anything. My sources have been the information I have come across. NOAA, newspaper articles, interviews on TV, etc... Perhaps where we get some of our info is partly responsible for our different view but I have even seen scientists who used to scoff at the notion that GW is responsible for these ferocious storms start to change their tune.
Record warm temps are just that. The water in the Gulf was warmer this year than any year on record, going back to the mid 1800's. We don’t have reliable stats before that; I wish we did because I think it would only strengthen my point. 4 of the 6 warmest summers EVER(again, since the 1800's) have occured since 1998.
On average a "major" hurricane strikes the US about every 3-5 years. We have had 5 in the last 14 months. Coincidence? Statistical anomaly? Perhaps, but I just don’t think so.
To clarify, the total number of storms per year has been relatively constant. What no one can deny is the number of major storms per year. I'm not sure from what year to now(I think 1970 and I will check) but worldwide per year major storm have increased from a frequency of 9 per year to 18. That's got to get your attention.
Kartina is going to cost at least $250 billion. Whether I'm right or your right we just can't afford to not know anymore.
Signed,
Stuck in record high temps in San Antonio for the 5th straight day...
and no year is average. these things fluctuate. is this a record year for hurricanes? not yet. i don't know what the record is, but even if this season beats all on record, the history is relatively short, so all it says is that it's the most we've recorded -- it proves no trend. as for the rest of your argument, the earth is warmer this year than it was 30 years ago. nobody denies that. the question up for debate is whether that is unusual, and if so, whether human activity is responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
take a step back from the alarming reports and think about how little we actually know about climate, and especially climate history and future prediction. we don't have a reliable record of global temperatures until just a few years ago. temperatures are rising at about half the rate predicted by computer models. heck, computer models can't even predict which direction a hurricane will go in the next few hours -- how can they presume to predict the effect of "greenhouse gases" -- especially when their calculations don't even match current trends? as for climate history, all we can do is guess based on some spotty and dubious indicators whose accuracy is exaggerated by the scientists who study them (90% of whom are only studying them for the specific purpose of proving man-made global warming). even these indicators, when patched together, show a history of very widely varying temperatures -- much higher in magnitude than what we are seeing now. your problem is that you believe the politically motivated statements that have been made by certain scientists claiming that the case is closed and the verdict is in. to be fully informed, you must listen to both sides of the argument, rather than simply believing one side when they say the other side has nothing to offer.
I have even seen scientists who used to scoff at the notion that GW is responsible for these ferocious storms start to change their tune. - Alta
LOL! Did you mean Global Warming or George W?
BOTH :DQuote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Arkansasbob,
The people out there denying that Global warming is having an effect are the one's with the political agenda, not me.
The only thing in your post that is meaningful is that we dont entirely understand global warming and its implications. But shouldnt we error on the side of caution, give mother nature the benefit of the doubt? She is trying to tell us something and her voice is getting louder and louder each year.
90% trying to prove Global Warming? LOL. Come on man, its a done deal Global warming is real, the only question is what are the consequences, and those are becoming very apparant to anyone who is NOT biased.
"show a history of very widely varying temperatures -- much higher in magnitude than what we are seeing now" Again, sorry I cant pull tempature records from 10,000 BC. All I can do is examine the records we have; 4 of the 6 warmest summers on record since 1998...... Gulf temps and global seas temps at record highs.....major storms DOUBLING in 40 years..... What is so hard to understand here?
What was causing the global warming in 1936. They had a hot year that year. The dems were in then, so I don't have an explanation.
You can choose to be ridiculous if you want to but after this I'm only going to respond to rational posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Why dont you take a look at this link and try and respond. Sorry, but your 1936 reference is, well, ridiculous:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...s/triad-pg.gif
I'm not going to say that global warming is not happening, but I don't know if global warming can realistically be tied to hurricanes or atleast to stronger hurricanes happening more frequently...
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
DecadeSaffir-Simpson Category1All
1,2,3,4,5Major
3,4,5123451851-1860855101961861-1870861001511871-1880767002071881-1890894102251891-1900855302181901-19101044001841911-19201044302171921-1930533201351931-1940476111981941-19508691024101951-1960815301781961-1970354111461971-1980624001241981-1990914101551991-2000364011452001-20044221093 1851-2004109727118327392Average Per Decade7.14.74.61.20.217.76.0
1 Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
DecadeSaffir-Simpson Category1All
1,2,3,4,5Major
3,4,5123451851-1860855101961861-1870861001511871-1880767002071881-1890894102251891-1900855302181901-19101044001841911-19201044302171921-1930533201351931-1940476111981941-19508691024101951-1960815301781961-1970354111461971-1980624001241981-1990914101551991-2000364011452001-20044221093 1851-2004109727118327392Average Per Decade7.14.74.61.20.217.76.0
1 Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.
This is taken from
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
by
Jerry D. Jarrell(retired), Max Mayfield, and Edward N. Rappaport
NOAA/NWS/ Tropical Prediction Center
Miami, Florida
Christopher W. Landsea
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Miami, Florida
This is taken from
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
by
Jerry D. Jarrell(retired), Max Mayfield, and Edward N. Rappaport
NOAA/NWS/ Tropical Prediction Center
Miami, Florida
Christopher W. Landsea
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Miami, Florida
Sik, have you seen his wife lately? Whoa baby!!!!! thank goodness for Viagra and Cialis even some of you old farts might be able to score a trophy like Larry's one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
Losing ice twice the size of Texas. That is a bunch of damn ice. If you think that isn't going to cause some severe weather changes then you must be Arkansasbob.
I am no longer going to get into this GW thing. Some people are never going to be convinced until their backyard in NLa is part of the Gulf.
Well, you gotta have tons of cash too. Look at Trump, he married a model, and it isnt because of his dashing good looks and great personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Very well put. I'm done with this thread too after I let you guys chew on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...eut/index.html
"Atmospheric temperatures in the remote state have risen 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius) over the past five decades, according to the recently released Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a comprehensive study by scientists from eight nations." ....
Read the whole thing. If you dont think something needs to be done then your either just not very bright or you just dont give a crap about what happens in future generations...
If he's loaded then the Repubs should think he's more credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
i didn't say you had a political agenda, altadawg, but the science is politicised on both sides. many people who don't depend on industry for their livelihood just wish industry would go away. they have no idea that without industry, america would be ethiopia with better soil. they have no ideas what the real world is like. most of the "global warming" science that has been done has been for the specific purpose of proving that greenhouse gases (and ozone depletion) are causing global warming. all of the science that shows the contrary is dismissed as political, but make no mistake -- it's all political.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
sorry, but erring on the side of caution is not something our economy can afford at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
you, my friend, are brainwashed. why not listen to the other side rather than dismiss it?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
this is exactly the point of my first post. we don't know what global temperature patterns were like before we started measuring them. we do know, however, that there have been ice ages and hot periods long before any industrialization. what makes us think that the current warming trend is not part of the natural cycle that caused those events in the past? the only thing we've got is computer models that were proven wrong before they were even released.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
it's like if i looked at Tech's schedule the last three years (4-8, 5-7, 6-6) and said, "the trend clearly shows that jack bicknell is improving our football program -- you can't argue with the record." if you don't have a complete record, you haven't shown anything.
as for the hurricanes, talk to any hurricane expert and they will tell you that hurricane intensity and frequency depends on a lot more than just ocean surface temperatures, and that hurricanes have a natural cycle. in fact, our hurricane record goes back far enough to include another high point in the cycle (back in the 50's, i think). yeah, major storms have increased over the last 30 years (i don't know about the doubling in 40 yr thing) but if you go back 50 years, you have no argument because there were just as many then as now.
guess what, ruston used to be ocean-front property a few thousand years ago. what makes you think that it's our fault if it gets that way again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
It's not our fault Bob, it's Bush's fault. Chaney acted like he was in the hospital, but he was at the control center...controlling Rita via radio. As soon as he wipes the poor and the minorities off the face of the earth, the administrations gonna work on reviving Hitler. I mean, it's common sense, don't you know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
absolutely. and if you can't see that, your either just not very bright or you just dont give a crap about what happens in future generations...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
this should quiet the "hurricanes caused by global warming" hysteria, but i know it won't:
Quote:
NOAA's top hurricane predictor, Gerry Bell, said that every 25 years or so a tropical pattern of ocean and atmospheric factors causes the hurricane count to swing from above to below average.
The Atlantic and Gulf coast regions of the United States are facing the crest of that cycle right now, posing a risk of storm damage that many people do not expect.
The same pattern also accounts for the below-average storm counts off the west coast of the United States.
Who is not being rational?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
By the way, looking at your link, it does look like 1936 was a hot year.
Also, I don't see any non-anomaly year. One year we can complain about global cooling, and the next global warming. I like that chart, because we always will have something to worry about.
Also, who was worried about this crap in 1880 that he started measuring the temperature in the ocean? How do we know where he was measuring the temperature of the ocean?
This is really some funny stuff we are arguing about.
altadawg, there are a several reasons why people don't want to accept the concept of human activities affecting the Earth's climate. First is that change is very gradual and if it is not happening in their backyard then it is just part of the long-term cycle of things. Initially, GW mainly affects the lowest temperatures in the most Northern and Southern Latitudes and who hangs out in those areas in the winter months. The folks in Fairbanks AK will tell you that it very rarely gets below -50F anymore whereas that use to be common.
The second reason is that this is an area of science and many people either don't belief science or can't understand it.
The third reason is that they subconciously that they don't want to feel guilty about driving a gas-guzzling dinosaur so they deny that any problem will emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
The fourth reason is that their political leadership tells them that there is no problem (GW is a hoax) and just accept it without further analysis.
Ultimately, say in 30 to 50 years, those of us still around will wonder why there was any question at all about GW.
all the more reason to stay home and off the air. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Looking at Alta's chart, it looks like we will be in a cooling trend on the sine wave by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It was also lush with plants that absorbed CO2 then those plants were turned into fossil fuels over the years. Those fossil fuels have now been burned turning it back into Carbon in the atmosphere. Understand the Cycle?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
The Earth has always gone through cooling and heating periods. The problem is it seems we have speed it up extremely quickly the last few decades.
You argument that some people "wished that industry would just go away" is laughable at best. Where do you get this stuff? Is this some of Rush's latest vast left wing conspiracty theory or something? My livelihood depends on industry, so hell no, I don't wish that industry would go away. I happen to have a little bit of brain and can think for myself at times and can see that the current path we are on is going to make this earth extremely difficult to support our current Earth's populations.
All you naysayers about the reality of global warming should pay attention to all the scientific articles I've posted about GW. First, ice cores from Greenland and the Antartica show that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it has been for the past 500,000 years. There is no question that human activities are responsibile for abnormal rise in CO2 concentrations.
Secondly, change in the Earth's climate occur because of changes both in tilt of the Earth's axis as well as variations in the Earth's orbit of the Sun. These changes are fixed and we know when in the Earth's history it got warmer or cooler because of these changes because the ice cores tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere as well as climate. The bottom line is that about 12,000 years ago the Earth started one of its cooling trends but that suddenly and abnormally changed direction 8,000 years ago to a warming trend because of increasing CO2 levels caused by human activities such as slash and burn argriculture.
CO2 levels continue to rise, and the Earth's global temperature will rise with it.
Didn't you read my post Salty? I'm on board man. Bush is the devil...I know cause Michael Moore told me so.
the reason so many people buy into the global warming myth is because they don't understand the science and it seams to match their personal experience. your (or anyone's) personal experience in changing temperatures means nothing in the scientific debate. as for your post about variations in the tilt of the earth and earth's orbit, that is just rediculous. in all i have read, i have never heard of that being used to explain past variations in temperature, and probably because there's no science behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
just wanted to let everybody know that it is a crisp 73 degrees here in ruston today...it was 97 yesterday...i think global warming ended at around 7:30 this morning.
i understand the cycle, dawgbitten. from your statements on previous threads about carbon dioxide, you believe that we have more of those "lush plants that absorb c02" than we used to have. what makes you think the controls that kept the cycle going back then won't work now? earth can take care of herself. God has equipped her very well to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Those "controls" have been taken down and the lands turned into farm land, cities, roads, drug crops in Columbia. While the trees are made into furniture, paper, houses, etc. A nice little ragweed plant or corn stalk is no subsitute for a 50 year old oak tree. Mother Nature is trying it's best to control, but we have left her very few tools to work with.
It’s almost impossible to review any media the past couple of weeks without seeing or hearing some reference to “increased hurricane activity and increased hurricane intensity and then blame it on global warming. Well, the most complete set of data, over a century of it, compiled by the National Hurricane Center, shows that premise to be completely unfounded! (Perhaps it started with those “reporters” who published the untrue stories of all the rapes, murders, etc. in the Super Dome and then got parroted by all their clueless compatriots…) Here’s the data.
Hurricanes Hitting US Coastlines by Decade
Period……..Major………….All
………..…...(3,4,5)
1901-1910....4……………….18
1911-1920…….7…………………21
1921-1930…..5………….13
1931-1940…….8………………19
1941-1950……….10………………….24
1951-1960……..8……….…17
1961-1970……6…………..14
1971-1980….4………….12
1981-1990…..5………………15
1991-2000…..5…………….14
2001-2005……6…………12…….(through Sept 26)
Source: National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center
It’s clear that there is no significant upswing in the number or intensity of the storms in recent years. As for the closeness of Katrina and Rita, William Gray, a leading hurricane expert at Colorado State University, notes that there were 2 category 5’s within 6 weeks of each other that hit the Gulf Coast in 1915.
It’s also important to note that there has been a slight decrease in typhoons in the Pacific and Indian Oceans in recent years. Since those basins account for over 80% of major storm activity, it would be logical to assume that if global warming was causing more storms, we should see a big increase there, but we don’t.
It seems that no one seems to be reporting on a known cause of warming waters in the North Atlantic. According to Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, a major cause for this is a natural multidecadal cycle in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation , an “oceanic conveyor belt”, that pulls warm water form the tropics toward the British Isles.
Bob, you need to study astronomy a little bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env202.htm
Johnny, glad to have you on board even though I know you are joking about Bush and Michael Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
sorry i had to take a break from the conversation. my yard was lush with carbon dioxide-absorbing plants and i had to put an end to that, in so doing, burning some fossil fuels and making more carbon dioxide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
as for your assertion, what makes you think that a 50-year-old oak tree is any match for a patch of ragweed taking up the same area? from what i understand, it is very difficult to measure how much carbon dioxide a plant absorbs. knowing how photosenthesis works, however, i know that it should be roughly proportional to the amount of mass that plant puts on. ragweed grows very fast and thick. then it dies and its place is taken by some other fast growing seasonal weed. an oak tree grows very slowly. i know that it takes a large amount of mass for an oak to grow just a little bit, but it seems to me that a patch of weeds could photosenthesize just about as much in a growing season. also, a large amount of slow-growing hardwood forest in north america has been replaced by fast growing pines that are harvested and replanted each generation. one would think that these new managed forests would do a good job of taking up some of the slack. i don't know. but no one has even proved that co2 actually causes greenhouse effect, so this is all just rhetorical anyway.
and salty, if you have an article about the earth's tilt being the sole cause of historical climate cycle, please post it. but don't waste my time with stuff that has nothing to do with the argument.
naw, man, he's dead serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
johnny, are you going to grow a scraggily beard and wear glasses, and start dressing like a homeless guy, to emulate your new hero? :D
Are you callin' me fat?!?!?!?! Okay, I'm fat. I haven't shaved since the A-Town water hit the skidz. I already wear glasses and, unless I've gotta go to work, I look very much like a hobo. Now all I have to do is make up a bunch of stories (most of which have to do with GW and a goat, cocaine, and a hooker...oh, and Saudi Arabia). I'm almost there.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
:laugh: wow, i had no idea that you "moore-love" had gotten this advanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Bob, here is a discussion on the relationship of global warming to hurrican intensity, you might find interesting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
I"ll get a link for the tilt/climate relationship later.
I wouldn't call it moore-love...I'm in a weird transition now between being the stud of my youth and my eventual transformation to Winston Churchill.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
Bob, here is a link for you that describes the relationship between long-term climate changes and the tilt of the Earth's axis. Hope it is of sufficient scientific merit for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=3638
once again, your links don't provide the evidence advertised. the first one says there's no way to prove that katrina was or was not caused by global warming, which is pretty much common sense. the second makes an attempt to explain the 10,000-year glacial cycle. this is far from your claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
the glacial cycle is only a small part of the very complex global climate cycle. but of course the main mistake made by global warming advocates is that of oversimplification.Quote:
Secondly, change in the Earth's climate occur because of changes both in tilt of the Earth's axis as well as variations in the Earth's orbit of the Sun. These changes are fixed and we know when in the Earth's history it got warmer or cooler because of these changes because the ice cores tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere as well as climate.
I know I'm going to have a tough time convincing anyone about GW who doesn't accept that there is a relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature.
Anyway, GW's affect on hurricanes is very gradual and we will see more evidence as this century goes forward. By the end of this century, hurricanes will be something to write home about.
you're exactly right about the co2 and temperature thing. and the only reason you are convinced is because some scientist said so. i'm sorry, but "some scientists said so" is not a good enough reason to send our economy back to the 1820's. as long as reputable scientists disagree, it is not worth the tremendous cost the enviro-nuts would have us pay. and any time scientists try to convince you that every reputable scientist agrees with them, rather than opening it up for debate, that is usually a good sign that their case is not nearly as convincing as they would have you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for hurricanes, gw scientists will find a new poster child in 20 years when the cycle is back on the low end.
"don't talk damned nonsense!" -- C.S. Lewis
this is exactly the kind of intelligent reply that makes debating you guys so much fun. the fact is, if the evidence for man-made catastrophic global warming was so strong, scientists would welcome anyone to challenge it, rather than trying to dissmiss any dissent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Bob, FYI, there is no debate about the fact that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to lead to increased global temperatures. You can deny it all you want but I'm afraid you are not scientific to maintain that position. Perhaps you can back-up your argument with some evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
While the total number of hurricanes will probably decrease going forward because certain conditions have to be present for them to initially form, those which do formed are morely likely to be stronger than they would be normally because of GW.
"don't talk damned nonsense!" -- C.S. Lewis
Bush eats babies medium rare...Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Johnnylightin, "don't talk damned nonsense!" -- C.S. Lewis He likes them Medium with a dash of Tony Sacheres.
yeah, johnny, he likes his puppies medium rare.
If you donate 25G's to the republican national convention, you can join him for a baby seal bbq in Crawford, TX...for 30G's, they'll make sure Cindy Sheehan isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
mmmmm...i love me some baby seal...so tender the meat just falls off the bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
They're best marinated in Quaker State.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi