Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

For one thing all blue states are not broke.

Name one state that was blue controlled prior to the 2010 election that is not in fiscal problems where commitments outweigh revenue! Just one Fish!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
GST-I'm busy but will respond to your question. This has already been discussed long ago. Until the early 1960's this intensity of the sun was increasing which would make you think that could be happening now right???The fact is this intensity is measureable and has been DECREASING ever since the 60's so it obviously is not the missing ingredient. The air and sea temps are however increasing at an even faster rate. And as far as an "AGENDA" one can only hope intelligence trumps those with an agenda can't we?

Svnmag-you're.....amusing *s*

So exactly how was the suns intensity measured factually prior to the 1960's?

Are you once again referencing the 10 year blink you mentioned earlier regarding the Earths warming temps as a basis to judge a directional path of a planet that has been here hundreds of  thousands of years and admittedly experienced the very same thing prior to mans usage of the fossil fuels that you claim is now soley man made as a result of "unfettered industrial capitalism??

How do you propose to solve this earth ending climactic catastrophe and continue to provide what is essential for mans existance on this planet?

Do you beleive you are smarter than most involved in this discussion?

How do we know factually the Earths orbit was changed back ions about from what it is now or what it was before, and how the technologies we have today is able to determine if the Earths orbit is NOT changing in the miniscule yearly path within a million year pattern that was claimed to have happened in previous "global warming" episodes?

How do we not know based on your conclusive evidence of the suns intensity decreasing yet Earths temps rising that it is not some miniscule shift in the Earths very core undetectable to current science and unimpacted by man, much as the shifts in the Suns intensity was not detectable to science merely 50 years ago that is influencing the Earths outer rising temps over the last "10 year period" 

Can you show any legitimate science that is claiming an evolving global pattern change based on a "10 year" snap shot in time given the histroy  of the ions involved in previous global changes?  

Just a handful of questions for you to answer if you would. Remember now, you wish to converse in fact and not theory. I could take the time to look up the answers on Al's internet, but am curious to hear your slant on them!

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

Hardwaterman Said:

For one thing all blue states are not broke.

Name one state that was blue controlled prior to the 2010 election that is not in fiscal problems where commitments outweigh revenue! Just one Fish!

Or even a "blue" major city.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

4.57 billion years...lets comprehend that before we start making assumptions and conclusions based on patterns and changes in  the last 10, 50, or 100.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST- Hmmm,, ARe you retired ? *l* Nevertheless...The snapshot in time you spoke of only becomes unique when it's outstanding for a period involving 650000 yrs. as I stated before. It shows a trend and a direction we may be heading from industrial times and before. IF these changes hadn't been accelerating since the industrial rev. we wouldn't be talking .would we? It appears from past experiences yes, life has changed and it's very likely there is a tipping point where it hits the fan. This is demonstrated at different times during the "maturation" of our planet. Once again natural occurrences do not mean we can't help push the planet to that tipping point. AS far as measuring intensity that can be picked up by carbon 14 dating. When intensity is low the sun's magnetic fields allow more cosmic rays into our system so carbon 14 abundance goes up. Go examine a tree ring. YOu then go on to ask could it be this or that? I agree, let's look at as many variables as possible. Don't cry conspiracy by all the major international scientific organizations and send them packing! That smells of political agendas and little else. The more data you have the more accurate conclusion you should arrive at. So get the data and hopefully come to a logical conclusion so if there is that tipping point we don't ignorantly help it along

REd states blue states-as far as deficits I believe there are around 46 states that will run a projected 2012 deficit. Does this mean they're all broke? Not really does it? Not only that what constitutes a red or blue states? How come some states vote Dem one year and Repub the next. Take for instance our state, a red state that until recently had all democratic congressmen. So if the majority are repubs why the Dems? Or do theyse people have no affect on our state? Link , past governor was Democrat. IF one wants to look at poverty levels look at states like Texas, Lousiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Oklahoma , Mississippi to name a few. They're' all running at between 15 and 20% poverty level.
One has to look what happening economically within a state just not politically. North Dakota and the farm belt gets a lot from the fed treasury in the form of ag subsidies in one way or another. I'm not saying this is bad as a matter of fact I agree it's necessary for survival over the long hall. It's just one thing that's available here and with a small population it adds up. Take that away and review the history of the state and see where we might have been.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

multi-You should read a little closer. YOu seem to be missing the point. I'm talking unique figures and a trend dating back to over 650,00 years ago and it coincidentally began it's climb after the industrial rev. Seems to me the natural reaction would be to do a little more investigation instead of dismissing something of this possible magnitude. Again, to even speak of the possibility of this to some seems to be an admission of failed political ideology.

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

fishmahn Said:
multi-You should read a little closer. YOu seem to be missing the point. I'm talking unique figures and a trend dating back to over 650,00 years ago and it coincidentally began it's climb after the industrial rev. Seems to me the natural reaction would be to do a little more investigation instead of dismissing something of this possible magnitude. Again, to even speak of the possibility of this to some seems to be an admission of failed political ideology.

Do you really believe all the "data" spewed out by the global warming alarmists?   How many times have they got caught fudging data?   Gee they wouldn't alter data so they can get more grant money would they?  Nah, never.  

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
GST- Hmmm,, ARe you retired ? *l* Nevertheless...The snapshot in time you spoke of only becomes unique when it's outstanding for a period involving 650000 yrs. as I stated before. It shows a trend and a direction we may be heading from industrial times and before. IF these changes hadn't been accelerating since the industrial rev. we wouldn't be talking .would we? It appears from past experiences yes, life has changed and it's very likely there is a tipping point where it hits the fan. This is demonstrated at different times during the "maturation" of our planet. Once again natural occurrences do not mean we can't help push the planet to that tipping point. AS far as measuring intensity that can be picked up by carbon 14 dating. When intensity is low the sun's magnetic fields allow more cosmic rays into our system so carbon 14 abundance goes up. Go examine a tree ring. YOu then go on to ask could it be this or that? I agree, let's look at as many variables as possible. Don't cry conspiracy by all the major international scientific organizations and send them packing! That smells of political agendas and little else. The more data you have the more accurate conclusion you should arrive at. So get the data and hopefully come to a logical conclusion so if there is that tipping point we don't ignorantly help it along

fish, not retired, but some days require a bit more time sitting at a desk with paper work than being outside.   I will let any number of others deal with your red state blue state claims. But tell me regarding the part of your statement I underlined and emboldened how you are not doing the very thing you are suggesting others are? Any "scientific data" that does not fit your agenda is simply a "conspiracy of the industrial capitalism" that is ruining the Earth.

You repeatedly dismiss other "data" you do not accept rather than including it in a formula to come to a "logical conclusion" and all the while doing so in a condescending manner. Have you ever once considered people such as Al Gore, the king of global warming might just be chuckling all the way to the bank? 1$ for global warming research, 100$ for me, 1$ for Global warming research, 100$ for me.

Political agendas????? How many votes do you beleive Al Gores global warming claims and his "green" promises earned him in his run for President? How much about his personal financial windfalls do you think these voters knew? How many dollars where thrown into his campaign in the hopes of a renewed commitment to spending even more dollars in research and regulations based on a "theory" by people who have created their livihoods in this arena?

Once again for some reason I find myself thinking of the article I posted discussing "useful idiots"

fish as I said please show credible unbiased sound science that will claim a 10 year "snapshot" is a credible basis for examining a 650,000 year peiod wether it is "outstanding" or not. While your at it show me the science that can accurately identify  within this 650,000 time period that shows not one single other 10 "snapshot"  in time ever had warming levels of what you are suggesting we base our beleif in your whole arguement on. This science to examine a 10 year slice out of 650,000 simply does not exist, and any "scientist" that claims they can go back and isolate a 10 year  time frame withing these 650,000 years is selling a bill of goods. Hell sometimes it is hard to even get a good count on the rings in a tree thats cut down!!!

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

fishmahn Said:
Gee guys,
I really shouldn't be working and let some of you get so carried away in my absence.  Where should I start?  I can't believe the nipcc stuff was listed here.  This really doesn't strengthen your already anemic argument guys.  Ever heard of Fred Singer?  At one time I thought he was quite a gifted person but it seems he came a little unhinged.  Before you brought up the wonderful link I knew him best for his disbelief in regard to second hand smoke.    He called the studies done linking it to cancer as "junk science".   This was going on in  the early 90's. Guess what guys?  Big tobacco was paying for his "research".    He claimed he didn't know where the money was coming from.   Believe him???AFter this he headed up you guess ....The nipcc ( the global warming nay sayers).  Your donation however will remain hidden in their ledgers.T
Barney aka eyexr-You just can't win can you? *l* Thanks however for your silly comment.  At least your trying to contribute.

Why is it when a discussion starts on this site and something initially could be learned it degenerates to the point of lunacy?  Statements like we can't affect our environment.  The forested areas are as high now as in the past. ( I was nice on that one)  Or al Gore was destroyed in his presidential bid.  Good gawd man can you say recount???  In retrospect he was destroyed by a faulty system at that time.  Is that what you were trying to say?? *s*  Or the earth and oceans will always cleanse themselves regardless of our activity.
I feel several of you are perhaps a little too provincial and  if you have the resources to get out and witness somethings out of your backyard do it. Travel a little and  experience what is happening at least down the block.

still waiting on your response to all the articles I listed.  You seem to be dodging them considerably. 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

guys, I know this is fun but come on, the dude seriously has some issues.  with him it's very much like "it depends on your definition of is".  He's living in the world where if the greenazi's tell him the sky is green for three or four days in a row, by god he's going to come on here and tell us the sky is green.  then throw out all kinds of garbage the greenazi's baked up to support his green theory.   It's rather sporting isn't it?

 

Storm Rider's picture
Storm Rider
Offline
Joined: 11/15/10

In 250,000 years the continents will be back together again.  Humor me and take 650,000 divided by 4.5 billion.

fishmahn Said:
multi-You should read a little closer. YOu seem to be missing the point. I'm talking unique figures and a trend dating back to over 650,00 years ago and it coincidentally began it's climb after the industrial rev. Seems to me the natural reaction would be to do a little more investigation instead of dismissing something of this possible magnitude. Again, to even speak of the possibility of this to some seems to be an admission of failed political ideology.


fisherman25's picture
fisherman25
Offline
Joined: 11/26/10

eyexer Said:
guys, I know this is fun but come on, the dude seriously has some issues.  with him it's very much like "it depends on your definition of is".  He's living in the world where if the greenazi's tell him the sky is green for three or four days in a row, by god he's going to come on here and tell us the sky is green.  then throw out all kinds of garbage the greenazi's baked up to support his green theory.   It's rather sporting isn't it?

I actually get really sick of listening to his "same ole" BS!  He is Obama's brother as far as I am concerned.  They both belong in Dancing with the Stars since they dance around everything their asked.  Then he waits for about 12 hours while people pounce on him doing all sorts of dance practice and scripting.  Then in the mere hours of the morning, he applies all his new dancing skills spins circles around all the questions that had been asked the night before. 

I may have just made some of you puke, but thats what I do listening to his broken record spinning wild on each of these topics.  Sorry...thats how I feel. 

It's All Good's picture
It's All Good
Offline
Joined: 10/14/09

Like a few others, I've been hesitant to jump in and get kicked around.  My father once told me " opinions are like a-holes ; everyone has one, and most of them stink".  Not the first time I ignored his wisdom, and certainly I will pay the price with a lashing from the conservative "whips" of eyexer, 3X, gst, etc. 

Both sides of this global warming/climate change debate can (and do) pull studies out their backsides all day long to defend their stance. Politics only further muddies the water. 

I'm definitely not the "sharpest stick in the pile", so I have to dumb things down.   I consider myself a sportsman, in that fishing and hunting has, and will be, a large part of my life.  I am passionate about these endeavors. Even more important, I care about the health of my family and friends.  Most everyone on this site would probably make the same statements.  In addition, most of us truly hope our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy game, fish and the outdoors as we have.  If so, then I believe we (sportsman) have an obligation to preserve, protect and propogate wild critters and wild places for the next generation(s).  

Pollution is a bad thing for all ecosystems.  Whether it is trash or toxins in a small North Dakota watershed or excessive CO2 and other nasty crap being spewed into the air from a large factory in Pittsburgh, it's not a good thing for most living things.  I don't have to be a scientist, republican or democrat to understand such.   

For those of you who are thinking "another crazy-arss greenie whacko who is defending fishmahn", bear with me.  I was raised as "red" as they come.  My dad played baseball and graduated from high school with Dick Cheney and he's not afraid to tell you about it.  Mom was a private business owner who hates government & taxes more than rattlesnakes.  Spent my whole life in Wyoming and North Dakota, markedly republican/conservative states.  I'm probably more "middle of the road" than most on this site, but definitely not a liberal.  

The "math" for me is simple.  Pollution in/on our air, landscape, rivers and streams is detrimental to ecosystems and all that live in them.  The more than is introduced, the worst the negative effects (both short and long term).  The EPA is a flawed, but a necessary government agency.   I stand "left of the fence" on this issue.    I can't proclaim there is a scientific correlation between pollutants/emissions and the drastic weather we've experienced.  I just know it is bad for us as well as wild critters and wild places.  It does not matter if I trip on a pop bottle pheasant hunting, snag a tire or some other garbage while fishing or fly through a smog cloud landing at the Denver airport.  I don't like to see it, won't codone it and feel a fight should be made to stop it whenever possible.   

At the risk of sounding corny. . . . . I am a sportsman.  Thus, I am a conservationist. 

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

I'll take a whipping Too. Having just read every post; and seeing that most of it is back and forth between a few, I'll put my neck on the chopping block. My numbers might be smaller in terms of sample size, and my facts might be more of personal opinion, we have a right as Americans to "DO IT". A countdown from 5 to 1 puts it into my perspective.

5. HAROLD CAMPING(2011)--His flawed and often changed approach to The End-All swayed thousands of people to spend life savings. Harold has since suffered a stroke; moved his date to October, and family members stated a "Change in Proramming."

4.NOSTRADAMUS(2012)--This one kind of scares me because he predicts that we kill each other; along with the fact he has a little history, and killing each other makes the most sense right now according the government(at least from a spending standpoint).

3.BP--They were made to be accountable for their NON-NATURAL Disaster. They had to pay an exaspirating amount of money to try to right their WRONG and it was a WRONG that happened in 2010.

2. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS--While this is a Freak of Nature; the fact of the matter is that this is a product of protecting the Least Tern, The Piping Plover, and a handfull of beauracy driven barges. None of these have a very favorable outlook this year.

1. My Grandparents. They are the ones that I blame. It was their parents that homesteaded in the river bottoms. It was the Government that moved them to high ground. Grandpa told me about his first tractor and Grandma made sure I knew the Rosary by the time I had ABC down. They only had less than 2000 years of information to base their facts on. In fact the Pope just tweeted that they weren't keeping up.

The evolution of the information highway makes it awful hard to explain things to kids with access to this rhetoric B.S.  I've got a feeling that circumstances beyond our control will ultimately lead to a demise to a already softening society. It used to be attractive to serve a country if only for a fact to pay for school. Now school is as dead as the Rosary(Wait the Pope just TWEETED. R U Kidding me). And the flag. Global Warming is merely just another log on the fire(IMO), Yep, I don't have a job right now for at least the duration of this flood. That's why I realize that now is the right time to educate my kids on the basis of life as it happens today with an emphasis on what happened yesterday vs. tomorrow.

One step at a time...Be careful.

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! This is fact not theory. Anything else is garbage.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

TUFFdog Said:
CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! This is fact not theory. Anything else is garbage.

The EPA disagrees with you on the greenhouse gas issue.

Their website lists CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Flourinated gases as greenhouse gases.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Big Rack,
From a scientific standpoint what is the reason for your division problem there.  Are you aware of the maturation sequence of the earth from  it's birth.  What was the global situation at that time?  Somewhat like it is today?  Are you aware when life began or when it was possible for life to begin let alone when the first bipeds entered.  Not too much pavement or townhouses around not to mention any geographic similarities.  Once again let's attempt to somewhat compare apples to apples and variables involved at the time such as mineralization, ocean sink capabilities, forestation, marine diverstity etc.  Of course there has been tremendous upheavals in our climate but I really shouldn't have to relate what occurred to life much later but before we entered the picture. In many cases it was mass extinction as I've repeatedly stated before.  Do you get it?  Let's attempt to relate similarities in a living microcosm not changes that occurred when it would have been uninhabital with no global similarities to what is in existence now.
Eyexer-Yeah guy I'll respond .  You present things like Fox news ditties and "data" showing increases in the polar ice caps.   Are you serious or do you want to continue the talk about F Singer?  Does this mean I can use Stephan Colbert and Stewart for my investigative work?  How about reading from a blog and letting the story end there?  AS far as your polar caps you're obviously in the dark as far as the antarctica land ice disappearing at a record rate.  I suppose you heard the sea ice has temporary increases in this region.  There is a freshening from the glacial run off causing a layering. This composition causes less mixing which results in the ice you must be talking about but it melts in the summer anyway.  It comes down to the fact that it's losing roughly 200 GT of land ice/yr.  So yes, someone has issues as you stated.  The issue being there's one of us engaged here with no scientific background.  Maybe you should talk to your liberal brother concerning this.

This is getting to the point of chewing rubber but the facts remain if you go back to 1000 AD and follow the ice core data the level of co2 was relatively flat  at 280 ppm or less until you get to the 1800's and the industrial rev.  From that point the co2 has gone nearly vertical.  By 1980 it was 335 ppm and the last data I looked at it was over 390.
(Check the Law Dome Ice cores or others,  they are very similar)

97% of today's climate experts agree humans are causing global c change.  IT appears there are a few here that  think they're more qualified "experts".  Whatever let's you sleep better at night!


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Tuffdog-YOu aren't getting your information from Exexer are you?
A green house gas is a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs or emits radiation. Co2 does a very good job of this.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

This is getting totally unbelievable once again. Must be time to put the canopy on the boat and go fishing.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

It's All Good,   I may be a conservative by discription, but hopeully only pull the whip out for lashing when it is called for (at least in my opinion). I agree with most of what you have wrote (the EPA part is a little more complimentary than I would have given, a bit more emphasis on the "flawed" aspect to me seems appropriate, with a possible suggestion of totally revamping the entire agency).

Your opinion is given in a clear straight forward manner void of condescending comments and name calling and you do not suggest that perhaps you are a little better informed,read,thought, ect.. than others. Why would you take a lashing for this?

One of the first things my parents taught me (they hope) and hopefully I am passing down to my kids is the ability to think on your own. Look at something and use your God given powers of reason, deduction, intution, common sense (thinking) and the earned bonus of what  knowledge you have gained because of the afore mentioned gifts to make decisions and choices in life. Not to be a "useful idiot" as it were simply buying into and following others agendas. More times than not this has been a benefit in my life if I follow thru with it.

So while I know what you mention is not good for the planet, wildlife, my family and friends, ect...(and I try to do my part not to contribute)  as a result of those afore mentioned traits, it's impact on the long term global future is not as clearly defined in fact as fish wants us to accept in his condescending manner as it is theory.  Does that mean we simply dismiss it, of course not but to use a phrase fish did, to simply follow these GW theories and agendas like lemmings of a cliff without examining their background and basis is of what use?  

Mr Pitts, Nice composition !

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

These guys reportedly love the Tree as they try to suffocate it.

 Nuke the Whales

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Only 4 Points that Matter

1. The Greenhouse Signature is missing.
Weather bolloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hot spot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint.
Something else cause the warming.

2.The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally throws what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.

3. Temperatures are not rising.
Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many years of NO global warming will it take? While temps have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.

4.Carbon dioxide is already doing all the warming it can do.
Adding twice the CO2 doesn't make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a small player.

Just Sayin.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Anyone know what Dihydrogen Monoxide(DHMO) is?

An overdose can kill you.
Constituent in many known toxic substances.
Death due to accidental inhalation.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause tissue damage.
Component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause burns.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

The list goes on. You might be surprised to know what this substance is. There are websites about this, if you can believe it. If you don't know and figure it out, you will see how a label and skew what something really is. Some of you might have it sitting next to you.
Scientists can be savvy dudes.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than at any time in the past 650,000 years. But go back 500,000,000 years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20 percent higher, they were 10 to 20 TIMES HIGHER! The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway greenhouse effect, and NOTHING happened. Indeed the Earth slipped into an ice age while CO2 was far higher than today's levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-CO2 has, it's no match for the other climatic forces out there. Further, it doesn't matter if it's man-made CO2 or ocean-made CO2. They are the same molecule.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

ggenthusiast's picture
ggenthusiast
Offline
Joined: 9/11/02

TUFFdog Said:
Anyone know what Dihydrogen Monoxide(DHMO) is?

An overdose can kill you.
Constituent in many known toxic substances.
Death due to accidental inhalation.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause tissue damage.
Component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause burns.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

The list goes on. You might be surprised to know what this substance is. There are websites about this, if you can believe it. If you don't know and figure it out, you will see how a label and skew what something really is. Some of you might have it sitting next to you.
Scientists can be savvy dudes.

H20

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Tuffdog- Where did you get most of what you printed? The same source where you stated co2 was not a greenhouse gas? Simply repeating things over and over do not make them a fact .Your points that matter?The latest study I could find (2010) shows increased air (trophispheric) and ocean temps and levels. Decreased ...ice glaciers etc. and the ten hottest years globally have all occurred since 1998. YOu said the satellites haven't picked up an increase since 2001?? YOu also haven't read the past posts concerning the ordivician , high co2 levels and glaciation have you?. You're looking 200 million years before T Rex. For the sake of brevity I suggest you reread the old posts or actually look up Berner's geocarb work and see what he said concerning calculating the co2 levels at this time and it's relativity to the atmospheric and physcial changes going on during this period.
BTW where did you get your information that co2 is not a greenhouse gas????

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

First of all I like a little sarcasm. Second, you know nothing about what I have read or not. I simply stated the facts and you are welcome to look them up on non biased websites.

AGW is a political agenda. Those oppose have nothing to gain from it.

fish, you go ahead and have your opinion, cause in the end that is all it is. I am not trying to sway you the other way. Just giving the readers a little of the appropriate side of the coin. Research a little opposition and see what you come up with.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

June 30, 2011

A Nutshell History of Climate-Change Hysteria

By Anthony J. Sadar

At a time when the push is on to subject humanity to more crazy, shortsighted progressive environmental programs (read carbon regulations) to "save the earth" from its human population, a brief look at progressive airy predictions of the past is in order.

Enlightenment from the campus teach-ins of the 1960s and early 1970s slowly invaded conventional college classrooms so that the hippie-generation mentality of the time eventually became the hip academic norm. But, excitement over such topics as the planet's imminent collapse from too many people and too much ice quickly waned when population increases yielded no global food fights and Mother Earth began to melt her once-advancing ice caps.

Up until at least the mid-1970s, the frenzy to rescue the planet from industrial chemicals, especially pesticides like DDT, was fueled by Rachel Carson's alluring book Silent Spring. This work, published in 1962, sparked the modern environmental movement, providing activists with both a laudable goal (cleaning up the planet) and reprehensible ones (portraying industry and modern society as enemies). Silent Spring made it rather obvious to some that the modern industrial society needed to be disarmed of its "weapons" (synthetic chemicals). Regardless of the fact that it is the careless practices of industry and the wasteful excesses of society that should have been precisely targeted, not modernity per se, the battle to save the planet was on.

One battleground that soon became the main theater of the war was society's culpability to climate change. But, early on, the conflict was quite different from what it is today. In the 1970s, besides Vietnam, society was sensitized to a worldwide cooling trend. In addition to cover stories in Time, Newsweek, and other popular magazines of the era, the cover of books like The Cooling by Lowell Ponte teased, "Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?" Inside the book, Mr. Ponte notes, "A handful of scientists denied evidence that Earth's climate was cooling until the 1970s, when bizarre weather throughout the world forced them to reconsider their views."

The cover of Our Changing Weather: Forecast of Disaster? by Claude Rose pondered "Will our fuel run out? Will our food be destroyed? Will we freeze?" The back cover claimed: "Northern hemisphere temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s. Glaciers are advancing once again. Scientists no longer debate the coming of a new ice age: the question now is when?" ("Scientists no longer debate..." sound familiar?)

Kids were prepped for the coming catastrophe with a brief book by Henry Gilfond called The New Ice Age, which boldly displayed on its dust jacket large thermometers with ominously dropping temperature levels.

In addition, society was informed at the time from another sector, but with a more hopeful approach. A Christian tract by Walter Lang and Vic Lockman proclaimed: Need We Fear Another Ice Age?

And, of course, students were being properly taught to face the inevitable. For instance, some learned that polar bears might roam New York City (which proved true, but luckily they've been captured in the Central Park Zoo). Even future atmospheric scientists discovered the scientific foundations for the advancing ice in meteorology lectures at The Pennsylvania State University.

Well, as we all now know, the frights of the past were unfounded. We were encouraged to be scared of the wrong things. We have come to realize that it wasn't a "human volcano" of particles from an industrial society that would be chilling thermometers into the future, rather human-produced gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that would send the mercury soaring.

The current hype was officially kicked off with a proclamation by Dr. James Hansen of NASA in his testimony before Congress on June 23, 1988. Dr. Hansen announced that "the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now." With that statement, bolstered by a room purposefully made very warm and humid for the hearing and an unusually hot and dry summer in the eastern part of the U.S. that year, hothouse-earth hysteria was off and running.

In the late 90s, to support the new storyline, actual temperature measurements after 1900 were appended to proxy temperature data (e.g., using tree-ring analysis) from prior to 1900 to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph replaced the traditional temperature trend graph in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official global climate report for 2001. The supplanted traditional graph had clearly, but inconveniently, displayed a "medieval warm period" from about the 10th to 13th centuries AD and "little ice age" generally from the 17th century until the mid-1800s. Furthermore, the hockey-stick graph was featured in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and unfortuately has replaced the traditional graph in a popular climatology textbook used to instruct a new generation of Penn State students.

The rising temperature trend experienced most recently (a trend currently leveling off) began in the mid- to late 1970s. This trend was first referred to in the 1980s as the "greenhouse effect" (which is a generic descriptor of roughly -- very roughly -- how warming of the planet occurs), the popular term became "global warming" in the 1990s, and finally conveniently morphed into "climate change," just in time to hedge against weather variability (that continues to alert an increasingly incredulous public).

As it turns out, though, "all's well that ends well." Fortunately for Mother Earth and her people, academic scientists have been laden with plenty of government funds to thoroughly research the atmosphere to arrive at confident conclusions. These scientists are now finally able to assure us that climate calamity caused by industry and callous working-class culprits -- and definitely not, for instance, the sun -- can be declared with absolute total academic certainty, theoretically. And, fortunately with enough dollars (billions upon billions of them) redistributed in the right way to correct our errant ways, the global village may yet experience its climate nirvana.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist specializing in air-quality issues and environmental risk communication.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

TUFFdog Said:
First of all I like a little sarcasm. Second, you know nothing about what I have read or not. I simply stated the facts and you are welcome to look them up on non biased websites.

AGW is a political agenda. Those oppose have nothing to gain from it.

fish, you go ahead and have your opinion, cause in the end that is all it is. I am not trying to sway you the other way. Just giving the readers a little of the appropriate side of the coin. Research a little opposition and see what you come up with.

Dude,
You stated flat out that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.  You said it was a fact.

I'm waiting for you to explain that comment.

A quick search indicates that the following credible agencies disagree 100% with your statement of "fact":

NASA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
EPA

All are full of reputable scientists.  Either you misspoke or they are wrong.  I'll believe you and the rest of what you post when I see the retractions on the individual agency websites.  Until then, your credibility is zero.

When you assert something to be FACT, it is customary to be able to back it up with reliable sources.

I happen to lean toward the anti-global warming side of the argument (even if some of my comments might indicate otherwise) but I would like to see more research.  False statements that are easily rebutted don't help the cause.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Dude,
EPA a "credible agency" ??????????? Full of "reputable" scientists ???????

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

For anyone wanting an indepth analysis of the co2 discussion, this is must reading. Done by reputable scientists(although unlikely to be considered so by fish) and complete with all references.

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Here is an analysis of the Climategate e-mails and their effect on science and the global warming debate. The analysis is performed by a physicist from Australia. Again, must reading.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Btw,
Some on this thread have accused global warming skeptical scientists of representing "Big Oil" and thus have no credibility. On my previous post I gave the link to the analysis of the Climategate e-mails. As you will discover by reading the e-mails and the analysis, Shell Oil is one of the funding sources and 'strategic partner' of the East Anglia Climate Center and the discredited global warming alarmists. So those of you pointing fingers about the purity of the scientists advocating your opinion need to read the actual e-mails from your heroes.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

gst Said:
Dude,
EPA a "credible agency" ??????????? Full of "reputable" scientists ???????

I actually hesitated about that one.  Cross EPA off if you are so inclined.

Use NOAA then.  My point remains the same.

I haven't studied this subject anywhere near enough to get into a detailed debate and I don't intend to.  But, you can't state something is a "FACT" when NOTHING available supports that statement.  It becomes a credibility issue.

Suppose we want to debate NFL football and I post that "The Vikings have more Superbowl succes than the Packers.  Thats a FACT."  Pretty easy to figure out if I posted a fact or not.  After that, I wouldn't expect anybody to read anything else I post other than for entertainment purposes.  My credibility would be shot.

I said that I lean toward the same side of this issue you do.  I don't want people on "my side" of the debate doing the same things that the other side gets criticized about.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

From the link bigguy provided. interesting read!

It is at this "stitching together" layer of science—one could call it a "meta-discipline" —that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this "stitching together" process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge—thanking them for their experience (no-one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the "skeptics" which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not "climate science", it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

It seems as if fish has a bit in common with the "powerbrokers" of  Global Warming.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
 Simply repeating things over and over do not make them a fact .Your points that matter?The latest study I could find (2010) shows increased air (trophispheric) and ocean temps and levels. Decreased ...ice glaciers etc. and the ten hottest years globally have all occurred since 1998.

fish, you have been asked to show your "science" behind this claim regarding the last 10  years.
 You have not.

You have been asked to provide a source of legitimate science that can claim they can isolate a given snapshot of a 10 year period somewhere in the ions of  time in global climate history to compare to verify your claim.
You have not.

It seems as if you are simply repeating this over and over in the hopes someone will accept it as "fact" in how it supports your basis of global warming.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Far, you confuse the issue, NOAA,NASA  as examples have lost a ton of credibility as a organization regarding GW. Modeling programs,data being incorrectly tallied etc with results always skewed to advance AGW. Endorsement of the IPCC reports with false claims and data used all in an attempt by its leaders to garner more Fed funding.

These agencies are like every other Fed agency where they have to find creative ways to spend the money they get to ensure they get that amount again or more. So do not confuse the two facts. Yes there are upstanding very good and qualified scientist that work for each of these organizations. However that does not remove the other, nor make everything thing they claim FACT!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Farnorth,

Yes there is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it does not have a significant impact on the warming of the climate. CO2 however is not a pollutant, which the EPA would lead others to believe and they are currently trying get it listed as a pollutant. I am not going to go and spend a bunch of time backing up the facts that I have stated. Go ahead and research it for yourself. I have researched both sides and the info on AGW is not complete nor proven. There is a list of scientists that have invented these AGW models that are now on the other side of the coin. Quite a few have stated that now that they are not receiving government funding they are obliged to state the truth.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Doesn't anyone here fish?  Is this an attempt at 5000 posts? *l*
 I  read the latest  posts and did go back and reread some of the others.  The thing that seems to be difficult to drive home is that the supreme majority of educated global scientists believe we are affecting our climate.  Those that don't are a miniscule minority.  Aside from that I'm well aware  there are many variables to be considered and all avenues should be covered regarding the seriousness of the situation and the possible outcome..  I really do not believe that somehow the major majority of  the worlds educated science climatologists  are in a deep, dark conspiracy.  I'll relate another simple example.   Doesn't it seem a little coincidental that the c02 levels have gone nearly vertical since the industrial revolution going back to a time around the birth of Christ?  I think that's something that should be investigated.  For those of you who don't I really think you just want to hit that 5000 post thing.
I've also looked at some of the resource material used here...If you are genuinely interested in finding something that doesn't smack of special interests . I'll just list a couple here I've seen used.  STOP using sources like human events.com. The authors are tied with the Competitive Enterprises Institute. Thy've b een paid over two million dollars by large oil companies.  Another one is Global warming.org which is really a site that centers manily onf  the evils of cap & trade, how the global warming peopl;e will destroy jobs and the the media is attemtping scare tactics all with very little data.  Bob Yeatman writes it's articles and he also works for CEI.  Another is of course Fox.    And Hardwaterman who ever said everything that's stated by a particular interest is fact?  There are always going to be a few bad apples and simple statistics dictate there will be some mistakes even among the best minds and institutions.  .  The important thing  is to look at the majority of the data and  facts and eventually react if the situation warrants it.  Neanderthal really didn't react and went by the wayside. 


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

tuffrdog-I'd like to see those scientists names that were previously under grant and now feel it necessary to tell the truth you spoke of. I'ts probably no one I work with but it would be interesting if these names ring a bell.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

I think one of the scientists was Steve.  He stopped wearing his foil hat.

 Nuke the Whales

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Reference
Osborne, K., Dolman, A.M., Burgess, S.C. and Johns, K.A. 2011. Disturbance and the dynamics of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995-2009). PLoS ONE 6: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017516.According to Osborne et al. (2011), "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors," citing Bellwood et al. (2004); and they note, in this regard, that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems." Therefore, and further noting that "the scale and extent of bleaching on the GBR [Great Barrier Reef] since 1998 is unprecedented (Oliver et al., 2009)," and that "coral disease is an emerging stressor that was first recorded on the GBR in the early 1990s (Willis et al., 2004; Lough, 2007)," as well as the fact that various hurtful environmental disturbances "appear to be increasing in frequency and severity," they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium.

As part of the ongoing research of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, coral communities were surveyed annually between 1995 and 2009 on 47 reefs in six latitudinal sectors across 1300 km of the GBR, where between two and five reefs were surveyed in each sub-region. This was done at three sites on the north-east flank of each reef, where each site consisted of five 50-m transects marked by steel rods at depths between six and nine meters, and where "percent cover of live hard coral was estimated from a randomly selected sequence of images taken along the transects using a point-sampling technique in a quincunx pattern (Adbo et al., 2004)."

The four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."

In spite of all of the purportedly unprecedented negative influences arrayed against them over the past decade and a half, GBR corals appear to have held their own, maintaining a stable presence over the totality of their 1300-km linear expanse.

Additional References
Adbo, D., Burgess, S., Coleman, G. and Osborne, K. 2004. Surveys of Benthic Reef Communities using Underwater Video. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.

Bellwood, D.R., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C. and Nystrom, M. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429: 827-833.

Lough, J. 2007. Climate and climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. In: Johnson, J.E. and Marshall, P.A. (Eds.) Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Townsville, Australia, pp. 15-50.

Oliver, J.K., Berkelmans, R. and Eakin, C.M. 2009. Coral bleaching in space and time. In: van Oppen, M.J.H. and Lough, J.M. (Eds.) Coral Bleaching: Patterns, Processes, Causes and Consequences. Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 21-39.

Willis, B.L., Page, C.A. and Dinsdale, E.A. 2004. Coral disease on the Great Barrier Reef. In: Rosenberg, E. and Loya, Y. (Eds.) Coral Health and Disease. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 69-104.

 

Archived 29 June 2011

 

 

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Also, we fish but haven't "gone fishing" like you and your ilk.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

That's a bunch of blah blah blah and words, Big1.  He may understand this.  I BELIEVE he's still pissed about the time he got out of bed on Christmas Eve to get a drink of water.  Santa gave Mommy the presents because he was in a hurry...

 Nuke the Whales

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Fishmahn,
Apparently the thing that is hard to drive home with you is OVER 31,000 SCIENTISTS in the United States ALONE DISAGREE with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They represent MIT, STANFORD, HARVARD, USC, UCLA, ASU, and many other reputable institutions and you can see all their names at this website.   http://www.oism.org/pproject/
That is not a small percentage and you can not discredit them by smearing them as you have other experts. They are not nameless, faceless, or gutless. Their names and reputations are at stake by signing the petition and the website does not receive any funding from energy groups etc. Please go forth with an open mind.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

svnmag Said:
I think one of the scientists was Steve.  He stopped wearing his foil hat.

Neat

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

I almost started another thread.  The POWER of CO2...

Hunting for Trees

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2011-06-30-tree-hunter-competition_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

 

 Nuke the Whales

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Review the petition. It uses catastrophic heating and disruption rather then global warming If you look they also said in the 1997 version of this petition that "over the past two decades when co2 has been its highest global temperatures have cooled. This was untrue as there most definite warming. The even admit that in there latest version.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

snvmag,
I'm pretty sure their main scientist was a guy named Eddy.
BTW I'm not racial biased but I am culture biased.

Pages