Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kaptain's picture
Kaptain
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/06

I would tend to disagree with you 3X. its the people on your side that have the most to lose and thats the precious almighty dollar.

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

Kaptain Said:
I would tend to disagree with you 3X. its the people on your side that have the most to lose and thats the precious almighty dollar.

If what your saying is "global warming" has lowered the value of the dollar...your right!  And yes I am against that.

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

I would own Gold and Silver because that dollar you have isn't worth anything. The reason for that is the US Federal Government.

Kaptain Said:
I would tend to disagree with you 3X. its the people on your side that have the most to lose and thats the precious almighty dollar.


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

As a fan of fifty cent words-- you had me on reproducible. Very Nice Fish. My powers of deductability must have been off. It was as easy of mistake as getting La Nina confused with El Nino. Only difference is one is assimilated with cold Pacific waters; and the other with warm. The origin of El Nino is of the definition of "The Christ Child" and was founded in 1896 by the Mexican's(The warm one). This La Nina we just endured was first discovered in 1988; and hopefully we are about to transgress into a cycle of stable gulf air. To be quite frank on the whole situation (while ignoring the plethora of naysayers); I would be enamored if a fella could get a weather prediction for 2012. I'm just a tool and about have myself convinced that the warm air comes through the borders. Apples to Apples--Beans to Beans. Give us a forecast so as we know if your frank is still connected to your beans. Here is mine... The wind has blown SE EVERY DAY THIS SUMMER. Cold and dry in the heartland and the East gets buried this winter.

One step at a time...Be careful.

Bad Dog's picture
Bad Dog
Offline
Joined: 1/19/11

I really hope that this discussion is not about whether the climate is actually changing (getting warmer) it is about the causes.  Because if there is any person out there that doesn't KNOW the earth is warming, I have pitty for your lackof intelligence and I hope you have not bred. The cause may be discussable. But heat melts ice and ice is melting!

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

Do you have a picture from 2011? 

Bad Dog Said:
I really hope that this discussion is not about whether the climate is actually changing (getting warmer) it is about the causes.  Because if there is any person out there that doesn't KNOW the earth is warming, I have pitty for your lackof intelligence and I hope you have not bred. The cause may be discussable. But heat melts ice and ice is melting!


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

I see that you used 2007 because it was a "modern" record low for ice.

The images in this link say it's getting more thick now.

modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-preparedness/13-billion-cubic-feet-of-new-arctic-ice/


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

Bad Dog Said:
I really hope that this discussion is not about whether the climate is actually changing (getting warmer) it is about the causes.  Because if there is any person out there that doesn't KNOW the earth is warming, I have pitty for your lackof intelligence and I hope you have not bred. The cause may be discussable. But heat melts ice and ice is melting!

the '79 picture was taken in January, the 07 picture was in late august.

I can take a picture of my back yard in winter, then again in summer and come up with the same hype.

Neat

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

 

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

Johnr knows damn right.  It is warmer in August than January. Also, plants need CO2.  They are the opposite of mammals.  They inhale CO2 and exhale O2.  Therefore, it's a great relationship; they thrive on our waste and us on theirs.  This GW BS has truly metastisized(sp) from a back door attack on capitalism to a psuedo-Jim Jones cult. 

 Nuke the Whales

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

I just can't believe NASA didn't tow the line for fish!

 

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

I agree with svnmag....plants are thriving on our waste.  We can feed the planet with our waste.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Eyexer,
I'm gone for a while on vacation and you're right back at it. You're great "discovery" You listed in your post above has already been dispelled . Do you not look back even a page at the posts? I suggest you do that . There's evidence quite contrary to what you printed. You just can seem to get free of heartland institute propaganda can you?

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

svnmag, Like I said you're a funny guy.

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

Global warming on course to melt record amount of Arctic ice in 2011, scientists warn

* A warm spell gripping the region has melted 46,000 square miles of ice EACH DAY so far in July

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017248/Global-warming-co...

Hmmm,..note the date and read the article

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

Fish it has not been dispelled, it is being ignored and you continue to avoid putting forward the models, but instead talk more BS spin! The models showed much more rise in temps, but the IPCC called those errors within parameters and gave it a rubber stamp. The scientist that compiled the data that showed the differences where POed to the point they publicly protested the bastardization of their work by the IPCC and withdrew their support of the report as being factual!

That is the dispelling you continue to claim occurred!

So again a short time frame of measurement is somehow a calamity, records of melt have only been done since 1979, they have no records of melt rates prior nor really any way to determine the depth of the ice at those times. Funny though that the standards they use are the levels that had been reached during a period in which they claimed we where moving toward a new ice age!

Thirty years is not a reasonable record to claim the sky is falling, but at least they identified the fact that much of the melting was due in large part to clear skies which is not suppose to be occurring with AGW now is it 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!

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

he actual amounts of these various gases in the atmosphere does not complete the picture in terms of the greenhouse effect and the climate debate. What is important is how powerful the gases are, not their absolute concentrations.

Back in the 1700s and 1800s, scientists did think that water vapor accounted for all of the greenhouse effect. It is such an effective absorber, and occurs in relatively high concentrations near the earth

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

Hardwater, Dispelling in the case of sources used. Think it strange the lone source of this silliness is the heartland institute which is funded by industry? Once again, you seem to want exact reproduction of results dating back how far? IF you've ever spent an hour or two in lab you'd know exactness with unlimited variables is not going to happen but the basic trends and what's actually changed within our lifetime is quite obvious however. I wish nothing more then somehow what man is doing here to be insignificant. God knows we have enough problems without the possibility of destroying the planet .To scream it's all a conspiracy and stick your head in the sand except for the scanning of right wing propaganda versus the compiled efforts of climate scientists and organizations throughout the world is somewhat fractured thinking. Do you ever consider the ramifications if you're 100% wrong? If you are it's a somewhat selfish attitude your carrying around. Do you have kids,...grandkids,....younger friends? It's seems strange the sources you seem to rely on and have posted here are quite suspect. IN respect to the pettion people, I suggest you read the history with those petitions, the wording used and also the manner in which they tried to present the petition and themselves.

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

The first post is a copy and paste but incomplete. I suggest you also read that. www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html

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

No fish it is not, but you can claim all you want that it is and it changes nothing! Trot out the models and compare them to the actual and let people decide if your voodoo science claims hold water! They do not and you know it so produce the models Fish!

You are the one claiming this is wrong, his contention is the models are flawed or to be more precise the data going into the models. He has produced and shown where the data is flawed, you claim it is accurate, so produce it and let everyone see.

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!

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

Whats more likely, the piddly amounts of gas humans put in the air is ruining the climate, or global warming is a money making scam?  Seriously, what is more likely?

The earth doesn't give a crap about CO2.  It is her life blood.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Hardwater-Did you ever go back and read this and try to understand it?arized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39

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

ggenthusiast Said:
Whats more likely, the piddly amounts of gas humans put in the air is ruining the climate, or global warming is a money making scam?  Seriously, what is more likely?

The earth doesn't give a crap about CO2.  It is her life blood.

 exactly, however you wont win a Noble prize for stating facts and relaxing the public, it needs to be exagerated hype and complete bs for that to happen.

Fricken algore what an honerable politician....

Neat

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

ggthsusust-"The world doesn't give a crap about the co2..."  How do you know this?  Did you ask her?  As far as thriving on all the excess co2 there's also a little something wrong with that as well.  The co2 is going up dramatically.  Sounds like the "plant" life isn't quite coping with that.  Am I to believe our biodivirsity in regard to all  plant life is ever expanding?  Not really the case. Half of the Earth's mature tropical forests that covered the planet in 1947 are now gone.  Unless you listen to Rush you should already know this.  Perhaps a little more research????

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

johnr -And who are you? Do you work with Nasa, the US global change program or the National Academy of Sciences?

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

fishmahn Said:
ggthsusust-"The world doesn't give a crap about the co2..."  How do you know this?  Did you ask her?  As far as thriving on all the excess co2 there's also a little something wrong with that as well.  The co2 is going up dramatically.  Sounds like the "plant" life isn't quite coping with that.  Am I to believe our biodivirsity in regard to all  plant life is ever expanding?  Not really the case. Half of the Earth's mature tropical forests that covered the planet in 1947 are now gone.  Unless you listen to Rush you should already know this.  Perhaps a little more research????

Geologic evidence proves it.  The fossil record is full of high carbon and low carbon cycles.
Besides, we are just one country, and we are already ten time more environmentally conscious than the rest of the world.

  You are a joke.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

fishmahn Said:
ggthsusust-"The world doesn't give a crap about the co2..."  How do you know this?  Did you ask her?  As far as thriving on all the excess co2 there's also a little something wrong with that as well.  The co2 is going up dramatically.  Sounds like the "plant" life isn't quite coping with that.  Am I to believe our biodivirsity in regard to all  plant life is ever expanding?  Not really the case. Half of the Earth's mature tropical forests that covered the planet in 1947 are now gone.  Unless you listen to Rush you should already know this.  Perhaps a little more research????

So CO2 is killing the earth's mature tropical forests?

Prove it!

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

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

fishmahn Said:
johnr -And who are you? Do you work with Nasa, the US global change program or the National Academy of Sciences?

Nope, sorry didnt know I needed to be to join in on this conversation. I do however have the ability to think for myself and realize bs when I see it.

You could be claiming the sun revolved around the earth and if I didnt work with Nasa or the "HaHa" US global change program it would mean that it would have to be true?

Sorry to think for myself and realize that this is BS, and reguardless of how much you want the sun to revolve around the earth it simply doesnt.

Neat

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

ggthusia-OF course there have been differences in our geologic past. What point is it you're trying make? What caused those changes and what effects did they have. Once again, because lightning can start a fire does that mean that we can't with matches and total stupidity? Total annihilation of life in many cases was the result of these fluctuations. The simple fact is the co2 remained at 170-300 ppm for the past half million years. Since the industrial revolution it's gone vertical but you must know this or do you?. As far as the total carbon output of 750 gigatons we only put out roughly 28 gigatons. However only 40% of that is being reabsorbed making possible the complicatons I've stated. Co2 is one entity. One also has to look at methane , the influence on water vapor etc. But,...thankyou for a very general, rigid "opinion".

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

johnr =But in thinking for yourself, one usually has some reasons for that thinking. Or is it just a gut feeling you woke up one day with? Perhaps you do have something that would substaniate your "thoughts". It's just that you haven't demonstrated them.

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

tuffdog-I missed your statement.  Perhaps you missed the earlier post that stated  the excess co2 we seem to be piling up would be "waste" for a multitude of new plant diversity.  Like I stated that's really not an option now is it since the earths forests are rapidly declining.

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

Fish stop the spin, produce the models compared to actual and then we can talk. I could not care any less what another zealot says or does regarding this issue it is simply the data that is out there that is important.

Data like the fact that CO2 levels have been higher and our temps on earth colder than now.
Data like the fact that the models are so far off from what has occurred and that they do not have the accurate variables to reproduce past climate changes.

So trot them out and get off the effort to discredit anyone who challenges your zealous religious belief in AGW!

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!

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

fishmahn Said:
ggthusia-OF course there have been differences in our geologic past. What point is it you're trying make? What caused those changes and what effects did they have. Once again, because lightning can start a fire does that mean that we can't with matches and total stupidity? Total annihilation of life in many cases was the result of these fluctuations. The simple fact is the co2 remained at 170-300 ppm for the past half million years. Since the industrial revolution it's gone vertical but you must know this or do you?. As far as the total carbon output of 750 gigatons we only put out roughly 28 gigatons. However only 40% of that is being reabsorbed making possible the complicatons I've stated. Co2 is one entity. One also has to look at methane , the influence on water vapor etc. But,...thankyou for a very general, rigid "opinion".

so, are you going to strong-arm China and India into compliance with U.S. policy?  Nope.  And the U.S. can't because the Chinese have us by the gonads.  So here we sit.  Should we cripple our economy even more, thus allowing China to get more of our business and pollute even more?

I still don't see much difference between the burning naturally occurring fossil fuels, and the spewing of the aforementioned gases by a volcano.  Man is still a part of nature no matter how much technology we have.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

ggenthusiast-If you go back and see who were the non players in the last attempted treaties it wasn't China and India that refrained.  It was the US and ...Afghanistan that backed out from the start..  As far as volcanoes and human made co2 emissions the former are not even a player in comparison.  IF  you happen to listen to Fox they had the data inverted using C Vs, co2.  Perhaps that's where you got that data?
Hardwater-we've discussed this before.  IF you're referring to the Ord> era you do know overall if was a very warm time period.  Geologically speaking the glaciation was very short lived and as we've discussed before there were variables going on at that time which do not relate in any way shape or form now.
I'm a religious zealot now? *l*  Are you a member of the religious right that believes Jesus was a capitalist??  YOu notice I'm asking not "proclaiming" that statement.

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

Just produce the model output compared to what occured or just shut up! Plain and simple 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!

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

Hardwater-you've gone dramatic once again more then likely because you haven't done enough reading or have and  don't understand it.  Have you even read the links I posted??? Do you have any scientific background? What is your line of work?   Guess you're still undecided on what I asked above?  Chewing rubber is boring you know and I'm pretty well there.
So,.."plain and simple" ron,  surf for some less complicated data  from a reputable source and refrain from your astroturf sites.

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

fishmahn Said:
tuffdog-I missed your statement.  Perhaps you missed the earlier post that stated  the excess co2 we seem to be piling up would be "waste" for a multitude of new plant diversity.  Like I stated that's really not an option now is it since the earths forests are rapidly declining.

Are the forests declining because of CO2? Cause that sounded like it was what you were stating. I had a question mark at the end of my first post. You didn't answer it. You are the expert and I have a question I need you to answer. Or are you going to treat me like Hardwaterman and everyone else that has asked you a question?

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

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

fishmahn, I don't watch fox news, I rarely ever listen to Rush.  I just think for myself, and don't trust the science behind this theory, as there are people who stand to make a lot of money off of it.  When money gets involved, the data will get skewed in favor of the one's whom can benefit the most.  You can't even consider that being a possibility behind this, therefore proving to us that you have blinders on.

All I know is that for the last 10 or so years of using air monitors, o2 levels have been at a steady 20.9%.  If CO2 levels were on the rise, wouldn't the O2 % be decreasing. The weather of North America has been as normal as weather can be.  Nothing I see with my own two eyes supports this global warming theory.  You can, and will I'm sure, continue to get all bent out of shape over the latest data you find on the internet.  Even if they are right, there is little to nothing that can be done about it, so why cripple our country further by squeezing our industry tighter than the competition.

I win.  You lose.  Don't even bother responding.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

You need to put up or shut up Fish, not dramatic, just the way it is!  You are pooh hooing the claims and refuse to refute them with actual data! I have read numerous pieces on this, and scientists in the climate field are split on his claim. Some like you discount it because of where it came from. Others though say his methodology is sound and calls into question the claims made by the IPCC and most of all this claims and work can be duplicated just as he states them. So bring on the model data and actual data and let everyone decide based on that.

To continue to claim lack of reading is plain outright BS and is a deflect mechanism that is employed by people like you when confronted! Try and change the direction of the conversation that is why you brought up the forest claim. Slight of hand misdirection is not going to fly!

Models are wrong then your whole house of cards is wrong and that is what scares people like you. The money train dries up with !

So once again put up or shut up!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

hardwater-you just don't like what you find.  The Ipcc is one organization.  Organizations from all over the world have working models if you just look. 

"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past."

The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
So, why don't you follow your own adivice!

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

ggthusiast-You stated "If co2 levels are on  the rise............?" WHAT??  You aren't aware they've gone up sharply?  You're right  I really shouldn't respond. This is like asking if the sky is blue.  IF you don't know  that  what's the point? Oh, you also mentioned weather in N. American has been normal as normal can be.  While I understand weather can't be confused with climate I'd like to take issue with that statement of  silliness.  Every state in the US has broken temp records this year.  Are you aware of the floods occurring in this state (are you  of this state or planet) and the country as a whole?  How about the great dessert of the south.  Most of Texas is a veritable dessert.  Since we should look at this globally the upheaval on a world level has been unbelievable as of late.    We've also received extreme amounts of snow in the mountains which also would not be out of sync   with  "climate change". 
you say you win?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....ignorance is bliss.

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

fishmahn Said:
ggthusiast-You stated "If co2 levels are on  the rise............?" WHAT??  You aren't aware they've gone up sharply?  You're right  I really shouldn't respond. This is like asking if the sky is blue.  IF you don't know  that  what's the point? Oh, you also mentioned weather in N. American has been normal as normal can be.  While I understand weather can't be confused with climate I'd like to take issue with that statement of  silliness.  Every state in the US has broken temp records this year.  Are you aware of the floods occurring in this state (are you  of this state or planet) and the country as a whole?  How about the great dessert of the south.  Most of Texas is a veritable dessert.  Since we should look at this globally the upheaval on a world level has been unbelievable as of late.    We've also received extreme amounts of snow in the mountains which also would not be out of sync   with  "climate change". 
you say you win?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....ignorance is bliss.

You are a fool.  What is the point of keeping records if every time one is broken, everyone thinks the world is coming to an end.  Flooding is normal, drought is normal, high temps are normal, cold and snow are normal, tornados, hurricanes, etc ....all normal.  I've tried to get this point across to lots of people.  That no matter how violent, unpredicable, and extreme weather may seem, it is all normal.  There is nothing more normal than the weather, whatever it may be. This is nature, and the human race is bareley been taking notes on whats going on around them.

I am so glad I'm not you.  Must be some sort of a miserable life beleiving everything you read and not using your own intuition once in awhile.  I bet your parents are real proud of you.  You should go upstairs now and give your mom a hug for me.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

By the way, I do understand that you are what some call a "troll".  And you actually put a smile on my face today, because I feel very fortunate to have the mental capacity that I do.

I will leave you with this parting thought.  lets just say you are right.  We are in extreme danger of killing off the human race with our emissions.  How do you suppose we fix it, or can we even fix it?  Do you think you could get the entire industrialized world to collectively stop polluting?  Only one man could possibly do that, and that man would be.......Jesus Christ.  When he comes back and tells us it is so, then I'll beleive it.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

ggenthusiast Said:
 
I am so glad I'm not you.  Must be some sort of a miserable life beleiving everything you read and not using your own intuition once in awhile.  I bet your parents are real proud of you.  You should go upstairs now and give your mom a hug for me.

Ha Ha

Neat

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

Ggenthuis...- I see.  You say all extremes are normal. It just takes time for abnormal phenomenon to become normal.  Soooooo,...if I crawl into a volcano which is having continual eruptions, if I stay there for a brief while it would all become ,,,,"normal".  You've done it!  WE no longer have use for the word "Abnormal" and the dictionary just got one word smaller.  It appears everything is normal.  That is if you're blind, deaf and flat lining!

Fool?*l*

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

GG- you have been sleeping haven't you? China, India the united kingdom and well over, I believe around 190 countries did sign and ratify the treaty. The US did not ratify it. So what does this mean Mr. normal? You mentioned Jesus.. Does this mean he's not in the US??

Wednesday's picture
Wednesday
Offline
Joined: 6/9/04

Who are you Fishmahn?  Do you hunt and fish at all?  What is your favorite species of fish?  Since you like to try to quiet everyone else down with making them think that whatever they do isn't good enough to have an opinion on global warming, what line of work are YOU in?  What's your highest level of education?  More importantly, does your line of work give you the right to be correct on this argument over someone else?  The answer is no, ant that's true for people on either side of the argument.  I'm reading throw this and I constantly see you asking people all these questions, just thought I'd ask a few myself.

Everyone on the site is entitled to their own interpretation of what to think of Gore and his Gore-ons....and their theories. 

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

fishmahn Said:
Ggenthuis...- I see.  You say all extremes are normal. It just takes time for abnormal phenomenon to become normal. 


You're still not even close.  There is no such thing as abnormal when it comes to weather.  Weather is beyond our control, so we cannot give it meets and bounds on what is normal. 

And I don't know what treaty you are talking about.  Like I said, I don't follow the political bs very much.  A treaty is a piece of paper.  China doesn't even care about human rights.  It would be a farse to think they'd comply with any sort of pollution treaty they may sign.  It is sort of fun making you look stupid.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Hey fishmahn did you know that throughout the history extreme ups and downs have been the norm???? Average conditions are really not alll that average after all???? 

AND as GI Joe taught me "Knowing is half the battle!" 

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

GG normal,-You're right . this would be fun if it wasn't so easy. You've never heard of the Kyota treaty? Have you seen the moon or even the cow that jumped over it? Look at the countries that didn't sign and ratify it. (that's the treaty not the moon). The US and Afghanistan top the list. You must quit relying on the force, or was it that gut feeling? How about actually looking into a few things before you spew?
Oh btw when you go hunting do you ever remember to bring shells?

Pages