Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

bukmaster-yes, but it's the trends we look at for data, trends that change from one time period to another.  There seems to be confusion between climate and weather.

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

Hey fishmahn do you ever hear a voice in the back of your head???? Whispering "Dont be a JACKASS!"  I have never seen you make two consecutive posts where you dont belittle, berate, insult ..... the friggin list could go on forever...

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

fishmahn Said:
bukmaster-yes, but it's the trends we look at for data, trends that change from one time period to another.  There seems to be confusion between climate and weather.

You're the one looking at this year's weather and calling it climate change.  The "force" is strong.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Buckmaster-I'm not the one that throws the first "jackass". Read back and check it out. Let's try to be a little impartial here no matter how hard it hurts.

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

gg-reread the posts.  TRENDS,,,,"don't confuse climate with weather" etc.    Did you do any research yet.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

buckmaster81 Said:
Hey fishmahn do you ever hear a voice in the back of your head???? Whispering "Dont be a JACKASS!"  I have never seen you make two consecutive posts where you dont belittle, berate, insult ..... the friggin list could go on forever...

ummm... i can't help but mention that goes both ways on this site.  right or wrong on the issue... (i don't think we will ever get that settled. especially on this site)... when it comes to posters on this site, fish is kind of like the kid in your grade school class that was a little different than the rest of the class or might not agree with the group on some particular subject.  because of that, the rest of the class enjoys ganging up on him.  this topic is now 350 posts deep and it seems that, with the exception of one or two other posters, he has been having a debate against a dozen other guys by himself.  and the majority hasn't exactly remained any more civil than he has.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

Your clutch is slipping.  Whats the point of doing research when the data is biased?  When the air monitor starts showing something other than 20.9% O2 in a well ventillated atmosphere, I'll start to worry.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

He is rarely ever civil, research fishmahn's posting activity. He only posts on political threads. Why be a member of a hunting and fishing website and never post on hunting and fishing related posts? He is either a a paid libera political op.  or  a flat out trouble maker.

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

*s* I see you're concerned about o2. That's good to have an ample supply of that. If that's all you care about it's just one less thing to worry about. It may help though if you do keep tabs a few other things. Rumor has it oxygen levels were fine over Hiroshima before it was incinerated.

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

I know he's a troll, but it was fun poking him today.  I'll leave him be now.  He probably broke out in acne after today's discussion.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Buckmaster-you're not being truthful now. you've obviously missed some topics. Places you've fished, loosing weight by diet and interval training, financing vs. buying a boat outright.
It's good to know someone with different ideas is a" trouble maker".
Guess what?, I've got a lot of messages from people that agree with a lot of what I say but know there's a click here that is joined at the hip and don't want to venture in. With me if my clients are engaged and my computer is printing I "discuss" until time gets away or it gets too rediculous to continue. Sometimes it's just for entertainment.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

buck... maybe the guy tends to agree with most things hunting and fishing and just so happens to have a different point of view than the rest when it comes to posts like politics and this subject.  is he supposed to keep his point of views to himself because they differ from everyone elses?  right or wrong... i kind of enjoy reading posts from the occasional poster on this site whose views might not jive with the majority.  its just my opinion... but, i don't consider them trolls, paid political opinionators or trouble makers... just guys and gals voicing their opinions. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

*lol* Classic example from GG! I really don't need to say more because it's just not reaching inner realm. Call that trouble maker if you like but it's the sad truth. Gday!

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

espringers,
originally came here looking for fishing reports. Since they were few and far between and guarded not unlike the holy grail I looked at some of the discussions and they seemed kind of one sided by the same people over and over. If I'm paid I sure wish they'd get my first check here. *l* Guess I'll have to talk to Tim

Tacoman's picture
Tacoman
Offline
Joined: 2/13/06

People can disagree on stuff and still be friends.  Just sayin...

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

Enslow Said:
People can disagree on stuff and still be friends.  Just sayin...

Yeah my best fishing bud is a flipping Lib and politically still 12 yrs old and thinks we can hope and change everyone into a nice utopia, even though his views are absolutely wrong we still spend our summers in the same boat catching fish. or I should say I am catching he is netting em.

Neat

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

enslow-I've got two friends that are pretty far to the right politically. WE get along fine . All the while we've been fishing together I've only thrown one overboard once. I even asked him what the water temp. on the electronics was and waited until he put his rod down before I sent him over. The fish weren't cooperating anyway and an otherwise uneventful day got a little more activity.

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

Yes, differences of opinion are good things.  I just don't buy into the hype.  Even if fishmahn is right, big deal.  So what if the world is getting warmer.  Populations will balance themselves out.  Relax, this sort of thing will take thousands of years to play out.

What actually does concern me is the nuclear potential humans have.  We have figured out how to bring the power of the sun to the surface of the earth.  In the wrong hands, that could really mess things up.  But then again, God gave us our brains, and if thats our demise, then so be it.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

I don't think fishmahn's opinion shouldn't be expressed, I just don't approve of the way he talks down to people. Maybe if he changed his approach his views would be easier to read and discuss???  If you and I were face to face would you talk down to me and throw in all your little verbal jabs and snyde remarks??? I would hope not, so why do it here??

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

fishmahn Said:
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??

Good grief, of course they signed it and the U.S. didn't.  There were double standards in that damn thing.

Nothing like saying the U.S. can't pollute, but the rest of the world can keep right on doing what they've been doing. 

As far as China goes, for a signatory nation, why have their pollution levels gone through the roof as of late?  Even topping the good old U.S. A. over the past couple years.  One would think that a signatory nation would be going the other way while those countries that didn't sign it had no environmental laws at all.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

Koyoto treaty now I know for sure you are a paid shill for the liberal left Fish!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody but Gore even talks about this treaty, even the creators of it have not been able to even come close to meeting the standards they set! But enough on another attempt to go away from the topic.

You Fish are the one that stated the IPCC said the models where correct. Not me,or anyone else. So let us focus on the models you chose and not the rest of the BS!

Which brings us right back to the point regarding the posting I made. You now need to back your BS up with the models you chose or shut up on this issue and send back the money you get for promoting the DNC playbook!

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!

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

He's dicking around.  Let it go, we've been duped.  Hard.

 Nuke the Whales

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

hardwaterman-We're getting to that skipping record thing and once again read what I've posted. Do not devote your entire time to only one news source, that being ultra right wing propaganda financed by the Koch brothers, Chevron and other big industry entities. Try being a little more open minded and actually look at what over 90% of the scientific community is behind. Yes, I said over 90%.
It's also evident you don't read old posts. The reason the Kyota treaty was brought up was because someone I was talking to mentioned there was never anything attempted on a worldwide basis to confront the problem. AS far as pollution and the lions share the US is right up there with the top polluter, China. India was mentioned but they're not even in the ball game compared to the big two. If you go to percapita pollution we're about 4 times worse . So if you want to get a little more fair shouldn't the biggest transgressor be equally responsible?
You stated the I said the IPCC model is correct not you or anyone else. I know your reading is somewhat patchy because someone obviously exists with that thought,....-ie link provided.
As I stated before there are many models showing good reproducibility. The farther back you go of course the foggier it gets. But since you won't read any of this anyway and you seem to be disputing something pretty basic, you can go back over six hundred thousand years with the Antarctic ice cores and see what has happened to the temperature and co2 concentrations and how they've exploded vertically since the industrial rev. No model needed for this one ron. Or Does Mr. Koch tell you that's not a fact either.

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

buckmaster-LIke I said, read back the old posts and see who throws the first rocks. If you and I were discussing something in person I would offer in kind the courtesy or flack afforded me.

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

I didn't have to do any reasearch on this "Koyoto treaty" to know that it would not be worth the paper its written on.  Only a fool wouldn't realize that the U.S. would do their damdest to comply, and China would laugh and go on with business as usual, crippling our economy in the process.

And fishmahn, your comment about lightning and matches got me thinking....we should be starting fires with matches since we put out all of the natural occurring fires.  If you really want to get things back to the way mother nature intended.  Or just burn some hydrocarbons in the meanwhile to offset the lack of natural fires in N America.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

gg-If you haven't read anything about it isn't it  difficult to make a rational decision? IF you go on what might be and do not get to the second step the possiblity of of correcting a problem will never get off the ground.
Not too sure what point you're trying to make in your second paragraph. we are doing controlled burns all over the country,..with matches.  My point was simply saying we've had climate change before that occurred from natural causes.  That doesn't mean we can't do the same,..ie That''s like sayiing if lightning can start a fire does that mean we can't do the same thing with a match?  Regardless catastrophic consequences have resulted from these natural occurrences.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Wondering whether this argument is going anywhere... Might help to simplify the issues... Is there at least an agreement that co2 levels are increasing? as a result of man's activities? Is co2 a "greenhouse" gas? Is the earth, as a whole, warming?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

I applaud you fishmahn you have now made a string of 3 posts that were digestable and not full of personal attacks. Good job!!!  Oh and BTW I know you wouldn't talk to someone in person the way you do on here, because if you did you would be fearful to ever talk again......

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

espringers- for the past 600,000 years, the co2 content has been between 180-300ppm From the time of the industrial revolution until present the co2 conc. has gone nearly vertical.  It is now approaching 400 ppm.  Yes, the planet is warming,  and land ice is disappearing at a rapid rate.  OF the excess co2 only 40% is being reabsorbed by flora , oceans etc.  I don't think anybody disputes this unless it's Oreilly.  But you're right , *l* this discussion is going no where.

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

buckmaster- Like I said I reflect the same courtesy I'm afforded. its factual to say I'm not sorry to speak or react to others and have used different avenues in that pursuit. To date I have never had an incident classified as myself being "fearful, not even close.. If and when that day comes I am no longer me.

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

I'm not worried about a 1/10 of a percent rise in anything.  the earth has seen a lot worse condtions than that.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

fishmahn,

As a person who has read much of the global climate change literature, one of the things that bother me the most is when people pick a narrowly defined time to reference what things "should be".  I have had this conversation with many people, both personally and professionally and one question that stumps just about everyone is: when is the appropriate period for us to try to restore nature to? 

People talk about mountain lions belonging here, well how about free ranging bison, wolves, crocs, mosasaurs, and t-rex?  All have inhabited ND lands and waters at one time or another. Reaching a consensus on what is the right timeframe for restoration is very analogous to the arguments of how much CO2 is appropriate.  You have used the most recent 600,000 years as a point of reference.  The actual record for CO2 and climate goes back much, MUCH farther than that. 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

I am NOT saying that atmospheric CO2 is a non-player in global temps, nor would I ever suggest that we shouldn't continue to strive for less anthropogenic pollution, however there is clear evidence that CO2 is not the only thing that should be included in the global climate change discussion.  And regrettably, I don't think anyone could today offer up an all inclusive list of the majore climate change drivers.

Just off the top of my head I can think of volcanism, ocean currents (or the closing off of them), land mass location on the globe, methane, water vapor, oceanic acidity, solar activity (really pisses off climate change modelers when you poke at them about their use of solar constant when we already know it is anything but constant), etc, etc.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

Allen, but its gone vertical.  Vertical!  don't you understand vertical!  Oh me, oh my!

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Allen Said:
fishmahn,

As a person who has read much of the global climate change literature, one of the things that bother me the most is when people pick a narrowly defined time to reference what things "should be".  I have had this conversation with many people, both personally and professionally and one question that stumps just about everyone is: when is the appropriate period for us to try to restore nature to? 

People talk about mountain lions belonging here, well how about free ranging bison, wolves, crocs, mosasaurs, and t-rex?  All have inhabited ND lands and waters at one time or another. Reaching a consensus on what is the right timeframe for restoration is very analogous to the arguments of how much CO2 is appropriate.  You have used the most recent 600,000 years as a point of reference.  The actual record for CO2 and climate goes back much, MUCH farther than that. 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

I am NOT saying that atmospheric CO2 is a non-player in global temps, nor would I ever suggest that we shouldn't continue to strive for less anthropogenic pollution, however there is clear evidence that CO2 is not the only thing that should be included in the global climate change discussion.  And regrettably, I don't think anyone could today offer up an all inclusive list of the majore climate change drivers.

Just off the top of my head I can think of volcanism, ocean currents (or the closing off of them), land mass location on the globe, methane, water vapor, oceanic acidity, solar activity (really pisses off climate change modelers when you poke at them about their use of solar constant when we already know it is anything but constant), etc, etc.

x10

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

ggenthusiast Said:

Allen, but its gone vertical.  Vertical!  don't you understand vertical!  Oh me, oh my!

Yep, and if you really want to perturb a liberal climate change follower such as Al Gore, remind them that there is nothing more that truly follows the values of conservativism than wanting things to remain the same or to go back to another time.  If you really think about it, a person who wishes to see the rollback in CO2 levels is about as conservative on that topic as I am on gay marriage and gun control.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

fishmahn Said:
hardwaterman-We're getting to that skipping record thing and once again read what I've posted. Do not devote your entire time to only one news source, that being ultra right wing propaganda financed by the Koch brothers, Chevron and other big industry entities. Try being a little more open minded and actually look at what over 90% of the scientific community is behind. Yes, I said over 90%.

You got something to back that up? That number seems pretty damn high. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of less than half that and probably still declining.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

TUFFdog Said:

fishmahn Said:
hardwaterman-We're getting to that skipping record thing and once again read what I've posted. Do not devote your entire time to only one news source, that being ultra right wing propaganda financed by the Koch brothers, Chevron and other big industry entities. Try being a little more open minded and actually look at what over 90% of the scientific community is behind. Yes, I said over 90%.

You got something to back that up? That number seems pretty damn high. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of less than half that and probably still declining.

Actually, if you go by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" numbers, his 90% is correct.  The problem though with the UCS style groups that are championed by hollywood stars is that the group has loosely defined what constitutes a scientist who should legitimately have an opinion on this particular science.  Far too many of those scientists are sociologists, psychologists, and historians who are overstepping the bounds of their training.  

Cameron Diaz is NOT a scientist.  Hell, she's not even that hot.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

Allen Said:

TUFFdog Said:

fishmahn Said:
hardwaterman-We're getting to that skipping record thing and once again read what I've posted. Do not devote your entire time to only one news source, that being ultra right wing propaganda financed by the Koch brothers, Chevron and other big industry entities. Try being a little more open minded and actually look at what over 90% of the scientific community is behind. Yes, I said over 90%.

You got something to back that up? That number seems pretty damn high. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of less than half that and probably still declining.

Actually, if you go by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" numbers, his 90% is correct.  The problem though with the UCS style groups that are championed by hollywood stars is that the group has loosely defined what constitutes a scientist who should legitimately have an opinion on this particular science.  Far too many of those scientists are sociologists, psychologists, and historians who are overstepping the bounds of their training.  

Cameron Diaz is NOT a scientist.  Hell, she's not even that hot.

I agree with that. Too many unknowns and junk science altogether.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

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

But, its gone vertical. For Christ's sake, don't any of you know what VERTICAL means.  Vertical is bad, very bad.  Vertical.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Allen- the 650-800000 years i used because someone took issue with the climate models. This data is from ice cores where you can derive gas, ash, dust and even radioactive content. The farther back one goes the more complicated factors become. The actual record you speak of gets foggier as one travels back in time. I think we do have a problem concerning what you classify as "today" when you make the statement of the co2 level has never been lower,...again it was substantially lower 700000 years ago then it is today. I agree co2 is not the only concern in regard to climate change. Methane, indirect results due to i water vapor variations and also the differences in heat activity. Perhaps there's something new you heard regarding solar constants? To my knowledge that's something, that at least recently, has been injected into the models . By this I mean the solar variablities ( not a constant) that must computed and applied to the models. I've never said co2 is the lone driver in climate change. I believe the things you listed I've talked about at one time or another, ie- Volcanism, (can have some effect which is delayed after the initial cooling from the ash cloud, however it's doesn't appear to be a major player in regard to co2 as during peak times of volcanism there seems to be no big surges in this gas.) methane and also the resultant changes in the ocean chemistry and temp. Your right that at this time I feel there are more things to enter into the formula and they are as time goes by. That's the reason the models are responding much better. The list of scientists and their credentials seem to be much better then the rather short list of naysayers. Oh, ! BTW, Cameron Diaz hit the weights again. She is becoming hotter then she was recently,....somewhat like this planet. *s*

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

fishmahn Said:
Allen- the 650-800000 years i used because someone took issue with the climate models. This data is from ice cores where you can derive gas, ash, dust and even radioactive content. The farther back one goes the more complicated factors become. The actual record you speak of gets foggier as one travels back in time. I think we do have a problem concerning what you classify as "today" when you make the statement of the co2 level has never been lower,...again it was substantially lower 700000 years ago then it is today. I agree co2 is not the only concern in regard to climate change. Methane, indirect results due to i water vapor variations and also the differences in heat activity. Perhaps there's something new you heard regarding solar constants? To my knowledge that's something, that at least recently, has been injected into the models . By this I mean the solar variablities ( not a constant) that must computed and applied to the models. I've never said co2 is the lone driver in climate change. I believe the things you listed I've talked about at one time or another, ie- Volcanism, (can have some effect which is delayed after the initial cooling from the ash cloud, however it's doesn't appear to be a major player in regard to co2 as during peak times of volcanism there seems to be no big surges in this gas.) methane and also the resultant changes in the ocean chemistry and temp. Your right that at this time I feel there are more things to enter into the formula and they are as time goes by. That's the reason the models are responding much better. The list of scientists and their credentials seem to be much better then the rather short list of naysayers. Oh, ! BTW, Cameron Diaz hit the weights again. She is becoming hotter then she was recently,....somewhat like this planet. *s*

So, in essence, you're saying man is spewing CO2 into the atmosphere (which nobody disputes), but nobody can really put their finger on how big of a factor it really is regarding the climate change?  I'll go with that.  Well said.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Tuffdog-Too many variables and unknowns?  There's only one way to combat  that problem.  Find the answers.  When a person starts med school there are a lot of unknowns as well.  Eventually you get answers as you go along if you're willing to put in the time and energy..  To simply  hope everything's okay in the morning is a bit lazy with  a good helping of wishful thinking  IMO.

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

gg- ,the co2  and other factors,... Yes,  nobody knows the magnitude or the timeline we are dealing with.

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

fishmahn can i ask you a serious question????

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

Poor FISH! You still are avoiding the responsibility of the IPCC model review you brought into this! Show us those models compared to the actual occurrence. You are again going to be asked to put up or shut up!

You staked your argument on the validity of these models and now are trying to say other models show X vs Y! You cannot deflect to another topic, you have to face the music!

So I am sure the DNC can provide you with the IPCC model graphs as your employer. They are after all what you where told to post to win the argument. Now bring them on! All the other BS you spew is mute if you cannot back your play regarding YOUR claim about the models the IPCC review!

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!

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

Are you rustneversleeps????

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

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

fishmahn Said:
gg- ,the co2  and other factors,... Yes,  nobody knows the magnitude or the timeline we are dealing with.

I hope these "other factors" you speak of havnen't gone vertical too.  Now you've got me worried.  I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

fishmahn Said:
Tuffdog-Too many variables and unknowns?  There's only one way to combat  that problem.  Find the answers.  When a person starts med school there are a lot of unknowns as well.  Eventually you get answers as you go along if you're willing to put in the time and energy..  To simply  hope everything's okay in the morning is a bit lazy with  a good helping of wishful thinking  IMO.

The answers we have been given so far on AGW are too inconclusive and some are skewed. I am sure we will come to an answer someday. But it will be way after anyone talking on here is gone. In fact, I can give you an answer right now but you won't like it.

I beg to differ on being lazy, gettting up in the morning and worrying that the earth is going to melt is counterproductive.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

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

Dr. Roy Spencer on New Global Warming Research: NASA data proves computer models bogus. 

Neat

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

ggenthusiast Said:

fishmahn Said:
gg- ,the co2  and other factors,... Yes,  nobody knows the magnitude or the timeline we are dealing with.

I hope these "other factors" you speak of havnen't gone vertical too.  Now you've got me worried.  I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Hell I woke up this morning partially vertical

 

Pages