Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 89 of 89

Thread: Save the Planet. Eat your Pet.

  1. #76
    This thread is quickly spiraling downward. I think it's time to give it a rest.

    Okay folks...I believe a deep breath was needed to calm everyone just a bit.

    The thread is open again. Please try to speak to each other like you would if you were face to face. This subject has always ended ugly here...let's make this be the first that doesn't.
    Last edited by Glenn Clabo; 10-26-2009 at 2:24 PM.
    Glenn Clabo
    Michigan

  2. #77
    "WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some skeptics are claiming.The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.
    In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis."


    Also..."These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake."


    That's a little strong when you consider your avatar indicates that you are a Marine. Are you saying anyone who lives on TAX PAYER MONEY create illusions to justify thier jobs?
    Glenn Clabo
    Michigan

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Saint Helens, OR
    Posts
    2,463
    I've not seen anyone post here that is qualified to weigh in on the matter. We can all cite reports, anecdotal evidence and use whatever 'facts' available to support our bias.

    Some are inclined to believe the climate is warming, others don't believe it is changing.

    The science is settled for the time being. Sure, someone could come along and find a fatal flaw in all the different models in use. It certainly would not mean the scientific community had an agenda.

    With so many different individuals and agencies looking at the data and forecasting for a myriad of reasons, the likelihood that most everyone is coming to not only the wrong conclusion but the same conclusion, is so remarkably remote.

    I see little risk in rethinking our energy production, distribution and use methodology. We're using energy technology that is fundamentally the same as what was in use 150 years ago. It's just the scale that has changed.
    Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Peterson View Post
    I've not seen anyone post here that is qualified to weigh in on the matter. We can all cite reports, anecdotal evidence and use whatever 'facts' available to support our bias.
    I disagree with this. Surely we should be talking. The more we talk about problems of this magnitude, the better.

    We don't have to be climate scientists to discuss what we should be doing. The climate scientists give us data, we as a nation have to step up and implement plans based on that data.

    Even though some people have opinions that strike me as unarguable as, say, "there is no gravity" or "the earth is flat," eventually enough people will hop on the environment train so that we can move in SOME direction. I'm convinced that eventually we will begin. The questions are, 1) When will we begin?; and 2) Will there be enough time?
    Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Allen, TX
    Posts
    2,017
    regardless of all of the above, from growing up on the gulf coast, here's are some indisputable facts, as they relate to average temeperatures...

    a) at 80 degree ocean surface temps, a tropical storm is a glorified thunderstorm. you can stay at the fishing camp and ride it out, just park the truck on high ground and put the boat on the trailer.

    b) at 85-87 degree ocean surface temps, a tropical storm turns into a cat2/low cat3 hurricane. probably gonna need to board up the windows and hit the road.

    c) at 90 degree plus ocean surface temps, you get hurricane katrina. if you don't leave, you're probably dead.

    "so what's the difference if temps go up 5 degrees?"

    in chicago, not much. in new orleans, miami, houston, etc....quite a lot.

    having not read alot of the science, my personal observations over my 35 years...

    when we were kids in the 70s we played outside every day. there weren't any 105 degree days that i could remember then, because we were outside in the sandlot football game every day during the summer breaks, and on the rare days that it reached 100 our parents wouldn't let us play outside all day. these days, 102-105 degree days in july and august are pretty common here. not every day, but more of those days.

    so is it safe to say that it's 5 degrees warmer than it was then during the hottest months? i think so. and like i said, and anyone else who lives on the southern coasts can verify, the difference between 80 and 85 or 85 and 90 in hurricane season is a helluva big difference...
    Last edited by Neal Clayton; 10-26-2009 at 11:37 PM.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Saint Helens, OR
    Posts
    2,463
    Vineyards here in the Willamette valley are having to move their grapes to higher altitudes. The weather they are experiencing is warmer and more extreme. The hot days are hotter and drier. And the rain is torrential.

    The weather is getting extreme. Last December we had 14" of snow. In August we had nine days in a row over 90 degrees, with most of those days being over 100, topping out at 109 degrees.

    This fall has been very balmy so far. Normally by now the evenings would be chilly. A heavy shirt is all that is needed.

    Warmer and more extreme.
    Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    There are geologists who believe the earth has gone through several ice ages.

    100 years.......a short time relative to the age of the earth.
    Last edited by Ken Fitzgerald; 10-27-2009 at 10:36 AM.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Allen, TX
    Posts
    2,017
    yep, very short.

    the sad thing is, if we spent half of the money that we spent coming up with BS science to argue political opinions on the matter, we could pay for whatever's required to find out the facts, and what to do about it.

    unfortunately most political particpiants (including officials and the voting public) aren't very interested in facts most of the time.

  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Neal Clayton View Post
    yep, very short.

    the sad thing is, if we spent half of the money that we spent coming up with BS science to argue political opinions on the matter, we could pay for whatever's required to find out the facts, and what to do about it.

    unfortunately most political particpiants (including officials and the voting public) aren't very interested in facts most of the time.
    I'd argue that we've found out the facts already. The climate scientists are unequivocal about it. (OK, there are a handful of holdouts -- who I think are probably bought and paid for -- that many latch on to.)

    As for what to do? There is no lack of great ideas -- carbon dioxide scrubber technology for instance. We're not implementing them for two reasons -- 1) people balk at the cost (which isn't much compared to how much we throw our military's way); 2) There is a vocal minority that seems to be dead set on doing nothing at all, and taking a "wait and see" approach.

    We also have a lot of crappy ideas -- like a company's ability to buy it's way out of responsibility with carbon offsets. No, that isn't good enough. Companies need to clean up their damned mess, just like everyone else.

    Then there's the height of hubris -- China and India aren't cleaning up, so we shouldn't have to either. For one thing, China has better environmental laws on the books than we do. They aren't enforcing them, and business is flouting the laws. But it is slowly getting better. People balk at having to wear surgical masks all day long so they don't get lung cancer in their 20s. So it will eventually improve.

    China has stricter MPG regulations than we do. Most of Asia taxes older cars at a higher rate than new cars to get people to give up their gas guzzlers. I'm all for that kind of legislation (with an exemption for classic cars that are driven less than X miles per year, of course).

    Seven percent of our nation's diesel supply goes up in smoke so that truckers can run their air conditioners when they are sleeping. That's just retarded. (I cannot find the link, but I'm fairly sure it's 7%.) There are ways to retrofit trucks so that they can chill a heat sink while driving, which cools them when stopped without running the engine. This is one of those "no-brainer" (costs less than the wasted fuel -- EDIT Costs less than the wasted fuel over the life of the truck) policies that we could choose to implement, yet for some reason do not.
    Last edited by Eric Larsen; 10-27-2009 at 1:36 AM.
    Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.

  10. #85
    I was fascinated with these Antarctic ice cores back when they were completed in 1998 and also the later 2003 European Project coring drilled 300 miles distant.



    The Vostok coring was deeper but the European cores go back farther. Above the two data sets are overlayed with the European on top and the Vostok beneath. And below the Vostok core data is arrayed in the typical graph usually published.



    What's remarkable are.....

    - how closely the different cores correlate.
    - the uniform height and depth of world temperature and C02 highs and lows.
    - the uniform spacing of warming and ice ages.
    - the appearance of cause-effect with geologic activity - C02 - temperature.
    - that overlaying human activity shows the appearance of zero impact.

    Modern man has been present on all continents for 30,000 years, and he and his more primitive predecessors have only used regular, controlled fire for cooking, agriculture and hunting for 50-100,000 years. Before that man-made fires date to 400,000 years, but it's questionable how numerous, regular and controlled they were. Certainly nothing remotely like the Cro Magnon era to today.

    I'm hardly drawing conclusions that these are "proof" that temperature cycles are caused by geologic or solar phenomena and that man has zero impact, but they do raise questions about buying into a new religion on Anthropologic Climate Change.
    “Perhaps then, you will say, ‘But where can one have a boat like that built today?’ And I will tell you that there are still some honest men who can sharpen a saw, plane, or adze...men (who) live and work in out of the way places, but that is lucky, for they can acquire materials for one third of city prices. Best, some of these gentlemen’s boatshops are in places where nothing but the occasional honk of a wild goose will distract them from their work.” -- L Francis Herreshoff

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    733
    Anyone who thinks that the Global Warming (now conveniently re-labeled "climate change" alarmists) don't have a political agenda, should watch this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8...layer_embedded

    And also go here and read this report:

    http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html
    "History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it." -Walter Bagehot

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Folks,

    Glenn Clabo and I often don't agree on subjects.

    I'm sure he'll agree with me on this.....this thread is really, really becoming too political and I will predict it will be closed shortly.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Clabo View Post


    Also..."These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake."


    That's a little strong when you consider your avatar indicates that you are a Marine. Are you saying anyone who lives on TAX PAYER MONEY create illusions to justify thier jobs?
    First off, I'm a former Marine. And no I'm not saying what you suggest. What I am saying is that scientists on the public payroll are no more, and no less, apt to arrive at their conclusions based at least in part on self interest.

    Why is it that any scientist who disagrees with the global warming alarmism is automatically labeled as being "bought" when in fact the opposite is quite often true. Those who have pointed out holes and fallacies in the "accepted science" are ridiculed, denied funding, and even have their lives and livelihood threatened by the "enlightened" and "tolerant."

    How many government grants go to those who question anthropological global warming as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that are funneled James Hansen and like minded scientists who have a definite political bias. Why are people not alarmed that government funding of science means that it is inherently politicized?

    The climate is so complex that to claim that the "science is settled" is nothing more than a blatant attempt to cut off any debate. It is fundamentally dishonest.

    Here are some indisputable FACTS:

    1. The computer models used to show warming cannot accurately model what we know happened in the past, so how can they possibly predict the future?

    2. The IPCC report was NOT written by scientists but by bureaucrats who often changed the meaning of the scientific language that was supposedly the source.

    3. The "hockey stick" is a complete fabrication and even the IPCC has been forced to abandon it. In fact the models that produced it are so biased that given a set of totally random inputs, they all produce the same result.

    4. There is no warming in the Troposphere. According to the "accepted" theory this is where the warming would commence and be the most acute.

    5. Finally, as the records that Bob posted show, CO2 levels have historically FOLLOWED warming trends.
    "History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it." -Walter Bagehot

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Folks,

    Keep in mind


    IN-YOUR-FACE tactics seldom win converts and usually only adds to the already gathered perception that the poster is a fanatic not worthy of one's attention.

    THIS GOES OUT TO BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT.

    Everyone has a right to an opinion. If you don't respect the other person's right to have their own opinion, how can you reasonably expect someone to respect your right to your opinion?

    I'm going to get the opinion of other Moderators before or IF this thread will be reopened for posting. We may decide to just remove it from public viewing and move to the Moderator's Forum.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •