Global Warming Update: Record Setting Cold Slams North Dakota

[red states rule]

How is global warming doing in your area?


Record-setting cold hits eastern North Dakota

Feb 21, 2008 - 04:06:27 CST
By BLAKE NICHOLSON
Associated Press Writer
Frigid Arctic air coming down from Canada broke records in eastern North Dakota on Wednesday, including one that had stood for more than a century. Forecasters said a warmup was in store.

The temperature dropped to minus 33 degrees at the Grand Forks airport Wednesday morning, breaking the record for the date of minus 29 set in 1956, said Al Voelker, a National Weather Service meteorologist in the city.

Devils Lake hit 34 degrees below zero, breaking that city's record for the date of 30 below set in 1939.

Fargo broke a record that had stood for 119 years, with 31 below. The record had been 30 below set in 1889.

"High pressure overhead, fresh snow, light winds, it made for ideal conditions for a nice, cold night," meteorologist John Hoppes said.

All of North Dakota was in the deep freeze early Wednesday, weather service data showed. Jamestown hit minus 29 overnight, Minot minus 25 and Bismarck minus 22.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/02/21/news/state/149344.txt

[retiredman]

again...are you aware of the fact that global warming could very well change the pattern of ocean currents and cause a new ice age in the northern hemisphere?

[manu1959]

again...are you aware of the fact that global warming could very well change the pattern of ocean currents and cause a new ice age in the northern hemisphere?

ice age....damn i was stocking up on summer clothes for the global warming....

[retiredman]

ice age....damn i was stocking up on summer clothes for the global warming....

move toward the equator, you'll be able to wear nearly nothing and still swelter!

[5stringJeff]

It is totally ridiculous to use seasonal weather changes to attempt to prove or disprove climate change.

[retiredman]

It is totally ridiculous to use seasonal weather changes to attempt to prove or disprove climate change.

thank you.

[manu1959]

move toward the equator, you'll be able to wear nearly nothing and still swelter!

too humid and too many bugs and snakes.....i will deal with the cold....

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

....and by seasonal you mean the documented changes in yearly weather patterns over the last several hundred thousand years or just the last several thousand years?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image162.gif
or maybe this one....

http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

[5stringJeff]

....and by seasonal you mean the documented changes in yearly weather patterns over the last several hundred thousand years or just the last several thousand years?

No, by seasonal I mean summer and winter. Saying that 'the temperature falls in winter, therefore global warming is false' is as ridiculous as saying 'the temperature rises every summer, therefore global warming is true.'

The graphs you posted are average temperature over thousands of years, which is much different.

[manu1959]

No, by seasonal I mean summer and winter. Saying that 'the temperature falls in winter, therefore global warming is false' is as ridiculous as saying 'the temperature rises every summer, therefore global warming is true.'

The graphs you posted are average temperature over thousands of years, which is much different.

all very true.....but if the one graph is in fact true.....if not for volcanic eruptions the earth would be toast.....

[5stringJeff]

all very true.....but if the one graph is in fact true.....if not for volcanic eruptions the earth would be toast.....

Indeed.

[diuretic]

Do try to keep up RSR - it's "climate change" :poke::laugh2:

[red states rule]

Do try to keep up RSR - it's "climate change" :poke::laugh2:

Is it my fault the moonbats keep changing their story?

[red states rule]

Then we have this gem


Western Greenland Ice Growing; Still Global Warming
By Lynn Davidson | February 16, 2008 - 21:00 ET

The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but now that some of that ice is actually increasing, scientists claim, without a trace of irony, it is normal for temperatures and ice sheets to fluctuate.

Greenland's Sermitsiak reported, “The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.” Denmark's Meteorological Institute used satellite images to track the southward expansion of the ice and when the paper asked how these findings “fit in with” continual reports of Arctic ice “melting at a record rate due to increasing temperatures,” global warming was, of course, affirmed (map) (bold mine throughout):

If it's up to meteorologists from Denmark's Meteorological Institute, there is not anything inherently contradictory that extreme cold is replaced by higher temperatures than average. Or that melting sea ice occasionally is replaced by expanding ice sheets.


'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to [no first name given] Henriksen.

To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off. In the meanwhile, western Greenlanders will have to accept that the cold weather continues for some time. At least until next Tuesday when milder weather could be on the way, according to Polarfronten online.


Well, isn't that what some “skeptics” have been saying about the recent temperature spikes? That climate changes over time, and it has been warming since the Little Ice Age?

Interestingly, Sermitsiak published an article the same day, reporting scientists are “almost certain,” based on satellite data, Greenland is “sweating” and has “lost twice as much ice last year as it did three years ago.” Of course, there are no admonitions that this decrease in overall Greenland ice could just be part of weather's “phenomenon which changes from year to year” and “next year the situation can look completely different.”

There was no mention of the increasing Western Greenland ice in this second piece, even though it was updated the day after both articles were published. But to be fair, once published, articles are rarely edited in a way that alters the original slant, and in the paper's favor, most of the other media ignored the story altogether. At the end of the article about a melting Greenland, the qualification that the scientists are “almost certain” about the Arctic island's ice melt was buried at the bottom with the expected standard superfluous global warming alarmism:

If all the inland ice on Greenland was lost, the oceans would rise about seven metres. Antarctica contains about ten times as much ice.

Global warming skeptics wouldn't be so skeptical if these double standards weren't employed to support a popular theory. It's hard to believe in global warming when warm weather and shrinking ice is certain evidence of global warming, but cold weather and ice growth is either dismissed or chalked up to the all-encompassing “climate change.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-growing-still-global-warming

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

They call it global warming, and it is man made.....and if I remember about history...and the bible....there weren't any people around 700 thousand years ago, right?

It is the natural cycle of the planet...and more importantly the cycles of the sun, as well.

If it is global warming, how does that explain the trends toward colder temps being seen?

[red states rule]

ABC has all of us in a difficult situation

Do you have any ideas (besides turning off ABC)

ABC: Global Warming to Force Humans to Flee Destroyed Earth?
By Scott Whitlock | February 8, 2008 - 13:05 ET
"Good Morning America" weatherman and resident environmental alarmist Sam Champion wondered on Friday if global warming could cause "the ultimate climate disaster" and force humanity to abandon Earth and live in space. (Throughout the day's themed program, various GMA hosts filed reports on space and astronauts.)

So, as a transition to a piece on liberal environmental issues, Champion segued, "And now to our series 'Global Warming: Global Warning.' Could global warming one day force us into space to live?" (The ABC weatherman appeared in a pool as part of a previous space segment on weightlessness.) Champion used the segment to preview a new documentary called "Six Degrees" that will air on the National Geographic Channel on Sunday. He failed to inform viewers that the author upon which the special is based on, Mark Lynas, is a hard-left environmentalist who once threw a pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg at a reading of Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/02/08/abc-global-warming-force-humans-flee-destroyed-earth

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

If all the inland ice on Greenland was lost, the oceans would rise about seven metres. Antarctica contains about ten times as much ice.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-growing-still-global-warming

I love the alarmists....

"if monkeys flew out of their butt there would be no worry about the extinction of their species du jour."

[red states rule]

I love the alarmists....

"if monkeys flew out of their butt there would be no worry about the extinction of their species du jour."

and I love waving these articles under their blue noses

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The correlation between the suns activity and the earth's temperature changes has all but been ignored by the Gore believers....

The following is from: http://www.graystonelabs.com/GlobalWarming.html


The graph below is the linchpin of the entire debate. The top line has almost no correlation to the increasing "human caused pollution" dropping precipitously to a low in 1910 increasing steadily until 1940 and then holding mostly steady. The increases in carbon dioxide and other gases over this
same span does not come close to this pattern. However, the lower line, which is data I have added to this chart, represents the solar cycle. The peaks and troughs are the 11 year sunspot cycle numbers for the same period. I have simply drawn a line between the 11 year peaks in the spot cycle. The correspondence to the temperature data looks much better to me than anything the global warming scientists have been able to produce. Additionally the "mini ice age" referenced above was coincident with a greatly diminished or absent sun spot cycle.
http://www.graystonelabs.com/sitebuilder/images/climate2-772x476.jpg

[diuretic]

Is it my fault the moonbats keep changing their story?

Good return! :laugh2:

No worries though, in reality the scientific debate is all but over. The paid hacks are being exposed every day, real science, as opposed to paid propagandist science, is now in control of policy (outside of the Bush lunasphere) and real policy is being made to deal with climate change. No need to thank those of us who have quietly persevered in influencing policy where it counts, we're satisfied that we've been able to move governments to make the necessary changes. Hopefully it won't be too late. Enjoy your delusions though. Damn it's time like this I wish I did triumphalism better than I do :coffee:

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

.... and real policy is being made to deal with climate change.

Has the sun been informed of the policies that are being concocted to deal with its' changes?

I would suggest a few thousand of the Gore conspiracists board a spacecraft and shoot themselves in to the sun to reduce its temperature (body temps being under 100 degrees or so...it should reduce the temps on the sun by a couple thousand degrees using similar math and logic that they are accustomed to using), so we no longer have to worry about global warming.

[diuretic]

As I said real science has taken over now. All it needed was a critical mass of citizens in various countries to understand what was happening so that government policy was influenced. That's happening. Sensible policy is going to be in place. Most importantly, I think, most well-informed voters are rejecting the ideology that seems to have attached itself to the issue of climate change. The extreme greenies and the extreme denialists have been shoved away from the table, and rightly so, what we need is a practical, objective and ideologically-free response to climate change.

[red states rule]

Good return! :laugh2:

No worries though, in reality the scientific debate is all but over. The paid hacks are being exposed every day, real science, as opposed to paid propagandist science, is now in control of policy (outside of the Bush lunasphere) and real policy is being made to deal with climate change. No need to thank those of us who have quietly persevered in influencing policy where it counts, we're satisfied that we've been able to move governments to make the necessary changes. Hopefully it won't be too late. Enjoy your delusions though. Damn it's time like this I wish I did triumphalism better than I do :coffee:

Yea, Prof Al Gore has been expiosed as a hack who is now ripping off his follwers by selling them "carbon offsets" through his own company

Well, Al needs money to pay the light bills for his 4 mansions, all the jet fuel he burns traveling around the world, and the gas for his limos

and the costs for this road show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw&feature=related

[Dilloduck]

Yea, Prof Al Gore has been expiosed as a hack who is now ripping off his follwers by selling them "carbon offsets" through his own company

Well, Al needs money to pay the light bills for his 4 mansions, all the jet fuel he burns traveling around the world, and the gas for his limos

and the costs for this road show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw&feature=related

I'm curious as to where Gore's carbon credits were 'produced' and who 'made' them. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

I'm curious as to where Gore's carbon credits were 'produced' and who 'made' them. :laugh2:

Now the last thing Al wants to for someone to ask a bunch of questions about his attempts to save the Earth from man

Carbon Offsets: Al Gore's Big Easy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:22 PM PT

Environmentalism: Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer.

Whoda thunk it? Former oilman George Bush, scourge of the environment, lives in a house more eco-friendly than Al Gore, a dwelling that would make Hollywood eco-activist Ed Begley, star of HGTV's 'Living With Ed,' drool.

When Dubya spends time at his Crawford ranch, he's in a single-story, 4,000-square-foot limestone house that a 2001 article in USA Today described as an 'eco-friendly haven.' Even David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist has called the energy efficiency of the president's home as 'fantastic.'

As USA Today described it: 'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen and toilets.' The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.

In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems use.' As Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted: 'It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations.'

Lewis was referring to the buying and selling of 'carbon offsets,' a mechanism that allows Gore's home to consume 20 times as many kilowatt-hours as the average American's. It allows gluttonous energy consumers like Gore to ease their conscience while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own energy use.

Say you want to fly your Gulfstream private jet across the country regularly to Hollywood premieres instead of taking a Greyhound bus. You buy a carbon offset, giving money to people who will do something like invest it in windmills and solar panels to 'reduce' carbon emissions by an equivalent amount. Your are then declared 'carbon neutral' as you continue to pollute.

Speaking of carbon offsets and shell games, guess where Gore buys his carbon offsets? Well, he buys them from a firm call Generation Investment Management LLP, a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3 corporation. The chairman and co-founder is Al Gore. In other words, he buys his carbon offsets from himself. Others who buy these offset are really buying stock in Gore's growing business. You, too, can green up his portfolio, if not Earth itself.

for the complete article

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=258075474834657

[diuretic]

Blokes...get over it, believe it or not the rest of the world isn't interested in the slagging off of the Gore. I suppose it's a bit like "making the scene with a magazine" (to borrow a good line from Tom Waits) for many of you Republican types but the rest of the world is well beyond that stuff. As I said, the focus is on practical policy that addresses reality. I mean, feel free to bang on about how bad Gore is, outside of the US no-one gives a shit, they're getting on with the real challenges.

[Dilloduck]

Now the last thing Al wants to for someone to ask a bunch of questions about his attempts to save the Earth from man

Carbon Offsets: Al Gore's Big Easy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:22 PM PT

Environmentalism: Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer.

Whoda thunk it? Former oilman George Bush, scourge of the environment, lives in a house more eco-friendly than Al Gore, a dwelling that would make Hollywood eco-activist Ed Begley, star of HGTV's 'Living With Ed,' drool.

When Dubya spends time at his Crawford ranch, he's in a single-story, 4,000-square-foot limestone house that a 2001 article in USA Today described as an 'eco-friendly haven.' Even David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist has called the energy efficiency of the president's home as 'fantastic.'

As USA Today described it: 'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen and toilets.' The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.

In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems use.' As Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted: 'It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations.'

Lewis was referring to the buying and selling of 'carbon offsets,' a mechanism that allows Gore's home to consume 20 times as many kilowatt-hours as the average American's. It allows gluttonous energy consumers like Gore to ease their conscience while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own energy use.

Say you want to fly your Gulfstream private jet across the country regularly to Hollywood premieres instead of taking a Greyhound bus. You buy a carbon offset, giving money to people who will do something like invest it in windmills and solar panels to 'reduce' carbon emissions by an equivalent amount. Your are then declared 'carbon neutral' as you continue to pollute.

Speaking of carbon offsets and shell games, guess where Gore buys his carbon offsets? Well, he buys them from a firm call Generation Investment Management LLP, a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3 corporation. The chairman and co-founder is Al Gore. In other words, he buys his carbon offsets from himself. Others who buy these offset are really buying stock in Gore's growing business. You, too, can green up his portfolio, if not Earth itself.

for the complete article

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=258075474834657



And where does Generation Investment Management LLP get them ? Do they produce them and if so --how ?
Anyone buying these things really deserves a Darwin Award.

[red states rule]

Blokes...get over it, believe it or not the rest of the world isn't interested in the slagging off of the Gore. I suppose it's a bit like "making the scene with a magazine" (to borrow a good line from Tom Waits) for many of you Republican types but the rest of the world is well beyond that stuff. As I said, the focus is on practical policy that addresses reality. I mean, feel free to bang on about how bad Gore is, outside of the US no-one gives a shit, they're getting on with the real challenges.

The real challenge is to try and bring down the US economy since the rest of the world can't keep up with us

That is what the global warming crap is really all about

Al is your biggest spokesmen and so it makes sense you do not wnat to hear about his BS

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Blokes...get over it, believe it or not the rest of the world isn't interested in the slagging off of the Gore. I suppose it's a bit like "making the scene with a magazine" (to borrow a good line from Tom Waits) for many of you Republican types but the rest of the world is well beyond that stuff. As I said, the focus is on practical policy that addresses reality. I mean, feel free to bang on about how bad Gore is, outside of the US no-one gives a shit, they're getting on with the real challenges.

Seriously, how does policy influence the sun's cycles and its affect on the earth (and even Mars') temperature changes that have happened since the beginning of this little rock spinning in space?

Now, should we pick up our trash, and be as good as we can about not polluting....HELL YEAH....I like the pristine backcountry, fresh water, and clean air....but your statements, "the debate is over," and "educated voters realize the truth" (to paraphrase) are simply another attempt at class warfare, or minimize opposing opinions without addressing them directly.

[red states rule]

but your statements, "the debate is over," and "educated voters realize the truth" (to paraphrase) are simply another attempt at class warfare, or minimize opposing opinions without addressing them directly.

That is how the left repsponds when they can't counter the facts beng presented

The global warming nuts get easily upset when anyone counters their scare tacticis with facts and sound data

[diuretic]

The real challenge is to try and bring down the US economy since the rest of the world can't keep up with us

That is what the global warming crap is really all about

Al is your biggest spokesmen and so it makes sense you do not wnat to hear about his BS

Sadly Bush has done your economy in RSR. That's going to be bad for America but it's going to be bloody awful for the rest of us. No-one is interested in destroying the US economy, it's obviously counter-productive to have the world's largest economy go belly-up. But it's happening thanks to the incompetence of the Bush Administration. And while you were busy listening to the demonising of those who were trying to argue that climate change needs to be addressed the oilmen in the White House were busy screwing up your economy. Too late now, it's heading for the s-bend in the toilet. Not too late to protect our planet from catastrophic climate change though, it's being worked on, thankfully.

The fallout from the collapse of the US economy is going to be pretty bloody difficult though.

[red states rule]

Sadly Bush has done your economy in RSR. That's going to be bad for America but it's going to be bloody awful for the rest of us. No-one is interested in destroying the US economy, it's obviously counter-productive to have the world's largest economy go belly-up. But it's happening thanks to the incompetence of the Bush Administration. And while you were busy listening to the demonising of those who were trying to argue that climate change needs to be addressed the oilmen in the White House were busy screwing up your economy. Too late now, it's heading for the s-bend in the toilet. Not too late to protect our planet from catastrophic climate change though, it's being worked on, thankfully.

The fallout from the collapse of the US economy is going to be pretty bloody difficult though.

Our economy is rolling along just fine - mush to the dismay of the left. Foe 7 years, the Dems have tried to talk down the ecoomy and make people think we are days away from a Great Depression

As usual, when libs not have facts on their side they make them up

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Still no response on how the the environmentalist policies will be enacted upon the sun and its cycles of hot and cool periods....

[red states rule]

Still no response on how the the environmentalist policies will be enacted upon the sun and its cycles of hot and cool periods....

Hope you packed a lunch if you are really expecting a response

At least the Earth is not so far gone all the crickets have died. All we are hearing now are the crickets chirping

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

OK...so let's take the sun out of the equation....how do the alarmists explain the high quantities of CO2 from hundreds of thousands of years ago, and what policies were put in place to reduce the high quantities, then?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-400k_yrs.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif

From: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[diuretic]

Our economy is rolling along just fine - mush to the dismay of the left. Foe 7 years, the Dems have tried to talk down the ecoomy and make people think we are days away from a Great Depression

As usual, when libs not have facts on their side they make them up

I'm not making this up RSR. I'm also not happy about it. In our little economy here we just might be able to weather the fallout but the news isn't good for the US. Try and do a bit of wider reading than Worldnut Daily.

[red states rule]

To the enviro wackos, we are all going to die because people who are driving SUV's

[diuretic]

Hope you packed a lunch if you are really expecting a response

At least the Earth is not so far gone all the crickets have died. All we are hearing now are the crickets chirping

"Ain't nobody here but us crickets..chiirrup!" :laugh2:

[red states rule]

I'm not making this up RSR. I'm also not happy about it. In our little economy here we just might be able to weather the fallout but the news isn't good for the US. Try and do a bit of wider reading than Worldnut Daily.

If you acutaly listen to libs, here is America nobody has a job, nobody can see a DR, nobody has any money, nobody can get an education, and to sum up their political platform - Americia Stinks

[diuretic]

To the enviro wackos, we are all going to die because people who are driving SUV's

To the enviro wackos yes, to the rest of us, no. The sensible, as opposed to the stupidly ideological, have worked out what's best.

[diuretic]

If you acutaly listen to libs, here is MAerica nobody has a job, nobody can see a DR, nobody has any money, nobody gets an education, and to sum up their olitical platform - Amercia Stinks

I'm only looking at the panic in the Fed and the rest of the world's reactions to Bernanke's confusion. My big worry is stagflation.

[red states rule]

"Ain't nobody here but us crickets..chiirrup!" :laugh2:

Well, you have yet to answer his question

The crickets are chirping just fine

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

To the enviro wackos yes, to the rest of us, no. The sensible, as opposed to the stupidly ideological, have worked out what's best.

Good to see you getting in to it on a personal level, but I am more interested in perhaps addressing some facts that I have presented....you just seem to be uninterested in discussing the real issue.

[red states rule]

I'm only looking at the panic in the Fed and the rest of the world's reactions to Bernanke's confusion. My big worry is stagflation.

What panic? Like with Iraq - libs have been proven to be on the wrong side of an issue once again

[diuretic]

Good to see you getting in to it on a personal level, but I am more interested in perhaps addressing some facts that I have presented....you just seem to be uninterested in discussing the real issue.

I rarely get personal, I find it distasteful. But that doesn't mean I can't identify a bunch of idiots as a bunch of idiots, or should I call them "collectively intellectually challenged"?

I'm not a scientist so I can't engage in scientific discourse. I can take note and urge my political representatives to take action to shape policy and that's what I've done and what I'll continue to do. I find it's a lot more constructive that way.

[red states rule]

I rarely get personal, I find it distasteful. But that doesn't mean I can't identify a bunch of idiots as a bunch of idiots, or should I call them "collectively intellectually challenged"?

I'm not a scientist so I can't engage in scientific discourse. I can take note and urge my political representatives to take action to shape policy and that's what I've done and what I'll continue to do. I find it's a lot more constructive that way.

I see the #1 character trait of a liberal is coming out - arrogance

[diuretic]

What panic? Like with Iraq - libs have been proven to be on the wrong side of an issue once again

Bernanke, poor bastard, doesn't know what to do. I mean, how far can interest rates be cut? And Bush's tax cuts, what a joke. Sorry RSR, I don't do schadenfreude just like I try to stay away from personal jabs but it's plain to see.

[diuretic]

I see the #1 character trait of a liberal is coming out - arrogance

Disagreement is "arrogance"?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

I rarely get personal, I find it distasteful. But that doesn't mean I can't identify a bunch of idiots as a bunch of idiots, or should I call them "collectively intellectually challenged"?

I'm not a scientist so I can't engage in scientific discourse. I can take note and urge my political representatives to take action to shape policy and that's what I've done and what I'll continue to do. I find it's a lot more constructive that way.

Thanks for your honesty (and the insult, too).

So, you think the debate is over, yet you cannot engage in scientific discourse? Seems you may be in a bit of a conundrum, then.

[red states rule]

Bernanke, poor bastard, doesn't know what to do. I mean, how far can interest rates be cut? And Bush's tax cuts, what a joke. Sorry RSR, I don't do schadenfreude just like I try to stay away from personal jabs but it's plain to see.

The lower rates are already bringing a flood of re-fi's and bringing more people into the housing market

Lower rates means lower payments and people have more moemy in their pockets

Libs see that as bad news since it will help the economy, and makes their doom and gloom talking poits harder to believe

[red states rule]

Disagreement is "arrogance"?

no, your condescending attitude is

[diuretic]

Thanks for your honesty (and the insult, too).

So, you think the debate is over, yet you cannot engage in scientific discourse? Seems you may be in a bit of a conundrum, then.

Don't get sooky, I didn't call you an idiot.

The debate isn't yet over. There are still a few holdout propagandists being paid by the oil companies. But in large part the debate is over, yes. The debate has shifted into how we can avoid the catastrophe of future climate change.

No, I can't engage in scientific discourse, I admitted that.

[diuretic]

no, your condescending attitude is

Okay, condescending gives me the shits too. Point out where I've been condescending and I'll have a re-think. I don't mind being an argumentative prick but if I'm going to be perceived as condescending I'm ready to re-think my words and how I post.

[red states rule]

Don't get sooky, I didn't call you an idiot.

The debate isn't yet over. There are still a few holdout propagandists being paid by the oil companies. But in large part the debate is over, yes. The debate has shifted into how we can avoid the catastrophe of future climate change.

No, I can't engage in scientific discourse, I admitted that.

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
By Noel Sheppard | August 29, 2007 - 13:01 ET

Consensus? What consensus?

A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming.

Think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be discussing this tonight?

As reported by DailyTech Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):


Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Think someone will be interviewing Al Gore in the next couple of days to get his view on this? Or James Hansen? Or any of the global warming alarmists?

But I digress:


The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
[...]

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy.

What a disgrace.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/29/less-half-published-scientists-endorse-global-warming-theory

[Kathianne]

To the enviro wackos yes, to the rest of us, no. The sensible, as opposed to the stupidly ideological, have worked out what's best.

You choose who are the 'sensible', the rest are 'stupidly ideological'; then say those you choose 'have worked out what's best.' I believe we have an example here of 'liberal fascism.' (BTW, it's also condescending).

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Don't get sooky, I didn't call you an idiot.

The debate isn't yet over. There are still a few holdout propagandists being paid by the oil companies. But in large part the debate is over, yes. The debate has shifted into how we can avoid the catastrophe of future climate change.

No, I can't engage in scientific discourse, I admitted that.

Conundrum noted......and thank you for not calling me an idiot.

Not to be scientific, but how have past climate changes been catastrophic? If the earth warms, and the oceans rise, how is that catastrophic? It is a natural cycle, and the earth really doesn't care where humans live....if the oceans rise on the coasts of all nations, then it is a natural cycle of the earth's environment (just as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years) with no regard to the lifetime or generation or two of human existence.

This is the greatest arrogance of the debate that is or isn't over.....right?

[diuretic]

Doesn't matter RSR, that's what I'm trying to get at. The general mood is that climate change has to be dealt with. People like me, who aren't scientifically inclined, work it out fairly simply. I'll see if I can put my thoughts in order.

Remember how Pascal's Wager works? You know the one about it's better to believe in God because if there is a God you're okay and if there isn't a God then it doesn't matter anyway? This is my wager on climate change.

If global climate change is a threat to our planet and to our descendants and we do something about it and it turns out (like Y2K) to be a bit of a non-event then no problem, no harm done. The reason is that early action will mean a minimum of pain to us.

If global climate change is a threat to our planet and to our descendants and we do nothing about it and it turns out to be a disaster then that's a bad thing.

On balance then, given the evidence suggests that the deleterious effects of climate change are a real threat, we should do something about it now, while we still can. I don't want to risk inaction.

Prudence. A stitch in time. Do something now, that has minimal effect on our way of life or be complacent and panic when it's too late.

Simplistic yes. Unscientific, yes. But it's how the average voter thinks.

[red states rule]

I knew it would not matter to you. Facts never matter to the enviro wacks

Of course, the real reason behind the global warming scam is more telling about thiose who are pushing it


Global Warming and the Tax the Rich Scheme
By Noel Sheppard | December 1, 2007 - 13:48 ET

Have you noticed the genie concerning the real modus operandi behind climate alarmism beginning to peek its head out of the bottle lately?

After the United Nations announced earlier in the week that rich countries - code for America, of course - are going to have to pay billions of dollars to help poor nations deal with global warming, several international press outlets published articles of similar content.

Is it possible media are recognizing that since the Democrat presidential candidates are all advocating a tax the rich platform it is safe to begin discussing the need for developed nations to foot the bill for international global warming solutions?

Consider an op-ed published Friday by Britain's Guardian

Our starting point is deeply inequitable with poor countries certain to be hit earliest and hardest by climate change. But rich countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions: US emissions are currently more than 20 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum, Europe's are 10-15 tonnes, China's five or more tonnes, India's around one tonne, and most of Africa much less than one.

For a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050, the world average per capita must drop from seven tonnes to two or three. Within these global targets, even a minimal view of equity demands that the rich countries' reductions should be at least 80% - either made directly or purchased. An 80% target for rich countries would bring equality of only the flow of current emissions - around the two to three tonnes per capita level. In fact, they will have consumed the big majority of the available space in the atmosphere.

Rich countries also need to provide funding for three more key elements of a global deal. First, there should be an international programme to combat deforestation, which contributes 15-20% of emissions. For $10bn-$15bn per year, half the deforestation could be stopped.

[...]

Finally, rich countries should honour their commitment to 0.7% of GDP in aid by 2015. This would yield increases in flows of $150bn-$200bn per year.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/01/climate-alarm-s-eco-socialism-global-tax-rich-scheme

[diuretic]

You choose who are the 'sensible', the rest are 'stupidly ideological'; then say those you choose 'have worked out what's best.' I believe we have an example here of 'liberal fascism.' (BTW, it's also condescending).

If that's condescending then I really have to be careful how I phrase my posts. If I applied the same sort of analysis to the posts by reactionaries here Kathianne, I'd run out of adjectives.

[Kathianne]

If that's condescending then I really have to be careful how I phrase my posts. If I applied the same sort of analysis to the posts by reactionaries here Kathianne, I'd run out of adjectives.

Diuretic, whenever anyone says that their 'side' has the answers, I remain skeptical. You also managed to frame your answer into the 'intelligent' and the 'idiots.' Your 'side' is enlightened, all others are ideologue's. How do you define condescending?

[diuretic]

Conundrum noted......and thank you for not calling me an idiot.

Not to be scientific, but how have past climate changes been catastrophic? If the earth warms, and the oceans rise, how is that catastrophic? It is a natural cycle, and the earth really doesn't care where humans live....if the oceans rise on the coasts of all nations, then it is a natural cycle of the earth's environment (just as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years) with no regard to the lifetime or generation or two of human existence.

This is the greatest arrogance of the debate that is or isn't over.....right?

I don't know. I don't presume to know. As a voter I try and keep up with the debate in my local media. I know I'm getting the "Reader's Digest" version of the debate but I do try to be as critical as possible.

I get shitted off with the bearded greenie that appears on my tv to denounce everything modern. No way will I dig a hole in the back garden to take a crap. I will make my own mind up about government policy reactions and judge them from my own perspective. Are they sensible? Is it rampant ideology? Is it puerile pandering? I have to work at it but I do try and think about things.

As for the debate being over. I mentioned earlier a reference to Pascal's Wager. For me it's now a question of evaluating government policy on a local scale. I live in a state that has the largest uranium mine in the world and they reckon they're still measuring it. I'm watching my state government policy on the expansion of the mine. Over in the east of Australia - New South Wales and Queensland - I'm watching the state governments on coal mining (they're pretty big coal exporters) and the federal government as well of course. I've come to the conclusion that global climate change is something I need to be aware of as a voter and I need to react constructively.

No, I'm, not listening to the denialists. Call me close-minded but I'm now focused on how we can keep our standards of living and our progress while minimising the deleterious effects of the things we do to maintain our lifestyles. I'm not a radical greenie, I'm just an ordinary bloke coming from a fairly moderate, but concerned, position.

[diuretic]

Diuretic, whenever anyone says that their 'side' has the answers, I remain skeptical. You also managed to frame your answer into the 'intelligent' and the 'idiots.' Your 'side' is enlightened, all others are ideologue's. How do you define condescending?

Skepticism is good. Knowing when to stop it descending into cynicism is even better. And no, I'm not accusing you of cynicism Kathianne, it's a simple observation.

I don't have a "side" in this, I just have concerns. On this issue I've thought it through for a long time and it hasn't been easy as I've had to deal with my own cynicism.

As for "idiots" and the "intelligent", okay, perhaps I was a bit too colourful, but heck, do we want beige?

[Kathianne]

Skepticism is good. Knowing when to stop it descending into cynicism is even better. And no, I'm not accusing you of cynicism Kathianne, it's a simple observation.

I don't have a "side" in this, I just have concerns. On this issue I've thought it through for a long time and it hasn't been easy as I've had to deal with my own cynicism.

As for "idiots" and the "intelligent", okay, perhaps I was a bit too colourful, but heck, do we want beige?

I prefer taupe, oh well. I understand concerns, one must be careful not to let those concerns develop into certainty without facts. We've had this discussion many times, while we both share those concerns and do what we can personally to help address the possible problems, I'm unwilling to back plans fraught with the possibility of endless unintended consequences. I don't even look at it as 'first world' being hampered in ways not applicable to rising powers, more along the lines of not possibly destroying economies or industries, for little reason scientifically than 'doing something'. Now if there was true science results, better than what's currently out there, another look see would be in order.

[Said1]

As for the debate being over. I mentioned earlier a reference to Pascal's Wager. For me it's now a question of evaluating government policy on a local scale. I live in a state that has the largest uranium mine in the world and they reckon they're still measuring it. I'm watching my state government policy on the expansion of the mine. Over in the east of Australia - New South Wales and Queensland - I'm watching the state governments on coal mining (they're pretty big coal exporters) and the federal government as well of course. I've come to the conclusion that global climate change is something I need to be aware of as a voter and I need to react constructively.

.

Where is the potential for further economic development and exports, outside of natural resources? What sectors seem like they're on the verge of taking off? Also, just out of curiosity, who is the biggest importer of Australian products etc? I'm too lazy to google, plus, I'd rather read about your hunches. :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

google: so lazy, even a caveman could do it


Where is the potential for further economic development and exports, outside of natural resources? What sectors seem like they're on the verge of taking off? Also, just out of curiosity, who is the biggest importer of Australian products etc? I'm too lazy to google, plus, I'd rather read about your hunches. :laugh2:

[Said1]

google: so lazy, even a caveman could do it

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

[diuretic]

I prefer taupe, oh well. I understand concerns, one must be careful not to let those concerns develop into certainty without facts. We've had this discussion many times, while we both share those concerns and do what we can personally to help address the possible problems, I'm unwilling to back plans fraught with the possibility of endless unintended consequences. I don't even look at it as 'first world' being hampered in ways not applicable to rising powers, more along the lines of not possibly destroying economies or industries, for little reason scientifically than 'doing something'. Now if there was true science results, better than what's currently out there, another look see would be in order.

I think it's at the point now where the science is settled in the scientific community (the rest of us outside that big tent will continue to argue amongst ourselves though) and now the domestic and international policy debate is happening.

[diuretic]

Where is the potential for further economic development and exports, outside of natural resources? What sectors seem like they're on the verge of taking off? Also, just out of curiosity, who is the biggest importer of Australian products etc? I'm too lazy to google, plus, I'd rather read about your hunches. :laugh2:

I wish I knew, I'd be into the stock market :laugh2:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/competitive_economy.html <--- fed govt propaganda :D

For the last 11 years or so we've had a federal government that neglected everything, especially the economy. They weren't so much laissez-faire as just fair lazy. I think the new fed government is going to be a lot more engaged in the operation of our economy. We need to get away from the mentality of growing it and shipping it or digging it up and shipping it. Of course those industries have to continue but we need to think about value-adding. Manufacturing is just about cactus here though, sadly.

Our number one trade partner (two-way) is Japan which is also our number one export destination. Our number one importing country is.....no suprise....China. More here - http://tinyurl.com/2d3two

In recent years we've developed a really good fresh food export industry, mainly to SE Asia and Japan (this is in addition to our historical trade partners). The infrastructure, particularly transport, to get produce to markets in SE Asia and Japan has really cranked up and seems to be working well.

And if you go into a Sobey's you can buy those really handy tubes of herbs in paste form, very useful for cooking (look for "Gourmet Garden") :D

[Said1]

I wish I knew, I'd be into the stock market :laugh2:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/competitive_economy.html <--- fed govt propaganda :D

Wow. They paint a pretty rosey picture. Would agree with this quote......GDP vs inflation vs unemployment?
Australia’s strong economic growth has been coupled with low inflation. The inflation rate has been stable during the last 15 years, averaging around 2.5 per cent over this period. Unemployment has fallen, from a peak of nearly 11 per cent in 1992 to below 5 per cent, its lowest level since the 1970s.

See Philips Curve here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

Our GST is 5%. It was recently lowered 1% by the feds - was 6%. :dance:

I guess it helped pay for adjustments after NAFTA given that's when it was implemented by the federal government - although I would have to look into it to be sure. It was certainly rough period to get through. The 90's, ew.


For the last 11 years or so we've had a federal government that neglected everything, especially the economy. They weren't so much laissez-faire as just fair lazy. I think the new fed government is going to be a lot more engaged in the operation of our economy. We need to get away from the mentality of growing it and shipping it or digging it up and shipping it. Of course those industries have to continue but we need to think about value-adding. Manufacturing is just about cactus here though, sadly.

Our number one trade partner (two-way) is Japan which is also our number one export destination. Our number one importing country is.....no suprise....China. More here - http://tinyurl.com/2d3two

Looks like I need to re-download Adobe. :(





In recent years we've developed a really good fresh food export industry, mainly to SE Asia and Japan (this is in addition to our historical trade partners). The infrastructure, particularly transport, to get produce to markets in SE Asia and Japan has really cranked up and seems to be working well.

And if you go into a Sobey's you can buy those really handy tubes of herbs in paste form, very useful for cooking (look for "Gourmet Garden") :D

Maybe that's what the government has been working on, transport. Cost distance vs profit is a big hurdle. Can't you install a big outboard motor and move your island closer?

[actsnoblemartin]

im in san diego, so no cold weather for me :dance:


Wow. They paint a pretty rosey picture. Would agree with this quote......GDP vs inflation vs unemployment?

See Philips Curve here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

Our GST is 5%. It was recently lowered 1% by the feds - was 6%. :dance:

I guess it helped pay for adjustments after NAFTA given that's when it was implemented by the federal government - although I would have to look into it to be sure. It was certainly rough period to get through. The 90's, ew.



Looks like I need to re-download Adobe. :(






Maybe that's what the government has been working on, transport. Cost distance vs profit is a big hurdle. Can't you install a big outboard motor and move your island closer?

[Said1]

im in san diego, so no cold weather for me :dance:

That may be thread related, but what does that have to do with what I posted in response to Diuretic?

[red states rule]

More from the global warming nuts


Global Warming Will Cause Giant Snakes to Take Over America
By Noel Sheppard | February 24, 2008 - 10:52 ET
NewsBusters has on numerous occasions reported how media are trying to frighten Americans into radically altering their lives or else suffer irreparable harm at the hands of the liberal bogeyman global warming.

At times in the past couple of years, the scare tactics have been akin to a 1950s horror movie, including somewhat hysterically a film being released wherein oil workers in Alaska were actually killed by Mother Nature supposedly rising up to defend herself from climate change.

On Wednesday, USA Today added giant snakes to the equation, using the frightening imagery of Burmese pythons -- which can grow in size to 20 feet and 250 pounds -- roaming America if citizens don't immediately change their wicked carbon dioxide emitting ways:

As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.

Two federal agencies - the USGS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - are investigating the range of nine invasive snakes in Florida, concerned about the danger they now pose to endangered species. The agencies are collecting data to aid in the control of these populations.

They examined Burmese pythons first and, based on where they live in Asia, estimated where they might live here. One map shows where the pythons could live today, an area that expands when scientists use global warming models for 2100.

"We were surprised by the map. It was bigger than we thought it was going to be," says Gordon Rodda, zoologist and lead project researcher. "They are moving northward, there's no question."

Of course, late in the article we find that the problem isn't actually global warming. It's that people are buying these snakes as pets, and then abandoning them:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/24/global-warming-will-cause-giant-snakes-take-over-america

and

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-burmese-pythons_N.htm