Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[edthecynic]

Actually, there could still be a connection, radiation doesn't travel instantly from the sun to the earth. However, one flaw with environuts is this: they are looking for only one influence while ignoring all other possible influences as well.

Do you mean like deniers looking only at the only major cool area on the entire globe and using that one cool area to declare the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement a decade of cooling?

Not saying all us who see that it's a hoax are all basing it on global science, but that does not make your angle any more valid. Factor in all sciences to see the truth and why we really should do less than what we are doing. First factor in where the scientists get their funding and look at those who have lost funding for going against them using the same science. Then look into mass extinctions and their causes, then their results and the triggers for adaptation in species, then look into all the possible causes of temperature changes and air quality, then look into the real effects of the techniques we are using (primarily the most enforced ones like recycling, voluntary ones don't matter to me). Adding all of this up and you get a better picture. I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

 

[KittenKoder]

Do you mean like deniers looking only at the only major cool area on the entire globe and using that one cool area to declare the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement a decade of cooling?

Not saying all us who see that it's a hoax are all basing it on global science, but that does not make your angle any more valid. Factor in all sciences to see the truth and why we really should do less than what we are doing. First factor in where the scientists get their funding and look at those who have lost funding for going against them using the same science. Then look into mass extinctions and their causes, then their results and the triggers for adaptation in species, then look into all the possible causes of temperature changes and air quality, then look into the real effects of the techniques we are using (primarily the most enforced ones like recycling, voluntary ones don't matter to me). Adding all of this up and you get a better picture. I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

How is wanting the human species to evolve and survive a hardship selfish? I won't be alive to see this, but I would want the future generations to have the chance, no matter how slim at this point, to be able to survive what we clearly cannot stop.

 

[edthecynic]

Not saying all us who see that it's a hoax are all basing it on global science, but that does not make your angle any more valid. Factor in all sciences to see the truth and why we really should do less than what we are doing. First factor in where the scientists get their funding and look at those who have lost funding for going against them using the same science. Then look into mass extinctions and their causes, then their results and the triggers for adaptation in species, then look into all the possible causes of temperature changes and air quality, then look into the real effects of the techniques we are using (primarily the most enforced ones like recycling, voluntary ones don't matter to me). Adding all of this up and you get a better picture. I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

How is wanting the human species to evolve and survive a hardship selfish? I won't be alive to see this, but I would want the future generations to have the chance, no matter how slim at this point, to be able to survive what we clearly cannot stop.

How is that what I highlighted, especially the last part?

 

[KittenKoder]

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

How is wanting the human species to evolve and survive a hardship selfish? I won't be alive to see this, but I would want the future generations to have the chance, no matter how slim at this point, to be able to survive what we clearly cannot stop.

How is that what I highlighted, especially the last part?

You will have to excuse the confusion ... but what?

 

[edthecynic]

I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

How is wanting the human species to evolve and survive a hardship selfish? I won't be alive to see this, but I would want the future generations to have the chance, no matter how slim at this point, to be able to survive what we clearly cannot stop.

How is that what I highlighted, especially the last part?

You will have to excuse the confusion ... but what?

In Logic there are a number of Fallacies in logical reasoning. One is The Fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity. You have simply substituted unpopularity for popularity and called the Fallacy now "logical." Basically you are saying if the majority say 1+1=2 it "logically" must be untrue and if a minority of people say 1+1=3 it "logically" must be true.
So what I highlighted is hardly "logical," and calling your "reasonings" logical is quite self-serving to those who understand logic.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof.

 

[KittenKoder]

I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

How is that what I highlighted, especially the last part?

You will have to excuse the confusion ... but what?

In Logic there are a number of Fallacies in logical reasoning. One is The Fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity. You have simply substituted unpopularity for popularity and called the Fallacy now "logical." Basically you are saying if the majority say 1+1=2 it "logically" must be untrue and if a minority of people say 1+1=3 it "logically" must be true.
So what I highlighted is hardly "logical," and calling it logical is quite self-serving to those who understand logic.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof.

Aaah ... however often environuts claim that their studies are "unpopular" as being proof that people are just ignoring because they don't want to (or sometimes "inconvenient"). This is a turn about, because that claim is false and demonstrates the dishonesty. I was merely "throwing it back", showing it's all bullshit in the same breath (textually speaking). Here's the thing though, no, being popular does not automatically make you wrong, however as humans are easily corrupted, the popular ones rarely have more of a motive other than money. They present results that are popular for this reason only, while those not interested in popularity tend to be less corrupted because their funding is usually not based on making people happy. The thing is, not all the envirnuts ideas are bad, just the ones they are pushing to make a profit for, such as recycling and low flow (track who is supporting and pushing low flow onto the public), for many reasons which are being ignored. Becoming less dependent on fossil fuels for instance is great, but mainly because they are limited in supply and take too long to replenish. Not mining coal would be great to so as to reduce the number of injuries caused, but nothing is wrong with nuclear energy. Those are just two examples, I have mentioned others, but again they were ignored. Ignoring them has demonstrated that environuts fear these truths.

 

[edthecynic]

By the "logic" of a Cynic, that seems more self-serving than logical.

You will have to excuse the confusion ... but what?

In Logic there are a number of Fallacies in logical reasoning. One is The Fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity. You have simply substituted unpopularity for popularity and called the Fallacy now "logical." Basically you are saying if the majority say 1+1=2 it "logically" must be untrue and if a minority of people say 1+1=3 it "logically" must be true.
So what I highlighted is hardly "logical," and calling it logical is quite self-serving to those who understand logic.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof.

Aaah ... however often environuts claim that their studies are "unpopular" as being proof that people are just ignoring because they don't want to (or sometimes "inconvenient"). This is a turn about, because that claim is false and demonstrates the dishonesty. I was merely "throwing it back", showing it's all bullshit in the same breath (textually speaking).

Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
2. It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

 

[KittenKoder]

In Logic there are a number of Fallacies in logical reasoning. One is The Fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity. You have simply substituted unpopularity for popularity and called the Fallacy now "logical." Basically you are saying if the majority say 1+1=2 it "logically" must be untrue and if a minority of people say 1+1=3 it "logically" must be true.
So what I highlighted is hardly "logical," and calling it logical is quite self-serving to those who understand logic.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof.

Aaah ... however often environuts claim that their studies are "unpopular" as being proof that people are just ignoring because they don't want to (or sometimes "inconvenient"). This is a turn about, because that claim is false and demonstrates the dishonesty. I was merely "throwing it back", showing it's all bullshit in the same breath (textually speaking).

Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
2. It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

Wrong, it wasn't a "two wrongs", it was showing a lie for being a lie. The lie being that the environut ideas are unpopular, which in fact it's the non-environut ideas that are widely considered unpopular.

 

[editec]

I don't doubt at all that sunspots effect our climate.

Neither do I doubt that changing the composition of the atmosphere will effect our climate.

The question that none of us can answer for certain (not even if we're climatologists) is: what the hell exactly is going on with our climate (if anything)?


We can argue about this, but we cannot DEBATE it.

Debate requires a shared information base and we don't really have enough information to have an informed debate.

We know some things of course, but not enough to predict what a chaotic system like the weather (and the combined effect of weather that we call climate) will be doing.

The climate seems to be getting weird to me. (not warmer... weirder!)

But given that my perspective is so short and limited by place, my definition of "normal weather" is highly suspect.

The question is really is there anything that defines "normal"?

Given that we KNOW the earth sometimes undergoes extremely radical changes in climate, (and has done so since long before mankind made his appearance on the scene) I think the answer is nobody REALLY KNOWS nuttin.

Here's what is NOT subject to doubt though....

We are dumping large amounts of crap into the atmosphere.

Anyone want to deny that fact?

Will that cause global warming?

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Perhaps events (like sunspots) will cause the climate to change, perhaps the CO2 dumping will cause the climate to change, and then too...perhaps not.

 

[FactFinder]

I don't doubt at all that sunspots effect our climate.

Neither do I doubt that changing the composition of the atmosphere will effect our climate.

The question that none of us can answer for certain (not even if we're climatologists) is: what the hell exactly is going on with our climate (if anything)?


We can argue about this, but we cannot DEBATE it.

Debate requires a shared information base and we don't really have enough information to have an informed debate.

We know some things of course, but not enough to predict what a chaotic system like the weather (and the combined effect of weather that we call climate) will be doing.

The climate seems to be getting weird to me. (not warmer... weirder!)

But given that my perspective is so short and limited by place, my definition of "normal weather" is highly suspect.

The question is really is there anything that defines "normal"?

Given that we KNOW the earth sometimes undergoes extremely radical changes in climate, (and has done so since long before mankind made his appearance on the scene) I think the answer is nobody REALLY KNOWS nuttin.

Here's what is NOT subject to doubt though....

We are dumping large amounts of crap into the atmosphere.

Anyone want to deny that fact?

Will that cause global warming?

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Perhaps events (like sunspots) will cause the climate to change, perhaps the CO2 dumping will cause the climate to change, and then too...perhaps not.

Thumbs up to a reasonable man. I trust you also believe that we should not make policy decisions based on the unknown?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't doubt at all that sunspots effect our climate.

Neither do I doubt that changing the composition of the atmosphere will effect our climate.

The question that none of us can answer for certain (not even if we're climatologists) is: what the hell exactly is going on with our climate (if anything)?


We can argue about this, but we cannot DEBATE it.

Debate requires a shared information base and we don't really have enough information to have an informed debate.

We know some things of course, but not enough to predict what a chaotic system like the weather (and the combined effect of weather that we call climate) will be doing.

The climate seems to be getting weird to me. (not warmer... weirder!)

But given that my perspective is so short and limited by place, my definition of "normal weather" is highly suspect.

The question is really is there anything that defines "normal"?

Given that we KNOW the earth sometimes undergoes extremely radical changes in climate, (and has done so since long before mankind made his appearance on the scene) I think the answer is nobody REALLY KNOWS nuttin.

Here's what is NOT subject to doubt though....

We are dumping large amounts of crap into the atmosphere.

Anyone want to deny that fact?

Will that cause global warming?

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Perhaps events (like sunspots) will cause the climate to change, perhaps the CO2 dumping will cause the climate to change, and then too...perhaps not.

Thumbs up to a reasonable man. I trust you also believe that we should not make policy decisions based on the unknown?

No he believes we should make decisions on what MIGHT happen with, as he admits, no evidence it is or will happen. Thus the whole " we are to blame for dumping crap in the atmosphere" part of his little rant.

 

[FactFinder]

Noted

 

[Skull Pilot]

I confess, it's all my fault. I never turned off my central air and I left the windows open all last summer because it was too cold in my house.

 

[editec]

I don't doubt at all that sunspots effect our climate.

Neither do I doubt that changing the composition of the atmosphere will effect our climate.

The question that none of us can answer for certain (not even if we're climatologists) is: what the hell exactly is going on with our climate (if anything)?


We can argue about this, but we cannot DEBATE it.

Debate requires a shared information base and we don't really have enough information to have an informed debate.

We know some things of course, but not enough to predict what a chaotic system like the weather (and the combined effect of weather that we call climate) will be doing.

The climate seems to be getting weird to me. (not warmer... weirder!)

But given that my perspective is so short and limited by place, my definition of "normal weather" is highly suspect.

The question is really is there anything that defines "normal"?

Given that we KNOW the earth sometimes undergoes extremely radical changes in climate, (and has done so since long before mankind made his appearance on the scene) I think the answer is nobody REALLY KNOWS nuttin.

Here's what is NOT subject to doubt though....

We are dumping large amounts of crap into the atmosphere.

Anyone want to deny that fact?

Will that cause global warming?

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Perhaps events (like sunspots) will cause the climate to change, perhaps the CO2 dumping will cause the climate to change, and then too...perhaps not.

Thumbs up to a reasonable man. I trust you also believe that we should not make policy decisions based on the unknown?

True I do not think we should make policy decision based on unknowns.

However I do believe we should be taking steps to limit dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

And my reasoning isn't very sophisticated as to why I think that would be an intelligent policy, either.

One should not SHIT where one eats or into the air which we all breathe.

It's one thing if I choose to smoke (if you can call addiction a choice) but it is entirely another thing when society is poisoning everyone regardless of whether they choose it or not.

I think we can all agree that we need to get off our addiction to burning hydrocarbons, right?

Now what policies we need to put into place to begin that process IS debateable. But as to whether or not we should be working toward that end should be fairly obvious, I think.

That policiy decision should be just too freaking obvious for any sane person to debate.

 

[FactFinder]

I have no problem reducing hydrocarbon use in a sensible manner but too often those who want to do that also reject the alterantives such as nuclear. It is a fact that as long as humans live and want to thrive that their existence by nature is going to have effect s. I don't believe those effects are any where near as powerful as many willd imaginations assume. We were meant to be here. We were meant to be unfolding as we are. It is utter egotism and self centered to think we are that powerful. Hell I live in highly populated New England. It doesn't take me long to find wilderness. We occupy only a small percentage of the planet. I know when in the midst of population centers and traffic jams it doesn't appear that way but think about it.

I fully support reduction on dependence on foreign oil using the All Of The Above approach.

The US needs energy to keep working and living. It has become even more of a challenge with all this globalization. We do not need to chain ourselves to a tree based on unsettled science.

 

[DavidS]

I have no problem reducing hydrocarbon use in a sensible manner but too often those who want to do that also reject the alterantives such as nuclear. It is a fact that as long as humans live and want to thrive that their existence by nature is going to have effect s. I don't believe those effects are any where near as powerful as many willd imaginations assume. We were meant to be here. We were meant to be unfolding as we are. It is utter egotism and self centered to think we are that powerful. Hell I live in highly populated New England. It doesn't take me long to find wilderness. We occupy only a small percentage of the planet. I know when in the midst of population centers and traffic jams it doesn't appear that way but think about it.

I fully support reduction on dependence on foreign oil using the All Of The Above approach.

The US needs energy to keep working and living. It has become even more of a challenge with all this globalization. We do not need to chain ourselves to a tree based on unsettled science.

This isn't unsettled science. Some people want to go back to dates during the civil war and say that their methods of keeping track of the temperatures is the same then as it is today and it's complete horse shit. I don't trust any recorded data pre-World War 1. We just didn't have the proper technology to keep track of daily temperatures. And whoever decided to average up every temperature from the past 50 years and say "This is the average temperature on this day" was a moron. There are so many factors that go into deciding what temperature it is today - I am willing to bet that every day of meteorology is like a fingerprint - there are so many factors that no two days are alike and they cannot be replicated. To take such a small sample of data, even if we did take it from the past 150 years, and say "We SHOULD be at this level" is irresponsible science. In order to make a conclusion, we need reliable data from a very long period of time. Say 1000 years should do it. Then we need to compare Earth's temperatures during this 1000 year period to the past 1000 year period after the previous intergalcial and during as many previous interglacials as we can get our hands on and THEN, THEN we can begin to make assumptions based not only upon a reasonable sample from now, but also reasonable samples from ALL previous interglacials around this time period and compare. Only problem is that humans didn't exist in the previous interglacial period and we have no idea how many other interglacial periods there have been.

So right now, all we can definitively say is that much of the world is colder than what we're used to right now because of several factors including a moderate La Nina. We have no idea where we're going from here - except that I believe we will stay in La Nina conditions until 2010 mostly because every single previous La Nina that's lasted two years lasts a third year as well. The winters of '55, 56, 57; '74, '75, '76; '99, '00, '01, and according to some, '02 are good examples of multi-year ninas.

Given the negative tendency of the PDO, along with the current nina which is, by most indications, strengthening...we may see this nina extend into winter of '09 - '10.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have no problem reducing hydrocarbon use in a sensible manner but too often those who want to do that also reject the alterantives such as nuclear. It is a fact that as long as humans live and want to thrive that their existence by nature is going to have effect s. I don't believe those effects are any where near as powerful as many willd imaginations assume. We were meant to be here. We were meant to be unfolding as we are. It is utter egotism and self centered to think we are that powerful. Hell I live in highly populated New England. It doesn't take me long to find wilderness. We occupy only a small percentage of the planet. I know when in the midst of population centers and traffic jams it doesn't appear that way but think about it.

I fully support reduction on dependence on foreign oil using the All Of The Above approach.

The US needs energy to keep working and living. It has become even more of a challenge with all this globalization. We do not need to chain ourselves to a tree based on unsettled science.

This isn't unsettled science. Some people want to go back to dates during the civil war and say that their methods of keeping track of the temperatures is the same then as it is today and it's complete horse shit. I don't trust any recorded data pre-World War 1. We just didn't have the proper technology to keep track of daily temperatures. And whoever decided to average up every temperature from the past 50 years and say "This is the average temperature on this day" was a moron. There are so many factors that go into deciding what temperature it is today - I am willing to bet that every day of meteorology is like a fingerprint - there are so many factors that no two days are alike and they cannot be replicated. To take such a small sample of data, even if we did take it from the past 150 years, and say "We SHOULD be at this level" is irresponsible science. In order to make a conclusion, we need reliable data from a very long period of time. Say 1000 years should do it. Then we need to compare Earth's temperatures during this 1000 year period to the past 1000 year period after the previous intergalcial and during as many previous interglacials as we can get our hands on and THEN, THEN we can begin to make assumptions based not only upon a reasonable sample from now, but also reasonable samples from ALL previous interglacials around this time period and compare. Only problem is that humans didn't exist in the previous interglacial period and we have no idea how many other interglacial periods there have been.
So right now, all we can definitively say is that much of the world is colder than what we're used to right now because of several factors including a moderate La Nina. We have no idea where we're going from here - except that I believe we will stay in La Nina conditions until 2010 mostly because every single previous La Nina that's lasted two years lasts a third year as well. The winters of '55, 56, 57; '74, '75, '76; '99, '00, '01, and according to some, '02 are good examples of multi-year ninas.

Given the negative tendency of the PDO, along with the current nina which is, by most indications, strengthening...we may see this nina extend into winter of '09 - '10.

Quite on the contrary, we know how many interglacieals there were even further back than the ice cores take us. The sediments off the continental shelves have a good record of the occurances and temperatures for as long as the sediment has been collecting.

 

[DavidS]

I have no problem reducing hydrocarbon use in a sensible manner but too often those who want to do that also reject the alterantives such as nuclear. It is a fact that as long as humans live and want to thrive that their existence by nature is going to have effect s. I don't believe those effects are any where near as powerful as many willd imaginations assume. We were meant to be here. We were meant to be unfolding as we are. It is utter egotism and self centered to think we are that powerful. Hell I live in highly populated New England. It doesn't take me long to find wilderness. We occupy only a small percentage of the planet. I know when in the midst of population centers and traffic jams it doesn't appear that way but think about it.

I fully support reduction on dependence on foreign oil using the All Of The Above approach.

The US needs energy to keep working and living. It has become even more of a challenge with all this globalization. We do not need to chain ourselves to a tree based on unsettled science.

This isn't unsettled science. Some people want to go back to dates during the civil war and say that their methods of keeping track of the temperatures is the same then as it is today and it's complete horse shit. I don't trust any recorded data pre-World War 1. We just didn't have the proper technology to keep track of daily temperatures. And whoever decided to average up every temperature from the past 50 years and say "This is the average temperature on this day" was a moron. There are so many factors that go into deciding what temperature it is today - I am willing to bet that every day of meteorology is like a fingerprint - there are so many factors that no two days are alike and they cannot be replicated. To take such a small sample of data, even if we did take it from the past 150 years, and say "We SHOULD be at this level" is irresponsible science. In order to make a conclusion, we need reliable data from a very long period of time. Say 1000 years should do it. Then we need to compare Earth's temperatures during this 1000 year period to the past 1000 year period after the previous intergalcial and during as many previous interglacials as we can get our hands on and THEN, THEN we can begin to make assumptions based not only upon a reasonable sample from now, but also reasonable samples from ALL previous interglacials around this time period and compare. Only problem is that humans didn't exist in the previous interglacial period and we have no idea how many other interglacial periods there have been.
So right now, all we can definitively say is that much of the world is colder than what we're used to right now because of several factors including a moderate La Nina. We have no idea where we're going from here - except that I believe we will stay in La Nina conditions until 2010 mostly because every single previous La Nina that's lasted two years lasts a third year as well. The winters of '55, 56, 57; '74, '75, '76; '99, '00, '01, and according to some, '02 are good examples of multi-year ninas.

Given the negative tendency of the PDO, along with the current nina which is, by most indications, strengthening...we may see this nina extend into winter of '09 - '10.

Quite on the contrary, we know how many interglacieals there were even further back than the ice cores take us. The sediments off the continental shelves have a good record of the occurances and temperatures for as long as the sediment has been collecting.

You're frustrating me now - are you trying to act like an idiot on purpose? We do NOT know for absolute certainty how many interglacial periods there have been in the entire history of this planet because we haven't been here during the entire period. We can GUESS - but GUESSING is NOT accurate. And even if we DID know how many interglacial periods there have been, we DO NOT know what temperatures there were back then. We can only GUESS.

 

[editec]

This isn't unsettled science. Some people want to go back to dates during the civil war and say that their methods of keeping track of the temperatures is the same then as it is today and it's complete horse shit. I don't trust any recorded data pre-World War 1. We just didn't have the proper technology to keep track of daily temperatures. And whoever decided to average up every temperature from the past 50 years and say "This is the average temperature on this day" was a moron. There are so many factors that go into deciding what temperature it is today - I am willing to bet that every day of meteorology is like a fingerprint - there are so many factors that no two days are alike and they cannot be replicated. To take such a small sample of data, even if we did take it from the past 150 years, and say "We SHOULD be at this level" is irresponsible science. In order to make a conclusion, we need reliable data from a very long period of time. Say 1000 years should do it. Then we need to compare Earth's temperatures during this 1000 year period to the past 1000 year period after the previous intergalcial and during as many previous interglacials as we can get our hands on and THEN, THEN we can begin to make assumptions based not only upon a reasonable sample from now, but also reasonable samples from ALL previous interglacials around this time period and compare. Only problem is that humans didn't exist in the previous interglacial period and we have no idea how many other interglacial periods there have been.
So right now, all we can definitively say is that much of the world is colder than what we're used to right now because of several factors including a moderate La Nina. We have no idea where we're going from here - except that I believe we will stay in La Nina conditions until 2010 mostly because every single previous La Nina that's lasted two years lasts a third year as well. The winters of '55, 56, 57; '74, '75, '76; '99, '00, '01, and according to some, '02 are good examples of multi-year ninas.

Given the negative tendency of the PDO, along with the current nina which is, by most indications, strengthening...we may see this nina extend into winter of '09 - '10.

Quite on the contrary, we know how many interglacieals there were even further back than the ice cores take us. The sediments off the continental shelves have a good record of the occurances and temperatures for as long as the sediment has been collecting.

look another lie by the big greenee meanee, read my post and dont waste your time searching for the truth, it takes a long time to sort through all the false stories on google the greenee meanees pay to found

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at what the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

What a pointlessly unpleasant response to OR.

What bug crawled up your ass that you feel the need to insult this guy simple because he posted something that you don't agree with?

Everything you said you could have said with adding ad hominen insults.

Has he insulted you personally or something?

Do you guys have a history I am unaware of?

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, we know how many interglacieals there were even further back than the ice cores take us. The sediments off the continental shelves have a good record of the occurances and temperatures for as long as the sediment has been collecting.

look another lie by the big greenee meanee, read my post and dont waste your time searching for the truth, it takes a long time to sort through all the false stories on google the greenee meanees pay to found

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at what the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

What a pointlessly unpleasant response to OR.

What bug crawled up your ass that you feel the need to insult this guy simple because he posted something that you don't agree with?

Everything you said you could have said with adding ad hominen insults.

Has he insulted you personally or something?

Do you guys have a history I am unaware of?

Yes, he made a bald statement that Dr. Hansen was doctoring his data. That just happens to be the worst thing you can accuse any scientist of. He also has posted accusations concerning many people, including the President, that are simply scurilious and without basis.

He did not like what I thought of him and his post and has been hunting my posts and posting his drivel after each. Someone that is taking this medium way to seriously for his mental health.