Tahoe do you feel pollution, smoggy skies of cali, and other wastes caused by human civilization have no effect on the planet?
Printable View
Tahoe do you feel pollution, smoggy skies of cali, and other wastes caused by human civilization have no effect on the planet?
Not trying to pick a fight here, but some peeps do, hopefully the majority don't. Hopefully some have genuine feelings on issues and find the party/candidates that best reflect their feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFchris
When I'm deciding on who to vote for I prioritize the issues then find the candidate that best reflects my feelings at the top of my priority list.
Nothing too earth-shattering there, I just wish peeps would stop letting parties decide how and what to think. Nothing wrong with following either party if that is how you feel, but that to me, is almost weird that someone could go lock-step with either piece of shit parties. Lord I appologize for calling our parties pieces of shit...kind of.
Sure, if they go unchecked. Luckily, recycling programs have taken hold big time out here. I build houses. I go to the dump (sometimes) and its pretty amazing the seperation that takes place right at the deliver point. Waste on conveyers, wood to woodchips, paper goes here, plastic there. So we are mitigating our effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutz Gatsu
California has some pretty tough smog requirements. I have to have my cars and trucks smogges every other. For the amount of cars we have here, we do alright. It would be a good thing if the rest of the world buys into this.
They way some of that stuff is worded in that article is fishy. Take this part for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Why say "around the world, in Antartica"? Those are contradictory. Are we talking about the world, or just Antartica? It then says temps on there have gone down. Probably true, but ice melt does not happen there from air temp. the air only reaches a high of 41 degrees F there. Warm water causes the ice melt, not air temps. Snowfall may have increased, but what do they mean by "more ice"? every snowfall creates more ice. But is the net ice still positive or not? the article doesn't say. It could be melting faster than it's forming and the snow still results in "more ice" being formed. I don't know what they meant and what they didn't mean. i do know that in the movie they show sattelite images of the ice and you can see large chunks of the ice breaking off.Quote:
Around the world, in Antarctica, for the last few decades, average temperatures across the continent have been going down. Snowfall has increased, resulting in more continental ice. In fact, every modern computer simulation of 21st century climate has Antarctica continuing to accrete ice.
"Around the world, in Antartica" LOL that is pretty odd choice of words. Seems like someone would have caught that...and someone just did.
Gutz <---sets trapQuote:
Originally Posted by Gutz Gatsu
Tahoe <--- snared
Trip to TerrorDome forthcoming 8 Ball?
Signs point to yes.
Without a doubt.
As I see it, yes.
You may rely on it.
It is decidedly so.
Better not tell you now.
Yes - definitely.
It is certain.
Most likely.
Outlook good.
BTW, other sources have suggested there is more ice mass than before. I'm not sure which side of that is true. I suspect large portions ARE breaking off and the ice mass IS increasing. However, it has been proven that the temps are increasing. The higher temps are resulting in the permafrost line moving closer to the north pole and houses, pipe lines, trees that were once in the permafrost are no longer there. Who knows how much destruction that could have on the forests of Canada if that happens rapidly (don't know if it would or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
tahoe i hate to break the news to you. but your sky line still looks like dog shit. [smilie=peepwall.gi:
No it doesn't. Your's does though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutz Gatsu
Truth is I don't know wtf you're talking about.
then why the mean reply if you dont know? how george bush of you.:mccosky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
I just took a SWAG. Your sky line is really ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutz Gatsu
I forgot to listen to Rush Limbaugh Monday after the Oscars. I figured he was going to explode because Al Gore won a couple Oscars. Did anyone listen? You can admit it, it's OK.
I listen, as a Liberal Democrat, to find out what he and his peeps are putting out there. I will have to admit Rush is entertaining.
Anyway, I did catch a little bit on Tuesday, and sure enough, he was reading some research paper that called the Conservation movement the "new religion", said European children are scared to sleep because of Global Warming, and read from some paper on Global Warming (I'm sure put out by the best reasearch team on the staff of Exxon Oil Co), which basically called any research leading to the conclusion that Global Warming is happening a veritable hoax.
Now, I'm one wha hasn't read "the science". I just think it makes sense: Yes, we seem to be coming out of an ice age; but, with about a billion cars on the road, with factories spewing out shit for nearly 100 years now, with mankind making chemicals and waste products that nature doens't know how to handle, it just seems like there would be major problems resulting.
Do I do my part? The only thing I do is that my family has two cars (not Ve-HICKles), one a newer chevy cavalier, and the other a Nissan Altima.
I don't water my lawn, don't fertilize it, and do the recycling bit with the cans and glass.
I'm amused by the recent Gore smear. Gore pays 30-40% extra for "green power", and runs a business out of his home. Some Republican "think tank", probably in cahoots with a Tennessee newspaper, is "surprised" that Gore's power bills are high, that he should practice what he preaches. I'm not sure what's more scary to the wingnuts -- global warming or Gore running in 2008.
I caught that yesterday while at lunch at "jack & Mary's". They were all orgasmic over Al Gore's house using up "so much" energy. Then Rush talked about "Green Credits" that were given out at the Oscars. Everyone who attended got 100,000 lbs of pollution credits as a gift. Ol Rushie was ballistic.
By the way, if you're keeping score at home, for lunch yesterday I had the "Citrus Chicken Salad"
Gore is better than most of the pussies the Dems have running. He govern from the middle like Clinton did.
Gore's a better journalist than he is a politician, and I think that has a lot to do with his success as a global warming evangelist.
On a local note, these nimrods are at it again, asking leading questions to Michigan residents to extract answers they like:
http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/022807release.cfm
Duh! Everyone wants better gas mileage. But, it's political suicide to tax the oil and let supply and demand take its course. Instead, they want to stick it to auto companies to the near-exclusion of all else, even when only about half the oil we consume is converted to gasoline. Funny -- our government doesn't seem to have any problem forking over many billions to the airlines, even when they account for over 12% of our oil usage. Hell, they don't have any problem in supporting Big Oil to the tune of a trillion dollars in war costs. So of course, it's Michigan that's fucking us with anti-global warming policies. <grumble>
I read somewhere today (may have been the local paper) that the caps and glaciers are melting at an unbelievable rate, faster than Gore's statisticians predicted in An Inconvenient Truth.
What comes first: Ice Age in Europe or America or the demolition of Florida via sea levels?
It's so fast they are considering putting Polar Bears on the endangered list (or threatened list, I can't remember) because they will run out of ice to live on soon.
This is perhaps the best summary of the Climategate crap that I've read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/...limate_e_mails
Quote:
LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.
Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.
Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.
As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.
Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.
None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet
"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.
"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."
The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.
"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Any random conservative
If Motown stopped farting all the time, global warming would be a thing of the past.
Guess it's time to raid China, right?
Global warming = Bullshit
Please explain glacial retreat, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Tebow will fix it when he graduates
#68 was solid.
That's the 'old TBeau' right there.
They're French!Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
I was closest what do I win?
Expired phone card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Moisture DepletionQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Topographical Erosion
Atmospheric Wind Shifts
Bad Data, or narrow scope of data.
(IE measuring one areas retreat and ignoring equal advances in another)
And my favorite explanation of all.
Seasonal Changes.
When it comes to ice on this planet, people seem to forget that what melts in warm seasons comes back in cold seasons....
yeah, ice melts in summer, holy shit. Did you know it also comes back?
<-- this guy worries about pollution more than water vapor and Co2, because he's not fucking retarded. Grow trees if it scares you all so much.
:dismissed:
I believe grass and algae consume CO2 the fastest. CO2 parallels with pretty directly with biomass production (which means the faster the plant grows the more CO2 it consumes). Grasses and algae grow "like weeds".Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblesTheLion