Even with that said, the next hot subject is the big ole GW....thnx to you sheep who take it all in.
Um, ok Mr. WMD man.
Quote:
Man, you keep bringing up the war on drugs........that must piss you off huh?
Having to be all clandestine and shit when buying and using....eh?
Wanna know what is truly scary? It'd be the world YOU'D want us to have here in the USA.
A free world?
Yes.
Unlike the world YOU want us to have, a world of religious terror and oppression, and to top that off, it would have whimsical rules that changed everyday depending on the propaganda weather.
Of course people would be charged with other peoples crimes in the Self Projection Act of XFBO, it would tie into the Witch Burning Act were all one would have to do is call someone out on which they themselves are guilty, and have the angry mob burn them at the stake to exonerate the accuser of their sins.
Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.
By Patrick J. Michaels
This Sunday,Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent percentury.
“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.
These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to “do” something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
— Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
Ohhhhh kool dude!
So a world where I can drive whatever the fvck I want.........right?
A world where any corporate owner can do whatever the fvck he wants without any repercussions......that kind of free world?
A world where anyone could do any drug they want cuz if you're the boss it's all LEGAL......right, right, right?
If Im wrong about YOUR world please do amuse us and define your version of a FREE WORLD.
This should be good!
Getting back to my example cutter.....should all attorneys and ppl who were WRONGFULLY awarded for those silicone implant lawsuits have to give back their money? Since science has proven them to be wrong?
DEBUNKING THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPES
Written February 20, 2001
By Joe D'Aleo
Chief WSI/INTELLICAST Meteorologist
In a recent flurry of media releases, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) warned of "Dire Global Climate Consequences Ahead... with up to a 10.5ºC warming in the next century and devastating rises in seas levels and more killer storms". In their 2001 report they claim that "climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region of earth." They have cited what they believe to be as evidence that the disastrous warming has already begun. They believe the climate catastrophe will be global in nature and lead to potentially enormous loss of life. Not all of us believe that we have seen or will see catastrophic global warming. We challenged the magnitude of the current and future warming and the notion that Greenhouse gases are largely responsible for any observed warming in the story Global Warming - Is It For Real? Are Greenhouse Gases To Blame?. We even presented evidence for a possible global cooling in the near future due to changes that have been occurring in the oceans and on the sun in that story and in the story Quieter, Longer Solar Cycle Number 23 Could Signal Significant Climate Shift.
Let's look at some of the very recent statements from the Greenhouse lobby and the media and compare them with what the data says. It should be noted that we are not arguing that we should abandon efforts to conserve energy and protect the environment. Those are clearly good and worthwhile goals. We instead are urging that we practice good science once again and not let politics and economic factors control these important issues.
HYPE #1: POLAR REGIONS ARE WARMING AT AN ALARMING RATE AND THE ICE IS VANISHING - PROVING GLOBAL WARMING
Last August the IPCC talked about the Arctic ice thinning as further evidence of global warming. There were reports in the last two years that the Arctic ice cap has thinned in the last few decades. Then in August of 2000, IPCC scientists aboard a Russian icebreaker found broken ice with some open water near the North Pole. Pictures appeared in a headline story titled "The North Pole Is Melting" in the New York Times. The story was later retracted when scientists and others familiar with the Arctic environment shouted back that open stretches of water are common in summer even at the North Pole.
The IPCC stuck by their story about the thinning as evidence of global warming. So that brings us to the question - is the Polar Region really warming and is the ice cap really thinning?
It is true that a greenhouse effect would produce the greatest warming in the Polar Regions because CO2 is a selective absorber with the greatest effect at very cold temperatures found in the Polar Regions. However, a look at temperatures over the past five decades in the Arctic region shows very little change.
The temperatures data (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) for Jan Mayen Island in the Arctic region. No catastrophic warming here. The only departure from the mean of any significance was the dip down during the very cold 1960s, possibly in part due to very strong negative phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The temperature trends (NASS GISS) for Alert in the Northwest Territories in the last half of the 20th century. The biggest anomaly was the very cold spell in the late 1970s, when arctic air was in abundance and deep snow cover was observed across an unusually large part of the Northern Hemisphere. Otherwise, little change and certainly no catastrophic warming.
OK, so the Northern Hemisphere Polar Regions are not showing global warming, what about Antarctica? Here is the NASA GISS temperature plot for the South Pole for the past 40 years. Certainly no catastrophic warming here- in fact it has been colder on average since 1980 than in the prior two decades.
The three graphs displayed above clearly show that there is not any catastrophic warming in the Polar Regions of the Northern Hemisphere and likewise the Southern Hemisphere.
If temperatures are not rising, then why are there reports of thinner ice? Actually, this is a cyclical factor related to melting from beneath. Bill Gray and other climatologists talk of the huge thermohaline circulations in the ocean and how they change in a cyclical way.
Since the 1970s, the circulation was in a mode that favored the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. During this phase, the Atlantic water propelled by the increased westerly winds in the far North Atlantic, moved at higher speeds under the arctic ice, melting it from beneath. With the recent shift back to a circulation that favors the negative phase and weaker westerlies at high latitudes, one might expect the ice to soon start thickening again.
The extent of Arctic ice, and not its thickness may be a better measurement of the temperatures in the Polar Region. The coverage of ice in the Northern Hemisphere Arctic has been virtually unchanged since 1979 (USGCRP, June 2000), while that in the Antarctic regions has actually increased 2.6% since 1979. (Cavalieri, Science, November 1997).
HYPE #2: FOREST FIRES IN FLORIDA ARE ANOTHER SIGN OF GLOBAL WARMING
This global warming story which appeared this week on the evening news, was another sad example of media hype and poor journalism. The forest fires during the late winter and spring in Florida as we have reported are very strongly related to La Nina, which produces drought conditions in Florida much in the same way as the El Nino produces flooding rains. The fires will continue there until the La Nina disappears and the summer daily thunderstorms become frequent (by June). Next year there will be heavy rains in Florida thanks to El Nino. The evening news will probably blame that on Global Warming too.
HYPE #3: GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING GLACIERS TO MELT IN THE HIMILAYAS
Flooding, mudslides and spillover from the Indus River in the Ladakh area along the Kashmiri and Tibetan border in the Himalayan Mountains were caused at least in part from glacier meltwater. One news story about the resulting damage to the famous thousand-year-old Hemis Buddhist Monastery in August 1999 mentioned that global warming may be the culprit. Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, decided to see if warmer temperatures were indeed the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas. When he analyzed the 123-year temperature record for the region, compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he found no trend. His analysis revealed a statistically insignificant 0.04 degrees C cooling trend.
"Obviously, heavy rains…could be responsible for difficulties in the Ladakh area," Balling wrote. "However, any suggestion that the nearby glaciers are retreating because of warming during this century is inconsistent with the temperature data for the region. The simplistic notion that glacial retreat implies local warming once again melts away when available temperature records are examined" (www.greeningearthsociety.org).
Run-off from La Nina rains (La Nina enhances the wet monsoon) caused the flooding, clearly not global warming.
HYPE #4 ALPINE GLACIERS IN EUROPE WILL DISAPPEAR ALONG WITH WINTER SPORTS TOURISM
The 2001 IPCC report predicted that half of Alpine glaciers have shrunk and could disappear in the next 100 years, and said less reliable snow conditions would have an adverse impact on winter tourism in Europe.
In a story on UN reports of European desertification in recent decades, we pointed out that the drier than normal weather has been related to the cyclical changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation and not Greenhouse warming. The positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has dominated from the later 1970s to the middle 1990s, favors below normal snowfall in the Alps.
The recent change in the large thermohaline gyre in the Atlantic that drives the favored phases of the NAO suggests a tendency for the NAO to be predominantly negative in the next few decades. Since this negative phase favors more cold and snow in Europe, a ski vacation to the Alps may become more attractive not less in the upcoming years.
HYPE #5 GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE ICECAPS TO MELT AND PRODUCE DEVASTATING RISES IN SEA LEVEL
Paradoxically, sea levels could decline, not rise, if temperatures rise, due to increased evaporation from the oceans and subsequent precipitation over land. Increasing polar temperatures by a few degrees would not cause ice or snow to melt because the original temperatures are so low that an increase of a few degrees would leave them well below freezing.
More snow would fall and polar ice would increase. First proposed by Sir George Simpson, a British Meteorologist in 1938, this increase in snowfall and snowcap is called the Simpson Effect.
Sea level rises from the melting of lower-latitudes glaciers and the thermal expansion of the ocean is more likely, that is if you believe that significant warming will occur.
MORE TO COME...
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
Watch the fools tonight - applauding Al Gore when he gets his bogus Oscar.
February 13, 2007
Public Not Buying Global Warming Hype
Despite tireless propagandizing from the media, which has taken to lying shamelessly about a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming, citizens remain focused on threats that are real.
According to a Harris Poll, 55% of adults are aware that the deluge of illegal aliens pouring across the unguarded border will become a serious problem within the next five years. A significant loss of jobs to foreign countries troubles 52%. A natural disaster destroying a major city worries 43%, 40% are anxious that American energy needs will exceed supplies, and 35% are losing sleep over the prospects of a trade imbalance leading to foreign ownership of US debt and property.
Despite Al Gore's hysterical shrieking about Florida becoming submerged, only 23% have been convinced that rising sea levels will be a problem. On the bright side for the War on Weather's true believers, even fewer are taking Avian flu seriously.
tic toc tic toc........your head hurt trying to think Le Kutter?
Don't have time to read through it right now, but at first glance I can see it might be a real link to a real website, I been let down by so many of your links in the past I can't expect it to pass as real, but it does look promising, I'll respond later on it.
“Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player,” D’Aleo said.
He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures — a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd.
continued…
Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society’s conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.
That does not mean there is a consensus.
“There’s not a consensus on anything. There are people who say the Earth is not round, there are people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” said Richard Anthes of the Colorado- based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
“The vast majority of credible scientists from thousands of peer-reviewed papers agree that the strong balance of evidence is that the Earth is warming and the major cause of that is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions.”
D’Aleo is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He has no PhD and, according to Google Scholar, no peer-reviewed publications. A Google search for the ICECAP organization turns up nothing. Draw your own conclusions.
Enough said.
As for the second link to a poll about who is scared of what I will ignore do to irrelevance.
I am very impressed this came from a balanced website though, I thought that shit was like neocon kryptonite or something, but then I saw it linked to neocon sites like freerepublic, and I'm guessing it was a cut and paste off of one of those sites.
But this is by far the best attempt to discredit global warming I have seen by you, I was pulled away from this after a quick review and my imagination got me excited that maybe new science showed a more positive outlook, but under the microscope (and to my regret) it is just a potentially paid off scientist, but he is by far the most legit scientist on the side of oil interests, so even if he wasn't paid off, he still is a extreme minority in the science community, and even though I am still favoring the 99% of the rest of the science community, I must applaud the effort you guys made today.
It's nice to see them try.
It's good to have this kind of stuff to balance and question our own sources, seriously.
Like I said, ages ago, I hope that the problem is exaggerated, and that it turns out to be less catastrophic than predicted. But I doubt it, and I' d rather start taking preventive measures now than cleaning up later. Sticking your head in the sand will only mean the water covers your ass sooner....
... I' d rather start taking preventive measures now than cleaning up later. Sticking your head in the sand will only mean the water covers your ass sooner....
Le Kiwi,
If that's what you believe is happening then you are free to make changes in your life to satisfy your conscience.
But don't you dare demand the same of me...
"don't tread on me "
Nero, if you understand the situation, if you are in full possession of your mental facilities and reasoning processes, if there rests no further ambiguity in the validity of what is going to happen to the planet, and you feel happy about assisting to reverse or lessen the effects of Global Climate change, sitting passively in your EZ boy drinking beer, or actively aiding in the destruction of all life on the planet, live with your decision.
I'm not going to force anybody to do anything they don't want to do. All I ask is that they understand whats going on and are able to assume their responsability.
If you understand the facts, and have a Global view (in other words, you CAN see the forest through the trees...) then it's up to your ethical and moral compass to guide you.
if you are in full possession of your mental facilities and reasoning processes,
if there rests no further ambiguity in the validity of what is going to happen to the planet,
and you feel happy about assisting to reverse or lessen the effects of Global Climate change,
sitting passively in your EZ boy drinking beer,
or actively aiding in the destruction of all life on the planet,
live with your decision.
All I ask is that they understand whats going on and are able to assume their responsability.
If you understand the facts,
and have a Global view (in other words, you CAN see the forest through the trees...)
then it's up to your ethical and moral compass to guide you.
Have you ever met a bigger blowhard than yourself? Listen to yourself man, you are the spitting image of those you profess to hate. You preach tolerance and then show none. Take some time off and get yourself back together. The planet will still be here when you return.
Nero, if you understand the situation, if you are in full possession of your mental facilities and reasoning processes, if there rests no further ambiguity in the validity of what is going to happen to the planet, and you feel happy about assisting to reverse or lessen the effects of Global Climate change, sitting passively in your EZ boy drinking beer, or actively aiding in the destruction of all life on the planet, live with your decision.
I'm not going to force anybody to do anything they don't want to do. All I ask is that they understand whats going on and are able to assume their responsability.
If you understand the facts, and have a Global view (in other words, you CAN see the forest through the trees...) then it's up to your ethical and moral compass to guide you.
Go Tiger !
That's a lot of if's.
I think I do have a global view.
Who are you to judge if my global view is wrong ?
In your global view, are you willing to insist that China and India sign Kyoto and comply at equivalent levels as the "developed" world, because they don't agree to that.
Their story is that CO2 caused global warming is an unproved theory.
MANY scientist agree with them. Because your side bangs drums, protest loudly does that make you right ?
You have NO consensus.
How arrogant of you my friend.
That's a lot of if's.
I think I do have a global view.
Who are you to judge if my global view is wrong?
It isn't just him saying your global view is wrong, it is the whole scientific community, but there are many who still believe that the earth is only 6000 years old too in spite of science, so you definitely are not alone when you believe a belief over science.
Quote:
In your global view, are you willing to insist that China and India sign Kyoto and comply at equivalent levels as the "developed" world, because they don't agree to that.
So what?
They start the treaty in a handicap, why do people shout this out like they are making a valid point not to do it altogether?
I'm not sure what belief you are inserting to that statement, but please share how this is a relevant case against Kyoto?
Quote:
Their story is that CO2 caused global warming is an unproved theory.
MANY scientist agree with them. Because your side bangs drums, protest loudly does that make you right ?
You have NO consensus.
How arrogant of you my friend.
Arrogance is on your side friend.
Quote:
Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society’s conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.
That does not mean there is a consensus.
“There’s not a consensus on anything. There are people who say the Earth is not round, there are people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” said Richard Anthes of the Colorado- based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
So according to your logic, anyone who thinks the earth is round would be arrogant because there is no consensus...
How is he a hypocrite?
Al Gore runs a political office, if they are going to compare him to anything it should be to a nationally known business.
I would hope some of that $30,000 was from solar panel, or windmill installation though, it would seem weak to preach about energy consumption and not make any efforts to thwart it oneself.
But I also will not support the ad hominem that I know will be made over this article, and I will call it out so don't even bother.
The temperatures data (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) for Jan Mayen Island in the Arctic region. No catastrophic warming here. The only departure from the mean of any significance was the dip down during the very cold 1960s, possibly in part due to very strong negative phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation. 
The temperature trends (NASS GISS) for Alert in the Northwest Territories in the last half of the 20th century. The biggest anomaly was the very cold spell in the late 1970s, when arctic air was in abundance and deep snow cover was observed across an unusually large part of the Northern Hemisphere. Otherwise, little change and certainly no catastrophic warming. 
OK, so the Northern Hemisphere Polar Regions are not showing global warming, what about Antarctica? Here is the NASA GISS temperature plot for the South Pole for the past 40 years. Certainly no catastrophic warming here- in fact it has been colder on average since 1980 than in the prior two decades. 
Linear Mode
