The Latest On Global Temperature Changes....

FirefightnRick · May 14, 2008

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...ade0430-ON.html

The result: Surface temperatures over much of Europe and North America are expected to cool slightly over the next decade. Meanwhile, ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific will remain largely unchanged. On balance, that yields a period of relatively stable global average temperatures.

But?, But?, But? :blink:

Rick

UNT_playmaker · May 14, 2008

Nice find Rick

What's weird this year is he amount of tornadoes across the nation, so far I think 900 and 95 deaths and the average for the year is 350-400 and 45 deaths for an entire year. Staggering

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

100 years of Global Warming Wiped Out in 2007

And yet, CO2 levels are rising. However, the sun is coming out of its active cycle. I think this is compelling evidence that CO2 is not the warming gas that environmentalists claim it to be. When you look at Al Gore's little CO2 vs Temperature power point slide, CO2 levels always rose after temperatures climbed. Any educated person knows that cause cannot follow effect, but then again this is the guy who flunked out of divinity school.

"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get." -Mark Twain

Edited May 14, 2008 by UNTflyer

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

Great News Guys!

Now I can go back to work in my new car and come home and provide dinner for my family now that those crazy liberal environmentalists have been proven wrong!!!

The market wins again...pollute away!!!

SUMG · May 14, 2008

Great News Guys!
Now I can go back to work in my new car and come home and provide dinner for my family now that those crazy liberal environmentalists have been proven wrong!!!
The market wins again...pollute away!!!

If you and other liberals would just kill yourselves...that would save a ton of pollution. I'll drive you to the bridge.

Come on, it'll be fun.

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

If you and other liberals would just kill yourselves...that would save a ton of pollution. I'll drive you to the bridge.
Come on, it'll be fun.

And you conservatives claim to be pro-life.

Flip-flopper

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

This has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals. It has everything to do with fantasy vs. reality. Global warming, as defined by radical environmentalists as being man-made, is a fantasy.

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

This has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals. It has everything to do with fantasy vs. reality. Global warming, as defined by radical environmentalists as being man-made, is a fantasy.

Based on this one study? I'm sure you can come up with more...as I can come up with plenty of studies to refute it. If you pay attention...the scientific community presents Global Warming as a theory...much like evolution. It takes more than one study...and more than one years worth of data to either prove or dispell a theory. Unfortunantly in our A.D.D. society our "news outlets" have 1 minute tops to present a story before Dad wants to watch Cinemax, Mom wants to know about Britney Spears and 'lil Johnny wants to play Grand Theft Auto...so they leave out the fact that this is theory and present it as either...oh, I don't know the best words...fantasy or reality? Yeah...those work.

And lets say, for arguments sake...b/c I know we both love it...that Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change turn out to be complete lunacy...what are the average (there are extremists of all walks of life) environmentalists really asking of you? Buy those curly-q florescent light bulbs? If feasible, drive a hybrid or use public transportation...or atleast take steps to ensure your cars emmissions are reduced? Recycle? Or on a larger scale...don't cut down all the rainforest...destroying both human and animal habitat AND a significant portion of our oxygen supply (unless its also fantasy that plants emit oxygen)? Continue to explore alternative and cleaner (wind, solar, water) energy sources?

I'm about to get a "allow the market to dictate change" arguement, aren't I?

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

And lets say, for arguments sake...b/c I know we both love it...that Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change turn out to be complete lunacy...what are the average (there are extremists of all walks of life) environmentalists really asking of you? Buy those curly-q florescent light bulbs? If feasible, drive a hybrid or use public transportation...or atleast take steps to ensure your cars emmissions are reduced? Recycle? Or on a larger scale...don't cut down all the rainforest...destroying both human and animal habitat AND a significant portion of our oxygen supply (unless its also fantasy that plants emit oxygen)? Continue to explore alternative and cleaner (wind, solar, water) energy sources?
I'm about to get a "allow the market to dictate change" arguement, aren't I?

We are being asked to completely change our energy infrastructure to less efficient, more expensive energy sources. If it was just about light bulbs, I wouldn't care.

SUMG · May 14, 2008

We are being asked to completely change our energy infrastructure to less efficient, more expensive energy sources. If it was just about light bulbs, I wouldn't care.

No but those Earth saving curly Q light bulbs (CFLs) contain mercury. They're supposed to be disposed of, at a CFL recycling center...which are few and far between. So, when those CFLs start getting put in the trash...and landfills start having high levels of mercury, that'll be the next "chicken little" cause of the environmentalists.

yyz28 · May 14, 2008

We are being asked to completely change our energy infrastructure to less efficient, more expensive energy sources. If it was just about light bulbs, I wouldn't care.

DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a winner... ...THIS IS EXACTLY CORRECT.

Ask Detroit how it feels about the latest Government MPG mandates that caused GM to all but scrap the bulk of what they had in development in an environment where they are already hurting. GM is the strongest of the American manufacturers. These new mandates will be difficult for them to deal with, nearly impossible for Ford to deal with and may just be the Death Blow of a very feeble Chrysler Corp. The party who claims to speak for the little guy and union workers in one sentence support legislation designed to slay the golden goose in the next. HELLO!? Is anyone actually paying attention out there?

Washington, who doesn't know poop about anything other than spending our money, passes "Highway Safety Bill #7609883" which mandates more saftety equipment and safter cars by X date... then they pass "EPA Bill 73477-34" which nearly DOUBLES the fleet MPG average required. It doesn't take an engineer to figure this out. ...something about the Left hand and the Right hand...

Eagle1855 · May 14, 2008

Hahahahaha

These threads are freaking AWESOME.

I found this site to be interesting.

(and no, it isn't a Rick Roll... but this may have been a good place for one... impossible to be angry listening to his sweet voice)

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

If you pay attention...the scientific community presents Global Warming as a theory...much like evolution.

Really?

Sure seems to me like it is being presented as an undeniable truth, with nearly religous fervor.

CMJ · May 14, 2008

Really?
Sure seems to me like it is being presented as an undeniable truth, with nearly religous fervor.

Well evolution is too by scientists you know.

Truth is, the Earth was warming at a worrisome rate for acouple of decades. A theory was presented that seemed to make alot of sense. I for one think it has some validity, but there are SO many factors involved in the climate. I mean sun spots are a big one...and we've had a cycle of alot of them recently IIRC, so that may explain part of it. Apparently the "Little Ice Age" a few hundred years ago was in an "off cycle" for Spots.

Climate change still seems to be an issue, and I do think we should investigate alternative fuels much more so than we have been(not to mention just for my general health I'd like to not have to breathe smog all the time). But we really have no idea what kind of problem we're dealing with here....it may or may not be as dire as we were led to believe 8-10 years ago.

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

Really?
Sure seems to me like it is being presented as an undeniable truth, with nearly religous fervor.

I just did a google search for "Global Warming" and turned up 48,800,000 matching articles. Seriously...use your head.

The fact that there is any scientific discussion over the existance of global warming proves that it is a theory.

When's the last time CNN or FoxNews led with a debate over gravity? They don't because that is a scientific law.

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

Appearantly we need to keep this one more civil than the last thread...daddy took away our Muslim toy

CMJ · May 14, 2008

Appearantly we need to keep this one more civil than the last thread...daddy took away our Muslim toy

Well, that one had kinda gone south. :lol:

FirefightnRick · May 14, 2008

I didn't see a problem with it myself as most posts were being kept civil. And I was just about to post the story about the British Teacher who was facing jail and beatings for allowing one of her 7 year old Sudanese school children to name a teddy bear after Muhamed?

Carry on.

Rick

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

I just did a google search for "Global Warming" and turned up 48,800,000 matching articles. Seriously...use your head.

You're preaching to the choir here, CBL. I know it's a theory, and not a very good one at that. But you cannot deny that it is being presented to the public as an incontrovertible fact, and anyone who claims otherwise is shouted down as being in the pockets of the oil companies.

UNTflyer · May 14, 2008

Appearantly we need to keep this one more civil than the last thread...daddy took away our Muslim toy

I thought that thread was very respectable. A bunch of adults having a civil debate over a highly controversial topic. Imagine that.

MeanGreenEngineer · May 14, 2008

I thought that thread was very respectable. A bunch of adults having a civil debate over a highly controversial topic. Imagine that.

I am sure the NSFW near nude images of Megan Fox had NOTHING to do with it being shut down. :rolleyes:

Green Mean · May 14, 2008

I didn't see a problem with it myself as most posts were being kept civil. And I was just about to post the story about the British Teacher who was facing jail and beatings for allowing one of her 7 year old Sudanese school children to name a teddy bear after Muhamed?
Carry on.
Rick

Ugh that story is a whip. Just one of the weird things in regards to things like that. I cant really explain it over a message board but its completely stupid. I dont know what happen to that lady but lets hope she didnt have to go to jail or anything. But if you want to be nit-picky you will find stories like that all over the world in every society, religion, country etc.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Green Mean

CMJ · May 14, 2008

I hate to derail this thread.....

But I mean...this had to be a complaint by a religious parent(most likely Christian if you use the Harry Potter uproar as an example) right?

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=61699

Who else would bitch about wizardry? Obviously people of all faiths can take it too far at times.

Censored by Laurie · May 14, 2008

You're preaching to the choir here, CBL. I know it's a theory, and not a very good one at that. But you cannot deny that it is being presented to the public as an incontrovertible fact, and anyone who claims otherwise is shouted down as being in the pockets of the oil companies.

See, I think it is an extremly practical theory...one with holes like most...but a rational argument

As for how its presented...I disagree with the way all TV media outlets portray the news...but from what I've seen Al Gore's movie sparked the global warming as fact presentation you're referring to...but recently and in light of some of the studies you've referenced they've tempered that fervor and are presenting these holes.

Again though, they only have 1 minute to hold the attention of the average American idiot...thats why I feel extremely grateful to have a girl (sorry SUMG) who wants to spend Sunday morning in a coffee shop reading the NY Times (sorry Flyer)...the newspaper is a dying media and its an absolute shame.

The over -riding message that I feel needs to be convayed though is that something needs to change in the way we use energy...we've left oil companies in charge of weening us off our dependance of oil...probably not the most practical step. E-85 at the time of conception, seemed like a good idea...we waste tons of grain and corn every year...lets put it to use. Its turned into an embarrasment...and its failing is the first mention made when discussing going to alternative fuel sources. Solar is expensive because of the metals used in the production of solar panels...namely Indium and Gallium...both running at over $600 a kilo right now (my area).

You stated earlier that you're against a sweeping change in our energy infrastructure...thats not what I want either...its impractical...however gradual steps to lesson our dependance on oil...not just foreign oil, but oil altogether seems neccesary for the future.