Global Cooling For Next 20-30 Years

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 1, 2010

I just deleted the rest of your post b/c it bored me, but Cubans...and hundreds of other nationalities and cultures including Americans who understand that the be all and end all of their cuisine isn't Appleby's, eat pigeon, or squab, because its delicious.

Yes, another reason America has it all backward, we haven't recognized pigeon for the delicacy that it is. Obviously.

It must not follow to the second homeland, Miami, because when we vacationed there in October I don't recall seeing pigeon on any of the menues. Perhaps the American Cubans have become as spoiled and short-sighted as the rest of America.

TheTastyGreek · February 1, 2010

You drink Pepsi?

Well, it IS irresistibly sippable, uncontestably tasteful, and intimately wonderful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1XhyjLBtCw

Edited February 1, 2010 by TheTastyGreek

UNTFan23 · February 1, 2010

I Must ask the question:

OR

Edited February 1, 2010 by UNTFan23

FirefightnRick · February 2, 2010

People can eat lots of things - meat, vegetables, processed cheese. In some parts of the world, they eat dogs and cats. Others eat insects. The Cubans eat pigeons because their socialist economy is so great.

The thing is we've got all of this handwringing all the time about what will happen if this or that happens. What will happen is this - we'll all get up and eat something, then go to work.

Global warming has never been about science, anyway. It's always been about two things:
(1) making the United States fork over even more money to crappily run countries
(2) giving the leftists in America complete control of the government and economy all for the sake of their bogeyman.

Well guess what leftists? Suck it! You'll never pull the wool over our eyes - and, therefore, the money out of our pockets - to fund your chicken little theories to their fanatical end.

I'm waiting for the day when all of these environmentalists walk the walk of the talk they are talking and move away from the rest of society and cling to their beloved "Mother Earth" for their survival.

There's a whole lot of open land in Africa, environmentalists. Grab a plane tickets and go fight for your survival with the lions and hyenas. I'd love to see the results.

Boing. Boing. Boing. That's the sound of an ape bouncing your head all over the Serengeti. Meanwhile, I'm home in Frisco, Texas in my air conditioned home, drinking cold Pepsi Cola out of a can, microwaving a chicken pot pie, and commuting 44 miles a day back and forth in my own car, and remarking to my SUV-driving, child-bearing wife about how nice it is to turn on the news and not have hear from the environmentalists anymore.

:lol:

Rick

eulessismore · February 2, 2010

People can eat lots of things - meat, vegetables, processed cheese. In some parts of the world, they eat dogs and cats. Others eat insects. The Cubans eat pigeons because their socialist economy is so great.

The thing is we've got all of this handwringing all the time about what will happen if this or that happens. What will happen is this - we'll all get up and eat something, then go to work.

Global warming has never been about science, anyway. It's always been about two things:
(1) making the United States fork over even more money to crappily run countries
(2) giving the leftists in America complete control of the government and economy all for the sake of their bogeyman.

Well guess what leftists? Suck it! You'll never pull the wool over our eyes - and, therefore, the money out of our pockets - to fund your chicken little theories to their fanatical end.

I'm waiting for the day when all of these environmentalists walk the walk of the talk they are talking and move away from the rest of society and cling to their beloved "Mother Earth" for their survival.

There's a whole lot of open land in Africa, environmentalists. Grab a plane tickets and go fight for your survival with the lions and hyenas. I'd love to see the results.

Boing. Boing. Boing. That's the sound of an ape bouncing your head all over the Serengeti. Meanwhile, I'm home in Frisco, Texas in my air conditioned home, drinking cold Pepsi Cola out of a can, microwaving a chicken pot pie, and commuting 44 miles a day back and forth in my own car, and remarking to my SUV-driving, child-bearing wife about how nice it is to turn on the news and not have hear from the environmentalists anymore.

Man, you're writing soliloquys all over the place today. So, do people self identify as "left" and "right" anymore? I can't think of anyone who does; maybe because both ends of the political spectrum have done such wonderful things in the past that most of don't feel like we can really compete.

Your takedown of "environmentalists" reminds me of a quote by the confessed environmentalist Don Henley, when he was being interviewed by for a feature on him in the "North Texan", while showing the student reporter around the Caddo Lake (which he has admittedly tried to conserve). Oh yes the quote: "Y'ont some pie?"

Have you ever thought about writing as eloquently as Mr. Henley? I'm sure you've both had good learning opportunities at what he called the "wonderful" North Texas English Department. Oh, and I took a point from you by giving you a negative one, so I've given and taken from you today. I'm sure you enjoy a good give and take.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 2, 2010

Man, you're writing soliloquys all over the place today. So, do people self identify as "left" and "right" anymore? I can't think of anyone who does; maybe because both ends of the political spectrum have done such wonderful things in the past that most of don't feel like we can really compete.

Your takedown of "environmentalists" reminds me of a quote by the confessed environmentalist Don Henley, when he was being interviewed by for a feature on him in the "North Texan", while showing the student reporter around the Caddo Lake (which he has admittedly tried to conserve). Oh yes the quote: "Y'ont some pie?"

Have you ever thought about writing as eloquently as Mr. Henley? I'm sure you've both had good learning opportunities at what he called the "wonderful" North Texas English Department. Oh, and I took a point from you by giving you a negative one, so I've given and taken from you today. I'm sure you enjoy a good give and take.

Hmmm. My degree from UNT in English (or, I think they officially called it Literature). I don't think Henley lives in the wild, though. I wish I had time to be a writer of literary things. I'm settling for writing insurance things for the time being. Not much room for creativity there. Some, but not much. The companies are tight on wording.

What's points are you talking about? I don't keep score.

LongJim · February 2, 2010

Hmmm. My degree from UNT in English.

EagleGreen · February 2, 2010

The following article is a very interesting article about climate change occuring in the eastern United States. It seems the added CO2, higher temps, longer growing season, or any combo of such variables causes trees to pack on more mass. Interesting. No cooling occuring in the eastern U.S..

Climate Warming in Eastern U.S.

Edited February 2, 2010 by EagleGreen

UNTflyer · February 2, 2010

--I am lost... why is global warming even a political party issue?? It is a science issue and which party we vote in seems to not even be relavent... Is is because Gore was a figure in one party and the opposition party thinks no way someone in the opposition party might be right about anything?? To me it seems things have changed some (less ice) but have no idea why.. natural variation or man-caused is the question...and how is that political??

Why is it a political party issue?? Because the Democrats embraced the global warming hysteria... It was harmless until they proposed imposing taxes on business and individuals to fight a myth.

yyz28 · February 2, 2010

--I did not hear all of the speech (working)...but I did hear some environmental items... Ever seen some of these old oil fields of West Texas....??? Salt water and chemicals poured everywhere and the land is damaged so bad that the water is ruined and the land is unproductive for even grass. There are some "creeks" damned up so that the polluted water can not go downstream to lakes and needed water for human and ag use. . If there were no regulations ...you and I both know what would be happening even now. Why would one party be any more environmental friendly than the other or even more concerned about the possibibilty of global warming. Better to err on the safe side than the other unless way too riculious. Plus our oil resourses will not later forever... our lifetime yes...but not forever.

Back to your original sentence... about overwheming evidence... are those people just members of one political party or even any political party??? Some of them aren't even American...

Don't confuse my dumping on the Global Warming Hoax for my willingness to pollute the environment. There is an awful big difference between the two. The Global Warming issue is beyond environmental protection. You're using an example of regulations placed (far too late in my opinion) on companies in this country that were willingly polluting the local water supply and air. This was stopped by and large in the 70's and 80's. We KNEW these actions were bad for the environment when they were going on.

...compare that to Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change (or whatever they are calling it this week to hide the fact they really don't know what is going on) and the two concepts don't belong in the same conversation. We don't know if we're actually having an impact on global tempuratures based on our actions. ...we COULD tell we were polluting the air and water making localized areas inhospitable in the example you site. Scientists and Politicians who are pushing Man Made Climate Change as a reality can't even seem to tell us straight if the planet is cooling or warming, but they are sure its our fault? ...and that cutting down on CO2 emissions when CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will actually impact the planet's natural climate cycles? That's the overwhelming evidence?

Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere.

You're right, there are a lot of people outside of America beating this same drum, using the same bad science, and interesting enough, most of them are pointing the finger at us and expecting us to lower our standard of living to theirs (or below) in order to fix this problem, which hasn't even been determined by the scientific community to actually be a problem, or be anything we can do anything about or that we had anything to do with it in the first place. ...and following that drumbeat of world opinion is one political party in this country. Like it or not, but this IS a political issue because instead of letting science actually discover the facts and determine what is really going on and why, we simply jump to the conclusion that our actions are impacting the climate. What arrogance to think we have that kind of power.

...I remember being told that Global cooling would wipe us out in 20 years back in the 70's. ...I remember being told that San Francisco, LA, Manhattan and Miami would be underwater by the year 2010 back in the 90's. ...and I remember that it was the same group of people with the same agenda spouting off that nonsense that are pushing this agenda today.

eulessismore · February 3, 2010

Don't confuse my dumping on the Global Warming Hoax for my willingness to pollute the environment. There is an awful big difference between the two. The Global Warming issue is beyond environmental protection. You're using an example of regulations placed (far too late in my opinion) on companies in this country that were willingly polluting the local water supply and air. This was stopped by and large in the 70's and 80's. We KNEW these actions were bad for the environment when they were going on.

...compare that to Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change (or whatever they are calling it this week to hide the fact they really don't know what is going on) and the two concepts don't belong in the same conversation. We don't know if we're actually having an impact on global tempuratures based on our actions. ...we COULD tell we were polluting the air and water making localized areas inhospitable in the example you site. Scientists and Politicians who are pushing Man Made Climate Change as a reality can't even seem to tell us straight if the planet is cooling or warming, but they are sure its our fault? ...and that cutting down on CO2 emissions when CO2 makes up 4 parts in 10,000 of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will actually impact the planet's natural climate cycles? That's the overwhelming evidence?

Lets say the atmosphere is Fouts Field. let's say that the 10,000 parts are attendees at a football game that we're losing. Let's say 2 of those people get up and walk out. Would you notice? ...well, that's the same impact that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere by half would have on the atmosphere.

You're right, there are a lot of people outside of America beating this same drum, using the same bad science, and interesting enough, most of them are pointing the finger at us and expecting us to lower our standard of living to theirs (or below) in order to fix this problem, which hasn't even been determined by the scientific community to actually be a problem, or be anything we can do anything about or that we had anything to do with it in the first place. ...and following that drumbeat of world opinion is one political party in this country. Like it or not, but this IS a political issue because instead of letting science actually discover the facts and determine what is really going on and why, we simply jump to the conclusion that our actions are impacting the climate. What arrogance to think we have that kind of power.

...I remember being told that Global cooling would wipe us out in 20 years back in the 70's. ...I remember being told that San Francisco, LA, Manhattan and Miami would be underwater by the year 2010 back in the 90's. ...and I remember that it was the same group of people with the same agenda spouting off that nonsense that are pushing this agenda today.

Well, I'm glad you show some concern for the environment. According to some here, that just makes you an America hater.

yyz28 · February 3, 2010

I think the (real) stories about the Government and Activists putting the needs of a 1" long fish over the needs of people like is going on in California as I type this has tainted people against the thought of environmentalism. We all want to have clean water and air, but sacrificing the well being of people because of a fish is what taints the good intentions of the movement as a whole.

eulessismore · February 3, 2010

I think the (real) stories about the Government and Activists putting the needs of a 1" long fish over the needs of people like is going on in California as I type this has tainted people against the thought of environmentalism. We all want to have clean water and air, but sacrificing the well being of people because of a fish is what taints the good intentions of the movement as a whole.

Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I do agree with some poor public relations resulting from some environmentalist strategies, such as those for conserving forest habitat for wildlife (an owl in Washington State was seldom seen and a convenient target for those on the other side). I did meet the guy, Ned Fritz, who many credit with devising and prosecuting that strategy in the courts as a method of forest conservation. If anyone ever thought an environmentalist was by default an America hating, self despising misanthrope, they should meet that guy. He had been a Navy officer in World War Two (not like so many of those loudly proclaiming their patriotism lately, and never risking their own safety), and could still make a much younger man struggle to stay up with him. He must have been in his 80's when I met him for professional reasons. Family values? He and his wife looked as in love as any teenagers. I must say, the man slowed or stopped many sales for clearcutting timber in our national forests, even if for unloved critters. I worked for the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon and Washington for a couple of summers; I see nothing wrong with mixed use of these forests, but just couldn't see the need to take down some of those stands of old growth for producing such things as paper to be consumed in other countries. If I were devising a PR campaign against such practices, I might question people as to whether they wanted to deny their children and grandchildren the opportunities to view thousand year old groves of giant trees in pristine wilderness. I mean, we've destroyed well over 90% of the old growth already, why haven't we developed a sufficient plantation system for our needs, or even get down off our high horse and allow such rapid growing fiber crops as hemp to be grown for such purposes, as it was in the 1940's? I guess if someone smoked a ton of it they might get high and somebody somewhere might get their nose out of joint about it.

As far as placing a priority on human needs, remember this: we don't yet know all of the uses to which substances to be found in nature can be put. Should we be cavalier in letting them become extinct, or nearly so?

Ah, I forgot, the great man has passed away:

Ned Fritz obituary

Edited February 3, 2010 by eulessismore