NCAAbbs

.....well, us, the simpletons, we must do something about global warming. He, and others like Gore will stay the same.



Link


Travolta's Home:

Well, you would think with all these people around here saying global warming is going to kill us, they'd have at least "something" to say about this. .....but a Republican isn't involved so, ..... {crickets}

RebelKev Wrote:.....well, us, the simpletons, we must do something about global warming. He, and others like Gore will stay the same.



Link


Travolta's Home:

So we're responsible for what Travolta and Gore say? I didn't even vote for Gore. Come to think of it, I don't remember voting for Travolta either. ;-)

Wouldn't mind having a hangar in the front yard. Not sure what the neighbors would say though.

If Travolta wants to gain some credibility he should scale back to three private jets and stop worshiping aliens

NIU007 Wrote:So we're responsible for what Travolta and Gore say? I didn't even vote for Gore. Come to think of it, I don't remember voting for Travolta either. ;-)

Wouldn't mind having a hangar in the front yard. Not sure what the neighbors would say though.

He epitomizes the global warming crowd.

bitchin' plane

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:So we're responsible for what Travolta and Gore say? I didn't even vote for Gore. Come to think of it, I don't remember voting for Travolta either. ;-)

Wouldn't mind having a hangar in the front yard. Not sure what the neighbors would say though.

He epitomizes the global warming crowd.

I'm more interested in what the climatologists who are part of the global warming crowd have to say.

It IS a nice plane though.

If it wasn't for Pulp Fiction.....................

JTiger Wrote:bitchin' plane

I like his wife.

Quote:"I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.

I don't know the context of the "interview" if that's what it was, but this statement gives me the impression someone asked him about global warming and he gave his opinion. It doesn't exactly imply he was lecturing anybody. I'll admit that I have no idea if Travolta makes a habit of lecturing on the subject, and if he does my feelings about this might change. But I don't have a problem with a guy who gives (not forces) an opinion that conflicts with his lifestyle.

He's got two ******* planes? The man is living!! Where is that?

Actually I saw a documentary on TV about how after 9/11 the temperatures (in the US, I think) actually warmed briefly, supposedly because all the jets weren't in the air spreading aerosols into the environment which formed clouds which cooled the earth. So maybe Travolta is doing his part to fight global warming.

there was an excellent 60 minutes piece last nite on global warming in antarctica
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/3...1210.shtml

niuhuskie84 Wrote:there was an excellent 60 minutes piece last nite on global warming in antarctica
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/3...1210.shtml

a good example of the problem is reporting ommissions like this one, they interviewed this MAYEWSKI guy on 60 minutes, but failed to mention in the entire piece this same guy's report or ask him about, his report linking all this to increased Solar activity, which is the much more reasonable source of any warming or cooling.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...122204.php

I just don't see how you can have any "global warming" piece in media and not as part of it talk about the Sun, assuming they are being objective which I don't beleive is the case.

GGniner Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:there was an excellent 60 minutes piece last nite on global warming in antarctica
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/3...1210.shtml

a good example of the problem is reporting ommissions like this one, they interviewed this MAYEWSKI guy on 60 minutes, but failed to mention in the entire piece this same guy's report or ask him about, his report linking all this to increased Solar activity, which is the much more reasonable source of any warming or cooling.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...122204.php

I just don't see how you can have any "global warming" piece in media and not as part of it talk about the Sun, assuming they are being objective which I don't beleive is the case.

perhaps. but i still find ice cores showing the spike in temperatures coinciding with the beginning of the industrial revolution much more convincing.

like they said, you can physically visibly see the changes taking place (some in a year by year basis). man made or not, the warming of the atmosphere is going to have far reaching consequences for us, one way or another. im sure we could have the entire eastern seaboard underwater, and there would still be people debating if warming is real or not.

Also, I believe they've measured a large increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last 150+ years (not sure how they measured it, if it was ice cores, or what).

I agree though, if you're going to talk about global warming as if it is caused by humans, you should have some reason to rule out the sun causing it. Some measurements taken from satellites which are currently measuring that very thing, solar irradiance, for instance.

Quote:I'm more interested in what the climatologists who are part of the global warming crowd have to say.

+1

niuhuskie84 Wrote:there was an excellent 60 minutes piece last nite on global warming in antarctica
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/3...1210.shtml

CBS News: "If you were waiting for the day global warming would change the world, that day is here. It

NIU007 Wrote:Also, I believe they've measured a large increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last 150+ years (not sure how they measured it, if it was ice cores, or what).

There was a guy in Hawaii who was taking atmostpheric measurements for a different purpose about 50 years ago...turns out his data was pretty useful for observing the CO2 concentration.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp001.html

Older than that to 150 years probably used various laboratory measurements...and possibly ice core data to try to validate that it is a legitimate approach.

Quote:I agree though, if you're going to talk about global warming as if it is caused by humans, you should have some reason to rule out the sun causing it. Some measurements taken from satellites which are currently measuring that very thing, solar irradiance, for instance.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/su...2/5515/234

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2007/...earth.html

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:I'm more interested in what the climatologists who are part of the global warming crowd have to say.

+1

Unless you don't like what they have to say

Link

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...ocean.html

[quote]For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5

the largest increase in CO2 happened after WW2 during the Industrial expansion in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the result was temps fell and continued to until the end of the 1970's, which is why back then they were talking about "global Cooling" instead of warming.

Historically, the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the advent of cars, factories, etc. It's always been a dynamic climate, the only thing new is man trying to blame themselves for it. Remember those mini eruptions at Mt. St helens in Washington State awhile back, those alone put more "greenhouse" gases in the air then all of mankind and industry in that state for the entire year.

GGniner Wrote:the largest increase in CO2 happened after WW2 during the Industrial expansion in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the result was temps fell and continued to until the end of the 1970's, which is why back then they were talking about "global Cooling" instead of warming.

Historically, the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the advent of cars, factories, etc. It's always been a dynamic climate, the only thing new is man trying to blame themselves for it. Remember those mini eruptions at Mt. St helens in Washington State awhile back, those alone put more "greenhouse" gases in the air then all of mankind and industry in that state for the entire year.

We already know that earth has periods of warming and cooling, that's been mentioned umpteen times already. The question is whether the entirety of the current warming can be explained by natural factors. Even one of those links that Torch provided, one of the authors was saying that the increase was most likely due to a combination of natural and anthropogenic forces.

GGniner Wrote:Historically, the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the advent of cars, factories, etc. It's always been a dynamic climate, the only thing new is man trying to blame themselves for it. Remember those mini eruptions at Mt. St helens in Washington State awhile back, those alone put more "greenhouse" gases in the air then all of mankind and industry in that state for the entire year.

do you honestly think we can pollute and rape our environment, and not have one ounce of impact? yes, earth goes through warming/cooling periods. it has also never experienced a species like man before either. we have altered the landscape of this planet more in a couple hundred years than has happened in the millions of years leading up to the industrial revolution.

Who cares? Bigger issues to work on at the current time.

fsquid Wrote:Who cares?

its that kind of self importance that really makes me question how we became the superior species. maybe we deserve whats coming.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

fsquid Wrote:Who cares?

its that kind of self importance that really makes me question how we became the superior species. maybe we deserve whats coming.

What's coming? Except more federally funded grants for these scientists?

fsquid Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

fsquid Wrote:Who cares?

its that kind of self importance that really makes me question how we became the superior species. maybe we deserve whats coming.

What's coming? Except more federally funded grants for these scientists?

ignorance is bliss.

Worrying over something that is simply a theory is a waste of time

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

They forgot "while cashing in federal grants" at the end.

fsquid Wrote:They forgot "while cashing in federal grants" at the end.

I'm not addressing that part. I'm only concerned with the idea that things don't matter because they are "only a theory." That said, I'm not sure global warming is a theory. I just want to point out that saying something is "only a theory" is nonsense, because gravity is only a theory.

How about only a "thesis" then?

fsquid Wrote:How about only a "thesis" then?

I'm not saying that the level of the idea protects it, I'm saying that writing it off because it is at X level is useless. In order to write off a theory, or hypothesis or whatever, one needs to show why that theory or hypothesis is bad.

Look at something like the Theory of General Relativity. Einstein came up with it, he showed some evidence and it slowly became accepted. People still use it to this day because the results work great to explain gravitation. That's only a theory. They great thing is that General Relativity breaks down and is virtually useless at certain points like around black holes and at very small scales. So even though most realize that there might be something wrong with GR, we don't just write it off and throw it away. Until something better comes along, that's what we're stuck with.

fsquid Wrote:How about only a "thesis" then?

its called the scientific method. you create a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis through a set of experiments and observations to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. thats the best we have to work on. so far, the general sceintific consensus is that global warming exists and it is in fact man made. now, if you can show me some scientific studies which show the spike in CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on the rest of the environment and climate, i would be more than happy to look at it.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

What dumb*** put that sign together? There are laws associated w/ gravity, that is, emprically verified and reproducible demonstrations that gravity exists.

Obviously someone is not as smart as they think they are.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:Historically, the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the advent of cars, factories, etc. It's always been a dynamic climate, the only thing new is man trying to blame themselves for it. Remember those mini eruptions at Mt. St helens in Washington State awhile back, those alone put more "greenhouse" gases in the air then all of mankind and industry in that state for the entire year.

do you honestly think we can pollute and rape our environment,and not have one ounce of impact?

Uh, define "rape our environment". Most people think forest fires are a bad thing, and that when someone sets one, accidentally or not, that he has assaulted the environment. When in reality there have always been an abundance of forest fires due to natural causes like lightning strikes. Moreover, the environment uses these events to allow for new growth, which benefit these forests in the long run.

Similarly, when dams were built along major rivers like the Colorado, the proponents said that by controlling the water levels, they would prevent catastropic floods which hurt the environment. Guess what? Those floods were important for the natural ecology.

It's pretty presumptious to claim you know what raping the environment looks like. Way too often people who make these claims are completely wrong.

DrTorch Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:Historically, the earth has had long periods of warming and cooling, long before the advent of cars, factories, etc. It's always been a dynamic climate, the only thing new is man trying to blame themselves for it. Remember those mini eruptions at Mt. St helens in Washington State awhile back, those alone put more "greenhouse" gases in the air then all of mankind and industry in that state for the entire year.

do you honestly think we can pollute and rape our environment,and not have one ounce of impact?

Uh, define "rape our environment". Most people think forest fires are a bad thing, and that when someone sets one, accidentally or not, that he has assaulted the environment. When in reality there have always been an abundance of forest fires due to natural causes like lightning strikes. Moreover, the environment uses these events to allow for new growth, which benefit these forests in the long run.

Similarly, when dams were built along major rivers like the Colorado, the proponents said that by controlling the water levels, they would prevent catastropic floods which hurt the environment. Guess what? Those floods were important for the natural ecology.

It's pretty presumptious to claim you know what raping the environment looks like. Way too often people who make these claims are completely wrong.

if you think that manmade CO2 emissions are a good thing, i would love to see your rationale.

also, damns were never built to protect the environment. they were built to protect private homeowners and create recreational lakes.

wildfires are natural, they lead to rebirth of forests. they are essential. i dont view them as a bad thing at all. if you build your house up in the california forest, thats a risk you take. driving 12 mpg cars and using factories which work off of fossil fuels, etc are not things mother nature had worked into her playbook.

DrTorch Wrote:What dumb*** put that sign together? There are laws associated w/ gravity, that is, emprically verified and reproducible demonstrations that gravity exists.

Obviously someone is not as smart as they think they are.

Obviously that picture was put together for the exact purpose that I used it for, to point out that you can't just discount something because it is "only a theory." Nobody seriously thinks that gravity does not exist (at least nobody that I've ever heard of).