...well, if you believe that global warming exists, considering it's never been proven to.

Looks like Reagan was right.

This methane revelation is sending alarmists into a tizzy. I have to say that it's the first time I've seen an important new piece of science come out and the alarmists actually say, "Wait a minute, the science is very complicated and we shouldn't rush to judgment on the basis of one paper." Compare this reaction to, say, the silly paper alleging that global warming alone is driving central American frogs to extinction (jumping to conclusions).

Meanwhile, many of those politicians who do take a realistic view gathered in Australia this week for the first meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The communique is eminently sensible. As they say, "We recognised that fossil fuels underpin our economies, and will be an enduring reality for our lifetimes and beyond." Anyone who argues that the methane discovery this week means that you shouldn't be able to get credit for planting trees and should instead reduce fossil fuel use further just drives yet another nail into Kyoto's coffin.

Add trees to the list of things that should be shot!

Yeah, there are no signs of global warming at all. Let's not look at the ice caps or the past hurricane season or anything though.

[ January 13, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

Who sponsored this bit of modern science, Georgia Pacific, Finch, Pruyn & Co, Brant-Allen Ind. Inc., or Appleton?

I know some judges are appointed for life, but isn't there some way to remove a judge for senility?

R

Obviously you were absent from school the day Dr. Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center, along with several other meteorologists, said that the recent hurricane season has NOTHING to do with global warming.

As was explained here before, hurricanes tend to follow roughly 30-year cycles, and we happen to be smack in the middle of one of the busy ones.

Hint: Take a look back at the 1930's and the years surrounding that period, when global warming BS didn't exist, but where there were hurricanes a plenty.

Enough to get into greek lettering? I think not. That statement could just as much be based on the fact they don't have empirical evidence yet as much as an "expert opinion". Everything is about not being proved wrong when you're a national agency like that.
Oh, and the ice caps and thaw of northern permafrost are just a coincidence as well I guess?

The only solution is to cut down all these offensive trees...denude the planet, dammit! And pump more oil! We should put more SUVs on the roads as well. There is no global warming...its a myth. Lets turn the whole planet into Mordor. It's the only way to prove all the liberal tree huggers wrong. Better yet, if they're right we'll all die off so that we won't have to live with their "I told you so's."

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Obviously you were absent from school the day Dr. Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center, along with several other meteorologists, said that the recent hurricane season has NOTHING to do with global warming.[/quote]No, they have been saying there's no evidence it had anything to do with global warming. Subtle but key difference. And the notion that any reputable scientists believe we're not in a cycle of global warming is laughable. The key points of debate are 1) is it being accelerated by humans, and 2) should we worry about it?

Considering they didn't use names back in the early 20th century, that would be kind of difficult to get into the Greek letters. Also, back then, tropical systems were detected only by ships that happened to "find" them (run into them). Many experts believed that because of this, some of the years in the 1930's most likely had upward of 30 storms, surpassing 2005.

Dr. William Gray is not affiliated with a government agency, and he is the world's leading expert on tropical system prediction. Well-respected, in an interview last fall he explained that is is "foolish" to think that these busy storm seasons are a product of global warming. He reiterated that we're simply in a multi-decade cycle that has occurred for centuries and will continue to do so, with no impact from us. Moreover, within these busy cycles--we've been in one since 1995 and are predicted to continue in this active cycle for the next 10-15 years or so--will be years where there will be very few systems.

Look at 2002, for example, well into this mythological panic of global warming. In that year, there were only 4 hurricanes the entire year.

The early part of the 1900's saw more tropical systems than you and I have seen in our lifetime. So much for global warming causing this--it clearly doesn't.

1.) No it's not

2.) No

End of this ridiculous panic. To think man can affect the global climate when it for millenia has gone through ups and downs far greater than today's--all on its own, too--is the ultimate in human vanity.

How about do you want to breathe clean air or would you prefer smog?

MIB's house is filled with smog and carbon dioxide. I think he likes it that way. wink

I'm all for clean air and all that stuff, which is one reason why I cannot stand cigarette smoke, and I do my share to not litter and all; I'm just saying that this global warming panic is ridiculous.

It's good to be good to the environment, but not strictly because if we aren't, it's going to lead to more hurricanes.

Only when I eat too many tacos.

Why can't we have a graemlic/emoticon that rolls around back and forth for posts like that?

But the whole melting ice caps and thawing permafrost in the tundra is just a funny thing that happens every now and again I guess. And the extreme drought in Australia caused by a strong shift in the Walker Cell? Liberal propaganda obviously.

Maybe MIB's taco-gas is causing global warming.

[ January 14, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Herr Tiggee ]

Why yes, it does. The Atlantic Ocean is up about a degree nowadays. It did the same thing about 70-90 years ago, and for centuries before that. Ice caps expand and contract due to many things unrelated to Man's existence. They've done so for thousands of years; they'll continue to do so, whether Man is here or not.

Well, I certainly hope you're right MIB. Especially with temperature projections over the next century and the increase of greenhouse gases found at the poles due to increased industrial development in former and current 3rd world countries.

We probably won't be around to worry about it, because Iran will develop the nuke, they'll use it against someone, probably Israel or an attack on us, we'll try to respond, the far left will whine about war, and we'll all be blown to bits.

See how easy that is?

I'm sure Iran already has nukes, thus why we haven't attacked them.

Oh, I seriously doubt they have them. I'd say they're about 5 years away from The Bomb.

If they had them now, the world would know, believe me.

Yes they do expand and contract in a cycle. The problem is that they are doing so far more extensively today - something that only happens about every 20.000 - 50,000 years or so. This is due solely to our extensive release off free carbon into the atmosphere at a rate that is unprecedented. Generally these kinds of global changes - on this magnitude - take several hundred years. This is not a typical 100 year cycle type thing.

Global warming is SOLID SCIENCE unless you are a oil businessman, a coal mine owner, or a SUV manufacturer (or believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, and intelligent design as science).

The only people in the world not to believe that are bought and paid for US politicians who refuse to sign international treaties on the environment (that’s ok - they are in good company along with South Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Singapore, and a couple of other military dictatorships).

The question is not whether the world environment is changing at a rapid rate - far faster than at any time in recorded history.

The only questions are why we would deliberately choose to ignore every single major reputable science organization in the world; and why we would elect politicians who would happily launch a unilateral, pre emptive, military strike against another country, yet refuse to pre empt an internationally acknowledged and agreed upon environmental disaster of Biblical proportions.

-------------------------------------------

As a side note I wish to applaud the Governors of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Delaware for signing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)on December 19th; it is a historic multi-state agreement that takes great strides toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.

RGGI places caps on carbon dioxide emissions from electric generation facilities and allows trading of emission reduction allowances to meet those caps. By turning emission reductions into a marketable asset, RGGI creates incentives for companies to invest in emission reduction technologies and gives businesses the flexibility to meet reduction goals at the lowest costs. In fact, this new regional climate accord would improve energy efficiency and could save the typical residential customer about $50 per year, according to analysis sponsored by nine Northeast states.

Over the past 50 years, The Nature Conservancy has invested billions of dollars in nature conservation across the country and around the globe. But these investments, as well as those of the federal government and private land owners, are in jeopardy because of climate change. Changing weather and temperatures patterns could spell the extinction of many plant and animal species, rendering years of on-the-ground conservation work meaningless.

At least the Governors were able to see the need for compliance with the Kyoto, Helsinki, and Geneva accords. Maybe with enough local and state pressure we might someday force the President and the Republican Party to pay attention to someone besides oil lobbyists and Coal producers.

--------------------------------------------

All of the people who keep blaming MIB for his unfairness and not being impartial; for his right wing mouthing of political platitudes should be ashamed of yourselves.

Most judges at the State and Federal level are appointed, not elected; and they get those appointments through hard work as political machine hacks supporting their party, no matter what, with long hard labor on behalf of their selected party. If you want to get ahead you never ever challenge the accepted bought and paid for position of your party.

To expect political impartiality out of such a politically appointed animal is totally unreasonable.

Rob

With respect to tropical storm activity, it sure is. That fact is irrefutable.

As solid as UFO's or the Bermuda Triangle, perhaps. For every so-called "solid" piece of science illustrating global warming can be found a piece debunking it. Anecdotal evidence is not going to prove global warming.

Earth's changes are constant, that much is certain. It is the ultimate in vanity to believe human beings can have any meaningful effect on something as grand a scale as that of this planet.

[ January 14, 2006, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Yes Earth is changing constantly, and always has.
It is the ultimate in vanity to believe human beings can go on forever befouling and destroying, treating the Earth as their litter box without any consequences.

There is NO, repeat NO, reputable science agency or study group anywhere in the world that disputes this except for those bought and paid for by oil, coal, car, and industrial lobbyists.

In the last few hundred years since the start of the industrial revolution we have released the carbons into the atmosphere that it took millions of years to create.

Scientific method includes cause and effect.

To deny anything evidence you do not like is not scientific or logical. To take whatever you want and abuse without mercy is the action of thugs and rapists.

In every society there are two groups who believes they are above the law and can do whatever they wish without regard to injury to others around them, or to their environment. One of those groups are small children. The second group usually find themselves eventually prosecuted by the laws society enacts to protect itself.

Our grandchildren will look back at this time with shame and loathing as we look back at the behaviour of the Robber Barons and the Aristocracy.

Rob

QUOTE

ITJock:

QUOTE

MIB
With respect to tropical storm activity, it sure is. That fact is irrefutable.

BS - have you taken a look at water temps in the gulf of mexico lately? The last time they were that high, most reputable scientists believe, was just before the last ice age acording to fossil and geologic evidence.

I see you're quoting the global warming fearmongers' playbook verbatim, for your lack of knowledge of tropical storm system development and sustenance is striking.

If you think warmer SST's (sea surface temps) cause increased tropical activity, you couldn't be more wrong. Warmer SST's aren't in the top categories for tropical system formation and duration. Look at recently deceased Tropical Storm Zeta, which actually strengthened in SST's of approx. 67 degrees!

The perfect wind environment (meaning little or no shear), a perfectly situated lower level low topped by a perfectly situated upper level high, and just the right timely spin in the atmosphere are the more critical elements in whether tropical systems even have a chance of forming and remaining alive. SST's, which are, of course, important, are not nearly as significant as you assert. If they were, why don't we see dozens of such systems all over the Gulf and mid- and central Atlantic during spring and summer? After all, the SST's throughout those expansive areas are 80 degrees or higher, which is the point at which such systems are believed to be able to be born and be sustained.

QUOTE

Yes Earth is changing constantly, and always has.
It is the ultimate in vanity to believe human beings can go on forever befouling and destroying, treating the Earth as their litter box without any consequences.

There is NO, repeat NO, reputable science agency or study group anywhere in the world that disputes this except for those bought and paid for by oil, coal, car, and industrial lobbyists.

Ah, the ole evil corporation/Man is evil/technology is bad, blah, blah, blah argument. Well, as soon as you can come up with dylithium crystals to replace everything else, feel free to live like the cavemen did.



See the immediate preceding paragraph.

I'm sure our grandchildren will have greater things about which to be shameful than the Babs-decreed global warming state of emergency and other left-wing created crises.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]I see you're quoting the global warming fearmongers' playbook verbatim, for your lack of knowledge of tropical storm system development and sustenance is striking.

If you think warmer SST's (sea surface temps) cause increased tropical activity, you couldn't be more wrong. Warmer SST's aren't in the top categories for tropical system formation and duration. Look at recently deceased Tropical Storm Zeta, which actually strengthened in SST's of approx. 67 degrees!

The perfect wind environment (meaning little or no shear), a perfectly situated lower level low topped by a perfectly situated upper level high, and just the right timely spin in the atmosphere are the more critical elements in whether tropical systems even have a chance of forming and remaining alive. SST's, which are, of course, important, are not nearly as significant as you assert. If they were, why don't we see dozens of such systems all over the Gulf and mid- and central Atlantic during spring and summer? After all, the SST's throughout those expansive areas are 80 degrees or higher, which is the point at which such systems are believed to be able to be born and be sustained.[/quote]

I never said ANYTHING about Sea Surface Temperatures. If your knowledge of science were more than sophomoric, you would know that the last fifty years have seen a huge rise in the NUMBER of tropical storms each year; AND that the SEVERITY of those (and their likelihood to turn into Hurricanes, Monsoon, or Typhoon) had vastly INCREASED due to the rising temperatures at all depths (because they are relatively shallow) of the G of Mexico, The Caribbean, The Mediterranean, certain areas of the Eastern Indian Ocean, and the Sea of Japan.

Don't misquote me.

[quote]Ah, the ole evil corporation/Man is evil/technology is bad, blah, blah, blah argument. Well, as soon as you can come up with dylithium crystals to replace everything else, feel free to live like the cavemen did.
[/quote]

You're calling me anti science, technology, business, and developement - now I know you have lost it. Thank you - I haven't laughed that hard in a while!

We have the technology today, we can deal with the problems; we just can not make/waste unbridled trillions for a few overly greedy and pampered plutocrats who care for nothing but their own comfort and priveledge; and therefore fear any change.

[quote]See the immediate preceding paragraph..[/quote]

Couldn't come up with a better answer than that huh?

[quote]I'm sure our grandchildren will have greater things about which to be shameful than the Babs-decreed global warming state of emergency and other left-wing created crises. [/quote]Babs? Chuckle - you are dating yourself MIB. It's tough to be that old and cynical, to see your perfectly constructed fantasy world crashing about you - and be unable to keep patching it up. That is what the leaders of the old Soviet Union found when they tried to construct a society out of ideology and wishful thinking rather than paying close attention to 'objective reality'. Like them, your construct of the world, which pays little attention to science and reality, is doomed and will be but an object lesson as a footnote in some history book someday.

Rob

[ January 15, 2006, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

So now you're claiming the Mediterranean Sea has tropical systems, huh? Unbelievable.

"Auntie Em! Auntie Em!" We're in full panic mode now.

Pardon me while I go spray a few burst of my CFC-filled aerosol into the air, eat a few tacos, and create some more methane. This ought to cause another tropical storm to form.

Too bad your "science" of global warming and hurricanes has been dismissed by people who are experts in the field AND who are objective, nonpartisan individuals. It's no surprise that those who try to tie these two together are those who (a) have a wacko agenda and ( little or no real knowledge of tropical systems and their history.

You do like to misquote me at every possible turn don't you? For someone who claims do deal in the details of exacting language and syntax you are remarkably un erudite.

Oh great, now your going to warn us when you produce hot air out of your ass? So what in your writings will change exactly?

You mean such totally disreputable and unobjective experts (with a wacky agenda) as the US Gov'ts own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the EPA, NASA, MIT, Cal POLY, The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, McGill University, US National Climate Data Center,The University of Hawaii, and hundreds of international Government and NGO's that directly acknowledge or directly report findings supporting the science involved?

I defy you to find a single reputable non industry supported study that contradicts that science. And for every single rotten science creation of the industrial lobbies I produce 10 studies from the real experts.

But a summit of the most polluting countries, convened by the Bush administration, last week refused to set targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. Set up in competition to the Kyoto Protocol, the summit, held in Sydney and attended by Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea as well as the United States, instead pledged to develop cleaner industrial technologies - which most experts believe will not arrive in time.

You are lost in time, space, and your own ideologically constructed fantasy world.

Stick with politics and the law MIB, and leave the science to the experts, as a judge of real science and technology you have about as much knowledge and credibility as James Frey or Jayson Blair.

Rob

Well, considering meteorologists in the NHC, which is part of NOAA, have repeatedly debunked the connection between so-called global warming and tropical activity/intensity, your argument above referencing it is both amusing and false; but no surprise there.

Speaking of Kyoto, one of the world's worst agreements ever, perhaps you overlooked the fact that in summer 1997, before the Clinton-signed treaty was officially presented to the Senate for ratification, that body rejected it 95-0! Even those on the Left rightly knew how bad that thing was.

[ January 15, 2006, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

The Senate never voted on Kyoto MIB. That 95-0 vote was that it should include other industrialized nations, such as China as well.

I never said the Senate voted on Kyoto. Reread my above post. Kyoto was never submitted by Clinton because he knew it didn't stand a chance. In its 1997 vote, the Senate rejected the Kyoto concept and protocol in that 95-0 vote.

Aren't you ever ashamed to be deliberately misrepresenting what other people say? Your citations of spurious knowledge are fanciful and specious. I further note that you never actually cite a single reference - What is it? Didn't they teach how to do that at your law scool?

The NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory has stated again and again that there probably is just such a Linkage - and there are dozens of other NOAA studies to back that up including the vast storehouse of data compiled and analized by NOAA-CIRES (Climate Diagnostics Center ). The NHC is also on the record as supporting those studies as well as stating that the warming of the Gulf was directly responsible for the severity of many of this years storms - whether that linkage to severity is due more to a shorter climactic cycles or long term global warming specifically is difficult to determine - as you should know one years data is not sufficient for that type of determination ; which is why NOAA has conducted the much longer term studies which do show long term linkage to global warming evidence.

You think the 1997 US Senate which had a 57/43 Republican majority was on the left? That explains a lot. The Senate NEVER rejected the treaty - it was never presented because the Republican dominated Senate voted overwhelmingly for prior conditions and changes to the treaty that Clinton's Admin was unable to effect. The Senate Rep's basically wanted it to fail, so they shoved in the back door and shot it down before it ever reached them by attaching the apriori vote to another bill. They were far more interested - as always - in pleasing their industrial masters and scoring political bites with a few scared upper middle class voters

You really do need to get your facts straight, and stop deliberately misquoting people.

Try actually citing a source for your spurious allegations sometime.

Rob

[ January 15, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

I already referenced Dr. Max Mayfield and Dr, William Gray already. As usual, you conveniently ignore that and substitute your judgment and the judgment of partisan hacks for that of two well-respected and nonpartisan experts.

'Nuff said.


I'll say it for the third time, since you obviously can't read. I never said the Senate rejected the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. Moreover, I emphasized that it was never presented to the Senate. I DID say that the Senate rejected the concept of Kyoto, in effect rejecting it beforehand, by a 95-0 vote, with many liberals joining in this stinging rebuke. They realized how dangerous this horrible treaty was.

When 95 frickin U.S. Senators, with no opposition, reject something, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the rejected item was terrible from the get-go.

MIB, would you please simply ask your doctor for more meds? You are not the same without them.

And you continuously misrepresent the nature of the research. They say there is currently no evidence linking tropical cyclone frequency to global warming, which is a helluva lot different than "debunking" any link. And there IS refereed research linking tropical cyclone intensity to global climate change being done by NOAA/GFDL and Kerry Emanuel at MIT separately: see http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html . Those institutions would be in a much better position to find any such links than the day-to-day forecasters at NHC.

Since I'm a meteorologist (not a judge), I'm actually plugged in to these things. And folks, there's little debate left that global warming exists. And in the 10 years I've been around we've gone from widespread skepticism among scientists to widespread acceptance that man has something to do with it (how much is another question).

Meds? What meds? What the hell are you talking about? And why are you shining that bright light on me? Why is the government out to get me?
What are all those pink spiders doing crawling up my arm?!?!?!? eek! eek! eek!

[ January 16, 2006, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Don't worry, those spiders don't bite. I get them all the time too. So should I head out to my back yard and begin to chop down all my trees? I'm not quite clear on what the point of this thread is. Also, if I chop down all my trees, what in the world will I hug?

MIB, were you deliberately trying to pull these guys' chains? It looks like you did, too. But I like the whole line about "man's vanity to presume he controls Earth's climate".

Let's not cut down any more trees in the rainforests and hurt the cute itty-bitty animals; let's just bulldoze large urban concentrations of people and factories --they're the real cause of global warming. Plus, the bonus would be to break up some entrenched, corrupt urban oligarchies run by those occupying the lowest rungs in our society.

It'd be a two'fer day if we did that. Reverse global warming AND remove corruption from the Democrat Party leadership. Nice.