Avalanche in CO.

I think "dumpers" should be flogged, tarred, and feathered.

Well, please come down and flog, tar, and feather them!!! Major battle we're fighting right now................litter and dumping are a MAJOR problem here in Louisiana................"Sportsman's Paradise" my ARSE!!!!!!!

I've always failed to understand how someone could just chuck their McDonald's wrappers, beer cans, soda cans, cigarette butts, etc.....out the window with no thought whatsoever........................

Hope no one on here does that.
 
Imagine how guilt riddin those poor cave men felt for their part in bringing on that ice age thing?
I mean all of that hunting and gathering they did must have triggered the ice age. Only if they had been more responsible and passed laws to limit their impact on the earths weather patterns. Its a real shame:redface:
Oh, c'mon now your being silly.

Do you really think that's what I and the geologic community mean by global warming? That lack of technology causes Ice Ages? It's warming that's at debate here.
 

Do you believe that we can change warming and cooling trends on the Planet Earth to better suit us? You yourself said they are naturally occuring. If we could, although I believe we can not, would we not then truly be disturbing the Earth's natural cycles?

What gives anyone any inclination that man has affected the Earths naturally occuring climate changes?

Pardon me while I go outdoors to have a smoke, and check on the trash I'm burning in a burn barrel :lol:

Just because I said that the cycles are naturally occuring, doesn't at all imply that we can't affect the cycles. The last mini Ice Age was 40,000 Years ago, and the one before that 40,000 years before that. Man has only been significant enough this cycle.

Inclination? The same inclination that significant data and proof has been shown to support the changes, and that NO significant data or proof has been given to show otherwise...Ever...just people saying "I disagree with that" but give no evidence other than "it's still getting cold outside" or, "it's natural"...typically those with no expertise in the area. When I have questions about the environment, I pay attention to people who deal with that, namely geologists. For the same reason I go to a mechanic to help me with my Jeep as opposed to a carpenter. Truth be told, neither you nor I are qualified to make any decisions regarding the matter.

Hell, I've got an opinion about quantum theory, but when it comes time to travel at the speed of light, nobody's going to care what the hell I have to say about it.

Geologists are employed mostly by companies that are fossil fuel based in some way..be they oil, mineral, whatever. If anything, there would be a biased to support the contrary, because it would behoove them financially.

Yes, we can effect the Earth, by beginning a down trend of less pollutants over the next 200 years, and giving the ecosystem a chance to heal a bit.
 
Last edited:
Just because I said that the cycles are naturally occuring, doesn't at all imply that we can't affect the cycles. The last mini Ice Age was 40,000 Years ago, and the one before that 40,000 years before that. Man has only been significant enough this cycle.

Inclination? The same inclination that significant data and proof has been shown to support the changes, and that NO significant data or proof has been given to show otherwise...Ever...just people saying "I disagree with that" but give no evidence other than "it's still getting cold outside" or, "it's natural"...typically those with no expertise in the area. When I have questions about the environment, I pay attention to people who deal with that, namely geologists. For the same reason I go to a mechanic to help me with my Jeep as opposed to a carpenter. Truth be told, neither you nor I are qualified to make any decisions regarding the matter.

Hell, I've got an opinion about quantum theory, but when it comes time to travel at the speed of light, nobody's going to care what the hell I have to say about it.

Geologists are employed mostly by companies that are fossil fuel based in some way..be they oil, mineral, whatever. If anything, there would be a biased to support the contrary, because it would behoove them financially.

Yes, we can effect the Earth, by beginning a down trend of less pollutants over the next 200 years, and giving the ecosystem a chance to heal a bit.

First of all, no offense, but knowing a geologist or a collection of them makes you no more of an authority than I. No, I am not a geologist, but I read. There are many subjects I am well informed on because of being well read on them. An authority on the subject? Absolutely not, but just because I'm a blue collar lineman and not a scientist don't assume I am posting ignorantly and blindly about a topic just because I heard the likes of Sean Hannity talking about it.

Truth is there are overwhelming numbers of scientists and geologists on both sides of the issue. The "issue" meaning the view of what, exactly, the current warming trend actually is and what the causes of it are. Many believe it to be naturally occurring climate changes. Many subscribe to the belief that is is entirely a result of Man and the pollution we have created. Some believe it is a natural climate change accellerated by man. Reasearching this topic you will find a plethora of info for all three theories. (yes I said plethora :lol: )

If you want to exchange links we can but I think we both know that there's plenty of info on the web to read for months arguing both of our points of view - and probably some we haven't even discussed ;).

Now, I have not found at any point any scientific proof that the current warming trend can be attributed to pollution. I have found lists of sources of "greenhouse" gasses and what I have found shows that the impact man has made is miniscule in relationship to those that occur naturally. That is my arguement... that it seems ridiculous to blame man on "global warming" becuse our impact is so disproportionate to what occurs naturally.

I have said before, and I will do so again:
I will not dispute that localized poluttion is a huge problem surrounding our cities. The smog in places like LA is horrendous. Yes, it causes breathing problems and more than likely it is a cause for other problems like cancer as much of that ugly cloud is carcinogenic.

Said smog is not from automobiles alone. It is my belief that industry is the main source and that all this global warming nonsense is just a ploy to get the government to pass emmissions laws to correct said smog. The problem here is that the industry is in the governing bodies' back pockets and there is little to be done to correct the actual source. Instead you and I are left to pay for the emmissions laws that pacify the greenies, make the politicians appear to give a damn, and in the end do NOTHING to help the real problem - smog.

Sure laws get made affecting industry, but they are eithe rineffective or not enforced well. Every stinking time I pass the industrial parts of Baltimore and it's either a hazy or rainy day you can see and smell that the factories are operating in "full pollution" mode. It's ridiculous to me that they dare test my automobile's emissions when I see that happening.

If we all ride electric trains tomorrow there will still be factories pumping out toxins, power plants burning coal, and me burning the hoards of junk mail I get weekly ;)
 

This may or may not be related, but I just farted and caused an avalanche in Eastern Europe.:redface:
 
First of all, no offense, but knowing a geologist or a collection of them makes you no more of an authority than I. No, I am not a geologist, but I read. There are many subjects I am well informed on because of being well read on them. An authority on the subject? Absolutely not, but just because I'm a blue collar lineman and not a scientist don't assume I am posting ignorantly and blindly about a topic just because I heard the likes of Sean Hannity talking about it.
Re-read my post, I said NEITHER YOU NOR I, meaning both of us, are sufficiently qualified to make decisions about this subject. I was very careful to say that.
Here's what I posted:
When I have questions about the environment, I pay attention to people who deal with that, namely geologists. For the same reason I go to a mechanic to help me with my Jeep as opposed to a carpenter. Truth be told, neither you nor I are qualified to make any decisions regarding the matter.

Secondly, blue collar or not, that matters not to me. So any inferences to your profession came from you and you only. I wouldn't ever suggest that what you do makes you less qualified than I on the subject.

Thirdly, citing Hannity weakens your point. Just an FYI. LOL.

Lastly, not being an expert in a subject DOES mean you are posting ignorantly, as I am. Hence why it's a travesty that people like us get to make decisions on what to do about such a topic, because we can't possibly make an educated decision based on what we know. We need the help of experts.

Truth is there are overwhelming numbers of scientists and geologists on both sides of the issue. The "issue" meaning the view of what, exactly, the current warming trend actually is and what the causes of it are. Many believe it to be naturally occurring climate changes. Many subscribe to the belief that is is entirely a result of Man and the pollution we have created. Some believe it is a natural climate change accellerated by man. Reasearching this topic you will find a plethora of info for all three theories. (yes I said plethora :lol: )

That's simply not true. Scientists supporting your stance on the subject are a very small minority. VERY small.

Now, I have not found at any point any scientific proof that the current warming trend can be attributed to pollution. I have found lists of sources of "greenhouse" gasses and what I have found shows that the impact man has made is miniscule in relationship to those that occur naturally. That is my arguement... that it seems ridiculous to blame man on "global warming" becuse our impact is so disproportionate to what occurs naturally.
Find a geologist, and speak to him or her. Such data would be hard to find on the internet, and even harder for the lay person (again, which includes both of us) to decipher.


If we all ride electric trains tomorrow there will still be factories pumping out toxins, power plants burning coal, and me burning the hoards of junk mail I get weekly ;)
You're right. There's nothing we can do. Let's just stop AIDS research, because another disease will come someday. Hell, let's just stop medical research all together.
Cleaner fuel? Hybrid technology? Yeah, it's a waste of time, let's stop trying that as well. Being dependant on the Middle East for oil and polution will always be a problem.
Cancer? We haven't made any significant strides in a cure, let's just cancel that one too.

I have an issue with taking that kind of attitude towards anything. It's a defeatist stance to suggest that there's nothing you can do about something. You can't say that we will never have the ablity to do something about a particular problem. Just because results are not instant, doesn't mean the attempts won't bear fruit in the future.
 
Last edited:
"Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred than when it tries to stir up friendly feeling?" - Bertrand Russell, English philosopher and mathematician (1872-1970).
 

Re-read my post, I said NEITHER YOU NOR I, meaning both of us, are sufficiently qualified to make decisions about this subject. I was very careful to say that.
Here's what I posted:

Secondly, blue collar or not, that matters not to me. So any inferences to your profession came from you and you only. I wouldn't ever suggest that what you do makes you less qualified than I on the subject.

Thirdly, citing Hannity weakens your point. Just an FYI. LOL.

Lastly, not being an expert in a subject DOES mean you are posting ignorantly, as I am. Hence why it's a travesty that people like us get to make decisions on what to do about such a topic, because we can't possibly make an educated decision based on what we know. We need the help of experts.


Find a geologist, and speak to him or her. Such data would be hard to find on the internet, and even harder for the lay person (again, which includes both of us) to decipher.



You're right. There's nothing we can do. Let's just stop AIDS research, because another disease will come someday. Hell, let's just stop medical research all together.
Cleaner fuel? Hybrid technology? Yeah, it's a waste of time, let's stop trying that as well. Being dependant on the Middle East for oil and polution will always be a problem.
Cancer? We haven't made any significant strides in a cure, let's just cancel that one too.

I have an issue with taking that kind of attitude towards anything. It's a defeatist stance to suggest that there's nothing you can do about something. You can't say that we will never have the ablity to do something about a particular problem. Just because results are not instant, doesn't mean the attempts won't bear fruit in the future.

Your are correct. I misread the first part. My apologies.
:redface:

As for hannity, all I was saying is I don't merely regurgitate what I hear on conservatve programs. That's all... believe me I know what you think of him :lol:

I do however, disagree with you when you imply that for lack of being an expert (or an accredited professional for a better description) on something to intelligently discuss or debate it. On a less publicised and politicised subject maybe, but not on something like this where information is everywhere.


That's simply not true. Scientists supporting your stance on the subject are a very small minority. VERY small.

I beg to differ. Although the view in the general public and the overall world population may be greatly lopsided, the professionals are much more divided. I assume it would fall on deaf ears to attribute that to a liberally-biased media?!?!?! :lol:

hang on there's more...
 
Fact: The Earth's mean temperature has increased only by 1 degree in 100 years.

Fact: The majority of that increase (2/3 of it) took place prior to 1940 before our large scale use of carbon fossil fuels

Fact: Evidence from the NASA satellites indicates that no significant warming has occurred since 1979.

Fact: The IPCC report that reported global warming which led to the Kyoto treaty claims to have been contributed to by 2500 scientists. The report itself was only authored by 80 people and of the 2500 many were not actually scientists.

Here's a great article (I didn't get the above info there, but it is a great article). I hope you recognize the Cato institute??? This article is the tip of the iceberg of SCIENTIFIC dispute of global warming and human impact on the earth's temperature:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

found that here:
http://www.cato.org/hottopics/globalwarming.html
 
You cite Richard Linzen? Denizen of the Coal and Oil industry? OMG.

He has crazy amounts of agenda behind his claims, and he still is but one member of the very small minority I spoke of. His integrity is definetly a questionmark.

I can't talk about this now, but I have plenty to say about Mr. Linzen.
 

You cite Richard Linzen? Denizen of the Coal and Oil industry? OMG.

He has crazy amounts of agenda behind his claims, and he still is but one member of the very small minority I spoke of. His integrity is definetly a questionmark.

I can't talk about this now, but I have plenty to say about Mr. Linzen.
Yeah, a professor of meteorology at MIT. As most anyone who disputes what he has written does, I hope you are not going to reference the fact that he has received money from the above mentioned industries (research costs money and scientists work on grants) instead of touching on his arguements. Nods from MIT and the Cato institute are not given to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Well looks like both sides of this topic are coming out with guns a-blazin'!:

Arguement against copied from Drudge Report:
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Arguments for:
Global warming: rise of 4.5 C if pollution doubles, says draft report

Jan 30 9:44 AM US/Eastern





Earth's surface temperature could rise by 4.5 C (8.1 F) if carbon dioxide levels double over pre-industrial levels, but higher warming cannot be ruled out, according to a draft report under debate by the UN's top climate experts.

The draft -- being discussed line by line at the four-day meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- grimly states that the evidence for man-made influence on the climate system is now stronger than ever.

And carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution spewed out this century will stoke global warming and sea-level rise "for more than a millennium," given the time it takes for fossil-fuel pollution to degrade, it says.

Among other things, the document declares it "very likely" that heatwaves and pounding rain will become more frequent, snow cover is projected to contract -- and typhoons and hurricanes will become less frequent but more powerful.

Before the Industrial Revolution, levels of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas, stood at around 280 parts per million (ppm).

Today, CO2 concentrations are around 380 ppm and are rising between two and three ppm per year as big energy-gobbling countries, such as China and India, pursue their economic rise.

According to the draft, a copy of which was obtained by AFP Tuesday, the temperature has already risen by 0.74 C (1.33 F) over the last century.

It considers it "very likely" -- a probability of more than 90 percent -- that the rise since the mid-1900s was caused by man-made greenhouse gases. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said this probability was "likely," or 66 percent or less.

The report paints a bleak tableau of what has been happening to Earth's climate.

Since the 1970s, droughts have become intenser and longer, especially in the tropics and subtropics, while the maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground in the northern hemisphere has retreated by seven percent since 1900.

Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the warmest years for which there are reliable records.

The average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3,000 metres (10,500 feet), showing that it is absorbing the heat from the atmosphere.

Warming the seas has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 1.8mm (0.07 of an inch) per year rise in global sea levels seen between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.

In 2001, the IPCC predicted global atmospheric temperatures would rise by between 1.4 and 5.8 C (2.52-10.4 F) by 2100 compared to 1990, depending on how much CO2 was in the air.

In this latest assessment, the draft forecasts what temperature rise can be expected according to the CO2 scenario, but without mentioning the 2100 timeframe.

With CO2 at 550ppm, average global temperatures would be between 2 and 4.5 C (3.6-8.1 F) higher than pre-industrial times, "with a best estimate of about 3 C (5.4 F)," says the report.

It warns, though, that "values substantially higher than 4.5 C (8.1 F) cannot be excluded" if CO2 concentrations also rise significantly.

These are among the forecast effects for this century:

-- snow cover will continue to shrink and the depth of thaw will accelerate over most regions with permafrost.

-- sea levels will rise by between 28 and 43 centimetres (11.2-17.2 inches), depending on the CO2 level. In the 2001 estimate, the range was 9-88 cms (3.5-35 inches).

-- sea-ice cover will shrink in both north and south poles. Some projections say summer sea ice in the Arctic "disappears almost entirely" by 2100.

-- hot extremes and heavy precipitation are very likely to become more frequent.

-- tropical cyclones will become less numerous but more intense, and storm tracks will move poleward.

-- the Gulf Stream, the warm Atlantic current which gives Western Europe its balmy climate despite its high latitude, will slow by a quarter during the 21st century, according to average projections.

But fears that Western Europe will be plunged into a regional Ice Age this century can be discounted. The Gulf Stream is "very unlikely" to undergo a brutal slowdown, and in any case, atmospheric temperatures will warm because of the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC report is the fourth assessment since the expert scientific panel was set up in 1988 to help guide policymakers. The Paris document, on the scientific basis for global warming, will be issued on Friday.

It is one of three that the IPCC will issue this year, the others being on the effects of climate change and how to cope with them.

This stuff gets more interesting every day
 
Back
Top