http://www.noaanews....13_coolest.html


What DOES this mean in light of Al Gore/his movie/varied opinion? I remember a couple of years ago an event that he spoke at in the East on a day that as I remember was a record setting cold day.

It has been said that "environmentalism is the new home of socialism". I suppose this makes sense since if a person like the aforementioned former VP can get everybody to focus on this so called crisis (one of very many mentioned in the 92 election), it could be the lynch pin by which the world would/could come together and hold a massive candlelight vigil.

I wish I knew the answer, I am very skeptical of the global warmers though.

AR

that's good
i like it

It's all a plot. You know the movie industry can't leave a hit alone. There had to be a sequel.

BB,

Read the URL. I didn't make this up. What is great is your totally ballistic approach to it. Sorry if you can't handle it. Your antagonism toward me is evident. I just posted an article that I didn't even write. so let's see.

AR

And that boys and girls is, in a nutshell, what's wrong with discussion via email and discussion forums. We "hear" what we want to here when it comes to interpreting the tone of written communication. That's why we have emoticons... to clarify the tone of text. The tone of my reply (in my head when I wrote it) was humorous, poking fun at the movie industry and possibly Al Gore. I even added the little smiley to ensure that my light hearted tone was not misconstrued. If you "heard" it any other way I am sorry.

"Ballistic?" I'd be interested to know if anyone else interpreted my response as anything other than the jab at the movie industry and/or global warming advocates. I'd really be interested in knowing whether anyone else read it as a ballistic response or even a dig at AR.

Some inconvenient facts:

http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming

http://en.wikipedia....iers_since_1850

and from the 'oh what a difference a year makes' file:

http://www.realclima...-winter-warmth/

Yep - we're having a cold winter - but last year was nearly one of the very warmest on record -

AR, you used sarcasm in your reply. I don't know if you've read me enough to get my off-beat humor, but I love sarcasm (well, good sarcasm, anyway). But I always post with a smile on my face.

There is no way Big Brother went "ballistic." I thought his comment was funny. I figured that out not because I'm smart, but because I can read and I caught the little smiley emoticon at the end of his post. That's how I took it, but I don't think BB is out to get me.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not telling you not to be so sensitive. I'm just sayin', just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!

Sandra, you used Wikpedia for a source? I'm sure you know your kids aren't allowed to use that when doing school assignments, because it's not an authoritative source.
+++

Bottom line, Sandra.

The global warning people have SCREAMED that we have global warming because the earth has heated up seven-tenths of one degree since the beginning of the 1900's. We just had that .7 rise completely wiped out by last winter's 1 degree drop.

If you're going to accept as FACT that the temp went up, then you MUST also accept that the temp went down. Otherwise, it's hysterical fear mongering.

I choose not to get hysterical because some people with a political agenda tells me to.

Yeah BB,

There was nothing ballistic but me. I agree. There is just something about those teeth that get my attention. I also agree with WVU in that while I use wikipedia every day for basic info, I never take it as sole source information. It isn't that reliable. According to wikipedia, Tom Float gets credit for having invented scoops. Sorry, but they came as a direct result of Rick Odello's very effective use of North Drums the year before the arrival of scoops. Also the BDs became Ludwig endorsers and as such, Ludwig needed a way to re-create the directional sound of the Norths. I usually start with wikipedia and move on to other sources. Global warming, hmmmm........do we humans get to take credit for the end of the ice age too? One must go back to 92 during the Presidential campaign and listen to the MANY TIMES Al Gore used the word crisis. Everything was a crisis that in his eyes only he and Bill could solve. Maybe he should just shut his mouth. that would certainly cut down on hot air.

AR

50 is the new 40.

Didn't Rick cut a tupperware bowl in half and tape it to a drum? The story was told to me from Darren Bobrosky who was there so I believe him but I'm sure you were closer to the development than he was.

If you look really closely you can see my fingers in the picture as I pull his "lips" back. Here's a more accurate representation



Maybe if I change my avatar and you come up with a similar picture for your avatar we'll stop the angy bickering and send each other pictures of LOL Cats all day.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go look up the Blue Devils on Wikipedia...

Sorry - I don't see how they could fake the glacial recession photos -

I don't think there is any argument that the earth is warming. Arguments are about why. Some people say 'ok, it's warming - deal'. Others say, 'ok, it's warming - how can we prevent the logical consequences of that warming?'

I choose to want to take action - to acknowledge truth with plans for consequence prevention. How about this amazing technology - global warming or not, this just make so much sense:

http://www.nrel.gov/...1osti/28751.pdf

And it's not even a wikipedia source!

Why burn oil or coal or natural gas if you don't have to?

Sandra, you just made my point. It's OK to acknowledge the earth is warming if that's what the FACTS support.

I'm simply suggesting people use the same FACTS to conclude the inverse. The total warming between 100 years ago and now is ZERO.

(I'm not picking on you personally, Sandra. I'm just talking over your shoulder to all my liberal environmentalist wacko friends out there, who only see ONE side of the argument, not both)

FM,

I don't remember that in particular, but anything is possible. The fact of the North's is undeniable. You should know since you actually have one of them. There were other things done as experimentation that were never realized on the field. They would probably be practical today given the changes that have come about over the years. The point is that wikipedia for all it is, isn't the most accurate source of information. I can speak to the scoop issue since I was a small part of the process acting as guinea pig. Rick has not only not received credit where it was due, but also has had credit taken from him, including the scoop issue. The scoop was Ludwig's answer to the Norths. The cutaway was Slingerland's response via Fred Sanford. Neither of those would have happened were it not for Rick's cutting edge thinking and his willingness to lay it all out by doing something considered radical for the time.

I leave the topic of a thread I started. But I did so for a good reason.

If anyone is interested, check out Frank Caliendo's Al Gore impersonation. He is the greatest. He does a great Bush, and a PERFECT John Madden. I had never even heard of him till just the other day.

AR

Some things never change and Sandra gets it right again. Of course all scientific research uses a single year of data to prove or disprove global climate trends.

So your conclusion is that after 100 years if the temperature is the same, then things are heating up.

Your emotions are showing, but some women like that in a man.

It shows your feminine side.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion. What do the data show over the 100 year spread?

"Global Warming"...plain and simple: Pure propaganda, i.e an attention seekers agenda when all else fails, like the war and immigration. I remember in '72 when the environment all of a sudden was so important. Our elementary school made T-shirts that said: "Give a hoot, don't pollute!" Oh brother! On the other hand, some less than environmentally controlled countries don't give a hoot about chemicals and such, but to make this such an issue is beyond me. Let Mother Nature take her course. We just happen to be overly concerned about what the atmosphere and universe do every so often. We are but just a drop in the bucket in time and we think that we can manipulate what's out there? NOT! Glaciers will always be glaciers, a "cleaning out" process s normal as the ocean stopping at the sand...totally out of our league!

Some more propoganada - from scientists....

http://acia.cicero.u...mate_trends.pdf

The above Pdf does not allow for copy/paste function - but notice on the 2nd page the heading for rising temperatures - and of course, all the other nasty things currently happening in the arctic - and most probably (but to a lesser degree) in the Antarctic as well. The 2-3 degree centigrade upswing equals close to a 10 degree Farenheit change in Arctic average temperature over the last 50 years. I looked for 100 year data - but didn't want to go through more than the first page of google hits.

My scientists are smarter than your scientists. And my scientists work at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Serious for just a moment: Sandra my bone of contention is not with you, I'm sure you know that. I think you are probably just as frustrated with me in not being to see the "facts" as I am in wondering where that liberal skepticism is when the government reacts to what are purely political agendas (i.e., the liberal view of the reasons for the war in Iraq? )

I've read lots of scientific journals. Every one of them starts with the name of the scientist at the TOP of the paper. Did you notice that the "scientists" who put out that two-page paper didn't put their name or credentials on it?

I'm only saying Sandra, be skeptical, and don't just read ONE side of the argument, the one that agrees with a biased political agenda. Read both sides.
+++

Oh, and Dan? Good job not letting me bait you. I was awaiting one of your usual devasting retorts, and it never came.

"I'll get you one day, my pretty...and your little dog too!" (from the scariest movie I've ever seen)

Dave, I'm not angry with anyone. I'm not even frustrated. I'm totally convinced that the earth is warming - for 'some' reason. I'm also convinced that we're not going to truely address the problem and we'll either suffer the consequences, or there really won't be any and we'll all be fine. Either way, human nature - which is to deny there are problems and then ignore them when denial is no longer possible - will prevail and the earth will survive, even if we personally do not.

Every human will eventually die - it's only a matter of when and how. But death is not the worst scenario. Radical societal change wrought by massive and rapid environmental shifts are a much scarier prospect.

Environmental change not only illuminates some scary things, but also some positive ones. Some areas will get more precipitation than 'normal' (which is, of course, just the average over a large number of years) - this may mean areas previously arid will become arable. But if the current rate of sea ice a glacial melt continue, the oceans must rise. This type of change will cost many Americans a great deal of money - if not all of their money. Of course, we could wall in all the coastal areas as has been done in New Orleans. But that too is expensive.

Dave, I have a question: if the earth is NOT warming, why is there so much less sea ice and glacier volume than just 30 years ago? I truely want to know. I'm not willing to do the amount of research you do - I scan the first page or two of google hits - the quality of which totally depends on the quality of my search words. So I'm as far from an expert as I can get. I base my opinions (and we all know the adage about opinions...) on the media stories I hear, the quality of which depends on the various axes each outlet has to grind. I don't tend to believe that liberals want to crush the economy - to destroy the 'American' way of life by outlawing SUVs or oil companies. If anything, I see oligarchy as a risk - if not a current reality - for our society. This is perhaps an even greater problem than using science and government policy to change our carbon footprint on the world.

I could go on - but I'm open to learning more - so I'll stop. My mind is open - please help me learn what I don't know.

Sandra

Dorothy had blood on her hands......






My favorite line from that movie; "we get up at twelve and off to work at one, take a hour for lunch and then at two we're done....Oh what fun!"





Back to your regularly scheduled debate.....

So, global warming trends seem evident for a hundred years, then we have a one year exception of temps about what global temps were a century ago. This completely contradicts other global warming evidence?

Let's suppose the reverse had happened. Say there had been a flat trend for a hundred years, then one year with substantially warmer global temps. Would that completely establish global warming? Of course not.

I don't think any of you in this debate would truly support looking at data for one year rather than long term trends. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'd be a lot more comfortable looking at something like a ten or twenty year moving average. One outlier observation doesn't support or prove or contradict or deny anything when looking at long term processes and trends.

Of course, even a hundred years doesn't prove anything relative to a many-thousand year trend or process.

My view on all of this is that there is some good evidence of global warming, and there are some good counter-arguments. So what should we do?

Well, I know that personally, I don't like breathing smoggy, dirty air from too many cars in overcrowded cities or power plants or from smokestacks. I actually prefer clean, crisp air. I'm also pretty sure I don't want to live in chemically polluted areas where cancer rates are sky high (e.g., Nitro WV and its dioxin problem). So if there are ways to clean up what we do and minimize the negative consequences from human activities, I (strangely enough!) think we should do those things. Improves my quality of life, and will improve the quality of life of my kids and theirs. Why is there such violent reaction against those who prefer nature the way it is now? Which ones of you, or your quality of life, would be so damaged by supporting measures to minimize negative impacts on the environment? I really don't understand the violent opposition to things like pressuring the auto makers to develop more fuel efficient cars, or requiring coal plants to meet pollution standards. Maybe one of you can explain it to me.

I'd also like to ask those of you who think we are too puny and insignificant to have any negative impact on nature -- and therefore human habitat -- to tell that to the people of Nitro, or Spelter WV (former home of a zinc smelter and major lead producer), or any one of our other EPA superfund clean-up sites,... or perhaps Bopal, India.

We might not be able to have similar long term impact on global climate, but if there's a chance that we are, or even if we can just make breathing more pleasant, I'm all in favor of taking measures to minimize air pollution.

my $.02

Well my scientists have statistics that say that your scientists are stupid heads!

Let's take a step back shall we? Whether or not global warming is a fact or not most of the things which "contribute" to global warming are problems for other reasons. Pollution, consumption of limited/expensive resources, ... What is the root cause of these problems? People. More of them every year. When I was a kid they said 5 billion people in the world. I read an article yesterday that said we are up to 6.7 billion. The point of the article was that, while some estimates say the world population could hit 15 Billion by 2050, there were too many unknowns and it is impossible to make accurate long term predictions of future population and when/how it will level off. The article compared us to Wile-E-Coyote saying we may have already gone of the cliff without yet fully realizing the consequences of the coming fall.

Unfortunately I'm with Sandra. I'm pessimistic about our ability to identify the edge of the cliff (population or pollution) before we've launched ourselves off of it. And even if we see the edge of the cliff I'm not convinced that the lure of the roadrunner won't make us take the leap anyway.

My point exactly!!

and if doing at least something about those problems we know about, maybe we won't get to that cliff quite so soon.

I'm not sure that it is unfortnate that you agree with Sandra.

The are signs all around - of all sorts of things that only mankind has had a hand at doing. Moderation slows down the affects - but the affects remain. As the third world economies develop (at break neck speed) their populations are ingoring the side affects - and want the same things as the remaining high level economies enjoy. "If its good enough for you, it's good enough for me." How can you blame them?

An educated population, and a government that encourages and supports stricter environmental regs could take the lead and set an example for the rest of the world.

Though few and far between, this is an instance where I can't say I disagree with any opinions offered. My point behind posting this article is and was to point out the disparity in opinion on a very basic issue. I don't have any answers. I have far more questions.

My problem is that there are those who use this issue as a tool to use against the US. Many are citizens of the US. Just take Al Gore as an example. He flies around the world on private jets yet pitches a hissy fit because others do. I don't get it. Somebody please explain it to me.

AR

I saw Charles Barkley - former NBA All Star - on David Letterman one night. Letterman asked him something about speeding or gambling - and Barkely said (paraphrased) "rules don't apply to rich people" and as the audienced burst out laughing - Barkley never even grinned.

I'll suggest Gore - et al - don't believe that their behavior is causing any negative affect - it is the behavior of everyone else. They believe they are above it all......that's what I truly believe.

Politicians, actors, and famous people?? no... that can't be true!

Ah, but it's a numbers game. If Al Gore flies a private jet around the world but gets millions of people to do one thing each to save a little energy then what's his net "carbon footprint?" Swarzenneger is catching a lot of heat for flying back and forth to his home in a private plane. He buys carbon credits to offset his impact. I don't know much about carbon credits but they are right up there with bottled water and pet rocks in my book. Send me a dollar instead... I'll turn off a light bulb. I promise.

My problem with the whole green thing is the people who think that individuals can make a difference. The only changes that will matter are changes undertaken by everyone! Being green will only happen if it's cheaper or mandated/subsidized by the government. Things like higher mileage requirements, cleaner (nuclear) energy,... That argument can be taken to a higher level. The U.S. could be 100% green but if we don't have solutions which work financially for developing nations what's the point?

Barkley may be right about rules not applying to rich people, but I propose that ALL people believe the rules apply to everyone...but themselves. I'll put myself in that camp as well. I know that I want us to 'fix' whatever problems we have as a world - smog, oil dependency, global warming, etc. - but I want everyone else to fix it, and at the same time I want to keep doing all the wasteful things I do. It's not that I 'like' being wasteful - it's just that I don't want to have to change anything. I don't drive an SUV, but I don't want to have to park my Civic and take the bus - or set up a car pool. It's not that I 'like' wasting natural gas by having my thermostat set at a place that I like, it's just that I don't want to feel cold. It's a selfish thing - and every human will, I think, feel very similarly.

However, I do believe that little things can make a difference. I enjoy riding my bike to work when the weather is decent. Not only do I save a $1 (or a $1.20 at $4 a gallon) for every trip I take by bike - but that's a 1/3 of a gallon of gas not burned - along with all the attendant waste not created. Oh - and my car burns oil (I've had it in the shop many times to find the problem....still burns a little oil) - so that doesn't get burned.

I've heard environmentalists say many times that if everyone just did...'x' - you know the rest. If it's not already too late, reason for hope lies there - that perhaps given enough time, humans can slowly change their ways. But no one likes to be forced to change - that's very irritating.

Sandra, all your posts seem to be made between 2 and 5 AM. Does your schedule suck or are you living in an exotic timezone?

I live in the east - Ohio - and often wake up as early as 5am. Perhaps it's age - but that's when I wake up, and can rarely go back to sleep. Of course, 5am here is 2am in Concord (Concorde?) where the BD board global positioning atomic clock is stored inside a mayonaisse jar and sealed inside a Funk and Wagonal's dictionary (2 points if you can name describe where that over-wrought hiding place is stolen from...)

Ed McMahon on the Johnny Carson show. Long live Carnac(?) the Magnificant!

Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in?

BDRJ! Ding! We have a winner!

One of my favorites:

"Piggly Wiggly" (remember, with Carnac, you get the answer, then Carnac 'divines' the question)

"Describe Kermit's Honeymoon"

Oh yeah - I miss Johnny.

On this particular issue, I break from my usually conservative views quite a bit.

I think global warming is a distinct possibility. I would be absolutely delighted to be wrong, and I hope I am...but the evidence just seems to point to a big climate change on the horizon.

I also think it's a distinct possibility that we're the cause. Sure, we as a species aren't going to be able to do anything to harm the Earth...as in, the large ball of rock that orbits the sun...but I think we absolutely have the power to alter the climate, and possibly have.

I don't think it's the fault of the democrats or the republicans...I think if we have to pin it on anyone, I think we just, as a society, gained industrial technology perhaps a little before we "should" have, before we were capable of fully understanding its impact at a point that we could have directed our research toward "cleaner" power sources had we known. 'Course, for the reasons Tim pointed out, we probably still would have been wooed by the ease of fossil fuels.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of research into alternative power, and don't mind paying for it. Whether it will halt the climate change or not, whether the climate change is even real or not, we've got to stop relying on the Middle East so much.

AR,

If you want to bash Gore, I don't mind. I do have a little trouble understanding why you want to use your dislike for Gore to in turn bash global warming. There are many conservatives who just won't admit anything is happening, when the evidence in my mind is overwhelming.

I don't wish to limit my perspective by what the weather was like when Gore made a speech. Record cold on that day? So be it. That speaks nothing as to the trend. I don't wish to limit my perspective to the last ten or twenty years. That paints a nice picture, but lacks any impact analysis.

If you want real evidence you need look no further than the world's ice caps, and you have a great many places you can look. There are glaciers and various ice deposits around the world, polar locations and others, that are uniformly receding or melting. These are ice deposits that have been studied and determined to have existed for thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years. There have been discoveries of long extinct Wooly Mamoth type creatures found due to receding ice. We found that human in the north Italian Alps a decade or two back due to receding ice. All these ice deposits are melting now. Thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago the ice was there, and the ice is no longer there. This is plenty convincing in my book. The fact that it occured at the same time as the world's industrialization is no accident. Yes, the sun runs in cycles, but the ice remained for potentially thousands of sun cycles. It wasn't until industrialization that the ice began to lose ground (figuratively and physically) on a large scale.

I will admit I have trouble understanding how people choose to ignore this type of evidence when arguing against global warming. They probably own too much stock in the energy companies, or will take a financial hit if global warming is universally accepted. Maybe like AR, they choose this route because of their dislike for Gore or some other global warming champion. Whether we like or dislike Gore is immaterial. Just look at the ice.

Planet Earth will survive whatever happens here. Even if we nuke ourselves into extinction, the Earth will survive. Life as we know it may not (except for the cockroaches). Humans are not much more than parasitic leeches on the planet. We are analogous to mistletoe on a tree. If the parasite grows too large, and/or has too large an impact on the host, the host begins to lose it's ability to provide for or host the parasite. The parasite will die.

We are only impacting our own ability to continue living on this planet. The choice is only ours to decide. Granted we could be hit by any number of objects from space, but global warming is within our own control. We caused a change, much like a child messes a room when playing with toys. It has become time for mankind to put our toys away and clean up the mess. I see it as uniquely our own self chosen destiny.

What? Did I kill the thread?

Nah, that's my job...

(but seriously - it ran its course...)

Yeah Trooper,

It's all YOUR fault. Sandra is correct though. It isn't something that we have any power to solve. In certain ways, I believe I do my prt anyway. With my medical history of which I think you are aware, I don't exactly get out much. Considering 15k miles a year to be average annual car use, it takes me about 3 years to do that. And that is only if I make trips to Concord for funerals, and again, my own health doesn't always allow that either.

AR