[aging relic]

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

[tracieperniciaro]

aging relic, on Mar 13 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

"environmentalism is the new home of socialism".

that's good
i like it

[Big Brother]

Quote

What DOES this mean in light of Al Gore/his movie/varied opinion?

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

[aging relic]

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

[Big Brother]

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.

[Sandra]

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 -

[wvu80]

aging relic, on Mar 13 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

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

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!

[wvu80]

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.

This post has been edited by wvu80: 15 March 2008 - 07:12 AM

[aging relic]

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

[flammaster]

50 is the new 40.

[flammaster]

aging relic, on Mar 15 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

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.
AR

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.

[Big Brother]

Quote

There is just something about those teeth that get my attention

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...

[Sandra]

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?

[wvu80]

Sandra, on Mar 15 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

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

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)

[aging relic]

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

[Socal Fan]

Sandra, on Mar 15 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

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 -

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.

[wvu80]

Socal Fan, on Mar 15 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

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.

[Socal Fan]

wvu80, on Mar 15 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

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?

[HUGADA]

"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!

[Sandra]

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.