Media Weather Expert, says Gore partly foggy and cloudy..

[Ringo]

John Coleman who I always believed to be Liberal and amybe Liberal has come out with his thought and I believe he understands Meteorology far better than Sky Falling Liberals, OH except YDT, he is smarter than the whole world, just ask him!!

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

[April15]

I take it by your continual dissent that pollution and destruction of earth is cool with you?

[Wabash]

Pollution and the destruction of the earth is very overrated.......The sky IS NOT Falling!
It's a political agenda to force control over the citizens....like this new crap you have in Ca. Pretty soon April, you won't be able to buy the trucks you need or they will be soooo expensive to operate, you will have to fold your business!

Suing the EPA is ridiculous!

[Wabash]

The STORY is WRONG...the science is Bad!

So many Good scientists are afraid to speak up against GW, for fear of losing their livelyhood.....they would get funding no longer and be out of work.

You take the TV weatherman in most markets in the country and researchers in the Universities and they are afraid to speak up. They have families to support!
Science has actually been compromised!
The man that started GW has profitted greatly from it.
From 1940 to about 1976, we actually cooled....
The wool is being pulled over our eyes on a daily basis. The ice caps, the polar bears, etc. The monitoring data and the satellites are relatively new in this science, what has happened before is a Guess!
btw, John Coleman is now retired and he said that the people who now own The Weather Channel have lost sight of the mission!

[Wabash]

Example: Melting ice in Canada has exposed lots of dead trees that haven't been seen for hundreds of years...

The news bobbleheads would naturally surmise that GW has set in....right?

The question that I'm asking is this: How did the trees get there in the first place? Do you think there may have been a warm period in this region in the past!

Global Warming is a SCAM! Your Freedoms as an American citizen and as a human being are under assault! If these nutcases, including Albore, get their way, your lifestyles will change dramatically in the future. Such as Freedom of Movement from city to city and state to state and country to country! Licensing of vehicles, type of vehicles, home mortgage deductions, just for a few. The stifling of commerace and the COST of LIVING will Sky Rocket! Your Lifestyle will NEVER be the same! These are the Good Old Days!
Some people here may want restrictions on personal Freedoms at any cost, but you are selling your soul to the devil, whether you believe in the devil or not! I will Not bend over!

[Ringo]

I take it by your continual dissent that pollution and destruction of earth is cool with you?

No City boy, I am an avid outdoorsman, I live in the Country, I rely on clean groundwater, and I work with the Lakota here to keep the area clean from CITY BOY tourists who have no respect for the outdoors!

Now a few years back one of your wacko Greenies, wanted me a few others up here who raise Horses, to invest in a shredder baler for Newspaper and magazines, which in turn could be used for Horse bedding! Sound like a winner April? I mean hell we get rid of newspapers, the horse owner saves money by cutting his straw buying! Wow!! Brilliant!!

Whoa Nelly!!! I checked with a Vet and lo and behold the horses will actually eat the damned newspaper, which contains INKS and in some cases it will KILL the horse! Also in time the paper will become very dirty with horse pee and other stuff, and you cannot spread this waste anywhere, as it is not BioDegradable!

Then there is BROWNERS infamous MTBE, and the LIBERAL MGMT of Forests...How did that work for you this Fall???:mw:mw:nerd

[Wabash]

Has anyone noticed that the people pushing "Green" are people with lots of money? Rich liberals? Lear Jet liberals? Those folks stand to make millions on developing "Green" and have a vested interest in pushing this crap!

Al Gore is a hypocrit..he is Garbage!

The common man and woman are being scammed and will be the ones paying the rich to make them even richer!

[Saguaro]

John Coleman is nothing more than a metrologist,he knows nothing about the environment.

[Wabash]

No City boy, I am an avid outdoorsman, I live in the Country, I rely on clean groundwater, and I work with the Lakota here to keep the area clean from CITY BOY tourists who have no respect for the outdoors!

Now a few years back one of your wacko Greenies, wanted me a few others up here who raise Horses, to invest in a shredder baler for Newspaper and magazines, which in turn could be used for Horse bedding! Sound like a winner April? I mean hell we get rid of newspapers, the horse owner saves money by cutting his straw buying! Wow!! Brilliant!!

Whoa Nelly!!! I checked with a Vet and lo and behold the horses will actually eat the damned newspaper, which contains INKS and in some cases it will KILL the horse! Also in time the paper will become very dirty with horse pee and other stuff, and you cannot spread this waste anywhere, as it is not BioDegradable!

Then there is BROWNERS infamous MTBE, and the LIBERAL MGMT of Forests...How did that work for you this Fall???:mw:mw:nerd

You want to be done Greek Style?...follow a liberal..

Letting a liberal mess with the forest and it is a receipe for disaster!!!!

[Wabash]

John Coleman is nothing more than a metrologist,he knows nothing about the environment.

You are sooooooooooooo WRONG!

[Saguaro]

Find his creditials and list them. I mean other than being a weather forcaster and a funny man

[Wabash]

Find his creditials and list them. I mean other than being a weather forcaster and a funny man

He has worked closely with the fellow that runs IceCap.com, his mentor, and he single handedly founded the Weather Channel! He is now retired and cannot be lampooned by liberals! He makes a LOT of sense and I believe he is correct! You find his credentials...

[Saguaro]

Wabash ,thinking up the idea for The Weather channel and knowing about the enviroment are not the same thing.

[Saguaro]

The following points are made by Peter D. Moore (Nature 2004 432:159):

1) Global warming is likely to spell trouble for the tundra. The polar tundra has nowhere to retreat to when boreal forests invade from warmer latitudes, and alpine tundra has no alternative but extinction when tree lines climb to the mountain tops. These pessimistic models assume that forest spread into tundra habitats is inevitable in a warmer world, but that assumption needs to be questioned and tested. Recent work(1) has examined evidence for changes in tree growth in the zone of contact between tundra and forest in the east of Canada, and has found that the expansion of forest is not entirely following the expected pattern.

2) Climate modeling indicates that the Arctic will experience an even more rapid rise in temperature than most other parts of the globe(2). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the trees currently occupying regions immediately south of the tundra will respond to the warming by increasing their individual growth, their reproduction, and their invasive capacity. Gamache and Payette(1) have paid particular attention to growth processes, because they regard vegetative growth as a fundamental prerequisite for the reproduction and consequent spread of trees. The black spruce (Picea mariana), which is the main tree found in the zone between boreal forest and arctic tundra in eastern Canada, grows in a stunted, dwarf form at the northern limit of its distribution and at higher altitudes, creating a vegetation known as "krummholz". Trees with this growth form have a very low reproductive capacity, so increased vegetative growth might be expected to be a prelude to increased seed production and extension of the range of the tree.

3) Gamache and Payette(1) sampled black spruce trees from tree-line locations along a 300-km transect ranging from 55 deg to 58 deg N, extending from open boreal forest in the south to shrub tundra with fragmented krummholz patches in the north. Patterns of growth over time were studied by examining the height of trees in relation to age (determined by annual growth rings), and also by measuring the annual extension of leader shoots (the upper parts of vertical stems) in recent years.

4) The measurements reveal that the northern populations have been suppressed in their growth in the past, but in the last ten years or so their growth has accelerated and is now becoming comparable to that of the southern forest trees. This growth, however, has not yet been accompanied by increased regeneration by seed. In contrast, when trees at higher altitude, scattered above the tree line, were examined, there was little evidence of increased growth, particularly in the more southerly alpine sites. Exposure to wind, the speed of which is greater above the tree line, seems to be holding back any surge in spruce growth as a response to higher summer temperatures. Unlike at northern sites, seed regeneration does occur, but further growth is suppressed.(3-5)

References (abridged):

1. Gamache, I. & Payette, S. J. Ecol. 92, 835-845 (2004)

2. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) in Climate Change 2001: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001)

3. Payette, S., Filion, L., Delwaide, A. & Begin, C. Nature 341, 429-432 (1989)

4. Jarvis, P. & Linder, S. Nature 405, 904-905 (2000)

5. Vaganov, E. A., Hughes, M. K., Kirdyanov, A. V., Schweingruber, F. H. & Silkin, P. P. Nature 400, 149-151 (1999)

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

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

Related Material:

OCEAN SCIENCE: GLOBAL WARMING AND THE NEXT ICE AGE

The following points are made by A.J. Weaver and C. Hillaire-Marcel (Science 2004 304:400):

1) A popular idea in the media is that human-induced global warming will cause another ice age. But where did this idea come from? Several recent magazine articles (1-3) report that abrupt climate change was prevalent in the recent geological history of Earth and that there was some early (albeit controversial) evidence from the last interglacial -- thought to be slightly warmer than preindustrial times (4) -- that abrupt climate change was the norm (5). Consequently, the articles postulate a sequence of events that goes something like this: If global warming were to boost the hydrological cycle, enhanced freshwater discharge into the North Atlantic would shut down the AMO (Atlantic Meridional Overturning), the North Atlantic component of global ocean overturning circulation. This would result in downstream cooling over Europe, leading to the slow growth of glaciers and the onset of the next ice age.

2) This view prevails in the popular press despite a relatively solid understanding of glacial inception and growth. What glacier formation and growth require is, of course, a change in seasonal incoming solar radiation (warmer winters and colder summers) associated with changes in Earth's axial tilt, its longitude of perihelion, and the precession of its elliptical orbit around the Sun. These small changes must then be amplified by feedback from reflected light associated with enhanced snow/ice cover, vegetation associated with the expansion of tundra, and greenhouse gases associated with the uptake (not release) of carbon dioxide and methane.

3) Several modeling studies provide outputs to support this progression. These studies show that with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, such as those that exist today, no permanent snow can exist over land in August (as temperatures are too warm), a necessary prerequisite for the growth of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. These same models show that if the AMO were to be artificially shut down, there would be regions of substantial cooling in and around the North Atlantic. Berger and Loutre (2002) specifically noted that "most CO2 scenarios led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now ... with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated." They further argued that the next glaciation would be unlikely to occur for another 50,000 years.

4) Although most paleoclimatologists would agree that the past is unlikely to provide true analogs of the future, past climate synopses are valuable for confronting the results of modeling experiments or for illustrating global warming. A reduction of the AMO due to a global warming-induced increase in freshwater supplies to the North Atlantic is often discussed in relation to a short event that occurred some 8200 years ago (8.2 ka). During this event, one of the largest glacial lakes of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, Lake Ojibway, drained into the North Atlantic through Hudson Strait, quickly releasing enormous quantities of fresh water. However, unequivocal evidence that this event resulted in a substantial reduction of the AMO has apparently not yet been obtained.

References (abridged):

1. S. Rahmstorf, New Scientist 153, 26 (8 February 1997)

2. W. H. Calvin, Atlantic Monthly 281, 47 (January 1998)

3. B. Lemley, Discover 23, 35 (September 2002)

4. IPCC, Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001)

5. GRIP Project Members, Nature 364, 203 (1993)

Science http://www.sciencemag.org

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

Related Material:

EARTH SCIENCE: AN APPARENT ECOSYSTEM EFFECT OF GLOBAL WARMING

The following points are made by C.M. O'Reilly et al (Nature 2003 424:766):

1) Although the effects of climate warming on the chemical and physical properties of lakes have been documented, biotic and ecosystem-scale responses to climate change have been only estimated or predicted by manipulations and models.

2) Lake Tanganyika in Africa is a large (mean width, 50 km; mean length 650 km), deep (mean depth, 570 m; maximum depth, 1470 m) north south trending rift valley lake that is an important source of both nutrition and revenue to the bordering countries of Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The lake has historically supported one of the world's most productive pelagic fisheries, and the annual harvest in recent years has been estimated to be between 165,000 and 200,000 metric tons, with an equivalent value of tens of millions of US dollars.

3) The lake is oligotrophic and permanently thermally stratified with an anoxic hypolimnion. During the cool windy season (May to September), strong southerly winds tilt the thermocline, causing upwelling of deeper nutrient-rich waters at the south end of the lake and initiating seiche activity. Cooling during this season also contributes to a weaker thermocline, and entrainment of deep nutrient-rich waters from the hypolimnion occurs in this time period. Overall, these mixing events provide the dominant source of some limiting nutrients (P, Si) to the surface waters and are important in maintaining the pelagic food web.

4) The authors present evidence that climate warming is diminishing productivity in Lake Tanganyika. In parallel with regional warming patterns since the beginning of the twentieth century, a rise in surface-water temperature has increased the stability of the water column. A regional decrease in wind velocity has contributed to reduced mixing, decreasing deep-water nutrient upwelling and entrainment into surface waters. Carbon isotope records in sediment cores suggest that primary productivity may have decreased by about 20%, implying a roughly 30% decrease in fish yields. The authors suggest their study provides evidence that the impact of regional effects of global climate change on aquatic ecosystem functions and services can be larger than that of local anthropogenic activity or overfishing.

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sb041217-1.htm

[Wabash]

Coleman realizes that human-caused global warming "is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam."[3] Coleman disagrees with the hype about human activity and carbon dioxide having a link to climate change. COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman

jcoleman@kusi.com

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

[Saguaro]

Why are you repeating yourself ? Those are no creditials

[Wabash]

I'm going with Coleman Sag! He makes a lot more sense than any liberals like Albore! GW will vastly change the way you live...if you don't see that, I can't help you......going Green is going to cost you Big Time and cut your lifestyle to a small % of what you have now.

[Saguaro]

You are welcome to your opinion.I go with the authorities on ecology.

[Wabash]

Why are you repeating yourself ? Those are no creditials

All meteorologists have credentials that qualify them to understand everything that is going on Sag... The mear fact that he is one is plenty ! The ones that have to make a living and feed their families are afraid to speak up against GW!

[Saguaro]

How often are meteorologists right ? In my part of the country ,about 30%

[The Q]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, Wabby. She wins this round. :lmao

ADQ

[Wabash]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, Wabby. She wins this round. :lmao

ADQ

Who made you referee? :hotdog

They are about 50% here, when I lived in the SF Bay Area...about 70%...it is not an Exact science and neither is the THEORY of GW!!!! Sorry...but I think Sag has proved my point!!!!!
The "M" guys have just as much chance of being correct as the GW guys..

[Saguaro]

She has the credentials for umpire :D

[Wabash]

She has the credentials for umpire :D

Oh..........right!:theman

[Lone Laugher]

I think that the people who are so convinced that global warming is a hoax are simply afraid. They do not readily accept change and are quick to characterize all change as "bad" or "too expensive".

I don't think there is any doubt that we are impacting the environment negatively as we deplete nature of it's resources. People that deny this are the type of people that throw their hands up and quit when faced with a daunting challenge. They don't want to be inconvenienced...they are in this life for themselves and that is all that matters.

[April15]

Pollution and the destruction of the earth is very overrated.......The sky IS NOT Falling!
It's a political agenda to force control over the citizens....like this new crap you have in Ca. Pretty soon April, you won't be able to buy the trucks you need or they will be soooo expensive to operate, you will have to fold your business!

Suing the EPA is ridiculous!Suing the EPA is the right thing to do.

[Wabash]

I think that the people who are so convinced that global warming is a hoax are simply afraid. They do not readily accept change and are quick to characterize all change as "bad" or "too expensive".

I don't think there is any doubt that we are impacting the environment negatively as we deplete nature of it's resources. People that deny this are the type of people that throw their hands up and quit when faced with a daunting challenge. They don't want to be inconvenienced...they are in this life for themselves and that is all that matters.

You could not be MORE wrong! But hey, no surpise here considering all the other trash that you post!

Suing the EPA is the right thing to do.

Nope, the insanity of GW and Arnie's ideas are wrong. Already Ca. is sooooo fucked up with liberals...it's gonna cost ya April, better make it while you can, because this hoax is gonna cost ya!

[April15]

No City boy, I am an avid outdoorsman, I live in the Country, I rely on clean groundwater, and I work with the Lakota here to keep the area clean from CITY BOY tourists who have no respect for the outdoors!

Now a few years back one of your wacko Greenies, wanted me a few others up here who raise Horses, to invest in a shredder baler for Newspaper and magazines, which in turn could be used for Horse bedding! Sound like a winner April? I mean hell we get rid of newspapers, the horse owner saves money by cutting his straw buying! Wow!! Brilliant!!

Whoa Nelly!!! I checked with a Vet and lo and behold the horses will actually eat the damned newspaper, which contains INKS and in some cases it will KILL the horse! Also in time the paper will become very dirty with horse pee and other stuff, and you cannot spread this waste anywhere, as it is not BioDegradable!

Then there is BROWNERS infamous MTBE, and the LIBERAL MGMT of Forests...How did that work for you this Fall???:mw:mw:nerd

The natural process worked great. Of course many humans didn't like it that their houses got destroyed but that is nature.
Most printing inks commercially used is soy based. Has been since I quit working at Georgia Pacific in 77. Soy is readily degradable. The horse shit and piss is high in ammonia and nitrogen and can be easily degraded with the addition of potash I believe.
As for the city boy comment I don't fit that character. I have worked a hog ranch and been a trapper back in the early 70's to suppliment my income when layed off during the winter..

[Wabash]

The natural process worked great. Of course many humans didn't like it that their houses got destroyed but that is nature.
Most printing inks commercially used is soy based. Has been since I quit working at Georgia Pacific in 77. Soy is readily degradable. The horse shit and piss is high in ammonia and nitrogen and can be easily degraded with the addition of potash I believe.
As for the city boy comment I don't fit that character. I have worked a hog ranch and been a trapper back in the early 70's to suppliment my income when layed off during the winter..

We learn more about you everyday April...it's hard for me to believe that a guy with your background and God Given intelligence, can believe all this hysteria about GW!

[April15]

You could not be MORE wrong! But hey, no surpise here considering all the other trash that you post!



Nope, the insanity of GW and Arnie's ideas are wrong. Already Ca. is sooooo fucked up with liberals...it's gonna cost ya April, better make it while you can, because this hoax is gonna cost ya!Two things to consider,
Noaa has given credit to the theory of climate change that is exacerbated by man and I want air I can breathe. The quality of the air is such that I have asthma now and is by most medical people contributed to by exhaust and polution from mans activities.

[Wabash]

Two things to consider,
Noaa has given credit to the theory of climate change that is exacerbated by man and I want air I can breathe. The quality of the air is such that I have asthma now and is by most medical people contributed to by exhaust and polution from mans activities.

The asthma is most likely caused by the cement dust you are exposed to....and............the SF Bay Area, has some of the best air in Ca. because of the winds coming in thru the Golden Gate! Burlingame is no exception...it's not until you get into the South Bay that it becomes stagnant!

[Ringo]

Two things to consider,
Noaa has given credit to the theory of climate change that is exacerbated by man and I want air I can breathe. The quality of the air is such that I have asthma now and is by most medical people contributed to by exhaust and polution from mans activities.You want CLEAN AIR so you live in frickin California?? You might want to look at NE-SD-ND and with Asthma the HOT DRY areas of AZ!

The Veternarian whom has a degree slightly higher than you or I, HIGHLY recommended not using old Newspapers and Magazines, so I will listen as I have somewhere around 30 Grand invested in prize horse stock!

[April15]

The asthma is most likely caused by the cement dust you are exposed to....and............the SF Bay Area, has some of the best air in Ca. because of the winds coming in thru the Golden Gate! Burlingame is no exception...it's not until you get into the South Bay that it becomes stagnant!If in fact it was the dust I would have silicosis. That is a question I posed to the resporatory doc. It is not allergy either as I have been tested and found to have none.

[Wabash]

If in fact it was the dust I would have silicosis. That is a question I posed to the resporatory doc. It is not allergy either as I have been tested and found to have none.

That leaves only ONE conclusion April.............



It's Liberalitis!

[Ringo]

The natural process worked great. Of course many humans didn't like it that their houses got destroyed but that is nature.
Most printing inks commercially used is soy based. Has been since I quit working at Georgia Pacific in 77. Soy is readily degradable. The horse shit and piss is high in ammonia and nitrogen and can be easily degraded with the addition of potash I believe.
As for the city boy comment I don't fit that character. I have worked a hog ranch and been a trapper back in the early 70's to suppliment my income when layed off during the winter..


What did you like the Leghold, the restrainer or the Kill Trap? Its almost a full time job, if you trap em. skin em, stretch em and then tan em for sale! Prices can sure screw you at times, I hunted coyote once for $65 for ears, and a year later tehy were worth $13.50, and a box of .243's cost almost $12, so you better be accurate, or it was a wash!

I haven't hunted an animal for at least 15 years, but I have tracked many a badass down and brought em back where they belonged and that was more fun!

[Trueblue]

The idea that scientists would be out of work if they said something that was anti-global warming is not logical.

For one thing, they could always go to work for one of those foundations funded by the gas and oil companies.

Do people here understand that when you ask for research grants, you state your hypothesis-and if you are granted the money, you present your findings. You are saying that people are routinely lying on their findings and are not being found out. What you propose is a world-wide conspiracy that could not possibly be kept a secret.

You deny global warming on faith, not on reason.

[April15]

That leaves only ONE conclusion April.............



It's Liberalitis!That is so much better than conservatism.

[April15]

What did you like the Leghold, the restrainer or the Kill Trap? Its almost a full time job, if you trap em. skin em, stretch em and then tan em for sale! Prices can sure screw you at times, I hunted coyote once for $65 for ears, and a year later tehy were worth $13.50, and a box of .243's cost almost $12, so you better be accurate, or it was a wash!

I haven't hunted an animal for at least 15 years, but I have tracked many a badass down and brought em back where they belonged and that was more fun!

Leghold. The only bad part was not taking a bath for months. And the bait was something else again. STINK! We used .22 to kill the bobcats and foxes. And all I did was skin and salt. I let the pros do the tanning. Still had to scrap the fat off the hide though.

[Wabash]

Leghold. The only bad part was not taking a bath for months. And the bait was something else again. STINK! We used .22 to kill the bobcats and foxes. And all I did was skin and salt. I let the pros do the tanning. Still had to scrap the fat off the hide though.

I've done that a lot with deer...I've shot deer with a .30-.30, .30-06 and a Glock 9mm...they all work...even a .22 will do it if close enough...
gut, skin, salt and...my neighbor lady tanned them. Her husband was a wussy, and the gutting and all excited her.....it excited her a lot...lucky me!:hotdog

[AYFR]

John Coleman is nothing more than a metrologist,he knows nothing about the environment.

Find his creditials and list them. I mean other than being a weather forcaster and a funny man

And Gore's credentials are?????

[Saguaro]

Who said anything about Gore ? Wabash was basing his thread on John Coleman, not Gore

[April15]

Who said anything about Gore ? Wabash was basing his thread on John Coleman, not GoreThe intimation was a counter for Gore's position.

[Wabash]

And Gore's credentials are?????

Exactly! Great point! The pissant gore just is so irrelevant to me...

Who said anything about Gore ? Wabash was basing his thread on John Coleman, not Gore

Gore has NO credentials whatsofuckingever! Yet you would believe his bullshit and some stupid asses gave him an award! I submit Coleman is far advanced of gore!

[AYFR]

Who said anything about Gore ? Wabash was basing his thread on John Coleman, not Gore

The intimation was a counter for Gore's position.

Y'all asked for this guy cred's to discredit him by saying that he is not qualified to talk about Climate change. So I feel it is only fair to do teh same. Y'all keep repeating Gore like he is a super scientist so I want to see his creds for talking about GW.

[Saguaro]

I have never said Gore had any credentials as a scientist. He only gathered the info from RELIABLE souces and made a movie about it.

[Trueblue]

I have never said Gore had any credentials as a scientist. He only gathered the info from RELIABLE souces and made a movie about it.

Eggs-actly.

[AYFR]

I have never said Gore had any credentials as a scientist. He only gathered the info from RELIABLE souces and made a movie about it.

Then why did his movie have SOOOOO many falliacies in it?

What makes you sources more reliable then others?

[Saguaro]

They are credible ecologists that's what makes them reliable

[Trueblue]

The sheer numbers is part of what makes them reliable, the sheer amounts of data, and the fact that they used scientists from all over the world-which pretty much blows any hoax theory out of the water for a rational person.

[Ringo]

I've done that a lot with deer...I've shot deer with a .30-.30, .30-06 and a Glock 9mm...they all work...even a .22 will do it if close enough...
gut, skin, salt and...my neighbor lady tanned them. Her husband was a wussy, and the gutting and all excited her.....it excited her a lot...lucky me!:hotdog

Wow sacrificing Bambi for a roll in the hay....damn why didn't I think of this??

[Trueblue]

:lol

[Ringo]

The sheer numbers is part of what makes them reliable, the sheer amounts of data, and the fact that they used scientists from all over the world-which pretty much blows any hoax theory out of the water for a rational person.

BUT they all don't point a finger at Bush and Republican Businessmen, like Gore and you little Eco-Toys!!

Gores Electric Bill $17,000 a year....Mine is just over $3,000 counting the barns and pumps I need to run!

Gore is a LAND Raper, mining Zinc in TN

Gore has big stock in Occidental Oil who drill in the Pristine Rain forests of S America, and coerced Indian land in Californea

Gore flies around in a Lear burning up the Ozone lair, and waddles his fat ass around to functions to LIE for the CRIMINAL Global Warming crowd! To CLARIFY, I mean the inventors of this scam, Gore, the Media, and ONE WORLDERS, who I hope rot in hell!!!

[Trueblue]

I hope the deniers DON'T get what they deserve, myself. What the deniers deserve is to suffer the consequences of their actions-but that means that me, mine, and a lot of innocent people have to suffer, too.

[Saguaro]

If there's one document on global warming that policymakers might put in their briefcase, this would be it. On Monday, scientists and government officials gather in Valencia, Spain, to put together the fourth and last U.N. report this year on the state of global warming and what it will mean to hundreds of millions of people.

Unlike the past three tomes, this one will have little new data. Instead, it will distill the previous work into a compact guide of roughly 30 pages that summarizes complex science into language politicians and bureaucrats can understand.

It will be the first point of reference for negotiators meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia, to decide the future course of the worldwide push to curb greenhouse gas emissions after the 2012 expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark agreement that assigned binding reduction targets to 36 countries.

The last of four reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "integrates all the elements, the connections between them," said one of its authors, Bert Metz, of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

U.N. officials delayed the Bali meeting by several months until after the report is released, expecting it would add political momentum to the conference.

Though the IPCC was created in 1988 to assess the science of global warming, its work gathered a momentum this year that has helped reshape opinion in the public and governments. In the ultimate validation, the IPCC's warnings of man-induced climate change shared the Nobel Peace prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, the world's best known global warming campaigner.

"The reactions that I heard from politicians around the world is that they were shocked by the reports and that they should be acted on," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

'Growing consensus' for Bali
The United States, Australia and many developing countries that shunned the Kyoto treaty are now ready to begin discussing a successor agreement at the Bali conference, De Boer said.

"There is a growing consensus that Bali needs to achieve a breakthrough to put negotiations in place, and that's very encouraging," he said. "But it's not going to be a piece of cake."

The studies issued earlier this year painted a dire picture of a planet in which unabated greenhouse gas emissions could drive average temperatures up as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Even a 3.6-degree-Fahrenheit rise could subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, the IPCC said.

The consequences for mankind are legion: while some people will go thirsty from lack of rain, millions more will suffer devastating floods; diseases will proliferate; the food supply may at first increase in some areas, but will plummet later; countries that are now poor will grow still poorer.

The scientists set out a basket of technological options to keep the temperature rise to the minimum, with investments amounting to about 3 percent of the world's gross domestic product — far less than what the IPCC said it would cost later to fix the damage caused by higher temperature increases.

Campaigners are looking for the final "synthesis report" to emphasize the action governments can take, the consequences of inaction and the brief time remaining to put that action into gear.

"We would want to emphasize the urgency which comes from the science," said Stephanie Tunmore of the Greenpeace environmental group. "We know what's happening, we know what's causing it, and we know what we have to do about it."

'Scuffling' expected
A draft report of about 60 pages — distilling the previous three reports totaling more than 4,000 pages — has been circulating for months to governments, environmentalists and scientists for comment. The authors gathered in Valencia last week to incorporate some of the comments into the final draft.

Starting Monday, delegations from 145 countries meeting in this Spanish Mediterranean city will review the Summary for Policymakers, the critical document that becomes the single most important reference for nonscientists.

Each line must be adopted by consensus — and sometimes the use of a single word can be heatedly contested.

The final document is due to be released Saturday. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's presence at the unveiling is meant to underscore its importance.

"I expect some scuffling over the final language," especially over the urgency and the level of certainty of some predicted events, said Peter Altman, of the Washington-based lobby National Environmental Trust.

Despite the haggling, the political input into a scientific document is essential, because governments cannot later disown it.

"After the summary is approved, it becomes the property of the governments," said Metz, who was one of about 40 scientists working on the final draft. "It becomes difficult for them to ignore the conclusions that they were subscribing to."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21710833/

[Trueblue]

The consequences for mankind are legion: while some people will go thirsty from lack of rain, millions more will suffer devastating floods; diseases will proliferate; the food supply may at first increase in some areas, but will plummet later; countries that are now poor will grow still poorer.

:(

[Wabash]

I have never said Gore had any credentials as a scientist. He only gathered the info from RELIABLE souces and made a movie about it.

I have my favorite souces too...:pblade

Wow sacrificing Bambi for a roll in the hay....damn why didn't I think of this??

It was totally unexpected and she was a real cutie too...once I realized what was happening with her..I expedited Bambi as quickly as possible...so I could get to the meat of the situation! Her name was Wendy...those impromptu things are just so.....so.... .....well you know what I mean.

[Saguaro]

OOPPPSS

[Lone Laugher]

I've done that a lot with deer...I've shot deer with a .30-.30, .30-06 and a Glock 9mm...they all work...even a .22 will do it if close enough...
gut, skin, salt and...my neighbor lady tanned them. Her husband was a wussy, and the gutting and all excited her.....it excited her a lot...lucky me!:hotdog



bwahhhahhhhhahhhhh

[AYFR]

I hope the deniers DON'T get what they deserve, myself. What the deniers deserve is to suffer the consequences of their actions-but that means that me, mine, and a lot of innocent people have to suffer, too.

And what actions are those. I have already proven my footprint is smaller then yours.

I am doing what I can to conserve but not because of GW but because it makes good financial and common sense

[Wabash]

And what actions are those. I have already proven my footprint is smaller then yours.

I am doing what I can to conserve but not because of GW but because it makes good financial and common sense

As am I! I've been conserving and recycling all my life, because I'm a tighwad. You want something, I've probably got it laying around here somewhere...:wink

When they started with this GW crap...I thought to myself...more govt. regulation, more snitches in my neighborhood, more dimwits believing they are saving the planet, when IMHO, we have about as much impact as fly shit in an astroid belt!

[Trueblue]

And what actions are those. I have already proven my footprint is smaller then yours.

I am doing what I can to conserve but not because of GW but because it makes good financial and common sense

Spreading disinformation.

[Matt]

Wabash[Quote] As am I! I've been conserving and recycling all my life, because I'm a tighwad. You want something, I've probably got it laying around here somewhere...

When they started with this GW crap...I thought to myself...more govt. regulation, more snitches in my neighborhood, more dimwits believing they are saving the planet, when IMHO, we have about as much impact as fly shit in an astroid belt![quote]

The biggest crap here is when Wabash says IMHO.

If you have enough fly shit on that asteroid belt and each individual fly keeps increasing the amount of shit he produces, plus the fly continues to revamp the environment as he adds pavement, concrete, etc where there were once trees, only a dimwit would believe that he has no impact, IMIO.

[Ringo]

Wabash[Quote] As am I! I've been conserving and recycling all my life, because I'm a tighwad. You want something, I've probably got it laying around here somewhere...

When they started with this GW crap...I thought to myself...more govt. regulation, more snitches in my neighborhood, more dimwits believing they are saving the planet, when IMHO, we have about as much impact as fly shit in an astroid belt![quote]

The biggest crap here is when Wabash says IMHO.

If you have enough fly shit on that asteroid belt and each individual fly keeps increasing the amount of shit he produces, plus the fly continues to revamp the environment as he adds pavement, concrete, etc where there were once trees, only a dimwit would believe that he has no impact, IMIO.

So Ms Davy Crockett the 10th, you going to blaze a trail through the Pristine forests or wait for months while your store gets their goods delivered by Freight Wagon? Do you ever visit the City? Are you glad when a 4 lane Highway can zip you in & out, while your On Star guides your way? Its Progress Matt, join in, and tell daughter its OK to come out of the bubble on occasssion...hell Fat Al does as he Jets around looking at his Enviro Friendly Strip Mining and Oil exploration operations!!

I think Al's Dad invented the Interstate and then he annoited Fat Al Jr. to save the World, by Enviro Taxing them to death!!!

[Trueblue]

Ringo, that is a straw man argument.

[Matt]

Ringo is a straw man. He has resorted to personal insults on Gore and the family connection to play like he is making a point.
If there was something in your post that was worthy of countering I would respond Wabby 2.

[AYFR]

Spreading disinformation.

Tell you what when you and the other GW scare mongers put y'all money where your mouths are then your can lecture me on saving the planet, but as long as my footprint is smaller IMO all it is is all talk and no action.

[Trueblue]

Tell you what when you and the other GW scare mongers put y'all money where your mouths are then your can lecture me on saving the planet, but as long as my footprint is smaller IMO all it is is all talk and no action.

Scare monger implies that this is about creating fear for no reason, and that is simply not so. This is a real crisis. And you took one little on-line survey about your carbon footprint-let's keep that in perspective.

[April15]

What part of, we need to change direction, is fearful? To me it is a call to action not fear. Fear is when you hide and start shooting at foreign nations. There is no one to shoot here. PG&E our utility has done some very innovative things to reduce consumption of power and natural gas. One is to pay for CLF's so all you pay is sales tax to get them. They have re-opened the geysers for geothermal generation of electricity.
These are positive steps not fearful ones. The only companies that are fearful are automotive and of those it is only American manufacturers that can't/don't want to innovate.

[Trueblue]

What part of, we need to change direction, is fearful? To me it is a call to action not fear. Fear is when you hide and start shooting at foreign nations. There is no one to shoot here. PG&E our utility has done some very innovative things to reduce consumption of power and natural gas. One is to pay for CLF's so all you pay is sales tax to get them. They have re-opened the geysers for geothermal generation of electricity.
These are positive steps not fearful ones. The only companies that are fearful are automotive and of those it is only American manufacturers that can't/don't want to innovate.

:clap

[AYFR]

Scare monger implies that this is about creating fear for no reason, and that is simply not so. This is a real crisis. And you took one little on-line survey about your carbon footprint-let's keep that in perspective.

No not just one online survey. I have actively ALWAYS tried to be conservative with the earth and her natural resources, because being liberal with them lead them to be used up.


And you are scaring people for no reason, the seas are not going to rise 20 ft in the next century and the temp is not going to raise 10-20 degrees.

Besides you call people that talk about terrorism scare mongers or do you not think that there is a reason to fear terrorists?

[Wabash]

Ringo is a straw man. He has resorted to personal insults on Gore and the family connection to play like he is making a point.
If there was something in your post that was worthy of countering I would respond Wabby 2.
Libs gotta have a label huh? You can't counter it, you are over your head already!

Tell you what when you and the other GW scare mongers put y'all money where your mouths are then your can lecture me on saving the planet, but as long as my footprint is smaller IMO all it is is all talk and no action.

That's for sure. TB and Matt...you want to save the planet?...show us by selling your cars first, if you have a/c in your house, dismantel it, if you heat with oil, remove the oil tank outside or in the basement, turn off most of your indoor and outdoor lighting at night...Show us you CARE!

Scare monger implies that this is about creating fear for no reason, and that is simply not so. This is a real crisis. And you took one little on-line survey about your carbon footprint-let's keep that in perspective.

It is for no reason, because man/woman are piss ants in relation to nature! Or....fly shit in ansteroid. Your comments on the build up of fly shit would take a billion years.....about as long as GW might take if it continues...which it probably won't!

What part of, we need to change direction, is fearful? To me it is a call to action not fear. Fear is when you hide and start shooting at foreign nations. There is no one to shoot here. PG&E our utility has done some very innovative things to reduce consumption of power and natural gas. One is to pay for CLF's so all you pay is sales tax to get them. They have re-opened the geysers for geothermal generation of electricity.
These are positive steps not fearful ones. The only companies that are fearful are automotive and of those it is only American manufacturers that can't/don't want to innovate.

Apples and oranges April! Conservation is a good thing...PG&E are doing their share.
As for oil....use of that commodity will be going for a long, long time in the future! Too much is invested in the machiinery that makes the world go....I'd like to see your big truck fleet work on geo thermal!

No not just one online survey. I have actively ALWAYS tried to be conservative with the earth and her natural resources, because being liberal with them lead them to be used up.


And you are scaring people for no reason, the seas are not going to rise 20 ft in the next century and the temp is not going to raise 10-20 degrees.

Besides you call people that talk about terrorism scare mongers or do you not think that there is a reason to fear terrorists?

Ya GOT EM Rev...Ya GOT EM!!!!!!:rofl:rofl

[Trueblue]

No not just one online survey. I have actively ALWAYS tried to be conservative with the earth and her natural resources, because being liberal with them lead them to be used up.

Surely you understand my point. Otherwise, I'm not sure it's worth talking to you.


And you are scaring people for no reason, the seas are not going to rise 20 ft in the next century and the temp is not going to raise 10-20 degrees.

There are going to be substantial effects even if we take action, so people are not being scared for no reason.

Besides you call people that talk about terrorism scare mongers or do you not think that there is a reason to fear terrorists?

You consistently accuse me of saying things that I have never said. I don't appreciate it.

Libs gotta have a label huh? You can't counter it, you are over your head already!



That's for sure. TB and Matt...you want to save the planet?...show us by selling your cars first, if you have a/c in your house, dismantel it, if you heat with oil, remove the oil tank outside or in the basement, turn off most of your indoor and outdoor lighting at night...Show us you CARE!

Straw man. It's not necessary for any of us to go back a hundred years to make a substantial difference.

It is for no reason, because man/woman are piss ants in relation to nature! Or....fly shit in ansteroid. Your comments on the build up of fly shit would take a billion years.....about as long as GW might take if it continues...which it probably won't!


We are a part of nature, and the cumulative effects of our activities are substantial.

You seem unaware of the world population.

[AYFR]

Surely you understand my point. Otherwise, I'm not sure it's worth talking to you.



I understand it and I disagree with it.

There are going to be substantial effects even if we take action, so people are not being scared for no reason.
There is no definitive proof that anything major is going to happen



You consistently accuse me of saying things that I have never said. I don't appreciate it.
My use of "you" was not directed at you.

Sorry if I was not clearer.

[April15]

Apples and oranges April! Conservation is a good thing...PG&E are doing their share.
As for oil....use of that commodity will be going for a long, long time in the future! Too much is invested in the machiinery that makes the world go....I'd like to see your big truck fleet work on geo thermal!

The point I was trying to get across is that even big companies are doing what they can to use less fuel. Conservation is a part of the cure for GW.

[Yellowdogtexan]

John Coleman is nothing more than a metrologist,he knows nothing about the environment.Here is some good stuff on this moron, coleman. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/coleman-weather/The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”

Coleman came up with the “idea” for a 24-hour channel devoted to weather, but he ran the station for only one year. Since then, the Weather Channel has prominently embraced the fight against global warming:“If The Weather Channel isn’t talking about climate change and global warming, who is?” said Kaye Zusmann, the vice president for program strategy and development for the network. “It’s our mandate.”
The Weather Channel is unlikely to hire its founder today. Heidi Cullen, the channel’s climate change expert, wrote last year that the American Meteorological Society should not give its “seal of approval” to any meteorologist who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change.”

Although Coleman still refers to The Weather Channel as his “baby,” he recognizes that he’s no longer welcome there: “The bad guys took it away from me, but they can’t steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year.”This bozo would not be allowed on the weather channel today because he is an idiot.

[AYFR]

Basicly what they are doing is the YDT strategy, silence, berate, demean, and insult, the opposition untill they think like you do. No debates, no talking, no anything. It is either their point of view of nothing. :roll

[Yellowdogtexan]

Basicly what they are doing is the YDT strategy, silence, berate, demean, and insult, the opposition untill they think like you do. No debates, no talking, no anything. It is either their point of view of nothing. Your ignorance of science is really pretty sad. The scientific community has spoken and we are wasting time with idiots who are not scientists or who are on Exxon's payroll and ignoring the truth about global warming. The scientific community has a concept of peer review and the testing of theories in real scientific journals (i.e. not AEI or Heritage foundation bozos). We are wasting time listening to idiots like this stupid weatherman who is now so out of date that he could not be certified or allowed on the channel that he had founded.

Science is a wonderful process if you understand it. The fact that idiots keep claiming that global warming is not real is actually very sad given how out of touch with reality these people are. The people who are claiming that global warming is not real or is not due to greenhouse gases are truly on the same level as the people who believe that the world is flat. The reverend may live in cowtown where things are flat but the rest of us live on a world that is round.

[Wabash]

Here is some good stuff on this moron, coleman. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/coleman-weather/This bozo would not be allowed on the weather channel today because he is an idiot.

Keep believing that......

Basicly what they are doing is the YDT strategy, silence, berate, demean, and insult, the opposition untill they think like you do. No debates, no talking, no anything. It is either their point of view of nothing. :roll

Typical "modus operandi" for atty. types! Nothing new here!

Your ignorance of science is really pretty sad. The scientific community has spoken and we are wasting time with idiots who are not scientists or who are on Exxon's payroll and ignoring the truth about global warming. The scientific community has a concept of peer review and the testing of theories in real scientific journals (i.e. not AEI or Heritage foundation bozos). We are wasting time listening to idiots like this stupid weatherman who is now so out of date that he could not be certified or allowed on the channel that he had founded.

Science is a wonderful process if you understand it. The fact that idiots keep claiming that global warming is not real is actually very sad given how out of touch with reality these people are. The people who are claiming that global warming is not real or is not due to greenhouse gases are truly on the same level as the people who believe that the world is flat. The reverend may live in cowtown where things are flat but the rest of us live on a world that is round.

GW is real, but not Man Made...That is the SCAM.. and it is cyclical...not Man Made....the malarky that you espouse, THAT is......Man Made!:hotdog

[Yellowdogtexan]

GW is real, but not Man Made...That is the SCAM.. and it is cyclical...not Man Made....This ignorance is why your opinion on global warming and science is as meaningful as the opinion of a flat earth society member on navitgation and map making.

[Wabash]

This ignorance is why your opinion on global warming and science is as meaningful as the opinion of a flat earth society member on navitgation and map making.

:lalala:lalala:lalala:lalala

[Trueblue]

I understand it and I disagree with it.


There is no definitive proof that anything major is going to happen



My use of "you" was not directed at you.

Sorry if I was not clearer.

You are wrong, there is definitive information. This is already happening. Read about it sometime.

Basicly what they are doing is the YDT strategy, silence, berate, demean, and insult, the opposition untill they think like you do. No debates, no talking, no anything. It is either their point of view of nothing. :roll

Bullshit. You've been given links and logic and have responded by claiming that there isn't definitive proof. There is, you're wrong. You simply don't accept the science and come up with a lot of wild speculation like "maybe global warming will be good for us".

[Wabash]

:lalala:lalala:lalala:lalala

This ignorance is why your opinion on global warming and science is as meaningful as the opinion of a flat earth society member on navitgation and map making.

You left out the most important part of quoting me...:butt

[AYFR]

Your ignorance of science is really pretty sad. The scientific community has spoken and we are wasting time with idiots who are not scientists or who are on Exxon's payroll and ignoring the truth about global warming. The scientific community has a concept of peer review and the testing of theories in real scientific journals (i.e. not AEI or Heritage foundation bozos). We are wasting time listening to idiots like this stupid weatherman who is now so out of date that he could not be certified or allowed on the channel that he had founded.

Science is a wonderful process if you understand it. The fact that idiots keep claiming that global warming is not real is actually very sad given how out of touch with reality these people are. The people who are claiming that global warming is not real or is not due to greenhouse gases are truly on the same level as the people who believe that the world is flat. The reverend may live in cowtown where things are flat but the rest of us live on a world that is round.
Your ignorance of science is astounding. Keep to law that is what you are good at and leave the science to the open-minded folks. In science the debate is never over. Saying that the people that believe GW is not manmade are the same as saying the earth is flat is a stupid argument (but one I would expect from you). The earth being elliptical (it is not round) is a proven fact. I t has been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt. GW being man-made does not yet have that same status. There is no definitive (meaning conclusive or final) prood that GW is man-made.

You are wrong, there is definitive information. This is already happening. Read about it sometime.
It it not definitive, definitive means conclusive/final, that is the same as saying that all the evidence is in and that is not true.



Bullshit. You've been given links and logic and have responded by claiming that there isn't definitive proof. There is, you're wrong. You simply don't accept the science and come up with a lot of wild speculation like "maybe global warming will be good for us".

No the bullshit is that you refuse to listen to any other side that disagrees with you on this subject. To you the debate is closed and that is never the scientific way. The debate is never closed untill all the evidence is in. I have given facts, links and logic and you respond by saying that the debate is over.
It is you that are wrong not I, I accept that science is still studying it and am waiting till more "definitive" evidence is in.
BTW my saying that GW may be good for us was hyperbole. We do not know what GW will do man-made or not. The EPA (your favortie place to quote) even says that we do not know for certain what will happen, there is no "virtual certainty" in the predictions made.

[Trueblue]

Your ignorance of science is astounding. Keep to law that is what you are good at and leave the science to the open-minded folks. In science the debate is never over. Saying that the people that believe GW is not manmade are the same as saying the earth is flat is a stupid argument (but one I would expect from you). The earth being elliptical (it is not round) is a proven fact. I t has been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt. GW being man-made does not yet have that same status. There is no definitive (meaning conclusive or final) prood that GW is man-made.


It it not definitive, definitive means conclusive/final, that is the same as saying that all the evidence is in and that is not true.

Why do you keep saying this? All the evidence isn't in about gravity, either. But we know enough to proceed.

No the bullshit is that you refuse to listen to any other side that disagrees with you on this subject. To you the debate is closed and that is never the scientific way. The debate is never closed untill all the evidence is in. I have given facts, links and logic and you respond by saying that the debate is over.
It is you that are wrong not I, I accept that science is still studying it and am waiting till more "definitive" evidence is in.
BTW my saying that GW may be good for us was hyperbole. We do not know what GW will do man-made or not. The EPA (your favortie place to quote) even says that we do not know for certain what will happen, there is no "virtual certainty" in the predictions made.

You are simply wrong. I didn't start studying this the day I started posting here. I have been studying it for over a decade. If I were undecided at this point, I'd have to be an idiot. To take the knowledge that we have an act on it is not unscientific.

You've used illogic, rhetoric, and unreasonable doubts to argue this.

I took your hyperbole to the logical conclusion. We don't know that terrorist attacks will be bad in the long run. We don't know but what we might be happier under a Communist dictatorship. Why not ignore all the evidence we have and give it a try!

If we sit around and wait for you to be satisfied, valuable time will be lost. You don't have a clue what would decide the issue for you, the fact that it's a virtual certainty isn't enough, the fact that most of the scientists are in agreement isn't enough, the fact that the data is overwhelming isn't enough.

Face it, you don't want to accept the science for political reasons.

Fortunately for humanity, only the deniers are still stuck in this mode.

[AYFR]

I give up. You say taht you have studied this for years, I see no proof of that here, you say that the evidence is conclusive and I know that it is not.
You want everyone to just believe in something that is not yet proven nor that we know that it will do.
Gore and other have said that the seas will rise 20-40 ft in the next century and that has been proven false.
Scientist that once believe in man-made GW are not turing away, even on of the heads of the ICCP says that GW is not man-made and yet you refuse see it.

The EPA says that we can not tell for certain the future yet you rant and rave that we are doomed if we don't succumb to Gore's will in this matter (an exaggeration I know).

You keep citing virtual certainty when virtual does not mean absolute nor conclusive.

So I give up, you believe your way and I will wait for further evidence before I make my decision.

http://nukegingrich.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/warm-monger.gif

[Yellowdogtexan]

The Reverend clearly is clueless about how science operates. Again, if there was any real scientific proof or argument to the contrary, it would be looked at by the real scientific community. For example, most the crackpot theories put out by the global warming deniers are actually addressed and looked at by the IPCC. If you read the footnotes of the IPCC materials and track back to the source articles, these crackpot theories are examined and have been rejected. For example there is a great section in the IPCC report on paleoclimitalogy that looks at all of the evidence and still comes to the conclusion that recent global warming is the result of man made greenhouse gases.

If there was some real science to debate, we would be glad to look at it. So far the so called counter viewpoints are from either nut cases who are the equivalent of the flat earthers or from goons paid by Exxon who can not get their works published in real science journals.

Vice President Gore is correct in that the media (and by lmplication this board) is wasting time listening to faux science from idiots. When some real science comes along, I will be glad to look at it and unlike the Reverend, I will be able to understand it.

[Trueblue]

I give up. You say taht you have studied this for years, I see no proof of that here, you say that the evidence is conclusive and I know that it is not.

I said that this has reached the level of virtual certainty, that human activity is responsible for the rapid global warming. When you say that you know it has not been proven, you are simply wrong. It has been proven to a virtual certainty.

I have given you numerous links and you aren't reading them.

You want everyone to just believe in something that is not yet proven nor that we know that it will do.

Completely false. That is what you are doing. I want people to believe the evidence. The computer models have been wrong only in being too conservative.

Gore and other have said that the seas will rise 20-40 ft in the next century and that has been proven false.

This is a concern, not a certainty.

Scientist that once believe in man-made GW are not turing away, even on of the heads of the ICCP says that GW is not man-made and yet you refuse see it.


No, that is not true. The member to which you refer is from Russia and works for Putin. I am not refusing to see that this one person has objected [why do you keep saying that I have done things that I have not done?], but this one person turning away does not refute global warming theory.

The EPA says that we can not tell for certain the future yet you rant and rave that we are doomed if we don't succumb to Gore's will in this matter (an exaggeration I know).

The EPA says that human activity is causing global warming. Yet you refuse to accept that virtual certainty has any meaning. We do face serious consequences if we do not act.

You keep citing virtual certainty when virtual does not mean absolute nor conclusive.

I would like you to ponder the meaning of virtual certainty.

So I give up, you believe your way and I will wait for further evidence before I make my decision.

Please, explain the nature of the evidence that would convince you. Seriously, tell us what will change your mind.

Global warming is already happening. The computer models are being validated. The effects of CO2 are well understood. The evidence is overwhelming, and the number of scientists who accept vastly outnumber the contrarians. No rational person can believe that you can vastly change a system and see no effects from those changes. No rational person can believe in a hoax that involves hundreds of scientists from all over the world, and mountains of data.

I have proven every bit of this. And I'll be glad to do it all over again, because I am pissed at two particular types of bullshit that have been put on the American people by the far right: that Iraq had WMDs, and that global warming is not real, or is not a threat. Those who perpetrated these misconceptions are complete and total assholes who would be ashamed-if they had a conscience.

The American people and the world deserve better than these right wing Rush Limpbaugh demagogues.

[AYFR]

I said that this has reached the level of virtual certainty, that human activity is responsible for the rapid global warming. When you say that you know it has not been proven, you are simply wrong. It has been proven to a virtual certainty.
Se you altered your stance, I was arguing tha tman did not cause GW and you just posted that man is responsible for the rapid growth of it for which I have not denied or agreed.


I have given you numerous links and you aren't reading them.
I read your link and none prove that man caused GW


Completely false. That is what you are doing. I want people to believe the evidence. The computer models have been wrong only in being too conservative.
Not true you just want to believe that they are too conservative. You just want people to believe that GW is man made and that if we don't do something right this second we are all doomed.


This is a concern, not a certainty.
Gore believed that it was certain that is till he was proven wrong


No, that is not true. The member to which you refer is from Russia and works for Putin. I am not refusing to see that this one person has objected [why do you keep saying that I have done things that I have not done?], but this one person turning away does not refute global warming theory.
No it doesn't but it shows that the debate is still open.



The EPA says that human activity is causing global warming. Yet you refuse to accept that virtual certainty has any meaning. We do face serious consequences if we do not act.
No they do not they say that man added to it, which is not the arguement here.




I have proven every bit of this. And I'll be glad to do it all over again, because I am pissed at two particular types of bullshit that have been put on the American people by the far right: that Iraq had WMDs, and that global warming is not real, or is not a threat. Those who perpetrated these misconceptions are complete and total assholes who would be ashamed-if they had a conscience.
Which is funny for you to say that to me because I have not denied GW or talked about WMD's in Iraq.

I also never said GW was not a threat, I do not believe it to be as big a threat as you claim, nor am I certain that we can do anything about it, regardless of that I DO believe that we do need to conserve and that we do need to get away from fossil fuels.

So do what you will, until then I will continue to conserve and do what I have been doing to care for the goft God gave us.

I don't need to be "scared" into doing what is right and neither do most Americans, I believe that they will do what is right if they are talked to not talked down to.

[Trueblue]

Se you altered your stance, I was arguing tha tman did not cause GW and you just posted that man is responsible for the rapid growth of it for which I have not denied or agreed.

You sorry liar, I have done no such thing. I have not altered my stance.



I read your link and none prove that man caused GW

Yeah, they did.



Not true you just want to believe that they are too conservative. You just want people to believe that GW is man made and that if we don't do something right this second we are all doomed.

Liar.


Gore believed that it was certain that is till he was proven wrong

Prove it.

No it doesn't but it shows that the debate is still open.

No, it doesn't. It's over.

No they do not they say that man added to it, which is not the arguement here.

Honestly, you are just trying to wiggle at this point.

You deny this:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.



Which is funny for you to say that to me because I have not denied GW or talked about WMD's in Iraq.

Not funny at all. You see, not everything is about you. I'm speaking of those who convinced you of all the misinformation you've given here.



I also never said GW was not a threat, I do not believe it to be as big a threat as you claim, nor am I certain that we can do anything about it, regardless of that I DO believe that we do need to conserve and that we do need to get away from fossil fuels.

Who knows what you've said at this point. You're just looking for wiggle room, it seems to me.

So do what you will, until then I will continue to conserve and do what I have been doing to care for the goft God gave us.

I don't need to be "scared" into doing what is right and neither do most Americans, I believe that they will do what is right if they are talked to not talked down to.

This is a straw man, for the most part. I didn't advocate scaring people, I advocate people being educated and taking action.

[AYFR]

You sorry liar, I have done no such thing. I have not altered my stance.
BULL FUCKING SHIT you did too. We started debating that GW was man made and in you last post you said and I quote
I said that this has reached the level of virtual certainty, that human activity is responsible for the rapid global warming
Note not the cause of it but the reason it is so rapid. Your quote not mine


Yeah, they did.
No they did not




Liar.
Look in a mirror. You are the one saying that if we don't stop GW then thing will change for the worse.



Prove it.
The BBC reports that these errors include the assertion that a seal level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future." (The judge was certainly right on this count. "In the near future," sounds like "ten to fifty years from now" to most reasonable people -- which is not the time-scale over which we're going to see that kind of sea level rise.)
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?more=1&title=uk_declares_al_gore_made_9_errors_in_an_

No, it doesn't. It's over.
In science the debate is never over.



Honestly, you are just trying to wiggle at this point.

You deny this:
No I deny that man caused GW only


Not funny at all. You see, not everything is about you. I'm speaking of those who convinced you of all the misinformation you've given here.
My info is just as accurate as yours



Who knows what you've said at this point. You're just looking for wiggle room, it seems to me.
Not at all, this whole time I have been debateing whether or not GW was man made that is all



This is a straw man, for the most part. I didn't advocate scaring people, I advocate people being educated and taking action.
No it is an example and notice I said I was not refering to you

[Trueblue]

BULL FUCKING SHIT you did too. We started debating that GW was man made and in you last post you said and I quote

Note not the cause of it but the reason it is so rapid. Your quote not mine

Back at you. Yes, human activity is the reason it is so rapid. That is not a change in my stance. I specifically said that was the lie. I couldn't even interpret the rest of the sentence.


No they did not





Look in a mirror. You are the one saying that if we don't stop GW then thing will change for the worse.

I don't need to look in the mirror, I'm not changing my stance or mucking around with what you say to score some sort of points. You need to either be more honest or take more time to understand what people say. You said "right this second, or we are doomed" which is not what I said.



The BBC reports that these errors include the assertion that a seal level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future." (The judge was certainly right on this count. "In the near future," sounds like "ten to fifty years from now" to most reasonable people -- which is not the time-scale over which we're going to see that kind of sea level rise.)
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?more=1&title=uk_declares_al_gore_made_9_errors_in_an_

It was a concern, the increase cannot be predicted perfectly, but the level of the rise is a concern.

In science the debate is never over.

You say that like it is some great scientific truth.

You seem to think that something is going to happen that will completely reverse what is known about global warming, but it isn't. The fact that human activity is causing global warming is known to virtual certainty, it is beyond debate, to disagree would be absurd.

So yes, sometimes in science, the debate is over. That does not mean the same as we know absolutely everything about a subject.




No I deny that man caused GW only

Then you agree with these statements?

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.



My info is just as accurate as yours

No, it's not. Sorry.



Not at all, this whole time I have been debateing whether or not GW was man made that is all

I know that. For the fifth or sixth time, I know that.



No it is an example and notice I said I was not refering to you

I don't see that you did, actually.

[AYFR]

Back at you. Yes, human activity is the reason it is so rapid. That is not a change in my stance. I specifically said that was the lie. I couldn't even interpret the rest of the sentence.
Fine



It was a concern, the increase cannot be predicted perfectly, but the level of the rise is a concern.

No Gore said that it was more then a concern, even by the most liberal computer models the seas will only rise about 8 inches in the next 100 years

You say that like it is some great scientific truth.
It is

You seem to think that something is going to happen that will completely reverse what is known about global warming, but it isn't. The fact that human activity is causing global warming is known to virtual certainty, it is beyond debate, to disagree would be absurd.
NO what might happen is proof tha tman eithe caused GW or didn't. What is know for certain is that man is adding to the natural cycle of GW making it worse.

So yes, sometimes in science, the debate is over. That does not mean the same as we know absolutely everything about a subject.
:roll





Then you agree with these statements?

Sure but they do not say that man cause GW they just say taht man has affected the climate (which I have never denied) and increased the speed of GW




I know that. For the fifth or sixth time, I know that.

Then why do you keep going in other directions?
I agree that GW exists, and I agree that man added to it, but man did not start the earth warming.

[Trueblue]

Fine



No Gore said that it was more then a concern, even by the most liberal computer models the seas will only rise about 8 inches in the next 100 years


It is


NO what might happen is proof tha tman eithe caused GW or didn't. What is know for certain is that man is adding to the natural cycle of GW making it worse.


:roll





Sure but they do not say that man cause GW they just say taht man has affected the climate (which I have never denied) and increased the speed of GW





Then why do you keep going in other directions?
I agree that GW exists, and I agree that man added to it, but man did not start the earth warming.

I have not gone in any other directions. Either you are misreading what I say, or you are simply lying to confuse the issue.

[AYFR]

I have not gone in any other directions. Either you are misreading what I say, or you are simply lying to confuse the issue.
I am not lying or misreading.

You keep bring up virtual certainty that man has added to GW over and over which is not what I disagree with.

The issue is whether man created GW or not and there is no proof that we started this planet warming.

[Trueblue]

I am not lying or misreading.

You keep bring up virtual certainty that man has added to GW over and over which is not what I disagree with.

The issue is whether man created GW or not and there is no proof that we started this planet warming.

I have never, until this morning, heard you reference what "started" global warming. We have not talked about who or what "created" global warming, so that cannot be the issue.

[Lone Laugher]

Once a "debate" or discussion reaches the point of inducing nausea, it might be good for poll or vote to determine who has "won" the argument. Yes...someone will have their feelings hurt...but to keep on and on without an end point seems ridiculous.


Anyone agree?

[AYFR]

I have never, until this morning, heard you reference what "started" global warming. We have not talked about who or what "created" global warming, so that cannot be the issue.

WHAT, my only debate was whether GW was man made, and I have posted that it is a natural occurance, well that shows that you HAVE NOT been reading what I have been posting.

I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER that GW was not man made PERIOD.

[Trueblue]

Once a "debate" or discussion reaches the point of inducing nausea, it might be good for poll or vote to determine who has "won" the argument. Yes...someone will have their feelings hurt...but to keep on and on without an end point seems ridiculous.


Anyone agree?

It's certainly induced nausea in me. I know it's ridiculous, and to have Rev accuse me of changing my stance really pissed me off.

WHAT, my only debate was whether GW was man made, and I have posted that it is a natural occurance, well that shows that you HAVE NOT been reading what I have been posting.

I have said OVER AND OVER AND OVER that GW was not man made PERIOD.

I have been reading it. It's making me dizzy.

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.



With what part of the above do you disagree?

[Yellowdogtexan]

I find this amusing. The right wing nut cases are upset that people are pointing out that this nut case weatherman is so out of touch that he would not be allowed to work at the weather channel any longer due to the fact that he is clueless about global warming. Such whining is amusing but wrong. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/13/john-coleman-ii/In reality, Coleman’s views place him in the discredited fringe of global warming deniers — the modern day equivalent of those who believe the Earth is flat. As Science Magazine noted, in addition to the IPCC and National Academy of Sciences, there is overwhelming agreement about the causes of global warming:In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. … The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.Coleman, a meteorologist, has been rebuked by his parent association, the American Meteorological Association, as well as his “baby,” The Weather Channel.

Coleman cites no scientific evidence for his claims in his original article. “I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct,” he says to prove his point. If Coleman believes global warming is a “scam,” then he should bring peer-reviewed scientific proof to the table.The views of a nut case like coleman are not entitled to any credence and coleman is indeed the modern equivalent of a flat earth society member.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I found this article on the scientific agreement as to the cause of global warming to be interesting. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling
There is more but it is clear that only idiots and people who are in the same category as the members of the flat earth society

[AYFR]

Once a "debate" or discussion reaches the point of inducing nausea, it might be good for poll or vote to determine who has "won" the argument. Yes...someone will have their feelings hurt...but to keep on and on without an end point seems ridiculous.


Anyone agree?
I agree and to that point I am ending my part in this debate

It's certainly induced nausea in me. I know it's ridiculous, and to have Rev accuse me of changing my stance really pissed me off. Sorry but that is the way it looked to me







With what part of the above do you disagree?
NONE of the above says man caused GW.
What is said above in short is that man added to and accelerated GW, which I have not disagreed with.
So to answer you question, I do not disagree with any of it. But then again I never said I did.


This is from YDT's article

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"

Notice that is says most and does not say ALL nor does it say that man started GW.

[Lone Laugher]

You call THAT ending your part in the debate?

[AYFR]

You call THAT ending your part in the debate?

I had to respond one last time, but that was my last post on the subject.

[Trueblue]

Human activity is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Slice and dice it however you want, that means that global warming is the result of human activity.

[Trueblue]

So to answer you question, I do not disagree with any of it. But then again I never said I did.

Good lord. Unbelievable.

[AYFR]

Human activity is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Slice and dice it however you want, that means that global warming is the result of human activity.

Sorry Lone but I can't resist.

No you are twisting what they are saying. Changing the atmosphere DOES NOT equate with starting thw warming trend (causing GW)
What it means is that man ADDED and ACCELERATED the earths natural warming cycle.

[Trueblue]

Sorry Lone but I can't resist.

No you are twisting what they are saying. Changing the atmosphere DOES NOT equate with starting thw warming trend (causing GW)
What it means is that man ADDED and ACCELERATED the earths natural warming cycle.

You are mistaken. I haven't twisted a thing.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The reverend is so silly that it is sad.

Back to the topic of the stupidity of the right wing nut cases relying on the stupidity of a tv weatherman. Tv weathermen are not trained in climate studies and so their opinions are as worthless and as poorly informed as the Reverends. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/14/weathermen-not-educated-in-climate-change/The right wing has been trumpeting the global warming denial of TV weatherman John Coleman, claiming that such a “high profile member of the weather reporting community” should be viewed as a legitimate skeptic of climate change. Climate Progress’s Joe Romm reports that meteorologists generally have thin knowledge of long-term climate patterns:Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.Romm writes, “Asking a meteorologist to opine on the climate — or even the cause of recent extreme weather — is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a mid-West sheriff the prospects for nuclear terrorism.” Check out ThinkProgress’s response to right-wing distortions here.
Asking a weatherman or a poorly informed layperson like the Reverend about climate change is is indeed like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a mid-West sheriff the prospects for nuclear terrorism:ydt

[Yellowdogtexan]

No you are twisting what they are saying. Changing the atmosphere DOES NOT equate with starting thw warming trend (causing GW)
What it means is that man ADDED and ACCELERATED the earths natural warming cycle.If you read the studies, solar radiation has decreased over the last twenty years and so according to you silly and wrong theories, the Earth should be getting cooler in the natural cycle. Instead the Earth is getting warmer. The climate cycle crap was really looked at by real scientist as compared to ignorant laypersons who are ignorant about their own religion's early history and this theory was rejected. Again, real scientists have looked at this issue and they are know far more than a layperson who is poorly informed such as the global warming deniers on this board.

[AYFR]

The only thing that we disagreed on about my religion was you said pieces were stolen adn I said they were intergrated when people came in so no you did not prove me wrong. But by all means keep bringing it up and I will continue to disprove you.

The sun isn't the only natural occurance that heats the earth stupid, but even you are wrong about it as well.


Anyone that idsagrees with you suddenly becomes a fake scientist but that is not your call, REAL scientists and REAL NASA scientists have said that the earth goes in cycles, that other planets are experiencing GW and that solar activity is increasing so again you ar just PLAIN WRONG

Or are you smarter than a rocket scientist?

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.



"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html




Most of the scientific community believes that some warming is occurring across the globe and through some layers of the atmosphere. But why it is occurring and what that means for the future is scientifically and politically contentious.
<snip>



But there are those who do not share his view, and among the skeptics is Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We've suddenly taken to reading tea leaves," he said. "When we saw cooling from 1940 to 1970, we were proclaiming global cooling. Since then, there's been a few tenths of global warming, so we're proclaiming global warming."

He believes the current warming trend is the result of natural variability, where a planet goes through phases of warming and cooling and the human contribution to it is minimal.

"The Earth is always getting colder and warmer," he said. "It's always changing. In fact, this is true of any fluid-covered planet."

Asked about glacial melt, which many observers point to as evidence of global warming, Lindzen said the way glaciers change and move are phenomena largely unexplained.

"We don't know why, but it's perfectly clear that glaciers change even though the temperature is cooling at the place that they've occurred," he said. "What we're doing is cherry picking any event that occurs and then saying that's occurring due to global warming."
http://us.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html

So again you are wrong, NASA has proven you wrong time and time again.