Out of the Blue

We finally got the mad downpour I've been hoping for since our roof was repaired. Reassuringly, not a drop came through after a rainstorm that would have previously left me with a swimming pool in my office. This has also further helped the healing process on the lawn that was harmed by its exposure to the old roof, so with a green lawn and a dry office, we are happily putting the whole ugly ugly hole (in the roof) situation behind us.

R.I.P.: Isabel Sanford, 'Weezie' On 'Jeffersons' Dies At 86. Thanks Ant.

Link of the Day: There are 600,426,974,379,824,381,952 ways to spell Viagra.
Stories of the Day: Pelicans mistake Arizona asphalt for lakes.
'Bucky' Gets Lucky With Stamp.
Man's missing catch sniffed out.
Science!: Will Compasses Point South (registration required)?
Robot uses minesweeping technology to clean rugs.
Spinach Chemical Fuels Green Solar Cell.
Images of the Day: Backwards City: Our Brains Don't Work.
Mr. Condom Head. Thanks Ant.
The Upside Down Case.
Media of the Day: Winnebago Man. Thanks bEtA. Nothing BUT foul language.
Auction of the Day: Superman 1 Batman 1 Amazing Fantasy 15 Spider-man X-men.
Follow-up: They're Lions, not Bears. Thanks Jeff Nichols.
Thanks Mike Martinez
View : : :
48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
48.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 10:01
Enahs
 
48.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 10:01
Jul 14, 2004, 10:01
 Enahs
 
Wrong. Extreme weather is increasing. You check it for yourself. Plenty of links here.

Well, actually your links do correspond with them diminishing. Though, most of the information on those pages is for the past 10 years. As I was saying, for the last 100 years extreme weather events has diminished. It is hard to distinguish between the past 10-15 years and the previous years. As in the previous years what was recorded was what was reported. Since the mid 80’s weather radars have been recording everything all the time and the “extreme climate events” have been based on that. They show more because they have more data on them, but not because of “overwhelming” increased activity.

But when you equalize your data, it shows extreme weather conditions diminishing over the past 100~ years, thanks for providing links to my proof. Though, even if we do not equalize it, and believe that there are more extreme weather conditions though climate change and not because we now have the ability to record and “see” more (including the warnings off in a “corner” of some of your sites stating these are based on radar data and not eye witness proof, which weather radar is not 100% accurate), we have still not increased to the point of extreme weather events before the trend starting decreasing (naturally occurring trends I might add).

And still, there is no evidence pointing to global warming causing it only completely theory by people, and they HAVE to ignore increased sun activity which is a proven “fact”. So why not chose to believe the proven facts (which there is geological proof of this throughout happening throughout history as well) for theories that have to ignore said facts to be correct?



But again, I am all for decreasing pollution for other reasons, and even if global warming via our man made green house gases exist (which it does not), why focus on this when pollutions is obviously causing damage to the environment and living creatures in many other ways. Ways that could fairly “easily” be changed (read: would not require restructuring the whole of society) and greatly improve life on this planet. As the crusade on the chemicals that “cause global warming” are not even responsible for all these numerous other stupid things going on. So basically we have a bunch of people trying to invoke changes based on theory that ignores the evidence against it while not having any proof to back it up, a change that will require an entire retooling and restructuring of society. And those people are not doing anything (or nowhere near enough/to the extent of evil green house global warming gasses) towards the other types of pollutions that has undeniable proof of causing damage to the environment and living creatures, that can “easily” be done.

Seems rather silly to me, ignoring the proven dangers, and not improving things step by step, instead just trying to jump to what they think is a “complete” solution, so they can be done with it, that is all, move along……nope sorry uhh-uhh


______________
A post by Enahs; the only difference between me and Jesus is he could walk on water.....sober.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
47.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 09:45
47.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 09:45
Jul 14, 2004, 09:45
 
Stop eating meat, consign the cow to the history books and turn the grazing land over to producing agri-diesel

Ok, first off you have a massive misunderstanding on how much acreage is required to feed a cow, how much food that cow produces, and the energy involved in the process.

Second, you fail to understand just how much farmland the US (much less the world) has and just how much of it lies fallow due to lack of crops.

Third, biodiesel is a net energy loss process. Once you count in the fertilizer and fuel for the tractors you end up with less than a gallon of output per gallon input. We simply don't have a crop that is oily enough, or a manufacturing process that's viable enough to reverse that (it is theoretically reversable -- this isn't a zero sum equation because a vast amount of energy is input by the sun).

The real problem is what happens when the petro-chemicals go and you still plan on making plastics.

That's really not an issue.

You want an issue?

All of modern farming is heavily dependant on fertilizers. The majority of fertilizers in use are manufactured from petrochemicals. No more petrochemicals, no more high grade fertilizer, no more high yield crops.

That said, your concerns are so founded in utter ignorance that it's laughable. Even if Peak oil is true (which, contrary to Halsy's rants, is not a scientific fact), we aren't going to run out overnight. We'll go through several decades of decline, during which we'll also tap into less viable oil sources (Canada, for example, has vast reserves -- it's just difficult to extract cleanly and not economical to do so right now). Yes, the price of oil products will rise (and with it, the cost of everything else), but it's not going to be like falling off a cliff.

Frankly, it's been predicted that we'll run out of oil for, what, 50 years now? And it's always "within 20 years". Meanwhile we've found more reserves, improved extraction and refining techniques (making more with less), and kept on going. Are we going to hit a high point eventually? Yup. And we should be researching alternate fuels and ways to reduce oil usage because of that.

Oh, and yeah, we should look into reducing pollution because it's a good idea -- even if you don't buy into global warming (which has a number of non-partisan studies for and against it), there's still other reasons to reduce pollution like asthma and quality of life. But lets not go overboard on it (and, that said, I would like to see the US government tighten fuel economy requirements and reduce/eliminate grandfathering on pollution caps for power plants; both are reasonable, long overdue, and while they will have an economic impact, it will be a small one spread over a fairly lengthy time period).

46.
 
global warming etc or maybe an ad?
Jul 14, 2004, 09:19
nin
 
46.
global warming etc or maybe an ad? Jul 14, 2004, 09:19
Jul 14, 2004, 09:19
 nin
 
Anyone else notice that "Dead Like Me' banner at the top? It looks like the chick in the middle is getting done from behind by the guy on the left.

edit: This insightful commentary was brought to you by the letters n, i, and n.


There is the theory of the moebius, a twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop time becomes a loop time becomes a loop http://www.loopz.co.uk/
This comment was edited on Jul 14, 09:20.
45.
 
Re: global warming etc
Jul 14, 2004, 07:10
45.
Re: global warming etc Jul 14, 2004, 07:10
Jul 14, 2004, 07:10
 
As with any salient scientific issue, global warming, correct age to abort a foetus, whether sexuality is genetic etc, seems to be unfortunately determined to a large extent by who is funding the research. While I don't dispute there are facts to be found, I'm automatically wary of anybody that says "this isn't opinion, it's fact."
99% of the time, it's the most reliable opinion they've read elsewhere.

What I don't understand is that if the North Pole melts, why everyone thinks the water levels will rise? Given ice takes up more space than water, and if you have a glass with ice cubes in it, when they melt, the water level has gone down... I never did understand that. Sure, South pole is over land, so I can understand, but a floating mass of ice?
Any evidence, not from www.weareallgonnadieitsindustry'sfault.org or www.rubbishclimatechangehappensnaturally.com would be genuinely interesting

_____________________________
Insert funny quote here
Avatar 18712
44.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 06:48
44.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 06:48
Jul 14, 2004, 06:48
 
Nin, the covers to PC gamer are over at the gamespot forums (easy to find) and shacknews. There are two covers, hellknight and marine. People are spilling the beans on what they have read. The forum moderators seem cool about the covers being scanned, but not content, which isn't there.

The content stuff I found scanned has been taken down, sry, but was a poor quality scan anyhow.

43.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 01:41
43.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 01:41
Jul 14, 2004, 01:41
 
Well, if you want to ignore the fact that the “green house gases” are converted to harmless and useful material by the atmosphere, and go with this.

Yes...to a point. Our atmosphere can only process X amount of those gasses, but we're pushing beyond that.

As far as the established average increase of .5ºc, (even the proponents of global warming has had to concede on this) in the past 40 years, all of that can be, and is attributed to the huge increase of activity of the sun in the past 100 years.

No, it can't. That's industry talking. The vast majority of climatologists say different.

And as far as extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornados has diminished since this “warming” (which is again contributed to the sun’s increased activity), check the statistics for your self

Wrong. Extreme weather is increasing. You check it for yourself. Plenty of links here.

http://www.ocean.fsu.edu/govlinks.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html#CLIMATOLOGY

So you are saying the Pentagon is incapable of mistakes?

Pfft, hardly. I just pointed that out to illustrate it's their major concern. And if it's their major concern then you can and should attribute it some very careful consideration. They're not worried about it for no reason. That should sound some alarm bells for you as well. Industry wants you to believe there are no problems, everything is fine, no need to worry about anything. Come on, man. You know better.



"Sit, Ubu, sit. Good dog." "Woof!"
- Gary David Goldberg
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
42.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 01:20
42.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 01:20
Jul 14, 2004, 01:20
 
But a new study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warns water
supplies could shrink dramatically in the West over the next 50 years
as global weather heats up. The theory is that a century of fossil
fuel use is causing global temperatures to rise.

And a climatologist at the Desert Research Institute in Reno says it
appears as if global warming has begun to affect the Sierra. That's
based on measurements of rising temperatures, earlier stream flow
surges as the snowpack melts and earlier blooms of honeysuckle.

But local water officials defend the draft plan for the water
authority, saying the water picture for Reno and Sparks is much
improved because of added flexibility in using mountain reservoirs and
groundwater.

To predict water availability through 2025, the 122-page plan examined
only historical data for Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River basin during
the last century.

But given global warming, betting on the past to forecast the region's
future water supply "is just crazy," said Tim Barnett, a research
marine physicist at the Scripps Institution in La Jolla, Calif.

John Erwin, who headed up the TMWA's draft water resource plan and is
its water operations manager, scoffed at the notion of global warming.

But a new study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warns water
supplies could shrink dramatically in the West over the next 50 years
as global weather heats up. The theory is that a century of fossil
fuel use is causing global temperatures to rise.

And a climatologist at the Desert Research Institute in Reno says it
appears as if global warming has begun to affect the Sierra. That's
based on measurements of rising temperatures, earlier stream flow
surges as the snowpack melts and earlier blooms of honeysuckle.

But local water officials defend the draft plan for the water
authority, saying the water picture for Reno and Sparks is much
improved because of added flexibility in using mountain reservoirs and
groundwater.

To predict water availability through 2025, the 122-page plan examined
only historical data for Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River basin during
the last century.

But given global warming, betting on the past to forecast the region's
future water supply "is just crazy," said Tim Barnett, a research
marine physicist at the Scripps Institution in La Jolla, Calif.

John Erwin, who headed up the TMWA's draft water resource plan and is
its water operations manager, scoffed at the notion of global warming.

41.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 01:08
Enahs
 
41.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 01:08
Jul 14, 2004, 01:08
 Enahs
 
The earth's albedo is dissapearing, temperatures keep increasing, extreme weather is increasing.

Well, if you want to ignore the fact that the “green house gases” are converted to harmless and useful material by the atmosphere, and go with this.

As far as the established average increase of .5ºc, (even the proponents of global warming has had to concede on this) in the past 40 years, all of that can be, and is attributed to the huge increase of activity of the sun in the past 100 years. This increase in the suns activity is readily documented fact. And as far as extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornados has diminished since this “warming” (which is again contributed to the sun’s increased activity), check the statistics for your self…that is, for your self, to understand, not by someone else who has an agenda of any kind, but by you and your agenda to “learn”. As everything the proponents of “green house gas to global warming” points out as proof that it is occurring, all can be, is predicted by, and follows exactly along with the models of increased solar activity.


If things are so groovy, why is the Pentagon and everyone except big biz so worried? Everyone else is wrong and they're right, is that it?

So you are saying the Pentagon is incapable of mistakes? That means you total agree with the war in Iraq and you love Bush and believe all his decisions are perfect, correct?
Do you really want to continue this argument? Though I believe you would be better suited to point out all the mistakes (some lasting decades, and still continuing today) than me, but I am sure I can point out more than enough to prove our government is not infallible.

*edit* pooched the quote tag

______________
A post by Enahs; the only difference between me and Jesus is he could walk on water.....sober.
This comment was edited on Jul 14, 01:09.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
40.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
40.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
 
listen anyone can uses statistics to prove a lie but i dont need to do such crap

39.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
39.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
Jul 14, 2004, 00:35
 
fred flinstone

go eat a cat pooper

Hehe you pwned him RazorWynd

38.
 
No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 00:20
38.
No subject Jul 14, 2004, 00:20
Jul 14, 2004, 00:20
 
fred flinstone

go eat a cat pooper



Supporter of "The Only Good fredster Is A Dead fredster" fan club

The Former Leader and Victor of the rebel movement against the dark Lord Surewood and his fiendish cohorts(bunko)
Supporter of "The Only Good fredster Is A Dead fredster" fan club
37.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 14, 2004, 00:19
37.
Re: No subject Jul 14, 2004, 00:19
Jul 14, 2004, 00:19
 
Im tired of you people whinign about global warning. its a known fact that these liberals are trying to sway the election by blacming bush for global warming

Iraq, the patriot act and the net jobs loss will cause him to lose, not someone trying to sway the election because of global warming.

it's is a known fact that the average temperature is 2 degrees LOWER than it was in 1900

You're wrong my 1 post friend. The temp has gone up. I don't know what "known" facts you have but these are from the epa. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

why is it that the liberals are always proclaming to be for the environment then lie about global warming?

Only person lying is you, because the facts disagree with you my reactionary friend.

36.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 23:45
36.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 23:45
Jul 13, 2004, 23:45
 
Im tired of you people whinign about global warning. its a known fact that these liberals are trying to sway the election by blacming bush for global warming
  • its is a known fact that the average temperature is 2 degrees LOWER than it was in 1900]

    • the liberals support the excavation of the Alfred lake in alabama, which would further damage the ozone in that region]

      why is it that the liberals are always proclaming to be for the environment then lie about global warming?

35.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 23:35
35.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 23:35
Jul 13, 2004, 23:35
 
right wing liberal

------------
Love,
Mayor Dan:
The mayor of your hearts <3
ExcessDan
34.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 23:34
34.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 23:34
Jul 13, 2004, 23:34
 
Enah's it's about balance. Nature is fine tuned and we're the money wrench. Things were pretty much fine untill the advent of industrialization and as the rest of the world is coming up to speed it's getting worse.

Yes, there is a natural global warming that occurs. No, the global warming at the rate and amount we're seeing is unnatural.

The earth's albedo is dissapearing, temperatures keep increasing, extreme weather is increasing.

If things are so groovy, why is the Pentagon and everyone except big biz so worried? Everyone else is wrong and they're right, is that it?

This is an article originally published in Fortune magazine.

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=28801


"Sit, Ubu, sit. Good dog." "Woof!"
- Gary David Goldberg
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
33.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 22:25
Enahs
 
33.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 22:25
Jul 13, 2004, 22:25
 Enahs
 
Enah's I have been learning about it for 20 years now. Clearly, you're the one that needs an education on the subject.

Reading what people say in News Papers and such is not studying it. You are simply being convinced of something, which is not bad, because what you are being convinced of is true! The problem is, you are not aware of the rest of the story that modifies what you already know.

You think that the overwhelming concenus of climatologists, biologists, chemists, et al. who aggree that global warming is real and man (with his pollutants) is exacerbating the situation is just part of some vast left wing conspiracy against industry?

More and more people everyday are realizing through rational examination of the facts that it is not true, including these people whose opinions you hold so dear. But those people whose opinions you believe so much are just spouting what they where told, not what they recognized through scientific research, that’s just the cycle of the world.

Another problem is, now the perceived “good thing” is “globalwarming is true and bad”. When you state you are against that, people do not consider your arguments, they simply say “you do not care about the environment” and oust you. You then have people also under the illusion as you later say in a hypothesis, “who cares, pollution is bad in other ways, let this scare people into doing what is right”, people are “afraid” to come out and say that our pollution is not causing global warming because they get “punished for it”.

Left wing conspiracy? No, not at all. What it is, is what most things typically are. People who want to do good, and go on mini crusades trying to cause change, unfortunately they are uneducated on what they are crusading on and causing more harm than good.

Is this not what you say all the time, that you are more educated in politics and history, and that the majority of the people are “too stupid” to under stand? Same concept here.

I am simply saying this about you and the majority of people and chemistry, though I am not trying to do it in a demeaning way, but in hopes that some day you will learn/understand; though my real hopes is that people would understand within the next 5 years instead of 15-20. And yes, I would like to hope someone who possesses the ability of intelligence and passion as you could recognize it now, before we cause more harm than good, where you could start doing the good that you desire, instead of inadvertently causing harm. But I guess this is just one of those things I will have to wait 15-20 years to say “I told you so”….here’s to hoping Blues is still around and even more awesomeizzle then!

There is far too much goddamn pollution on this planet as it is - greenhouse issues or not - why the hell would you argue against a healthier environment for yourself and every other living thing?

Yes, I WHOLE heartily agree that there is WAY too much pollution.

The problem I have is, (be it from being mislead, ignorance, or out right lying) trying to affect changes in and with our society while lying about why we have to change things.

Really, what is the point in invoking a law that will stop something harmful to the environment through lies if they are just going to be ignorant and start harming the environment in another way? You can not fix something if you do not know what is wrong, you can only cover it up and hope it goes away, and it won’t.



______________
A post by Enahs; the only difference between me and Jesus is he could walk on water.....sober.
This comment was edited on Jul 13, 22:26.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
32.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 22:23
nin
 
32.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 22:23
Jul 13, 2004, 22:23
 nin
 
Well I have a link to scanned stuff but I won't post it here and I'm sure people can find these things out for themselves.

Hook me up (with a link)? noiseunit9 at hotmail dot comm (- a m)

Thanks!


There is the theory of the moebius, a twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop time becomes a loop time becomes a loop http://www.loopz.co.uk/
This comment was edited on Jul 13, 22:24.
31.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 21:30
31.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 21:30
Jul 13, 2004, 21:30
 
Enah's I have been learning about it for 20 years now. Clearly, you're the one that needs an education on the subject. You think ozone depleting chemicals don't contribute to global warming? You think that the overwhelming concenus of climatologists, biologists, chemists, et al. who aggree that global warming is real and man (with his pollutants) is exacerbating the situation is just part of some vast left wing conspiracy against industry? Do you really thing that big industry - who claims its junk science - really has your best interest at heart? Christ almighty, even the CEO of Shell has publically admitted it's a huge problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3814607.stm

We live in a terrarium, man. Can you grasp that? Our ecosystems are dominoes, and when one starts to fail it starts taking everything else down with it. There is far too much goddamn pollution on this planet as it is - greenhouse issues or not - why the hell would you argue against a healthier environment for yourself and every other living thing?


"Sit, Ubu, sit. Good dog." "Woof!"
- Gary David Goldberg
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
30.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 20:45
Enahs
 
30.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 20:45
Jul 13, 2004, 20:45
 Enahs
 
You do understand how global warming can precipitate an early ice age don't you? Politics has zero to do with it. You do understand how pollution is accelerating global warming, don't you

You do understand how pollution is NOT accelerating global warming, don’t you? Though, it does just make the environment not pleasant for us and animals, which is why we should stop, not because it causes global warming, because it does not.

Quick science lesson for you:
All the chemicals that supposedly cause global warming, they are broken down into harmless and often useful chemicals in the atmosphere. Yes, those chemicals “could” cause global warming, this is what is called “bad science”. It is half correct, and we can not argue with the fact that it “could” cause global warming, but the rest of the facts are that those chemicals are naturally broken down in the atmosphere to harmless and useful things almost immediately. This can and has been proven, I am sorry the only info you read about it agrees with your side, but the other rest of the truth is available, you just have to find it.

Or, here is a shocker for you, investigate it your self, do not just take every bodies word (mine or anybody else’s). Go to the library, get some chemistry books (college level) and read it. Learn how and why chemicals are broken down, then get a book about the composition of the atmosphere and environment, then apply the knowledge you have just learned together, and there you have it. You can then do simulated test of the atmosphere if you want (though this would take a lot of money and extra education).

Seriously, you crusade about this soo much, not believing some people and believing others, LEARN ABOUT IT YOUR SELF!

The “bad science” you state is correct, all the scientific information most people say about global warming is 100% correct, and I will NOT deny that. The problem is they are leaving out the naturally occurring processes that nullifies the “bad nasty things”.

I beg of you, you are intelligent and driven, learn about it, about it really, not just what people tell you! As people are finally coming around to that actually truth, in the next 10-15 years we will all be laughing at the stupid hypothesis of global warming caused by our pollution.

You do understand that Peak Oil does not mean we run out of oil, don't you? You do understand that Peak Oil will forever change our world and it'll occur within our lifetime, don't you?

You do understand that there was more after the part you quoted, as it was all a setup to tell a silly little “end of the world” joke, don’t you?


______________
A post by Enahs; the only difference between me and Jesus is he could walk on water.....sober.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
29.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2004, 19:58
29.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2004, 19:58
Jul 13, 2004, 19:58
 
No, we will not. Because soon according to all the “followers” of what they are told, the human population will be reduced to next to nothing do to global warming!!!!! </sarcasm>…while also in a new ice age that our pollution is causing????...ummm….I stopped trying to understand their theories of science based on politics and not science.

You do understand how global warming can precipitate an early ice age don't you? Politics has zero to do with it. You do understand how pollution is accelerating global warming, don't you?

Though, in all seriousness I doubt we will run out of oil because the way things are going

You do understand that Peak Oil does not mean we run out of oil, don't you? You do understand that Peak Oil will forever change our world and it'll occur within our lifetime, don't you?


"Sit, Ubu, sit. Good dog." "Woof!"
- Gary David Goldberg
"And then, suddenly and without warning, it turned into a real-life case of hungry, hungry hippos."
- Stephen Colbert
48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older