Looks like folks are coming to their senses man-made global warming

[Okla-homey]

More and more of us are getting wise to the scheme. And it could be Obama's fault. :D


Americans' belief in global warming sinks as Republicans shift
December 7, 2009 5:10 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- A rise in skepticism among Americans over global warming is mostly due to changes among Republicans, according to new national poll.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, indicates that two-thirds of all Americans believe global warming is a proven fact. That's down 8 percentage points since June 2008, with views among Democrats holding steady and Republicans' belief in global warming dropping 11 points.

"The growing skepticism among Republicans, with no matching shift among Democrats, suggests that the changes measured in this poll may be a reaction to having a Democrat in the White House rather than a shift in underlying attitudes toward global warming," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director.

The poll's release come as a United Nations climate summit opened in Copenhagen, Denmark. That global conference began under a cloud of accusations, after international attention the past two weeks over hacked e-mails that suggest some scientists faked data to support the argument of global warming.

But Holland noted that polls released last month from other organizations have found similar shifts in views on global warming for several months. That indicates the changes in the new CNN survey are not the direct result of the media attention to the leaked e-mails from climate researchers, he said.

According to the survey, roughly a third of the people who believe in global warming think it is due to natural causes, rather than manmade causes such as industrial emissions. As a result, the number who say that global warming is caused by humans has dropped from 54 percent last summer to 45 percent now.

The poll indicates the number who say the United States should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.

"That drop is due to roughly equal changes among Republicans and Democrats, suggesting that economic conditions, rather than political factors, may be at play," Holland said.

Why does a majority support lowering emissions when most Americans no longer think emissions cause global warming?

"Americans may have other reasons to support a reduction in carbon dioxide and other gases," Holland said. "Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 2-3, with 1,041 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percent for the overall sample.

CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

[My Opinion Matters]

More and more of us are getting wise to the scheme. And it could be Obama's fault. :D

And then there's this:


Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say
Buzz up!1533 votes Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks Print AP – FILE - In this Sept. 29, 2009 file photo residents travel in passenger canoes through Makoko, a slum …
Slideshow:Climate Change Issues Play Video Video:China blows towards wind power Reuters Play Video Video:World descends on Denmark for climate talks AP By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – Mon Dec 7, 7:08 am ET
It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this side of making historic decisions.

"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives' Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.

Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from heat expansion and melting glaciers. On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making plans, packing up, seeking shelter.

The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.

The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans.

On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher temperatures, evaporation and drought. Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through warmer forests. In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern robins.

In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated, scientists said. So were other things: By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network formed to peer into climate's future. Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent higher than at the decade's start.

By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest years on record. By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British scientists said.

Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do. As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned more toward the economic.

By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to talk. But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of time.

Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years. The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more urgent story: To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

___

Charles J. Hanley has covered climate issues for The Associated Press since the Kyoto conference of 1997



Quick! Someone find another article to copy/paste, this is fun!

[StoopTroup]

I was skeptical when it seemed like everyone wanted to blame Americans for most all of it.

This all started with when Industry was dumping crap into our rivers and Streams and some folks fail to understand how much has been done to keep that stuff from happening.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But haven't the temperatures shown clear cooling over the past, what, 6-7 years?

If that trend continues, then what? Could it have been that 70 year cycle after all?

[My Opinion Matters]

Just to be clear, I didn't actually read either article.

[StoopTroup]

I think the air got even cleaner once so many folks quit smoking ciggies.

Cigars don't pollute. People should know this.

[AlbqSooner]

I have a 43 page .pdf which was sent to me that talks about "Climategate". It is, in part, techinically beyond my ability to fully understand, but overall, fairly readable. In a nutshell it says that the UN science coming from East Anglia University in the UK, which is relied on by the Global Warming crowd, is based on data that has been substantially manipulated, inconvenient data that has been suppressed and in some instances destroyed, and scientific conclusions that have been based, at least in part, on the suggestion and direction of politically motiviated individuals or entitites who provide a portion of the funding for the research. Additionally, attempts by other scientists to obtain the raw data and source codes to test the reliability of the conclusions has been withheld by the East Anglia scientists despite Freedom of Information requests.

I thought about posting it here, but decided against it. If anyone wants a copy, peem me and I will make it available.

[sooneron]

But haven't the temperatures shown clear cooling over the past, what, 6-7 years?

If that trend continues, then what? Could it have been that 70 year cycle after all?

You sure about 70 years?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Please think about the manufacturing that was going on around... I don't know, the second World War...

[KABOOKIE]

I love this fake chart. Tenths of degrees.

[sooneron]

Fake?

[Chuck Bao]

Yeah, like people have really come to their senses. Heaven forbid, if Americans ever learn to conserve energy.

[Curly Bill]

Yeah, like people have really come to their senses. Heaven forbid, if Americans ever learn to conserve energy.

I have nothing against conserving energy, but I'm still not joining the global warming cult.

[Fraggle145]

I was skeptical when it seemed like everyone wanted to blame Americans for most all of it.

This all started with when Industry was dumping crap into our rivers and Streams and some folks fail to understand how much has been done to keep that stuff from happening.

Dude, I know what they are still dumping into the rivers and streams, and I know what they are doing to stop it... It isnt enough.

[GottaHavePride]

I love this fake chart. Tenths of degrees.

When you're talking about temperatures averaged over the entire surface of the planet, a tenth of a degree shift is pretty significant.

So, data on the NOAA's website shows that yes, the southeast US and parts of the north atlantic have cooled slightly over the last 10 years. However, large parts of Canada and Asia have warmed in that same time span.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-9.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif

I mean, we'll probably never figure out the actual cause and effect because the system is just too damn complex. Is it human caused? Natural causes? Part of a cycle? Who knows? But the data on the actual warming itself is pretty clear.

[jdsooner]

Now if the Republicans could convince the polar ice caps not to melt. . .

[Chuck Bao]

If all the boobs in the world were let loose and then you;d say what global waming. I am not an expert but it could just be about the tits.

[King Barry's Back]

This is what I am not convinced of ... This is just me personally, and I have nothing against anyone else that is or is not convinced about these issues.

I am not convinced that ...

- the earth is actually warming.

- if the earth is warming, it is due to human activity.

- if "global warming" is occuring, that it will be very bad, or bad a little bit, and I suspect that in some ways it will be good.

- we have the technology to accurately measure global temperatures NOW, and am certain we didn't have the technology to do it over 20 years ago, so I am very dubious of any long-term trends.

- if global warming IS happening, and if it IS man-made, and if it IS going to be really bad, and if we were able to measure it and understand it, that we could do anything about it.


And why is it that whenever there's a report about a double big snow storm, or an early blizzard, or freezing rain in Miami, or what have you, the "global warmists" scream "The fact it is really freezing cold is proof that global warming is going on!"? Cuz, in fact, it's not.

[KABOOKIE]

Now if the Republicans could convince the polar ice caps not to melt. . .

Well if the Democrats can't convince me that they're melting becasue of man then I don't give a flip.

I've also heard a thousand times over that localized warming is not global warming.

[Harry Beanbag]

But the data on the actual warming itself is pretty clear.


You mean the false, manipulated, and suppressed data? :)

[Harry Beanbag]

If all the boobs in the world were let loose and then you;d say what global waming. I am not an expert but it could just be about the tits.


It's always about the tits.

[KABOOKIE]

When you're talking about temperatures averaged over the entire surface of the planet, a tenth of a degree shift is pretty significant.

So, data on the NOAA's website shows that yes, the southeast US and parts of the north atlantic have cooled slightly over the last 10 years. However, large parts of Canada and Asia have warmed in that same time span.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-9.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif

I mean, we'll probably never figure out the actual cause and effect because the system is just too damn complex. Is it human caused? Natural causes? Part of a cycle? Who knows? But the data on the actual warming itself is pretty clear.


I'm sorry GHP but this data, though posted on NOAA's site, is from the Hadley CRU.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm sorry GHP but this data, though posted on NOAA's site, is from the Hadley CRU.

Then this is fake and not true or real...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Here's a story from the Gubment about the coming Glacier Age...
Link... (http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html)

Environment

The Fiction Of Climate Science

Gary Sutton (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=gary+and+sutton&aname=Gary+Sutton), 12.04.09, 10:00 AM EST
Why the climatologists get it wrong.

http://images.forbes.com/media/2009/08/05/0805_garysutton_170x170.jpg
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."
Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."
Article OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?


In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.
In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.






Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.
Sorry, I noticed.
It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.
Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.
His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.
The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.
That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.
While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.
Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.
Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.
Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."
To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?
I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.
Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.
Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.

[JohnnyMack]

Can any of you fancy intellectual global warming believers please for ****s sake explain to me whether or not the increase in the global population (and its associated farm animals) has anything to do with the increase in CO2 levels?

Thanks.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Can any of you fancy intellectual global warming believers please for ****s sake explain to me whether or not the increase in the global population (and its associated farm animals) has anything to do with the increase in CO2 levels?

Thanks.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/jesse_jackson.jpg

The question is MOOT!

[jaux]

If everyone held their breath for 15 seconds would the ozone close up?
Or stopped eating cabbage, brussel sprouts and cheap burritos?

[NormanPride]

NOT CHEAP BURRITOS!

[JohnnyMack]

NOT CHEAP BURRITOS!

:les:DON'T YOU TOUCH MY CHEESY GORDITA CRUNCH, HIPPIE!!!

[BermudaSooner]

Can any of you fancy intellectual global warming believers please for ****s sake explain to me whether or not the increase in the global population (and its associated farm animals) has anything to do with the increase in CO2 levels?

Thanks.

Of course it has increased the CO2 levels--the question is "So what?" So plants have more CO2 to breathe?

The climate system is extremely complex and not understood by any person, group or computer programed by someone with or without an agenda.

In a controlled closed system, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and increases temperature. The earth is not a controlled closed system. Nobody really knows what an increase in CO2 does or doesn't do--other than grow the rainforest (the previous cause of the libs).

Further-post all of the charts you like--until it is raw, un-manipulated data, it doesn't mean ****.

[Fraggle145]

Can any of you fancy intellectual global warming believers please for ****s sake explain to me whether or not the increase in the global population (and its associated farm animals) has anything to do with the increase in CO2 levels?

Thanks.

ummm.... yes.

And by that I mean there are more humans, there are more farm animals, and there is more CO2 than at any time in the earth's history with humans or farm animals involved, including the medieval warming period.

[Fraggle145]

If everyone held their breath for 15 seconds would the ozone close up?
Or stopped eating cabbage, brussel sprouts and cheap burritos?

The hole in the ozone had nothing to do with greenhouse gasses, it was about HCFC's. These also have the potential to have a cooling effect...

[JohnnyMack]

ummm.... yes.

And by that I mean there are more humans, there are more farm animals, and there is more CO2 than at any time in the earth's history with humans or farm animals involved, including the medieval warming period.

OK cool. So I'm not retarded.

So an increase in population as well as more cows and their treacherous farts could or could not affect global temps?

[Fraggle145]

OK cool. So I'm not retarded.

So an increase in population as well as more cows and their treacherous farts could or could not affect global temps?

Sure. But you also said everything else that goes with it... Which includes the industrial revolution, coal buring power plants, the automobile to move the farting cows, etc, etc, etc...

[JohnnyMack]

there is more CO2 than at any time in the earth's history with humans or farm animals involved, including the medieval warming period.

How do we know that for sure again?

[JohnnyMack]

Sure. But you also said everything else that goes with it... Which includes the industrial revolution, coal buring power plants, the automobile to move the farting cows, etc, etc, etc...

Stupid Whitey and his stupid industrial revolution. SicEm was right, we need to go back to an agrarian based way of life.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

How much gas and other pollutants are shot into the atmosphere by way of volcanic explosions? I know we haven't had a big one in awhile, but what if another Thera or Vesuvius erupted again?

[Boarder]

How much gas and other pollutants are shot into the atmosphere by way of volcanic explosions? I know we haven't had a big one in awhile, but what if another Thera or Vesuvius erupted again?
Isn't that mainly sulfur-dioxide that cools the earth?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Isn't that mainly sulfur-dioxide that cools the earth?

I dunno, that's why I am asking.

[Boarder]

I heard that on the media, I think.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

It's been almost 4 years since my rocks for jocks class at OU, but we never really tied the two (global warming and volcanoes) together. I didn't know in what way an eruption would effect the planet.

[Boarder]

Well, one of my current classes had a thing on geo-engineering and one of the ideas was if the earth warmed up too much, we could set off some volcanos to put sulfur-dioxide in the atmosphere and cool it back down.

Those geo-engineering people are skeery. Haven't they seen The Matrix?

[Fraggle145]

How do we know that for sure again?

CO2 bubbles in big giant ice cubes, and in sediment at the bottom of lakes.

[JohnnyMack]

Well I guess it does make sense that CO2 levels would parallel the globes population. I guess we should start thinning the herd to reduce the population and make everyone left more comfortable. Let's start with.......Peru. I never cared much about Peruvian folks anyway.

[Okla-homey]

I find a bit of delicious irony in the fact there are really no definitive data proving anthropomorphic climate change, yet "warmers" tend to be critical of religious folks for believing in the existence of an omnipotent supreme being precisely because there are no data proving His existence.

[Harry Beanbag]

Well I guess it does make sense that CO2 levels would parallel the globes population. I guess we should start thinning the herd to reduce the population and make everyone left more comfortable. Let's start with.......Peru. I never cared much about Peruvian folks anyway.

How can you forget about the Dutch?

[MrJimBeam]

You sure about 70 years?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Please think about the manufacturing that was going on around... I don't know, the second World War...

If the erf is a million-billion years old why do we use data that's only 120 years old to prove a point? I mean, wasn't the whole place covered with ice a one time? We've only prospered since.

And if those goobers in Pinchbetweenyourcheekandgum cared as much about the Taliban using Pakistans nukes on us as they do about cow farts I'd feel a lot better about the future. One scenario could kill us in 1000 years, the other could kill us next week.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And if those goobers in Pinchbetweenyourcheekandgum cared as much about the Taliban using Pakistans nukes on us as they do about cow farts I'd feel a lot better about the future. One scenario could kill us in 1000 years, the other could kill us next week.

Joe Walsh and tobacco chewers worldwide gasped in offended horror.

[JohnnyMack]

I find a bit of delicious irony in the fact there are really no definitive data proving anthropomorphic climate change, yet "warmers" tend to be critical of religious folks for believing in the existence of an omnipotent supreme being precisely because there are no data proving His existence.

I would like to point out that I'm skeptical of bof o' dem.

Carry on.

[49r]

I find a bit of delicious irony in the fact there are really no definitive data proving anthropomorphic climate change, yet "warmers" tend to be critical of religious folks for believing in the existence of an omnipotent supreme being precisely because there are no data proving His existence.


anthropomorphic |ˌanθrəpəˈmôrfik|
adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
• having human characteristics : anthropomorphic bears and monkeys.

I believe the word you're searching for is:


anthropogenic |ˌanθrəpōˈjenik|
adjective
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity : anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide.


jus' sayin' :D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.my360.com.au/pwnage/user_752_F5XFLT7H.jpg

But climate change has bear fur.

[Howzit]

If the erf is a million-billion years old why do we use data that's only 120 years old to prove a point? I

Because thermometer quality control from a million-billion years ago is spotty and the readings are questionable.

Plus, I think they threw out a bunch of the million-billion year ago data..

[JohnnyMack]

Because thermometer quality control from a million-billion years ago is spotty and the readings are questionable.

Plus, I think they threw out a bunch of the million-billion year ago data..

:les:RUN!!!!!!!!! THERE'S A ****ING DINOSAUR BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!! DROP THAT DATA AND RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Understandable how that could happen.

[swardboy]

I don't trust sensors placed over hot concrete.....

[Fraggle145]

Well I guess it does make sense that CO2 levels would parallel the globes population. I guess we should start thinning the herd to reduce the population and make everyone left more comfortable. Let's start with.......Peru. I never cared much about Peruvian folks anyway.

Right, but the real question is what is the shape of the correlational relationship. Its not linear. Its a power function type of deal with CO2 increasing faster than what would be expected by just humans alone, suggesting that is humans + whatever humans are doing.

And I suggest to reduce the Earth's population we nuke Jerusalem. It'll kill two birds with one stone.

[JohnnyMack]

Right, but the real question is what is the shape of the correlational relationship. Its not linear. Its a power function type of deal with CO2 increasing faster than what would be expected by just humans alone, suggesting that is humans + whatever humans are doing.

And I suggest to reduce the Earth's population we nuke Jerusalem. It'll kill two birds with one stone.

Cows. Farting.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

FIRE FARTING COWS

[Fraggle145]

Cows. Farting.

I'm not sure there are enough cows to make up for the difference between human CO2 production and the current levels of CO2.

If you are right then when Chuck's mystery meat comes out here in a few years it will save the world ;)

[Howzit]

If you are right then when Chuck's mystery meat comes out here in a few years it will save the world ;)

I thought it was pretty much out?

[JohnnyMack]

I thought it was pretty much out?

And pierced.

[JohnnyMack]

Here's my take on the environment:

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/p2/Documents/cd4aa77935934de3b166510adc435054P2WoodsyOwl.gif

Yes we have a responsibility to take care of our planet and eventually we will shift from carbon based energy sources to other, more tree-hugger friendly forms of energy. Until then, stfu about global warming. Once you PROVE that a) the earth is warming and b) that it's more than a cyclical pattern and is 100% our fault I'll listen.

[Harry Beanbag]

I thought it was pretty much out?

Nope.

[Chuck Bao]

Oh man, I just got a global warming feel after reading the last couple of posts. I do not have a Fraggle OU biological station-sized boner. Of course, that's not natural despite what he says.

Dick piercings are not only...no idea...historic. I got nothing else. But peeing out of two holes is far superior to peeing out of one. Like I said, I got nothing.

But, here is a link that is definitely not safe for work.Homey may enjoy the historic aspect or maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Albert_piercing

[Okla-homey]

Oh man, I just got a global warming feel after reading the last couple of posts. I do not have a Fraggle OU biological station-sized boner. Of course, that's not natural despite what he says.

Dick piercings are not only...no idea...historic. I got nothing else. But peeing out of two holes is far superior to peeing out of one. Like I said, I got nothing.

But, here is a link that is definitely not safe for work.Homey may enjoy the historic aspect or maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Albert_piercing

No thanks. Sitting down to pee, as necessitated by such self-mutilation is, well, pretty ghey.

[Chuck Bao]

No thanks. Sitting down to pee, as necessitated by such self-mutilation is, well, pretty ghey.

It is probably a little more than pretty ghey. That is why I had urinals installed in my bathrooms. There is nothing about me that is pretty.

Come on Homey, you can't be just a little fascinated by the English piercing their dicks while running around the world and acting all superior to the natives?

[JohnnyMack]

:pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

Not that I'm all that curious, but wouldn't a pierced dick cause some anal damage if you were so inclined to jam it in some dude's ***?

[tator]

I just can't ****ing believe that LAS hasn't commented on this yet.