PAT ROBERTSON HAS CONVERTED!!!!

[Penguin]

He has denounced his old beliefs!!!!! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14171691/)



Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.

[SoonerInKCMO]

:rolleyes:

Anecdotal evidence - **** yeah!!

[Ike]

I'm almost thinking that the original source for that story has to be an onion article....



but I'm not entirely surprised that, if its true, that it was anecdotal evidence that changed his mind....seems to be par for the course with him.

[OUDoc]

I won money in Vegas once. That won't happen every time?

Oohhh, and Vegas is hot, just like global warming. So.....money's coming my way.

[OklahomaTuba]

Maybe it was the record number of severe storms we've had this year.

[mdklatt]

Maybe it was the record number of Atlantic tropical storms we had last year, including the first ever recorded hurricane in the south Atlantic.

Fixed.

:pop:

[VeeJay]

This mean Pat's any less bat-sh!t crazy??

[OklahomaTuba]

Fixed.

:pop:

Cause we all know that one year indicates a trend, and that the recorded history of hurricanes goes back thousands of years.

[frankensooner]

I saw the clip of him talking about it on gma. He is firmly convinced now that his staff of religious scientist tell him that it is so. That or God told him, I wasn't paying that close of attention, but I did notice that his eyes were not spinning.

[RacerX]

But does he think it's because Satan is ****ed about what we're doing to Sadam?

[mdklatt]

Cause we all know that one year indicates a trend,

How about 20 years?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

19 of the 20 hottest years (global average) on record have been since 1983. 10 to the hottest 11 have been in the past 10 years.

Nope, nothing unusual about that. Carry on.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't disagree that things are warming, i think thats rather apparent by all the data thats out there. But the question is, is this a recent phonomena? From your biased source:


Annual global rankings are based on combined land-air surface temperature and sea surface temperature since 1880.I just don't think that you can measure this stuff since 1880.

I also don't believe that the earth stays the same temp all the time. I believe there are cycles in climate, and that this warming trend, much like the cooling trend that many call the little ice age, is one of those cycles.

I also agree that the CO2 levels need to be reduced, and I think that is happening here. Nearly everyone agrees with the "solutions" your source provides, but its not going to help when you have countries like China and India that don't even require refineries to have pollution control equipment.

[Rusher]

What, u guys don't believe in global warming?

[mdklatt]

What, u guys don't believe in global warming?

It's not a matter of faith. You don't have to believe in it. You can look at the data. The planet is warming up right now; this is established fact at this point.

[mdklatt]

I don't disagree that things are warming, i think thats rather apparent by all the data thats out there. But the question is, is this a recent phonomena? From your biased source:

I just don't think that you can measure this stuff since 1880.

I also don't believe that the earth stays the same temp all the time. I believe there are cycles in climate, and that this warming trend, much like the cooling trend that many call the little ice age, is one of those cycles.

I also agree that the CO2 levels need to be reduced, and I think that is happening here. Nearly everyone agrees with the "solutions" your source provides, but its not going to help when you have countries like China and India that don't even require refineries to have pollution control equipment.

I agree with almost all of this, but I think this is more than a natural cycle.

[OklahomaTuba]

What, u guys don't believe in global warming?

Believing in global warming is one thing.

Believe the world is gonna esplode into a massive fireball that consumes the universe unless we stop using oil and Bush and his cronies from Halliburton are charged with crimes against humanity and climatological genocide is another.

[GrapevineSooner]

Odds on a lefty environmentalist glomming onto Pat?

3,000 to 1.

[OklahomaTuba]

I agree with almost all of this, but I think this is more than a natural cycle.
I think anything that makes the US self sustaining should be the made a priority. I think that will come from a combination of hydrocarbons, biomass, etc. I think it is insane to think we could just stop using oil one day, when we use it in everything and to power everything.

Technology is going to be the key here, and its coming, more so than people realize I think thanks to the private sector.

If your interested in some of this stuff, check out SunOpta. They are kicking some *** in the bio-conversion area.

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article-web.jsp?article_id=2229

[GrapevineSooner]

It's not a matter of faith. You don't have to believe in it. You can look at the data. The planet is warming up right now; this is established fact at this point.

Of course, whether or not the warming is due to the actions of the people populating the Earth is an entirely other discussion.

[OklahomaTuba]

Of course, whether or not the warming is due to the actions of the people populating the Earth is an entirely other discussion.
I'm sure some of it is.

But for someone to say they know that it is all is due to emissions isn't being truthful in my opinion.

[Petro-Sooner]

What was the guys name that studied climate and earth cycles? Milankovich?

[Ike]

I don't disagree that things are warming, i think thats rather apparent by all the data thats out there. But the question is, is this a recent phonomena? From your biased source:

I just don't think that you can measure this stuff since 1880.


you can measure this stuff, but the past measurements are not as accurate as current ones....still with enough inaccurate measurements, significant trends can be seen in the data.




I also don't believe that the earth stays the same temp all the time. I believe there are cycles in climate, and that this warming trend, much like the cooling trend that many call the little ice age, is one of those cycles.

thats a fine belief to have, however, without decent model for the causes and effects of these cycles that can make real predictions, believing this is as much a matter of faith as believing in God. It may be true, it may not be true. Make the models and then we'll talk.



I also agree that the CO2 levels need to be reduced, and I think that is happening here. Nearly everyone agrees with the "solutions" your source provides, but its not going to help when you have countries like China and India that don't even require refineries to have pollution control equipment.

We do have many models for the effect of CO2, and while all of these make some assumptions (different assumptions in different models) that are presently being argued about amongst the climate scientists, it does seem that nearly all of these models do predict significant warming trends with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact that this is the case is enough for scientists to sound the alarm about man made global warming even though we may not have a great handle on the extent of the warming. But people are working on that too...

The problem of energy creation as it relates to India, China, and other countries is a valid one, in that we must make sure that we do not destroy ourselves to solve this problem....However, being aware of the problem is the first step....Put enough smart people on the problem, and in a few years, we may have a technology that allows for "green" energy production at a cost that rivals fossil fuels. Technology we can export to other nations if we are smart about it. But if we stick our heads in the sand about it, We are just setting ourselves up for even more problems.

So whether global warming is really as dire as Al Gore makes it out to be or not, the fact that we know we are contributing, at least somewhat to it, should be enough of a motivation for us to put a bunch of smart people on the problem of green energy. Everything else that has to do with capping polution and what not, in my opinion, is not nearly as important as getting green energy production to an economically viable option on a global scale. Once thats done, other countries will most likely follow our lead...especially if its cheaper than fossil fuels.

[mdklatt]

What was the guys name that studied climate and earth cycles? Milankovich?

Yes.

[Petro-Sooner]

To fix the problem we need to drill more oil for all the SUV's.

But thats just me. :D

[mdklatt]

Back to Pat Roberston, it's silly of him to accept global warming based on one heat wave.

[Ike]

Back to Pat Roberston, it's silly of him to accept global warming based on one heat wave.


yes, but then again, Pat Robertson does more silly things before breakfast than you'll do in a lifetime :P

[Big Red Ron]

but I think this is more than a natural cycle.why, did God tell ya?:pop:

[OklahomaTuba]

you can measure this stuff, but the past measurements are not as accurate as current ones....still with enough inaccurate measurements, significant trends can be seen in the data.Trends based on possibly inaccurate measurements taken since 1880? Interesting.


thats a fine belief to have, however, without decent model for the causes and effects of these cycles that can make real predictions, believing this is as much a matter of faith as believing in God. It may be true, it may not be true. Make the models and then we'll talk.Modeling has its problems as well, as I am sure you know. We have problems with it in the process industry using it to simulate a process developed by man, and even that has problems. I can't imagine trying to simulate billions of years of climate change, but maybe thats just me. :cool:



Everything else that has to do with capping polution and what not, in my opinion, is not nearly as important as getting green energy production to an economically viable option on a global scale. Once thats done, other countries will most likely follow our lead...especially if its cheaper than fossil fuels.Man I agree 1000000000000000000000%.

And I think the private sector is doing just that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Now you lefties have Pat officially as one of yours. Take the other Pat(Buchanan), too. His isolationist posture has long been a position you guys like. What to do about Alan Keys?

[OklahomaTuba]

Hey Ike, you use fluent's software at all? I have done business with them and our CFD/simulation group here @ work.

http://www.fluent.com/solutions/examples/img/x165i1.gif

[Ike]

Trends based on possibly inaccurate measurements taken since 1880? Interesting.

believe it...but don't leave out the adjective I stuck on the word 'trends'. Significant. Even with inaccurate measurements, we should have a good idea of the degree of error that those measurements give us. Trends that exceed the magnitude of that error can still be seen quite well.


Modeling has its problems as well, as I am sure you know. We have problems with it in the process industry using it to simulate a process developed by man, and even that has problems. I can't imagine trying to simulate billions of years of climate change, but maybe thats just me. :cool:

Oh I know the problems that modelling has...its tough, but in many cases we don't have many other options. Where possible, we make our models based on the best available science, but its still a tricky business....however when many seperate and distinct models predict similar trends, its very likely that something is going on.

WRT your model in the process industry...you need either more or better physicists...and then you need to listen to them when they explain in excruciating detail the limits of the model....it often happens that a model is created to simulate some process, and then the process goes through some number of changes, to make it more efficient, or whatever, and in doing so, the model of that process breaks because it wasn't built to handle some of the changes.

[Ike]

Hey Ike, you use fluent's software at all? I have done business with them and our CFD/simulation group here @ work.

http://www.fluent.com/solutions/examples/img/x165i1.gif


Nope. Looks to me like a fluid model, and thats pretty far from what we do. We use models that simulate particle production and decay in collisions, and then models that simulate the response of our detector to those events.

[OklahomaTuba]

WRT your model in the process industry...you need either more or better physicists
Most of ours come from MIT it seems, except the Germans, which went someplace that I would rather not try to pronounce. I think we have about 10 or so in our group here at this office. But, we're no big process company like ABB, Haliburton, etc either.

Iowa State was nice enough to come down and build a 3D simulation lab for us just recently. I still plan on hooking my laptop to it and playing a computer game in there.

[Ike]

Most of ours come from MIT it seems. I think we have about 10 or so in our group here at this office. But, we're no big process company like ABB, Haliburton, etc either.

Iowa State was nice enough to come down and build a 3D simulation lab for us just recently. I still plan on hooking my laptop to it and playing a computer game in there.


Also, if its a fluid dynamics model, it may be that they just have to make one semi-empirically. fluid dynamics are hard to simulate accurately, as the systems can be very chaotic.

[Rusher]

I don't think believing global warming is being a lefty/righty/whatever. This has nothing to do with political views whatsoever.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How about 20 years?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

19 of the 20 hottest years (global average) on record have been since 1983. 10 to the hottest 11 have been in the past 10 years.

Nope, nothing unusual about that. Carry on.

How hot was it in 1200 BC Again...I mean since we have historical data to conclude 10 of the 11 hottest years have been the last 10.

[Harry Beanbag]

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html

[BudSooner]

It's Mel Gibsons fault.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't think believing global warming is being a lefty/righty/whatever. This has nothing to do with political views whatsoever.Believing there is global warming is non-political. Believing we should discourage and/or prevent increased oil discovery and production is VERY political.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

What is political is not allowing this countries greatest minds to build cheap and affordable methods of running our country....I wonder how much oil companies donate to the Republicans AND Democrats every year?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What is political is not allowing this countries greatest minds to build cheap and affordable methods of running our country....I wonder how much oil companies donate to the Republicans AND Democrats every year?Pls elaborate on the prevention of cheap and affordable methods etc.

[mdklatt]

I don't think believing global warming is being a lefty/righty/whatever. This has nothing to do with political views whatsoever.

Well, you'd hope so. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

How hot was it in 1200 BC Again...I mean since we have historical data to conclude 10 of the 11 hottest years have been the last 10.

Read what I wrote a little more carefully.

[Rusher]

Pls elaborate on the prevention of cheap and affordable methods etc.

Watch "Who Killed Electric Car" (it's a movie)

[Rusher]

What is political is not allowing this countries greatest minds to build cheap and affordable methods of running our country....I wonder how much oil companies donate to the Republicans AND Democrats every year?

Why need to donate if our beloved president and VP are already part of oil-company brotherhood? :D

NASA also went under budget cut recently because it's been very outspoken to global warming issue, and the government didn't like that. I saw the interview on CNN a month ago.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The killing of the electric car is a great example. However, where is the "Los Alamos" at? We put our genius's at a location for less than 5 years in the 1940's and managed to create the most destructive bomb in the history of earth. 5 years! Do you not think that if we did the same with all of our genius's...stuck them in a complex and said we want you to create a non oil based vehicle that is affordable and also create ways to make electricity without oil. Do you honestly think they couldn't do it? Watch Apollo 13 in less than 24 hours they make a square hole go in a round hole with nothing more than plastic bags and socks. If this administration REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, the most devastating blow would be for us to stop buying Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, and Venezuela's Oil! Oh and the Democrats don't get a pass either since they just like whine and do nothing. And don't act like the Democrats don't like the status quo either. The fact of the matter is the government has blocked methods of alternative fuel or vehicles...case in point...electric car. But by not doing ANYTHING, they are just as guilty as if they were blocking the research.

[Jerk]

"gee, it's really hot outside!"


NO Sh*t!

IT'S SUMMER TIME!

SUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEER TIIIIIIIIIIIIME

S
U
M
M
E
R

T
I
M
E

Are people going to complain that it's cold this January?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I tend to believe if there is a discovered technology that provides AFFORDABLE and efficient(don't have to recharge batteries for a long time, for example) energy for cars and heating fuel that doesn't pollute, some of those evil businessmen would also figure out a way to make big buck$ from such technology. ie.. your conspiracy theory isn't fact until proven to be so.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, if there was any topic that people could come together on no matter what ideology they have, investing in the development of renewable and clean energy to replace the hydrocarbons could and should be it.

After the GWOT, that should be #2 on the list of priorities.

[Harry Beanbag]

Well, if there was any topic that people could come together on no matter what ideology they have, investing in the development of renewable and clean energy to replace the hydrocarbons could and should be it.

After the GWOT, that should be #2 on the list of priorities.


Actually, I think it should be part of the GWOT strategy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually, I think it should be part of the GWOT strategy.Yes, as should pulling out the stops to domestic(USA)production and refining of oil.

[AlbqSooner]

It's Mel Gibsons fault.
Oh jeez. How can you possibly bring Mel Gibson into this???
The problem started when Al Gore invented fire.

[Jerk]

We could be almost totally energy independent right now if it weren't for democrats. Thus no more billions of dollars sent to radical islam.

Get out of the way, retards, and lets build more nuclear power plants, drill for oil in ANWAR, the east coast for natural gas, the west coast for oil, the rocky mountains for shell oil, etc,.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We could be almost totally energy independent right now if it weren't for democrats. Thus no more billions of dollars sent to radical islam.

Get out of the way, retards, and lets build more nuclear power plants, drill for oil in ANWAR, the east coast for natural gas, the west coast for oil, the rocky mountains for shell oil, etc,.

Wow!! Do you honestly believe the Republicans haven't gone out of there way to make sure the Oil companies are taken care of?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wow!! Do you honestly believe the Republicans haven't gone out of there way to make sure the Oil companies are taken care of?Oh yes, tell us more about all of this.

[Killerbees]

Whats all this talk about "Global Warming"?

I spend most days in my Acid Rain shelter looking for holes in the Ozone layer and sampling my garden for DDT concentrations. Havent seen any holes or found any traces of DDT yet but I did find a bird nest that had a 3 eggs in it and one of the eggs had a very thin shell. /snicker

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I am sure this is some liberal something or other, but the numbers can't seemingly be faked.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345


Big Oil Protects its Interests
Industry spends hundreds of millions on lobbying, elections
Note to readers: This story has been reposted. Since the report was originally released, the Center for Public Integrity has changed the way it calculates lobbying expenditures to reflect a more stringent methodology for determining the total amounts. The change was made to correct the potential overstatement of totals. Figures or relevant text that have been changed are indicated with asterisks. (3/31/2006)
By Aron Pilhofer and Bob Williams
WASHINGTON, July 15, 2004 — The United States is the oil and gas industry's biggest customer, slurping up fully a quarter of global production in 2003.
Not surprisingly, the industry has lavished more than $420 million* over the past six years on politicians, political parties and lobbyists in order to protect its interests in Washington, according to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity.
This is the first of a series of Center reports that aim to identify the size and scope of the international oil and gas industry and measure its influence in the halls of government worldwide.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/images/gr_big5.png
Among the key findings:

The Center found that the industry has spent more than $354 million* on lobbying activities since 1998, pushing hard on everything from a new national energy policy to obscure changes in the tax code.
The industry has given more than $67 million in campaign contributions in federal elections since the 1998 election cycle, about a fifth of the amount it has spent on lobbying.
Oil and gas companies overwhelmingly favored Republicans over Democrats in their campaign giving, the study found. Just over 73 percent of the industry's campaign contributions have gone to Republican candidates and organizations.
The industry exerts its influence in other, less obvious ways, including membership on the National Petroleum Council, a commission formed to advise the energy secretary. Koch Industries (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=HOOVERS196), the largest privately-held oil company in the United States, has financed a network of conservative nonprofit organizations designed to influence policy debate in this country.
U.S.-based oil and gas companies have nearly 900 subsidiaries located in tax haven countries, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
The world's largest oil company and third largest company of any kind, ExxonMobil (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000131174), was the industry's leader in lobbying expenditures, spending $51 million*

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Other big spenders included ChevronTexaco (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000150878) ($27 million*), Marathon Oil (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000152346) ($27 million*), British oil giant BP (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000148064) ($24 million*), and British/Dutch behemoth Royal Dutch/Shell Group (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000018893) ($25 million*).

Other noteworthy entries on the list include the top industry group, the American Petroleum Institute ($14 million*

Some more notorious names on the list include scandal-plagued Enron Corp (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000013593). ($10 million*) and Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton Corp (http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=0000108774). ($2.4 million*), which is currently the subject of government investigations over its contract work in Iraq and alleged bribes paid in connection with a natural gas project in Nigeria.
When it came to tapping the oil industry for campaign dollars, no one has come close to former Texas oilman George W. Bush. The president has received $1.7 million in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry.
That was more than three times the amount given to the next biggest recipient of the industry's largesse, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman and fellow Texan Joe Barton, who collected $574,000. Next came another Texas Republican, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who took in just under $500,000.
Only three Democrats were able to crack into the top 20 recipients of oil and gas campaign contributions since 1998. All three came from oil-rich Louisiana.
They were Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. John Breaux and Rep. Christopher John.
The two national parties each took in more than any individual candidate, national Republican committees getting $24 million and Democrats a bit under $8 million.
While most of the big oil and gas companies operate their own lobbying shops in Washington, the industry also farmed out a substantial amount of its work to some of Washington's largest and most influential lobbying firms.
On the top of that list was Bracewell and Patterson, which has gotten $4,880,000 in lobbying work from the oil and gas industry since 1998.
Among the partners at Bracewell and Patterson is Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor who is the chairman of the Bush-Cheney 2004 election campaign. Edward Krenik, former head of congressional and intergovernmental relations at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is a lobbyist with the firm.
Other top Washington lobbying firms that got work from the oil and gas industry include Hill & Knowlton; Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld and National Environmental Strategies Company.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Now to be fair, they have donated more to Republicans because there is more higher ranking Republican officials. However, could you see how the Republicans MIGHT just the EENIEST llittle TINY bit concerned about ****ing off the Oil Industry?

[Ike]

Well, if there was any topic that people could come together on no matter what ideology they have, investing in the development of renewable and clean energy to replace the hydrocarbons could and should be it.

After the GWOT, that should be #2 on the list of priorities.


I wholeheartedly agree (holy crap, I'm agreeing with Tuba!!! ;) )

what dissapoints me however is that when we get these big monstrosity energy bills that come up for votes, renewables research funding is fairly low on the list of priorities, and nobody seems to want to take it up as a pet priority because they are afraid of being painted as too green and anti-business...

[mdklatt]

Whats all this talk about "Global Warming"?

I spend most days in my Acid Rain shelter looking for holes in the Ozone layer and sampling my garden for DDT concentrations. Havent seen any holes...yet.


Go to Antarctica. :rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Now to be fair, they have donated more to Republicans because there is more higher ranking Republican officials. However, could you see how the Republicans MIGHT just the EENIEST llittle TINY bit concerned about ****ing off the Oil Industry? Wonder why they don't lobby the dims as much? Could it be because the dims have a pi*s-poor attitude about the private sector of the economy?(except for the taxes they pay)?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I have no clue how to do the research but if I was a betting man, I would guarentee that when the Dims controlled Congress, I would bet that the numbers were flipped in the Dims favor. Why do they donate so much money......so that if any attempt to do anything about our energy independence is done, they can squash it on the senate floor. Let's face it...DIMS=IDIOTS...REPUBLICANS=IDIOTS. Neither side gives two ****s about William Favor or Hatfield. They are worried about getting re-elected and continuing to get paid. They will say that **** is tasty if enough polls say it will win them re-election.

[Stoop Dawg]

Read what I wrote a little more carefully.

Perhaps you should read what Gandalf wrote more carefully.

You said "19 of the 20 hottest years (global average) on record have been since 1983."

He said "there isn't enough recorded history to reach a conclusion".

Point to Gandalf.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

1762 was one hott mutha ****a!!!

[mdklatt]

Perhaps you should read what Gandalf wrote more carefully.

You said "19 of the 20 hottest years (global average) on record have been since 1983."

He said "there isn't enough recorded history to reach a conclusion".

Point to Gandalf.

It's hotter now than it was 100 years ago. It doesn't matter what it was like 1000 years ago or 10000 years ago. We're talking about a shift in our climate. Does saying, "this current drought we're in ain't nothing like the Dust Bowl" make your grass grow any better?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Actually I find saying really asinine things does have a positive effect. I was like water sure isn't as tasty as the spring of '42 and guess what it started tasting better!!

[Stoop Dawg]

It's hotter now than it was 100 years ago. It doesn't matter what it was like 1000 years ago or 10000 years ago. We're talking about a shift in our climate.

Well, that depends on what your claim is. If you're claiming that the current warming trend is "abnormal" for the Earth, then 100 years of history is statistically insignificant. It may just be that the Earth gets warmer (or colder) on a cycle so long that we can't even comprehend it. In fact, don't some think that's what happened to the dinosaurs? Are we to believe that the dinosaurs created "global cooling" and that caused them to be extinct? Or is that just what the Earth does over time and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it?


Does saying, "this current drought we're in ain't nothing like the Dust Bowl" make your grass grow any better?

No, but it does prevent me from going to the great expense of replacing my lawn with some other kind of grass. Since I know that the drought will pass (the current dry spell is a normal cycle), I'll just hang out and have a iced tea and wait for it to pass. If you want to get all excited about it and spend a ton of money planting cacti in your yard, well, go for it.

[mdklatt]

If you're claiming that the current warming trend is "abnormal" for the Earth...

It's abnormal in that there's strong evidence that it's being caused by human activity, but it's not unprecdented in it's magnitude. If Greenland melts and floods New York does it really matter what caused it?

Thank god it's only 115 due to a natural climate cycle, otherwise that would really suck.


It may just be that the Earth gets warmer (or colder) on a cycle so long that we can't even comprehend it.

Or it may be that it's not just a coincidence that the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is making the temperature go up in the exact same manner as predicted by climate models.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Climate models make me giggle!! Yeah!! We understand God now!!!! We are able to understand something so complex!!

[Stoop Dawg]

Yes. It does, in fact, matter what caused it. Natural disasters are generally considered unfortunate but unpreventable. Man-made disasters, not so much.

I've got no problem with being concerned about global warming. I've got no problem with people being ****ed that other people's pollution is part of the cause. I've got no problem with spending some money trying to understand it and mitigate the problem.

It just bothers me when people make the wild assumption that "it's hotter now than it's EVER been - we're DESTROYING the Earth!!!" That's all. It's not that I doubt that man is destroying the environment (and by "destroying" I mean "making it uninhabital for future generations"), I just don't buy the "historical trend" arguement - because there is so little historical data.

[SoonerInKCMO]

"Who Killed The Electric Car" was brought up a few days ago. The limitations of battery technology are what killed the electric car.

~100 mile range with hours needed to recharge - you need a second car for road trips.

Ever try to start your car when it's really cold out? Then you know that batteries just don't hold the juice when it's cold. You live in Minneapolis? You need a second car 4-6 months of the year.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Those things about the electric car may be true, but do you honestly think that if we put 50 to 100 of our best minds in a room with this car...they couldn't fix any and all problems?

[mdklatt]

We are able to understand something so complex!!

Yes.

[mdklatt]

It just bothers me when people make the wild assumption that "it's hotter now than it's EVER been - we're DESTROYING the Earth!!!"

Who says this, and why do you listen to them?

[SoonerInKCMO]

Those things about the electric car may be true, but do you honestly think that if we put 50 to 100 of our best minds in a room with this car...they couldn't fix any and all problems?

There have been a lot more than 50-100 people working on improving electrical storage for a long time. It's better than it was... nowhere near where it needs to be.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

When we made the nuclear bomb, we had all of these people together and we told them they could have anything at their disposals. In a very short time they built a bomb that would redifine the whole world. I am just saying if we really wanted to fix the oil problem...we could.

[Ike]

When we made the nuclear bomb, we had all of these people together and we told them they could have anything at their disposals. In a very short time they built a bomb that would redifine the whole world. I am just saying if we really wanted to fix the oil problem...we could.


you are getting just a little ahead of yourself here...

when we made the atom bomb, we already had a pretty good idea how the atom worked (take note, this is not the nuclear bomb, which came afterward...). We also had some pretty good intel indicating that German scientists were working on the problem of extracting such explosive energy from the atom and putting it into a weaponized form as well....so we knew right then and there that most likely, it could be done, and that it was of the utmost importance that we do it before they did.

With other things, like green energy, electric cars, etc, we aren't under such a time crunch, and we also are exploring very new ground with lots and lots of possibilities, all of which need to be persued to determine which give us the most bang for our buck. back then, we just wanted the most bang, and damn the cost. This is a very different situation, and creating a los alamos type environment, while it may help create a solution sooner, may or may not give us the best solution...and since we do have the time, I claim its almost preferable to allow more scientists to work independently or in smaller collaborations on the problem rather than try to unite them all under one roof with one set direction.

But your point that if we wanted to fix it we could is dead on...All we need to do is free up more money for energy research grants. Believe me, if the money is there, tons of scientists will compete for that money.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I agree, I didn't really think the Nuclear thing out ;) I am just saying even a small decrease in our reliance would have a massive world impact. Can you imagine if we stopped sending so much money to Venezuela, Iran and Saudia Arabia. THat would be a bigger dent in the war on terror than any cruise missle.

[CORNholio]

How about 20 years?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

19 of the 20 hottest years (global average) on record have been since 1983. 10 to the hottest 11 have been in the past 10 years.

Nope, nothing unusual about that. Carry on.

Dude the world has gone on for how long? We have been recording weather in it for how long?

Perhaps maybe the climate trends and patterns are on a much broader scale than people want to believe. Perhaps they go up and down over 100s or 1000s of years. That would explain things like the supposed ice-ages.

There is insufficient data to claim "Global Warming". Its like OSU saying 3out of 5 or whatever to OU. When its really like 3 out of 1000. A small survey of data is very misleading.

[Ike]

I agree, I didn't really think the Nuclear thing out ;) I am just saying even a small decrease in our reliance would have a massive world impact. Can you imagine if we stopped sending so much money to Venezuela, Iran and Saudia Arabia. THat would be a bigger dent in the war on terror than any cruise missle.

You may be correct...however, I also wonder about the unintended consequences of such a move as well. I wonder if doing so would not be another move that would inspire more young arabs to turn down the path to terrorism. With less and less money flowing into their countries, terrorism may look more and more attractive to the many who are left destitue....and naturally, they would blame us.

I can't say that this is a convincing argument against energy independence, however, I think it is something to keep in mind....does such a move really weaken our enemy, or could it have the reverse effect and strengthen them?

[mdklatt]

There is insufficient data to claim "Global Warming".

Do even know what this phrase means?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

.. I also wonder about the unintended consequences of such a move as well. I wonder if doing so would not be another move that would inspire more young arabs to turn down the path to terrorism. With less and less money flowing into their countries, terrorism may look more and more attractive to the many who are left destitue....and naturally, they would blame us.

I can't say that this is a convincing argument against energy independence, however, I think it is something to keep in mind....does such a move really weaken our enemy, or could it have the reverse effect and strengthen them? Nuke, research and drill?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well it might also be the difference between them throwing rocks at Israel or launching 10 million missles....which brings up the point of "if people are starving in Palestine...how does a terrorist group justify spending money on missles?"

[Harry Beanbag]

You may be correct...however, I also wonder about the unintended consequences of such a move as well. I wonder if doing so would not be another move that would inspire more young arabs to turn down the path to terrorism. With less and less money flowing into their countries, terrorism may look more and more attractive to the many who are left destitue....and naturally, they would blame us.

I can't say that this is a convincing argument against energy independence, however, I think it is something to keep in mind....does such a move really weaken our enemy, or could it have the reverse effect and strengthen them?


Doing something as important for mankind as finding an alternative energy source to fossil fuels should never be delayed because some lunatic arab terrorists might not appreciate it. They have forfeited their right to exist as human beings, most of them just aren't dead yet.

But yeah, you're probably right. The Middle East oil production countries would be super ****ed off at the rest of the world if their trillions of dollars in cash flow were to be cut off. I think they would eventually run out of money to spend blowing crap up though.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yeah but then you would get headlines like "Middle East Extremist today hit 5 men in the head with rocks as they were leaving the Pentagon" ;)

[Ike]

Doing something as important for mankind as finding an alternative energy source to fossil fuels should never be delayed because some lunatic arab terrorists might not appreciate it. They have forfeited their right to exist as human beings, most of them just aren't dead yet.

But yeah, you're probably right. The Middle East oil production countries would be super ****ed off at the rest of the world if their trillions of dollars in cash flow were to be cut off. I think they would eventually run out of money to spend blowing crap up though.

yeah, thats the hope, and note that I said I cannot say its a convincing argument against developing alternate energy....just one consequence of doing so that we want to make sure we pay attention to.



And Gandalfs point is very well taken.

Perhaps one way to help sove the terrorist problem is to offer people free air conditioner units and generators for every terrorist their family turns in to authorities. Surely thats something more important to them than destroying israel?

maybe? ;)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Perhaps one way to help sove the terrorist problem is to offer people free air conditioner units and generators for every terrorist their family turns in to authorities. Surely thats something more important to them than destroying israel?

maybe? ;)


All signs point to no ;)

[Jerk]

Yes. It does, in fact, matter what caused it. Natural disasters are generally considered unfortunate but unpreventable. Man-made disasters, not so much.

I've got no problem with being concerned about global warming. I've got no problem with people being ****ed that other people's pollution is part of the cause. I've got no problem with spending some money trying to understand it and mitigate the problem.

It just bothers me when people make the wild assumption that "it's hotter now than it's EVER been - we're DESTROYING the Earth!!!" That's all. It's not that I doubt that man is destroying the environment (and by "destroying" I mean "making it uninhabital for future generations"), I just don't buy the "historical trend" arguement - because there is so little historical data.

Good God, Stoop. I can't believe you actually spewed something that I agree with. I mean, do we have accurate ocean temps from the Vikings back in 993AD? The Earth gets warmer, the Earth gets cooler. It goes through natural cycles that may last decades, centuries, or longer. Now the only reason some people want us to believe in the Global Warming thing is because it's easy to sell, and a good way to give an elite few a shi-ite load of power- the only thing you have to give in return is your freedom.

Look at Kyoto - they wanted us to cut everything back, but China was to get a free pass. WTF? If it were really a big concern, then everyone should have to cut back, including UN diplomats (no private jets or limos).

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yes that water was ****ing cold, over the years it has become "meh" cold.

[mdklatt]

Now the only reason some people want us to believe in the Global Warming thing is because it's easy to sell, and a good way to give an elite few a shi-ite load of power- the only thing you have to give in return is your freedom.


So you don't think the average global temperature has increased over the last century?

[Jerk]

So you don't think the average global temperature has increased over the last century?

If it has, are you sure we humans had something to do with it? Because I'd bet dollars to dummies that the average temperature hasn't remained the same for all of these thousands of years.

Where are all of the hurricanes this season? The ocean should be warmer, we should see more, and more next year, and so on.

I'll get scared when I see you guys get scared, and I don't see the tree hugger movement selling their cars and riding bicycles everywhere they go.

How about some simple fairness in your plans? Like this concept: all nations have to reduce their CO2 emissions and obey the same standards, not just a few of the wealthier capitalist ones whilst the tin pot commie basterds get to pollute 10x more. That's bullsh**. Kyoto was a crock of sh** and it was designed to make America another 3rd world sh**hole.

[mdklatt]

If it has, are you sure we humans had something to do with it?

That's not the question. What do you think global warming means?

[Jerk]

It means "we need to make up an excuse for more socialism, less individual freedom, and more government"

[mrowl]

I'll get scared when I see you guys get scared, and I don't see the tree hugger movement selling their cars and riding bicycles everywhere they go.


they sort of tried that. GM stopped selling electric vehicles when W took office. Tree hugging hippies got mad.

[mdklatt]

It means "we need to make up an excuse for more socialism, less individual freedom, and more government"

Christ, it's like trying to teach algebra to a hamster around here.

Out.

[Jerk]

Dude, do you see how the U.N. has totally f***ed up Africa, with the genocides in Dafur, the 'rape for food', the 'oil for food' in Iraq, the failed resolutions meant to bring peace to Israel, but were not enforced (like disarming hezbolah) Do you really think that these incompenent fools could come up with a plan to cool the earth? If the earth is warming, could the UN stop it? Good luck with that one. Those jackasses couldn't f*** their way out of a paper bag.

[Jerk]

they sort of tried that. GM stopped selling electric vehicles when W took office. Tree hugging hippies got mad.

They still have to get the electric power from somewhere. Many of the plants I see here in Oklahoma burn coal. (Red Rock, Oolegah, Checotah)

Now, if we build a whole bunch of nuclear plants, then I could possibly see the benefit to having an electric car.

[Stoop Dawg]

Who says this?

The voices in my head.


why do you listen to them?

I can't make them stop! :mad:


I think you made a statement that seemed like something that irritates me. Apparently, you didn't mean what I thought you meant - so it's all good.

[Stoop Dawg]

Good God, Stoop. I can't believe you actually spewed something that I agree with.

A sure-fire sign that I was dead wrong! ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Christ, it's like trying to teach algebra to a hamster around here.

Out.Haha. Guess your brain waves are too darned warm to comprehend.

[OUWxGuesser]

Honestly, the only question left in the global warming debate is whether it will bite us in the *** in x amount of years. The planet is warming... that's a given (we are coming out of an ice age after all... a natural process explained well enough by the Milankovitch cycle). There is also overwhelming evidence that the rise in CO2 is because of humans.

What's debatable is what this means for the future. Honestly, I hope if anything, the global warming debate encourages some people to look beyond oil. We need to become less dependent on oil and develop alternative methods for obtaining energy. The fact that it also helps the environment is gravy. Keep in mind even if we were to shut off CO2 production completely today, it wouldn't help us much in the near term. If we have bumped the Earth's energy balance, it will take dozens of years for it to return to normal thanks to the properties of water (water cools/warms much slower than air).

>>brief bit about natural climate change because of the Milankovitch cycle courtesy of the USGS
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/images/fig142.jpg

[Ike]

Honestly, the only question left in the global warming debate is whether it will bite us in the *** in x amount of years. The planet is warming... that's a given (we are coming out of an ice age after all... a natural process explained well enough by the Milankovitch cycle). There is also overwhelming evidence that the rise in CO2 is because of humans.

What's debatable is what this means for the future. Honestly, I hope if anything, the global warming debate encourages some people to look beyond oil. We need to become less dependent on oil and develop alternative methods for obtaining energy. The fact that it also helps the environment is gravy. Keep in mind even if we were to shut off CO2 production completely today, it wouldn't help us much in the near term. If we have bumped the Earth's energy balance, it will take dozens of years for it to return to normal thanks to the properties of water (water cools/warms much slower than air).

>>brief bit about natural climate change because of the Milankovitch cycle courtesy of the USGS
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/images/fig142.jpg

based upon that plot, I'd expect the planet to be going through a cooling stage...

[sitzpinkler]

It means "we need to make up an excuse for more socialism, less individual freedom, and more government"

where do you get this nonsense?