scary new changes in the earth's eco-system

[Guest Marty]

Keep me on ignore as long as you live for all I care. And it's "Jekyll".

That's signature material right there.

[musicman]

Still no snow here in the City of Boston this season. Nothing.

If you would've completely read Mark F. Barnes' superb dissertation you would know why. Good luck on the DAS MarK!

[houstonmacbro]

I spoke with my cousin in Fairfax Virginia and he says (and he turned 25 yesterday) that it was the first time in his lifetime that he has seen a winter in that city without snow this long. It did not snow in November, December, or up to today in January.

So there have been lots of oddities this winter.

In all fairness, it does not always snow this early in that region. I lived in DC for about 20 years and then in Baltimore, MD for another 3. Sometimes it doesn't snow at all ... sometimes it does.

[Pumapayam]

In all fairness, it does not always snow this early in that region. I lived in DC for about 20 years and then in Baltimore, MD for another 3. Sometimes it doesn't snow at all ... sometimes it does.

I guessing the assertion is to blame it on El Nino this year?

[CDeb]

Anyone else find it ironic that scientific take-downs of the Global Warming Taliban are dismissed as "cut-and-pastes" while the posts in support of it have been nothing but?

[TJones]

Funniest thing I saw yesterday was a blip about Global Warming in New York, because of no snow. Then they dismiss the overwhelming snow in Colorado within 7 seconds or so ,of this 3 minute piece, as, "Well, the reason there is all the snow in Colorado now is because Global Warming makes more moisture to be held in the air, so more snow is easily produced. "It has to be a certain temperature also, you so called scientist, wackjob.

[Pumapayam]

Funniest thing I saw yesterday was a blip about Global Warming in New York, because of no snow. Then they dismiss the overwhelming snow in Colorado within 7 seconds or so ,of this 3 minute piece, as, "Well, the reason there is all the snow in Colorado now is because Global Warming makes more moisture to be held in the air, so more snow is easily produced. "It has to be a certain temperature also, you so called scientist, wackjob.

With regards to that, it does towards another extreme, and maybe that is what we should be mentioning. Our weather patterns are becoming less seasonable and more extreme.

[TJones]

With regards to that, it does towards another extreme, and maybe that is what we should be mentioning. Our weather patterns are becoming less seasonable and more extreme.

It is friggin winter in the mountains Puma. Only weather pattern I am worried about is the Houston metro area, and it is right on course for this time of year. Freak storms occur, it is the 3rd snowiest, not the 1st on record, the other 2 ahead of last year were in the 19teens, care to explain what caused those "extreme" weather patterns before the industrialization of MAN in that region ? Puma, it is a wonder that you can make it out of bed sometimes.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Anyone else find it ironic that scientific take-downs of the Global Warming Taliban are dismissed as "cut-and-pastes" while the posts in support of it have been nothing but?

You just have to consider the sources and just laugh!!!! People can believe whatever they want. Keep funding these parasites, that feed off of idiots and the uninformed. But the minute you put up any reasonable resistance and offer any type of scientific explanation or ask for some sort of research notes or systematic nomenclature, with some sort of formulation to support this theory of theirs that they pull out of obscure data, they fold up tents and move on, or you get called the anti-science right wing, when in fact you are just the opposite, and just want a clearer explanation of this great theory. You see theorists don't like scientist dabbling in their territory, because scientists look for definite proof, and theorist settle for something that sounds good. That's the problem with theories and hypotheses, they are really not worth much until they are proven. Then they become real and more than just a thought. You see a theory makes great print and is abstract at best. A theory is an assumption, that is somewhat factually based, but has not been put to the test of actually able to be called reality or actual fact. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem can be easily summed up and called a theory or as being theoretic. And often theories are taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation, but they are still an assumption, and generally untested. Just like people quoting anything reported in any form of media as being any form of bona fide reference, is simply ridiculous. I mean really think about it. Global warming theory rests on three cornerstones: climate models, scientific analyses of past and present climate data and trends, and the assertion that increases in greenhouse gases drive up global temperatures. All of this gloom and doom dates back to 1988 when an idiot named James Hansen, who at the time was the Director of the Goddard Institute at NASA, testified before the Senate, and he claimed that "human caused" greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate. His statement was widely covered by the media and brought the term "global warming" to the general public attention for the first time. Many of his colleagues thought, and still think, that his announcement was premature at best and rash at worst. But critics received little attention in the rush to publicize this most apocalyptic of all environmental threats.

There has been a long time human fascination apocalyptic phenomena, and I really don't think it is any morbid desire to face the end of the world. Although there are a few people in this world that do have a morbid fascination with the end of the world, simply because their end is mapped out by choices they made earlier in life. Say a person dying of cancer or AIDS, their outlook is going to be totally different than the average Joe, because their destiny has already been mapped out, and they are just waiting on the end. People like that tend to focus on things differently, they almost have to, to endure the psychological strain of waking up everyday knowing what they face on a day to day basis. However the average human being has their own fascination with the apocalypse or to one extreme Armageddon. Whether it be religious based or just human nature I think it is just the way out mind works. Apocalypse literally means a

[Pumapayam]

It is friggin winter in the mountains Puma. Only weather pattern I am worried about is the Houston metro area, and it is right on course for this time of year. Freak storms occur, it is the 3rd snowiest, not the 1st on record, the other 2 ahead of last year were in the 19teens, care to explain what caused those "extreme" weather patterns before the industrialization of MAN in that region ? Puma, it is a wonder that you can make it out of bed sometimes.

It may not set the record for the most snow, but as you mentioned, the 3rd snowiest is not something to over look, especially since we are only in the middle of winter and that rank can easily change. Sharing the same latitude (this is not scientific by any means) just moving east and you have a totally different weather pattern where is it unseasonable warmer.

Can I change the verbage from extreme to "well above and below" average and still have some validity.

All these scientist and environmentalist are not simply wasting their time here warning us about these freak weather patterns.

[Mark F. Barnes]

It may not set the record for the most snow, but as you mentioned, the 3rd snowiest is not something to over look, especially since we are only in the middle of winter and that rank can easily change. Sharing the same latitude (this is not scientific by any means) just moving east and you have a totally different weather pattern where is it unseasonable warmer.

Can I change the verbage from extreme to "well above and below" average and still have some validity.

All these scientist and environmentalist are not simply wasting their time here warning us about these freak weather patterns.

Do we need to explain the Jet-stream too? And how it effects climates along a specific latitude too JEEZ?

[TJones]

It may not set the record for the most snow, but as you mentioned, the 3rd snowiest is not something to over look, especially since we are only in the middle of winter and that rank can easily change. Sharing the same latitude (this is not scientific by any means) just moving east and you have a totally different weather pattern where is it unseasonable warmer.

Can I change the verbage from extreme to "well above and below" average and still have some validity.

All these scientist and environmentalist are not simply wasting their time here warning us about these freak weather patterns.

Change it to whatever fits your explanation best. Then I will ask you again, WHAT caused those "well above" averages of snow back in the 19teens, well before MAN industrialized the area ? Were all the animals in the region just emitting too many "natural" gases ?

[Pumapayam]

Change it to whatever fits your explanation best. Then I will ask you again, WHAT caused those "well above" averages of snow back in the 19teens, well before MAN industrialized the area ? Were all the animals in the region just emitting too many "natural" gases ?

I just worry too much maybe, but I see your point in that sense. But we all collectively can agree on one thing, that the yearly average temperature in any region is increasing by some fraction of a degree, which is something to worry about since we can see the ice cap melt and ocean temperatures increase. That is documented and vallid. Don't call it global warming since that just causes more debates, we can safely call it earth's natural behaviour, but we will all be effected by it negatively in this century.

[TJones]

That's exactly what it is, the Earth's natural behavior. The sooner you start really seeing it that way the quicker the hysteria will wear off of you. You can't stop Mother Nature. I am sure in time that we will be able to make our own weather systems in huge biodomes that will be unaffected by the Earth's temperate climate outside. It will be like the Titanic, the rich will be in "first-class" domes and still be able to enjoy the sunsets and sunrises, where as the "third-class" will be forced to live under the Earth in caves and tunnels in order to escape the 285 degree heat brought on by ever erupting Sunspots causing a deplenished ozone from OUTSIDE sources, NOT by "greenhouse" gases.

[Mark F. Barnes]

That's exactly what it is, the Earth's natural behavior. The sooner you start really seeing it that way the quicker the hysteria will wear off of you. You can't stop Mother Nature. I am sure in time that we will be able to make our own weather systems in huge biodomes that will be unaffected by the Earth's temperate climate outside. It will be like the Titanic, the rich will be in "first-class" domes and still be able to enjoy the sunsets and sunrises, where as the "third-class" will be forced to live under the Earth in caves and tunnels in order to escape the 285 degree heat brought on by ever erupting Sunspots causing a deplenished ozone from OUTSIDE sources, NOT by "greenhouse" gases.

Careful, you'll end up on the ignore list with me and niche..........

[KinkaidAlum]

Musicman-

You assume I read every single tirade on this board. Sorry I missed it but there is way too much stuff on here to actually read EVERY SINGLE LINE OF EVERY SINGLE POST. Sorry to disappoint.

[Pumapayam]

That's exactly what it is, the Earth's natural behavior. The sooner you start really seeing it that way the quicker the hysteria will wear off of you. You can't stop Mother Nature. I am sure in time that we will be able to make our own weather systems in huge biodomes that will be unaffected by the Earth's temperate climate outside. It will be like the Titanic, the rich will be in "first-class" domes and still be able to enjoy the sunsets and sunrises, where as the "third-class" will be forced to live under the Earth in caves and tunnels in order to escape the 285 degree heat brought on by ever erupting Sunspots causing a deplenished ozone from OUTSIDE sources, NOT by "greenhouse" gases.

Unlike the Al Gore flick, is there another form of media/film/book that counter balances the whole Global Warming Theory? Just curious if there would be something out there made.

[musicman]

Musicman-

You assume I read every single tirade on this board. Sorry I missed it but there is way too much stuff on here to actually read EVERY SINGLE LINE OF EVERY SINGLE POST. Sorry to disappoint.

No disappointment whatsoever.

[houstonmacbro]

I guessing the assertion is to blame it on El Nino this year?

Whatever works for you.

Musicman-

You assume I read every single tirade on this board. Sorry I missed it but there is way too much stuff on here to actually read EVERY SINGLE LINE OF EVERY SINGLE POST. Sorry to disappoint.

Tirades? I thought these were carefully worded, deeply thought-out, and meticulously crafted missives?

...where as the "third-class" will be forced to live under the Earth in caves and tunnels in order to escape the 285 degree heat brought on by ever erupting Sunspots causing a deplenished ozone from OUTSIDE sources, NOT by "greenhouse" gases.

That is a really cheerful thought...

[TJones]

Unlike the Al Gore flick, is there another form of media/film/book that counter balances the whole Global Warming Theory? Just curious if there would be something out there made.

Dennis Quaid in, "The day after tomorrow", that is a total contradiction to what Al Gore is saying will happen. Ozone holes letting the deep dark freezing cold of Space enter the atmosphere and rapidly freezing the whole Northeast. Again, it is just a movie, not what I believe. Puma, I will try and find a scientific "source" for the opposite. The opposite would be anything OTHER than an Apocalyptic end, due to Global Warming because of manmade pollution. How about Global Stability and a natural influx in temperatures where they show a rise and fall pattern ? Would that be suffice ?

[TJones]

That is a really cheerful thought...

Well, here is the cheery part for all the liberals. The "Bill Gates" and "Oprahs" of the world will meet their gruesome ends when the Bubble shelters they have built to protect themselves and be "Topsiders" finally crack and explode, hurdling their carcasses off the planet when the vaccuum of Space sucks them up and out of the atmosphere. It will all happen at once too so no Venture Capitalists will be left alive hence no more "taxbreaks" for them. I'll go ahead and say my goodbyes to everyone now, because I obviously won't have time when my bubble breaks over off the coast of Acapulco, Mexico.

Edited January 9, 2007 by TJones

[houstonmacbro]

If I didn't know any better I'd say you've been reading the Left Behind novels...?

[dbigtex56]

Now can you see where the so called shift in climates are nothing more than an inaccurate calender system, not Armageddon.

No; what I see is good ol' "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS".

These feats of public mathematical masturbation and spewing of irrelevant data are rather less convincing than you might hope. To suggest that tiny variations in our calendar system are in the least related to climate change is, in a word, asinine.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Oh, and you might want to learn to spell 'calendar' before you present yourself as some sort of expert on the subject.

[Mark F. Barnes]

No; what I see is good ol' "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS".

These feats of public mathematical masturbation and spewing of irrelevant data are rather less convincing than you might hope. To suggest that tiny variations in our calendar system are in the least related to climate change is, in a word, asinine.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Oh, and you might want to learn to spell 'calendar' before you present yourself as some sort of expert on the subject.

Well, I stand to be corrected, I managed to get it correct 10 of 13 times, I guess I may have have to proof read a little closer next time, since I doubt spell check will differentiate between a timepiece and a paper press. I was waiting for the Green Peace light (in the loafer) brigade to show up with a little more ammo than that though, big guy, please share with us some more of your brilliance oh wise one. I am always open to learn something new, I don't quite grasp your concept on the subject, by your summation, other than you disagree with mine, and you think I am full of BS. Please enlighten me, or are you just offended that someone has disagreed with your friend, and you feel obligated to chime in his defense, do tell? Personally I really don't care if I dazzle anyone, I have no need to full fill any empty need to impress a damn sole. But hey, that's your opinion and your welcome to it. It doesn't change they way I feel, whether you think it's asinine or not.

[dbigtex56]

Anyone else find it ironic that scientific take-downs of the Global Warming Taliban are dismissed as "cut-and-pastes" while the posts in support of it have been nothing but?

Environmentalists also have argued that since the United States is the largest emitter of CO₂, the greenhouse gas of primary concern, it should take the lead in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately for their argument, it turns out that the U.S. is in fact a leading "air filter." However the fact that North America removes more carbon (about 2 billion tons) from the atmosphere than it emits (1.5 billion tons) each year. One reason is the tremendous regrowth in the eastern U.S. of forests that act as carbon sinks, removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Even more damaging to the environmentalists' argument is the fact that most of the warming over the last century occurred before 1940, preceding the vast majority of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Global warming alarmists have been unable to explain this mismatch between warming theory and scientific data.

Environmentalists also have argued that since the United States is the largest emitter of CO2, the greenhouse gas of primary concern, it should take the lead in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately for their argument, it turns out that the U.S. is in fact a leading "air filter." According to an October 16, 1998, article in Science, North America removes more carbon (about 2 billion tons) from the atmosphere than it emits (1.5 billion tons) each year. One reason is the tremendous regrowth in the eastern U.S. of forests that act as carbon sinks, removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Even more damaging to the environmentalists' argument is the fact that most of the warming over the last century occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Global warming alarmists have been unable to explain this mismatch between warming theory and scientific data.

This brief analysis was written by NCPA Senior Policy Analyst H. Sterling Burnett.

It appears that Mr. Barnes's and Mr. Burnett's writing styles are remarkably similar. Yet, selfishly, Mr. Burnett doesn't even credit Mr. Barnes. How's that for irony, CDeb?

[Mark F. Barnes]

And you find it ironic in what way. I am very familiar with Dr, Burnett's teaching, since he's been a guest speaker at many seminars I have attended, he is also considered to be a leading authority on the environment. I have learned a great deal from his writings and have read reams of his stuff since I was first alerted to who he was when he was on the TNRCC's task force, he spoke at A&M on numerous occasions. He was brought in by the state when we were getting all the bad air rap from the EPA a few years back. He's been prominent locally in Texas for several years now. I think he's still on the Board of Directors of the Conservation Committee of Dallas to this day still, unless that has recently change. Sure I use things he's taught as a frame of reference, as do most people when they learn something, or are studying something.

I see what you are trying to get at, and you are trying awful hard to accuse me of plagiarism I think. If that's what you're driving at, just come out and say it, do not beat around the bush. I can also sit down and write down many things I've read almost word for word from memory, that's the way my mind works, I am a highly visionary learner, probably 80% if I had to guess, my auditory retention is low, that's why I have to physically take notes when I study. I use to tape all my lectures in class, and then re-write them as I reviewed the class notes before an exam. It's just the way I process things. It's like index cards in the brain, was the only way I have been able to describe it. I can also write down the Gettysburg Address word for word, I had to memorise it in the 3rd grade, that was probably more than your lifetime ago, does that make it any more ironic. It's just the way some minds work. Can you write down the Pledge of Allegiance word for word, if that were the subject at hand? I am sure you could because your a familiar with it, and were probably taught to memorise it at a young age in school, assuming they still teach that in school. These days you never know. So please don't mistake familiarity with plagiarism, because believe me, it just isn't so. I also have papers written by Mr. Joel Schwartz that I have used for reference too, you can Google him also, but you won't find a C&P from him either, maybe some similarities in reference to points made, but that's about it. Both Schwartz and Burnett both serve on the NCPA board as do some of the most respected environmental scientists in the world. I am glad your brought up that website because it links directly to a lot I have been talking about, that I only have on hard copy, and really don't care to scan it all and post it as reference.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/

Here's a link to some great reading on this very subject, and this isn't media headlines, just solid scientific research, and widely accepted publications that denounce the global warming alarmists theories, and fall along the lines of my frame of reference. So people can read and judge for themselves. Thanks big guy, that actually is very helpful on your part.

[dbigtex56]

I see what you are trying to get at, and you are trying awful hard to accuse me of plagiarism

Not trying; succeeding.

And you're not even man enough to own up to it. Instead you come up with an excuse which would be laughable if only it wasn't so pathetic. You expect us to believe that you unconsciously memorized every word, every number, every comma exactly as it appears on another website? (Well, there is that part where you crudely cut the reference to the Science article, leaving a grammatically awkward construction.)

Wouldn't it be the honest - the honorable thing - to just admit it? Or are those concepts foreign to you?

[TheNiche]

This brief analysis was written by NCPA Senior Policy Analyst H. Sterling Burnett.

It appears that Mr. Barnes's and Mr. Burnett's writing styles are remarkably similar. Yet, selfishly, Mr. Burnett doesn't even credit Mr. Barnes. How's that for irony, CDeb?

Although I must admit that I'm as suspicious of Mark as you bigtex...and sorry Mark, but that was way too close for comfort...you claimed that Mark was BSing in a previous post, and after Mark asked for a rebuttal, you found a way to discredit the person but not the idea. In fact, by providing a source with credentials, the idea seems not only intact but stregnthened.

I'd welcome discussion of the idea, if you're able.

[Subdude]

I'm not sure I would consider "junkscience.com" all that creditable, which appears to be the source for some material that has been posted in this topic.

[dbigtex56]

Although I must admit that I'm as suspicious of Mark as you bigtex...and sorry Mark, but that was way too close for comfort...you claimed that Mark was BSing in a previous post, and after Mark asked for a rebuttal, you found a way to discredit the person but not the idea.

I did discredit the idea. My exact words were "To suggest that tiny variations in our calendar system are in the least related to climate change is, in a word, asinine."

The post to which I took exception had to do with various aspects of calendars - their history, lunar vs. solar, etc. . (There could, in fact, be an argument to be made there; it's my understanding that the Julian calendar was so inaccurate that it did indeed throw off the true equinoxes and solstices, and therefore the seasons.*)

However, Mr. Barnes did not make that argument.

If you'll read the posts, you'll note that his concluded with these words:"Now can you see where the so called shift in climates are nothing more than an inaccurate calender system, not Armageddon." Can you explain that conclusion to me, TheNiche? How does the slight error in modern calendars affect climate change? Either I'm too stupid to get it, or it never made any sense to begin with. I prefer the latter theory; but of course, I could be wrong.

In fact, by providing a source with credentials, the idea seems not only intact but stregnthened.

I'd welcome discussion of the idea, if you're able.

I hope I'm able; if I'm unable, I assure you that I'm solely responsible. For better or worse, my words are my own.

Do you really believe every "source with credentials"? My! you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you're too young to remember the panel of experts (provided by the tobacco industry) who, straight-faced, testified in front of Congress that there was no link between smoking and cancer. They had credentials, but they were, how you say, a bunch of bought-and-paid-for lying little whores. How can you be sure that the professional global warming deniers are any different?

*From Wikipedia:

The Gregorian Calendar was devised both because the mean Julian Calendar year was slightly too long, causing the vernal equinox to slowly drift backwards in the calendar year, and because the lunar calendar used to compute the date of Easter had grown conspicuously in error as well.

You see, I credit my sources.)