Here a headline you're not likely to see in the MSM

[troysvihl]

2006: The Coldest Year in the Last Five Years

when a naive and innocent girl would read most of the newspapers, she would most likely start to think that we live in an era of a spectacular global warming. In reality, we live in an era of a spectacularly inexpensive propaganda produced by unusually blinded zealots.

Indeed.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/2006-probably-coldest-year-in-last.html

[Gintaras]

when a naive and innocent girl would read most of the newspapers, she would most likely start to think that we live in an era of a spectacular global warming. In reality, we live in an era of a spectacularly inexpensive propaganda produced by unusually blinded zealots.

Naive and innocent girl....sounds like it's about you troy.

Ever been outside this winter?

I haven't seen so much "snow" in years.......

Another "link" man like msbossman.....

One brain side got lost, another one is looking for the lost one...

It's fucking difficult to remember and to compare winters used to be 10-20 years ago and now,
It's way easier to believe some "links" that what the weather is outside.

Who's that innocent and naive girl?

In reality, we live in an era of a spectacularly inexpensive propaganda produced by unusually blinded zealots.

Propaganda is inexpensive because no spending on education.
Politicians got 2 rabbits with one bullet.

To brainwash idiots is very cheap nowadays.........

[mbossman2]

not just produced by zealots but also accepted & repeated by those who need something to attach blame to assuage some sort of guilt

[troysvihl]

Yes, I noticed long ago that a sizable portion of the environmental movement is motivated by a weird sense of self-hatred. See, for example, this article where the author fantasizes about how wonderful Earth would be if there were no people:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19225731.100.html


We are to assume that the rise of man, his consciousness, the development of language, the invention of civilization, etc. are somehow not "natural."


Note that he also uses all sorts of words beginning with re-: return, revert, recover, rebound, regrow. But precisely to where, or to when, everything is going back is never defined, though, I'm guessing he feels that it would be some sort of Golden Age. A mythically stable Peaceable Kingdom that preceded all our "interference."

It is not hard to guess what kind of politics lies behind an outlook such as this, but it is a little more difficult to imagine the mentality that enables it. I would guess it is similar to that familiar adolescent fantasy in which a young person imagines his own death in order to bask in the imagined sorrow of those left behind. "That'll show 'em." Of course it is implicit in this little mental drama that the subject, though "dead," somehow still be around to enjoy the aftermath.

The author doesn't really explain why the extinction of humans would be a welcome development, when there would be no one left to enjoy Earth. I suspect he assumed that he would nonetheless be safe to preen in the knowledge that he was right all along and that the rest of us, the infection, the "civilization that once thought itself the pinnacle of achievement," had been justly punished.

It's so juvenile.

[Computer Hobby]

Climate is long term, weather is what is happening now. I remember agreeing with Michael Crichton that one of the favorite tricks of the "proponents" of global warming is to confuse current weather with climate. I guess that bit of truth only works one way. Right Troy.

Propaganda is propaganda. The fact that 2006 has been the coldest year in the last five by itself is meaningless.

Anyway, both climate and weather are dynamic non-linear chaotic systems. Variations are to be expected.

I have to agree with Troy though. The article in NewScience is a pile of crap. Without humans the world would be a very different place. So what? Humans aren't going away. This is our home and we are the ones who have the motivation to make sure it remains a safe and clean environment.

It seems to me that "both sides" in this global warming debate are faith based in their beliefs. On the one hand you have people willing to believe that collectively humans can and do have a dramatic impact on the environment. On the other hand, you have people willing to believe that humans, even billions of humans, are not capable of affecting the environment sufficiently to cause long term problems.

I know that most of the world's scientists are on the side that believes we can and do affect the environment and many of the world's industrialists are on the other. Both sides support positions that will enhance their own political and financial positions.

In truth, I would be willing to assume we do have some ability to influence the world's climate and act accordingly. So long as our actions are prudent they would represent good stewartship of the Earth and they can't hurt. Doing nothing, based on faith alone, however, seems foolish.

Moderation in all things is a great way to approach potential problems. If you start early enough you can always act in moderation. It is when you don't start until the crisis has started that draconian measures are needed.

We need to find and exploit more efficient renewable energy sources because long term oil and other petrolium products will exaust themselves. If they run out before we are ready, billions of people will suffer. What does it hurt to find ways to reduce greenhouse gasses. We have removed a lot of polutants from the air over the last 100 years. Civilization hasn't ended. For the most part finding ways to reduce those emissions has saved us money and helped propel our civilization. In most places the are is cleaner than when I was growing up. It is much cleaner than at the turn of the 20th century.

[troysvihl]

Whooosh!!!!!!!!! (The sound of the original point going right over CH's head)

[Computer Hobby]

It didn't go over my head. If you say 2006 is the coolest year in the last five you advance the frame that global warming isn't so serious. If you say it is the sixth warmest in the same 6 year period you set up the frame that supports global warming. Both statements are meaningless in the debate over global warming.

Like I said propaganda is propaganda.

Why the personal shot or are you just an asshole even at this happiest time of the year.

[troysvihl]

It isn't a personal shot. It was a comment on your original post, which was only a few sentences long and which seemed to miss the original point. You're lengthy edit of your first post makes it clear you did not miss the point.

Btw, are you always this defensive at this time of year?

[Computer Hobby]

It isn't a personal shot. It was a comment on your original post, which was only a few sentences long and which seemed to miss the original point. You're lengthy edit of your first post makes it clear you did not miss the point.

Btw, are you always this defensive at this time of year?

That is why I revised and extended my remarks.

On this board I always have to keep my head down. Every time I type something I take personal return fire.

By the way, a lot of folks on this board always seem to want to call me a knee jerk liberal. I am not. What follows is what I posted about Hillary on another site just this morning. The initial post was intended to promote Hillary.

My problems with Hillary are, in order of importance.

1. She has never done a darn thing of significance. She has absolutely zero executive experience. Her only time on the national stage she botched the chances for comprehensive heath care reform for at least 15 years. At the first sign of opposition she tucked tail and ran like a rabbit.

2. She has never demonstrated any willingness to do anything that isn't scripted. As GWB has demostrated conclusively, a president's job is to lead. Leading can't always be done after the focus group tells you what to think. A president has to have good political instincts. She hasn't spent enough time amoung real people to demonstrate she personally has good political instincts.

3. She is far too identified with Bill and the 1990s. We need a president who is forward looking.

4. She is devisive. She has outrageously high negatives for a candidate this far out. They are not going to get any better. The only way they can move is if she actually does something. That is impossible because she is a senator. Senators don't do anything.

5. She is a senator. Senators think being senator is great preparation for running for president, but it isn't. The only advantage a senator has over a governor is the senator can have lunch with Washington media types.

6. Her personal story is not very compelling. The daughter of privilege who married the smartest man in her law school class at Yale. Give me a break. He then moved smartly to the governor's mansion and to the Whitehouse. When has she ever had the kind of life experience that prepares her for the job of president. Her election would represent a kind of sideways social promotion. Haven't we had enough of that?

7. Like McCain she is overexposed for 2 years out.

As you might guess, others accuse me of being something less than a knee jerk liberal.

[troysvihl]

You've got to have a thick skin. You're always going to take hits in any sort of online forum. That's the nature of the internet. People say shit they wouldn't dream of saying to someone's face because they feel annonymous and safe.

(Want to know why I use my real name? It keeps me from saying shit that I wouldn't say to someone's face. I know that anyone can do a google search on me and will be able to see how I have acted online. I'm not going to act uncivil if I know that potential employers will be able to view it.)

That being said, if you think that my "whoosh" comment is a potshot, I think you need to dial down the sensitivity a bit. Pointing out that someone has missed the point is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

[heyhey]

Tell that to East coast retailers...

The 2006 Coat Crisis (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238637,00.html)

Actually your article Troy is actually evidence of climate change in which scientist predict colder winters (in some regions) and actually longer much hotter summers... the reason? Global warming is as CH says climate, a snowy weather is a regional problem called weather..you are deeply confusing these two.... advice to go back and take Geology 101..

As the coat article above indicates the colder trend is hardly universal even in the US... The problable culpirt of colder area or regional weather is a phenenomenom that is starting to reoccur called El nino.. remeber him in the late 90's? Well guess what climatologist predict that Perment Climate change... or global warming warm our tropical oceans ...which increase the energy within them which guess what?... intesifies and lengthens El Nino... which in the short term brings more wind and preciptation to reagional areas causing snowier colder winters...at least in some regions... certianly not on the East Coast of The US this year... ask any Burlington exec and he'll tell you that :).

[mbossman2]

did you notice that the phrase has shifted from "global warming" to "global climate change"? this puts them in win/win situation. No matter WHAT happens, they can always claim they were right.

quick question:

mars is showing evidence of heating (less and less visible frozen material on the surface)....as there are no humans there, I have to assume that there is something else causing the change and might that "something" be affecting us as well? and also be outside the control and influence of humans?

the problem is that we will never know because god forbid that this be raised as an issue - - - anybody not toeing the doctrinal line is shouted down and branded a heretic, a non-beleiver. (sound familiar?)

[heyhey]

the problem is that we will never know because god forbid that this be raised as an issue - - - anybody not toeing the doctrinal line is shouted down and branded a heretic, a non-beleiver. (sound familiar?)

funny you are trying to use this adminstration's tactics to defend itself and imply it's opposition.

The same tactics that were able to let it do sweatheart deals with the polluters of the oil industry and march us into an unwillable war..

Dont Question the adminstration or you arent only unpatriotic.. you are a God-Damned Terrorist ....

you too mbossman are in the ostrich with the head in the sand category?

It has always been called climate change... global warming is a populist term to make people who dont understand things like say the difference between weather and climtate understand in simplistic terms...either term means the same thing... the trend of the earths temperature.. the temperture of the oceans is significantly rising...attacking the semantics on it doesn't change it.. neither does isolated snowstorms (occuring because of el Nino) in the midwest...

you had a record heatwave this Christmas in NC didnt you Boss? Hell we were tornado alley here in Florida on Christmas day... seemed like almost the middle of summer here...but because Colorado got snowed in Troy is trying to say global warming doesnt exist... Either of you interested in this thing that connects two land masses in the north east... called The Brooklyn Bridge? I hear it's going for a great price.

[mbossman2]

as you can see it is an effective tactic, regardless of which side you take.

I also notice you dodged the Mars warming point.

Mars snow cover disappearing: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Mars exiting an ice age:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

[heyhey]

as you can see it is an effective tactic, regardless of which side you take.

I also notice you dodged the Mars warming point.

Mars snow cover disappearing: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Mars exiting an ice age:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Actually Mars is just emerging from an ICE AGE... the same as we did after ours.. which explains the recent sitings of possible water. ... It's not a point worth commenting on actually...if you know anything about science...

My question mbsossman are you just denying the existence of global warming or are you denying that human consumption and deforrestation resulting in increased carbon immisions is accelerating the process?

You realize if you buy into this head in the sand bullshit you are disagreeing with the VAST majority of legitimae scientists (not employed by energy companys that is) and even the current adminstrations EPA's opinion?

[Gintaras]

quick question:

mars is showing evidence of heating (less and less visible frozen material on the surface)....as there are no humans there, I have to assume that there is something else causing the change and might that "something" be affecting us as well? and also be outside the control and influence of humans?



Quick question to you, mbossman2:

Have you been on Mars. What's your proof of your BS about Mars on here?

From reading your countless links?

[heyhey]

I have spent much time in recent days thinking about my New Years resolutions and one of them is to become more green.... both to be more healthy as an inidvidual and to be more responsible as a citizen of this little blue marble.. in the way I consume, vote, even influence others . so I must speak out here again.

I'll direct to this to the original thread started here... and caution mbossman as well.... (who I suspect in his usual fashion who is at least partially just playing devils advocate here).. but doing so and propogating in any way the blind ignorance of those doubters of the evidenced proven scientific facts that carbon emmisions and deforrestation is accelarating climate change.. is a very dangerous thing to do indeed.

To the original poster.... who is as demonstrated in other threads a very intellegent fella... whose career, although maybe personally profitable is also noble in that what he markets brings relief from pain and suffering to many many people.....Why would someone whose life work is noble... and does such things want to support polluters and those who destroy our mother earth? I just can't understand you in this respect.

Food for thought. The decline and subsequent fall of every major civilization in our history as a human race occured after periods of excess and greed that ignored some impending truths because of a false omnipotent sense of infailability... Has it occured to either of you that these same mistakes are now being made in a world with a globalized economy and the mistakes of greed, excess and yes in Al Gores words the ignoring of an Inconvienent truth... may not only lead to the decline of a civilization but the decline of our species... maybe even much of if not all of life as we know it?

You laugh at and belittle the few on this board that claim the holocaust never happened.... but your attempts to try and debunk the entire scientific community's warnings about climate change to me are far more villianous and dangerous then yes even questioning the holocaust... because you are really no better then them.... maybe even worse... because the potential outcome at unchecked consumption and global warming will be far far far more devastating then 10,000 holocausts.

[mbossman2]

the problem heyhey is that so many people lay the blame on the USA, they overlook (and decline to call to task) places like this:

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/Archive/images/epa.gov_beijing_air_pollution_1july02_150_se.jpg
Beijing
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/29473/2/istockphoto_29473_sunrise_over_delhi.jpg
Delhi
http://www.aozora.or.jp/images/kankoku12.jpg
Seoul
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn6690/dn6690-1_370.jpg
China as a whole

[drisley]

the problem heyhey is that so many people lay the blame on the USA, they overlook (and decline to call to task) places like this:
That is why the global warming folks are in poor company...this issue is used by people with political agendas. People who want to see things slow down and the world to equalize. The reason the USA is often targeted by these people is because the true reason is that the US is successful and they want the US to be more like everybody else. If you sit down and have a conversation with one of these folks, it usually boils down to the USA and how big and consuming we are.

People like heyhey, who I believe truly cares about the environment and has no other motivation, unfortunately get overshadowed by agenda-ridden people who are USING this issue and will do everything to promote, even exaggerate the issue.

[Computer Hobby]

Drisley,

Have you seen Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth?"

The proponent of every position in the gobal warming fight has an economic or political interest to promote. The trick is to not be stampeded by one side or the other.

To paraphrase you. "People (like Drisley,) who I believe truly cares about the environment and has no other motivation, unfortunately get overshadowed by agenda-ridden people who are USING this issue and will do everything to (minimize it)."

The problem is that both sides are promoting their own political and economic interests.

What does working the problem hurt? What is gained by not trying to reduce emissions?

There is no doubt that the world's energy demands are going up. Energy consumption will continue to expand with population growth. China's economy is growing at a rapid rate. The same for India. The Earth is a closed system. There is no doubt that whether we have already passed the point where human carbon dumping has a global impact or not, at some point in the future we will reach that point.

As a pilot I can tell you that if you start early enough you can make changes in course that are so subtle the passenger doesn't even notice, or you can wait to the last moment and pull high gravity turns that puts a strain on everybody in the plane. If you wait too long the plane crashes.

What I can't understand is why anybody would be opposed to making common sense changes in course at the earliest possible moment. Why wait?

Tell me Drisley, why wait? Just remember one thing. The planet is a closed system. Eventually If you put enough new green house gas into the system things will change. The earth just isn't that damn big, and there are 6 billion human beings all wanting to use resources. Most of those 6 billion people want to use more and more.

[mbossman2]

Just remember one thing. The planet is a closed system.

umm, not to nitpick but...

no, the Earth is not a closed system...

there is a constant influx of energy and mass from outside, hence, not a closed system.

[Computer Hobby]

Hummmm, sun light does enter the system on a regular basis, but it is pretty constant, at least in the terms of human perception.

Please stop dissembling. Give me a good reason not to reduce green house gas emissions.

[mbossman2]

Hummmm, sun light does enter the system on a regular basis, but it is pretty constant, at least in the terms of human perception.

more than just sunlight enters the system....3000 metric tons of matter enter into the system each year plus don't forget that there are some theories re: life that indicates that life (or life presursors) very well may have come from "out there" (also don't forget about cometary water)

Please stop dissembling. Give me a good reason not to reduce green house gas emissions.

my problem with climate change is not that it is (or is not) happening - - it is more as to "why" it is happening and, what, if any, impact proposed changes may (or may not) have.

We, collectively, can expend a huge amount of expense and effort with little or no knowledge as to whether there will be an impact. and if there is an impact will that be a positive or negative thing? remember, messing with and trying to prevent a naturally occurring process is a dangerous game as the rebound effect can be quite a bit more than was intended.

Couple that with the fact that anybody who does not pray at the church of global climate change and suggests anything other than human fault as a cause gets hammered into the ground bespeaks (to me at least) a secondary/ulterior motive...

caution is my watch word here....we are, after all, not talking about something as petty as a war (or other political point) but rather messing with a system as large and as vast as the planet....a mistake here, even one with good intentions, will have an absolutely devestating impact...potentially one that may not be recovered from....

[Computer Hobby]

bossman

Those are all valid argument, but you still haven't told me why we wouldn't want to reduce artificial emissions of greenhouse gasses. Simply as a matter of good stewartship what could it hurt. After all not long ago man was not using oil or coal for energy.

American emssion standards are lower than in a lot of countries and none of them have filed for bankruptcy, so it is possible to reduce emissions without trashing the economy.

Most of the opposition to global warming crowd come from the petroleum, coal and auto industries. Follow the money. Those guys have a built in bias that renders anything they say on the subject suspect.

[David M]

The bottom line is that the Earths temperature changes regardless of what man does. For the Earth's temperature to remain constant is NOT normal. The Earth has been cooler and the Earth has been warmer...to assume the Earths overall temperature should remain constant is a patently false idea.

Originally Posted by Computer Hobby
"Just remember one thing. The planet is a closed system."

The Earth receives energy from the sun and radiates energy back out into space in the form of IR radiation. That is not my definition of a closed system.