http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=158119932&videoChannel=2602


OK If Global warming is man made by our modern machines, why are they finding artifacts from 3000 years ago when the ice is melting..

If man didn't cause it then, man can't be causing it now?

Interesting logic there.

I'm surprised Reuters didn't ask the question?

What SBD is pointing out is that they are finding artifacts buried in glacier ice where the ice did not exist 3,000 years ago.

If ice did not exist there 3,000 years ago and the planet was warmer then, could the current fluxuations in temperature be more likely to be attributed to the natural fluxuations that have occured over millenia as opposed to man made influence?

It's a valid question in my mind.

Wait, wait,....... I forgot my climatologist credentials at the door.

Nevermind

It's not the fact that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, but rather the rate at which it is happening.
Using ice core samples, scientists can look back over 6K years and see what global temperature patterns were doing.
Nothing in the past even comes close to what is occurring now.
Should we be concerned?

Says who? The IPCC?

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html

"Nothing in the past even comes close to what is occurring now.
Should we be concerned?"

Not if you're a conservative. Any science that doesn't support their faith-held beliefs is junk science is the impression I'm given. That, and since the human-induced increment is less than the historic natural range in variation, it's not worth doing anything about. Very comforting reasoning - not.

Sg

I'm sure nobody else thought of what SBD was pointing out, SW.

Or they did.

Whichever.

Its a good reason to buy a bigger boat that's forsure..

Salmo for smart guy whom I respect on this board I think your last comment was a little shortsided.

There aren't many people out there who have no concern for pollution of the environment, liberal or conservative, doesn't matter. No one wants to see their backyard $hit on.

Much like in fisheries conservation issues, differences occur in the recommended methods for tackling the issue.

This is the new American media climate (intended) where emotions are much more important than facts. Unless of course we find a random tidbit of information which calls into question the vast preponderance of the evidence. Then we wrap that fact into a BS coating of "entirely possible" logic and voila, problem solved.

New approach. We're all going to die a fiery death before this matters.

I'll call it the "Scorched Earth" justification principle.

I forgot Jeebus is a-comin' so nothing we do makes any difference, anyway.

Gotta love bible belt logic.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Are you Nostradomus all the sudden?

Scary thought, yes, but really? Therefore we really shouldn't give a flying fugazee about anything.

I'm hoping for a seriously epic plague to slow down global warming. Kidding, but seriously.

One word: Pestilence

Far more available than "random tidbits" that call into question the "vast preponderance of evidence" IR.

Fact is, the vast majority of the IPCC data has been proved false.

If you believe money can change the weather,..... whats stopping you from writing checks to the UN right now?

How many farts in a fish tank does it take for the tank to reach 98.6 degrees?

I think population control should be in the forefront of this anti-warming movement.

It's kinda like a 100 doctors telling you that you have a brain tumor and one that says it's just a headache.
The majority of the worlds climatologist are saying the earth has a potential brain tumor and a handful are saying it's just a headache.

The anti climate change idiots are the same ones who feel we shouldn't worry about species going extinct because "species have been going extinct for thousands of years".

Hey nice avatar Hank

SW,

My post above should be considered nothing more than a sharp stick poking at some conservatives who post here from time to time. Even a smart guy can take the low road some times.

Sg

Fair enough Salmo.

Hank I hope you haven't made any bets that would guarantee such vengence.

My brother-in-law signed with the Winers 2yrs ago then was traded to the Saints. Said SF was one me, me, me organization. Total disarray.

Wouldn't count on any of those lofty predictions actually holding true.

I just can't believe the tentative grip some of you have on the scientific method.

The fact the earth warmed long ago, and humans weren't around says NOTHING about what is or isn't causing the earth to warm now. It does NOT prove humans aren't causing the warming now.

Is that hard to understand?

That was really my only point.

Yeah.

That's the line.

Just keep in mind who originated the phrase.

Ah, one of my favorite arguements, global warming....

Check it out....the biggest factor in Global warming is the Farking SUN!

The corruption of science is rampant these days, as ideology pretends to be science, and trumps the facts.
Solar Scientists who have long seen direct correlation between periods of high sunspot activity and heating of the earth, and like this year, lulls in sunspot activity with subsequent cooling of the earth, are fearful to publish their observations for fear of loosing funding. They also fear being portrayed as loons and liars by all the naysayers.

It's so freekin simple it's incontrovertable.

An article discussing the purported correlation between solar activity and global temperature.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Still looks and sounds to me like the connection is tentative at best.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

It seems there are always more ways than one to explain things...note the similarity around 1900

If you believe that chart shows correlation Slab Happy, why don't you plot on the years since the mid-80's? On the scale in your link, the red line will go off the top of your image, and I'd LOVE to see what the black line does.

The measure of a theory is not that they managed to curve fit/filter a very noisy data set to make a semi-matching curve to your eye. The measure is to see how well it predicts FUTURE events. As I mentioned the red line positively SKYROCKETS (literally off the chart you supplied, check the scale on the side). The black line in your chart ends 20 years ago.

The reality is none of us are climate scientists. We can decide we want to take action on something that CLEARLY 90%++++ of the most qualified people in the world say is real, and a serious problem for the planet. Or we can decide to let our kids deal with whatever mess we left behind because we are cocksure those pencil neck geeks are all out to get rich by fixin' to make up all this crap. Course the people telling us this won't get rich (climate science doesn't have stock options), but screw them anyways--they always busted the curve in geometry class.

I see a trend... there appear to be pairs of squiggly lines on those grids, and sometimes they get close to each other, while other times they split apart.

Do you see any similarities between 1940 and 1980 on the two charts?
Because I don't.
I only posted a chart and suggested a possible similarity.
If you think one chart represents something worth doing something about, congratulations....do it.
I saw that 97% (figures from the original site of the first chart) of scientists agree......you buying that, too? Try getting 97% of anything to agree on anything.
Personally, I'm not willing to get all worked up over it. Chaos and Crisis are today's monikers and most everyone has a cause. How's that working for you?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the "science" to put more silvers at my disposal.....seems 97% haven't shown up.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northw...ear_humans.html


It's not you Aunty! Even the berry crops suck.

The question seems to be in the minds of many conservatives, science on the other hand seems fairly sure that in fact global warming is taking place, and many indicators point to man made causes.

"in the minds of many conservatives"

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Ah, I see we've now shifted from the nihilistic "Scorched Earth" (future nuclear war) to misdirection (chemicals in the food supply).

If your car has brakes that are failing, and also has bald tires, what should you do? Fix BOTH.

FWIW -- I believe both Air and Water quality in a great many places have improved markedly in the past 40 years (Lake Washington, e.g.), and it wasn't the free market, nor pro-business "conservatives" (how ironic that name seems at times) who did the heavy lifting. It was science + environmentalists. The same people who you're ignoring on this one.

[/quote]
science on the other hand seems fairly sure that in fact global warming is taking place
[/quote]

Now is that fairly sure? Absolutely sure? Positively sure? Maybe just a little sure?

Maybe it's just fairly sure because global temps have been leveling off and cooling since 1998.

In the late 60's and early 70's is was more eco-nut UN scientists scaring everyone with global cooling theories. Telling everyone how England would "disappear" by the year 2000.

Of course then, as now, totalitarian forms of population control was our only answer for salvation.

Maybe if the UN told you liquid Mercury was safe to drink you'd be OK with that too?

I find it interesting how some on this board see humanity as some scurge or disease upon the earth and would think it just dandy to begin the horrific task of reducing the population. Just how are you going to go about that? Forced sterilization? Induced plague? IMO population control advocates harbor these feelings born out of a great selfishness. You don't want anyone invading your space, eating your food, fishing on your river. The hypocrisy is laughable.

I tell you what. If some of you are so convinced that population control is a great idea,........ be the first to stand behind your convictions. Do the world a favor and rid it of your parasitic presence.

137 climate scientsts dispute the anthropogenic warming theory.

They do so at risk of never being published and risking their careers.

But I'm sure Al Gore and his bar graphs are WAY more in tune than all these PhDs

They're probably all on oil company payroles anyway

http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...9&Itemid=96

137 out of a total of how many other climatologist saying something totally different?
3,146 scientists say not only is global warming real, it's in fact man induced.

And yet only around 3,000 or so even participated?

Certainly sounds like a consensus to me

Only another example to throw on the enormous heap of evidence that points to the fact the we have no clue what the fark is going on!

Further, there is no evidence that justifies de-industrializing first-world nations and implementing a global tax administered by the UN and payable to the World Bank.

How gullible can you be!

Yeah, but freespool, SW has 137 people in his echo chamber telling him what he wants to hear. He needn't apply any critical thinking, or take any preventative steps if he ONLY listens to his 137 climatologist friends.

Rather than the echo-chamber, let's be democtratic about this. Let's put all the climatologists in a room, and we'll have a vote. You want majority to rule? Okay, how about a SUPER majority? How about a 3/4 majority? Not enough, how about 80%? 90%?

At some point, folks are just being shamelessly, willfully, ignorant. We're past that point.

Well if we're going to adhere to the tyranny of the majority IR why don't we ask the question of the 7,054 scientists who decided they didn't want to even take part in the survey?

Why would that be? Perhaps they'd rather stay out of it. Probably a wise move.

You've still failed to justify why a carbon credit system designed to enrich the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Merryll Lynch, and Goldman Sachs is necessary to combat a problem that no one knows exists for certain.

When you're a scientist for BP, American Energy, Exxon, Peabody Energy, or even the U.S. Government under the Bush Admin, it'd mean their ass to break the corporate line.

I thought StinkingWaders was an expert on everything. How come he didn't know that?

Stinky Waders is just parroting the kill the messenger/discredit science tactic, which worked wonderfully when the conservatives controlled Washington DC.
Fortunately that idea has run it's course, well except for the wingnut/teabaggers, no amount of scientific evidence will satisfy them, as long as there is a scientist that's saying what they want to hear, then it's all good.

Sounds like you live in Beyondo World fs.

I know Eerie's got one foot in the Betty Ford Clinic but I'd expect a little more outta you.

I didn't try to discredit anyone, only pointed out the obvious. Seems it was Eerie who wanted everyone to assume anyone who didn't respond to the survey by default works for the energy industry.

You and the other Warmer Winers seem to have your mind made up. Fine by me,.......... you all will look awfully stoopid 10/20 years from now and not a phuckin thing has changed climate wise.

Aunty I agree we can make minor changes to this great planet, but Mother Natures the one really incharge. When she sense's an imbalace she's going fix it, and there ain't a hell of alot were going to do about it.

+ many

Give me enough coin and I can find experts who will swear the BP spill was actually good for the environment.

"I find it interesting how some on this board see humanity as some scurge or disease upon the earth"

Just some of you.

And it's not "global Warming" it's "Climate Change".

"You and the other Warmer Winers seem to have your mind made up."

Stinkingupthewaters, if you've been fishing around here a long time you'd be convinced that yes the climate is changing. Or maybe it's that head in the sand thing?

"but Mother Natures the one really incharge. When she sense's an imbalace she's going fix it, and there ain't a hell of alot were going to do about it."

Wow. So when is she going to take out the dams?

That's right,....... now that we've come to the conclusion that the earth isn't warming we'll simply move the goalposts

After all it was "climate change" advocates that coined the phrase "global warming".



While I'm not suprised that comment came from you as you are the author of some of the stoopidest phucking responses on PP,........ I have to ask the question.

Are you serious? WTF do the dams have to do with carbon in the atmosphere warming/not warming global temperatures? Have you been paying attention at all or are you really that stoopid?

Nevermind.

Seems that last year ol Ma nature was on her way to taking out Howard Hansen.

Those dam's have been there for about 100 years, in earth time thats about 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000 of a second. Man give her time right now she's over in Pakistan washing a bunch of ragheads out to sea, were going to get our turn, hang on!

"Nevermind."

Did you just have an epiphany there stink? Was it god?

Talk about not paying attention.
Scroll back.
Reread.
Edit response again.
Geez some of these dolts require too much hand holding.
Which brings us back to "I find it interesting how some on this board see humanity as some scurge or disease upon the earth".

"Those dam's have been there for about 100 years, in earth time thats about 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000 of a second. Man give her time right now she's over in Pakistan washing a bunch of ragheads out to sea, were going to get our turn, hang on!"

Dont tease me.

So your argument seems to be if mother nature hasn't taken action yet then it can't be that bad.

If we want to help her out and take down the dam's. NO arguement from me, otherwise the way she does it might not be so fun.

Up river with a lot of C4 wrapped around Stinkingfloatinginthewaters should do it.

But that's a new environmental mess I suppose.

No epiphany,..... I just didn't need you to answer the question.

Stlhead, it's another misdirection -- Mother Nature is the only one who is in charge, so let's not do anything and let her sort it out.

I guess we should also permit people to use DDT again, PCBs--no problem, and put that lead back into gasoline and paint. All this senseless "junk science" from those propeller-heads, always getting in the way of our freedom.

Remember everyone of these idea's started out as a good idea and turned bad. Good thing nature has the power to heal or we would have been toast after the first A-Bomb was dropped.

Stinky, is climate change not happening or is it just not caused by man? Are CO2 levels rising? If so, is this caused by man?

Aunty -- nobody is running around like the sky is falling, but remember the two choices aren't abject panic and actively obstructing any forward progress. This seems to be the two positions you see...

What I'm for is prudent governmental policy that incentivises market to develop creative solutions. Hopefully we can sell those solutions to the Chinese, since they'll obviously need them too. Your amusing anecdotes about slimy scum and chunky air are again the classic "actively obstruct" arguements... Entirely emotional and anecdotal. How about some data... CLICK HERE for the data on Puget Sound air quality, flip past the cover page to the very first chart... (I'm exerpting at ~9 year intervals)

Number of "GOOD" air quality days/year:
1980 - 73 (!!!)
1989 - 231
1998 - 317 (a pretty large outlier in the data set, in a positive way)
2007 - 285

So you go on remembering the good 'ol days with the same make-believe lenses that cause you to believe all the junk the Texas school board is doing to their textbooks.

And again, I'm all for local projects too--and commend you for the work you've done on fisheries as an example. But one need not exclude the other. They BOTH matter, even though the national/global stuff is much more challenging politically and logistically.

With that logic, i suppose I should quit voting, cuz what am i gonna do as one individual? Don't answer that Aunty.

StinkingWaders,

It has very much to do with climate. Free flowing rivers add oxygen and nutrients to the marine ecosytem, but mainly serve to cool ocean temperatures.

Please do yourself a huge favor and stop embarrassing yourself with your idiocy.

Aunty, YOU crack ME up. Thanks!

My whole point AP is that the answers to your questions appear to be inconclusive and not worthy of the destructive economic policy being proposed.

The real question scientists are debating is;

Is the current warming period anamolous to earth's natural climate fuxuations? And there is serious debate going on.

The very term "climate change" is ambiguous, and for good reason. Climate change in some form or another has been occuring since the formation of the planet. Also, CO2 fluxuations have been measured through ice core samples going back millions of years. The highest point of measurement during the last four ice ages being about 325,000 years ago.

Currently we are approaching high end levels that are consistent with normal fluxuations observed every 100,000-125,000 years. These current levels have been rising from their lows going back roughly 15,000 years.

Global tempuratures have also gone through cycles of fluxuation throughout the course of history. The heavily relied upon "hockey stick graph" created by Michael Mann in 1998 and made famous by Al Gore has been shown to have serious flaws.

The Mann study relied heavily upon tree ring data out of a single location in the Sierra Nevada Mountains as a basis for assessing past temperature changes from 1000-1980. They grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century onto the pre-1980 proxy record. The result was visually dramatic. Gone were the diificult-to-explain Medieval Warming Period and the awkward Little Ice Age. Mann gave us 900 years of stable global temps until about 1910. Then the 20th century's temps seem to skyrocket out of control. A neat little trick really.

The Mann study gave carbon credit advocates the quick answer they wanted to the argument that natural climate variations exceed whatever affect human activity might have had in the 20th century by claiming, quite simply, that the biggest past historic changes in temperature simply never happened.

Is the earth warming? Yes, it has been for 15,000 years. Are CO2 levels rising. Yes, has been for roughly 15,000 years as well. Is that warming trend caused by the last 200 years of industrial activity? In my mind that is not likely.

Again, my greater point is that the science is anything but settled. Add to that the propositions made by advocates as how to solve the problem are highly destructive and point to a wider agenda.

Not exactly something I'm willing to defer to the spoon-fed reports coming from the lame-stream media and our benevolent government benefactors.

Dude, do you understand big numbers?

Take an event that MAY be random/natural, and MAY have a cause/effect -- you're not sure. Say like a slot machine paying out two jackpots back to back. Now that could be random, or it could be someone is cheating/hacking on the machine somehow, or the machine is broken.

The odds that the two jackpots occurred naturally back-to-back? Let's say it's 1/100,000. So you are the floor manager. The 2nd jackpot occurs. What do you do? There's a very small chance that the win is legit. There is a VASTLY MORE LIKELY scenario -- someone is cheating.

Your answer? Ah, let him win, he's just a lucky dude! Why presume anything is amiss!?!?

AuntyM,

Seriously, which side are you on? Of COURSE I want 365 good days. The point is the improvement is due to people supporting governmental regulation and action on air quality. Those regulations raised the cost of manufacturing cars (catalytic converters are not free, e.g.) but got you 4x as many days with good air quality right here in town.

What I would suggest we all do as individuals is support (or at least stop actively obstructing) efforts to do similar work on greenhouse gas emissions. I don't care if it's cap & trade, or tax credits, or whatever... But the active obstruction is fantasy-land stuff. As is throwing your hands up because it's too hard to get your head around the problem.

You got rocks in your brain? That was a terrible analogy.

More like a slot machine that hits a jackpot every 5,000 pulls over the course of the last 100,000 pulls.

You want to examine the data of the last 5,000 pulls and exclude all other historical data. When the jackpot strikes on pull 5,000 there you are to say "see!! the statistics are rising!!!"

Who's being "willfully ignorant" now?

SW,

CO2 levels now are ~380 PPM.

There are multiple, independent ice-core studies which show that over 800,000 plus years (2.1M years in one case) there has never been CO2 levels above about 280 PPM outside our current (quite recent on these time scales) run up.

So I don't know where you got your 1/5000 number. But either you think you know better than the guys doing the historical research, or you agree with me that we are at a 1/1,000,000 event right now. Which is it?

You can ALWAYS tell when Stink and AntiM are losing the argument...

Tow vehicle and pleasure boat emissions don't even show up on the EPA's radar screen, compared to the carbon footprint of coal.

Hank, your 2nd point is emotionally compelling (certainly in my case, I burn gas to fish, both driving to Edmonds, and running my boat from there)....

But factually, you (and AuntyM) know that the real solution to this is not single people buying hybrids, it is a systemic problem and needs systemic solutions. I'll take the same efforts required to row my boat, and geometrically increase it's effectiveness by re-directing it into developing technology, advocating policy, and dispelling the fictions circulated by Fox News. I believe my contributions there are more likely to succeed with scale than rowboat fishing as a "lead by example" move.

And by way of analogy, there are plenty of advocates for the health and well-being of salmon and steelhead runs, who happen to be salmon and steelhead fishermen too. This doesn't strip their moral authority in my view, either.

Thanks for once again proving my point!

Once a brain-dead wingnut retard... ALWAYS a brain-dead wingnut retard.

When someone figures out how to immediately turn a profit by settling down our out-of-control, gonna-kill-yer-ass-soon Earth, you will have a winner. Biggest problem I see is that the solution(s) all cost money. With the brightest of the brightest minds (cough) wringing their hands in dispair, perhaps a viable solution is near??

Didn't think so......

ah, but the rain should bring in a fish or two.....all is good

I never trailer the boat, just in case you are wondering. It sits in dry storage 100 feet from the water. I get 30 MPG in my ULEV vehicle on my way to Edmonds.

Jackass.

Hank appears to have switched from playing the Rory Bellows role to playing the TheKing role.

If you don't live in a cave and eat dirt, you can't be concerned about global warming.

He's really filled in well for the two of them.

Hank seems a little cranky the last couple days, too. He must be irregular.

ULEV.....

What's that?

Ultra Liberal Eunic Vessle.....

Irish Wanker...I still get a good chuckle about that.

He's still pissed about me peeling the FORD/DOLE '76 sticker off his Pinto last week.

This thread is creating enough smoke to block the sun long enough for a new Ice Age to settle in. There you go, problem solved.

Dude, you got pwned on this topic, and this is your reply? I wasn't sure what you really meant by it, so I ran it thru Google Translate... It returned:

"Nuh-Uh...."




No, it means we've arrived at the final death rattles of whatever skills you have to argue -- where you just start callin' people names. That was easy.

Give it up Irish Wanker you got no game. IOW.... you got pwned.

For everyone else keeping score -- In consecutive posts from my esteemed colleagues I'm alternately (Hankser) a GW believer, who secretly is a carbon fired hypocrite, and then (RvW) a little tree-huggin sissy for buying one of those libtard "efficient" cars.

(switching gears, large grin)

RvW -- I got no game? This from the guy with the out of focus profile pic?

Hankster -- Speaking of "game", enjoy the Saints this weekend. Fun times down there for you.

I'll sign off the topic here, have fun with your last words boys.

Tha's 1337!

I'm starting to believe that Todd's free dinner is the only thing that keeps Hank from truely getting shredded.

Thanks for bringing out the moose, Aunty. Always a sign you're doing well with your argument.

A typo. Nice eye, Hankster!

Does RvW play Warcraft or something?