Filled up for $1.78/gallon

[z12358]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

First off, as the article that I cited states fairly clearly, there is some evidence that the planet is "warming" to some degree and in some places. The amount/degree of warming and its impacts is FAR from a settled issue. It some sense, it depends WHERE and HOW your measure.

The leap from there to where most alarmists go is HUGE and simply not as "accepted" by the scientific community as the media would have you believe.

To me, the real issue is, IF warming is ocurring, how extensive/intense is it and what is a logical extension of the current trend lines (this is where those fuzzy climate models come in.)

More importantly, there is no hard evidence that I can see that suggests that this warming is induced by carbon emissions and/or if so, that we know to what degree. If our carbon emissions were the cause of warming, how did the planet start to warm long before we were generating these emissions?

To wit, based on what I have read, we began coming out of the "little ice age" in the 1800s, long before we were driving cars. If that is true, I find it funny indeed that we now look at the Porsche in your driveway and want to ban it.

Thoughts?

Rich, I'd defer to the experts, especially if there's no reason to question their motives. I do understand that junkscience.com "take home" bullet points may be more digestible than actually reading the 928 articles (+ whatever more have been published since 2003) or spending 6 years on a PhD, but the easiest route is rarely the best.

Z.

[Paul]

Miscellaneous Incoherent Ramblings:

Wonder how much heat all of our highways have added? (Assuming they absorb more of the sun's energy than undisturbed Mother Earth.)

How about all the heat released by burning fossil fuel?

How about all the heat released by cooking our food?

How about all the hot air released by the increasing number of human beings (some more than others!!)?

I think Mother Nature ignores us and continues her cycles of Ice Ages, etc....

[Brucelee]

"I think Mother Nature ignores us and continues her cycles of Ice Ages, etc...."

Indeed!

[Brucelee]

Too funny! See below:



Read the latest on global cooling in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of 21st Century in "The Ice Age Is Coming" by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. (pdf format)


Return to top Is a New Ice Age Under Way?
by Laurence Hecht

“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!” With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.

The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.

Our current understanding of the long-term climate cycles shows that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration, called Ice Ages, have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years, known as Interglacials. (We are now about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial.)

What Causes Ice Ages
These cycles are not mere statistical correlations, as some Wall Street prognosticator working at the modern PC version of a ouija board might spin out. They are determined, with great scientific precision, to correlate with long-term, cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbital relationship to the Sun. Three fundamental orbital relationships are involved, each of which contributes to the amount of sunlight received in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. When these cycles combine to reduce the incoming solar radiation (insolation) during summer months, over a number of years, the ice sheets which permanently cover Greenland, parts of Alaska, northern Canada, Scandinavia, and elsewhere, begin to advance.

At a certain point, the growth process becomes self-feeding, partly because the high reflectivity of ice and snow reduces the local temperature, partly for reasons that are not fully understood. The glaciers thicken and expand until they become continental ice sheets, one to two miles thick, creeping ever southward. Geological evidence shows that in the last Ice Age, the southern boundary of the continental ice sheet, known as a terminal moraine, stretched down the center of Long Island, through New York City, across New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Southern Illinois and Missouri, then up the Plains States through Montana and Washington State. All of this real estate was buried under one to two miles of ice.

Geologically and climatologically speaking, we are due for another such glacial advance. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but radical shifts in the climate of northern regions can take place suddenly, and in some places may already be taking place.

How to Look at ‘Global Warming’
A very important thing to understand in interpreting all the swill that issues daily from the Global Warming mill (really the anti-industry, anti-population lobby, headed and pumped with money by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, and former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands), is that the onset of an Ice Age is not marked by global cooling. In fact, the very same astronomical conditions which cause a cooling at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, produce the opposite effect in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is much more ocean to absorb and retain the incoming solar radiation. Thus the global average temperature does not tell us anything of importance.

The geological requirements for an Ice Age are the presence of a large landmass around the Polar Circle and extending southward. A look at the globe, or world map, shows that those conditions exist in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the Southern. Therefore, the important thing to look at is the climate conditions in northern and far northern regions. Some of the indicators:


• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)

• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.

• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.

• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.

• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere

On Nisqually
That brings us to the Nisqually glacier, up on the 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, near Tacoma, Wash. Just 85 feet shy of Mount Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states, Mount Rainier has 26 glaciers, and is the largest single peak system in the United States.

In 1931, fearful that the receding glacier would provide insufficient runoff for their newly completed hydroelectric facility, Tacoma City Light began careful measurements of the glacier. Since the mid-1800s, the glacier had receded about 1 kilometer. Annual to semi-annual measurements, continued by the U.S. Geological Survey and private contractors for the National Park Service, provide the longest continuous series of glacier measurements in North America.

The details are described in a report by government specialists, which appeared in the September 2000 issue of Washington Geology:

“The greatest thickening during the period of measurement occurred between 1931 and 1945, when the glacier thickened by about 50% near 2,800 meters of altitude. This and subsequent thickenings during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s produced waves that advanced its terminus. Glacier thinning occured during intervening periods. Between 1994 and 1997, the glacier thickened by 17 meters at 2,800-m altitude, indicating probable glacier advance during the first decade of the 21st century.”

That’s the story from Mount Rainier. Retired geologist Sauers, who has been observing conditions in the Cascade Mountains of western Washington for a lifetime, says “I’m preparing for an Ice Age.” Perhaps we all should.


Laurence Hecht is Editor-in-Chief of 21st Century.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by z12358

MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think.

More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned?

But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo?

Z.

Hi,

I totally agree with you that Science works with probabilities, but in an effort to prove them. So far, this has not been done with respect to Global Warming and so for the Society (Public, Industry, Media, Govt's., etc. ) to make such changes, spend the billions etc. on unproven theory just makes no sense, even if the theory is later proved to be correct.

Personally, I believe that we will find that we have altered the Planet, perhaps even with longstanding or permanent consequences. All I'm saying, is that it is only a belief, it has not, and may not, ever be proven to be the case.

Make no mistake about it, current Energy Saving and Hybrid technologies have nothing to do with warding off Global Warming nor are they some sort of Corporate Benevolence, enlightenment or responsibility, they're all about making money. Truth is, every Hybrid Car currently produced has a more negative impact on the overall environment (over it's total lifetime) than the worst offending Internal Combustion Car. So they ain't doing it to save Mother Earth, but rather to make $$ and gain Market Share.

So far as your USA-Centric points, I'm not following this logic at all. I don't see where discussing the validity of the Science involved has any cultural or geographical perspective, at least not one which is germane to the topic...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

Now lets take a closer look at the CONSENSUS study refered to above and Mr. Gore's book:

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.






Al Gore Is Captain Planet 11/21




Editors: Window on the Week -- 1/19/07







1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:


6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Now lets take a closer look at the CONSENSUS study refered to above and Mr. Gore's book:
With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

Al Gore Is Captain Planet 11/21
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. .

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

_________________________________________
Thank you, Brucelee, for that cogent, well thought-out, articulate response to the doomsayers.

Silence is golden. . . .

[z12358]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

So far as your USA-Centric points, I'm not following this logic at all. I don't see where discussing the validity of the Science involved has any cultural or geographical perspective, at least not one which is germane to the topic...

Jim, I was merely responding -- though admittedly while making some assumptions -- to your comment about Politics and Funding affecting the results of scientific research. I assumed you were referring to the politics (and funding environment) in a specific country (USA) and I wanted to point out the difficulty in synchronizing a singular agenda campaign that would affect the funding sources and research results of every scientist on the planet.

Z.

[z12358]

Originally Posted by jeffsquire

_________________________________________
Thank you, Brucelee, for that cogent, well thought-out, articulate response to the doomsayers.

Silence is golden. . . .

I agree. My panic has subsided to a bearable level and I rarely feel alarmed any more. I even stopped yelling: "Doom!" every morning in the subway like I used to.

Z.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by z12358

I agree. My panic has subsided to a bearable level and I rarely feel alarmed any more. I even stopped yelling: "Doom!" every morning in the subway like I used to.

Z.

Well, as my Grandfather used to say, "no one gets out of here alive, might as well relax!"

[z12358]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Well, as my Grandfather used to say, "no one gets out of here alive, might as well relax!"

Yeah, we may as well just stick our fingers into our ears, sing "lalalala", and party on. Be it a nuclear holocaust or polution induced self-strangulation, doesn't really matter. Actually, the sooner, the better as we have no time to lose. About half the US population expects the rapture to be coming during their lifetimes, and who'd want to disappoint that many people.

So, heads we win, tails we win. It's all good.

Z.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by z12358

Yeah, we may as well just stick our fingers into our ears, sing "lalalala", and party on. Be it a nuclear holocaust or polution induced self-strangulation, doesn't really matter. Actually, the sooner, the better as we have no time to lose. About half the US population expects the rapture to be coming during their lifetimes, and who'd want to disappoint that many people.

So, heads we win, tails we win. It's all good.

Z.

Of course, no one is advocating any of the drivel you espouse above. We are also not advocating jumping on the Global Warming train without some decent science.

Remember, this stuff is brought to you by some of the very same alamists who were SURE that we were on the verge of a new ice age in 1979 and that the
"Population Bomb" would make us extinct by 1990.

Alarmist always seem to have a following, perhaps you?

BTW-if you are so concerned, I suggest you sell your Porsche and get a nice bicycle. After all, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!

Remember that line?

[z12358]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

BTW-if you are so concerned, I suggest you sell your Porsche and get a nice bicycle. After all, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!

Remember that line?

Nah, that's OK. As I said, not alarmed any more. After randomly skimming through and picking a nugget here and there (such as the one below) out of your quite elucidating yet "concise" "contribuiton", I feel much better:

"How to Look at ‘Global Warming’
A very important thing to understand in interpreting all the swill that issues daily from the Global Warming mill (really the anti-industry, anti-population lobby, headed and pumped with money by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, and former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands)..."

Now seriously, a necessary prerequisite for a productive discussion is a common agreement on the meaning of: logic (especially this one), facts, science, and proof. I have a feeling (actually had it couple of times before but, forgot) that we are nowhere near reaching this point. My bad for forgetting this and for succumbing blindly to my debating urges again. I'll try not to make this mistake again.

Z.

[SD987]

Rail, that's a nice ride...but you should have gotten the "S".

That vehicle might also come in handy for transporting the amount of BS that has built up in this thread !

[Travis]

I agree, I thought this post was about the price of gas??

Damn "Al Gore Thread-Jackers"

Originally Posted by SD987

Rail, that's a nice ride...but you should have gotten the "S".

That vehicle might also come in handy for transporting the amount of BS that has built up in this thread !