# No more North Pole - 50-50 chance this year



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

https://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

I'm not a betting man but it will be interesting to see.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Well, look on the bright side: Now at least when Santa brings us coal, we'll be able to use it to fill up the tank.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Oh, it will still be there, and we will be able to see it better without all of the ice covering it up.


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

Ice is only good for a Mojito anyhow...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Maybe we can plant corn up there, then.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Or maybe the plankton, which use the sheet ice as a major habitat will collapse. Plankton are only thee base of the marine foodchain, one some fool 'scientist' years ago said was inexaustable when soil degradation was the issue. So run down to Trader Joes for that Indonesian, mercury laced swordfish steak now while it's still extant. You may have trouble buying rice for it at the current price hike in asian varieties and burn more corn based fuel in the SUV looking for it. But hey, you can look at the onboard TEEVEE with some kneejerk pundit saying global warming is a liberal scam to promote gay marriage. I need to start monkeywrenching again.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

I think this is extremely bad news for polar bears, seals, people (among the larger life forms), and I'm afraid life is going to get harder. 

-repent


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Now maybe we can find the entrance to Agartha!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

This is just terrible. I only wish we could figure out how Global Warming caused the ice to recede so much before the turn of the century. The 20th century, that is.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Now maybe we can find the entrance to Agartha!


Nah, they move the entrance to Mammoth Cave in Kentucky to have better access to good bourbon.:icon_smile:


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

It's not like it hasn't happened before, multiple times.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

agnash said:


> Nah, they move the entrance to Mammoth Cave in Kentucky to have better access to good bourbon.:icon_smile:


Smart move.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You are correct. Advancing and retreating ice ages have happened before. Nature is like that. Now take dinosaurs for instance. I'm sure some Tyrannosaur father told the wife to ignore the big meteor, things like that having happened before.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, but the arctic ice started melting this time around well before we started put man-made CO2 into the air in any significant quantity.

I never really thought of cause and effect as being a difficult concept, but here we are.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I stand corrected. All those climatologists, glacialogists,Geologists et al I first met drilling ice cores to study climatology way back in 1973 are obviously full of B.S. with hidden agendas being thwarted by the good folks who brought us Exxon Valdez. I feel so warm and fuzzy, I almost feel like telling the gas station cashier to keep the change.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I feel warm and fuzzy being taxed to pay for billions in grants to fund climatology research, too.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I mean, it's not so much that I find the global warming theory be dubious. Sure, it's unprovable. It can't be disproved either. But that's not really important for science, right? And, yeah, it's based on very weak evidence. It appears to be tailored to a political ideology. Temperatures are definitely going up. Sure, they've been going up for at least a hundred years. And they went up a lot more in the first half of the century than they have in the second half of the century.

And, yeah, they're trying to tell us that we need to abandon our entire way of life based on a dubious theory.

But none of that really gets to me. What gets me is the pure stupidity and short-sightedness of the theory _even if true_. Let's see: we've got a very limited supply of fossil fuels. 15,000 years ago, half the world was covered in ice. As far as I know, *that's the normal state of the earth: glaciers in Ohio.*.

And we're supposed to be worrying about a very temporary, very minor global _warming_, caused by fuels that we will exhaust in a few centuries?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You remind me of an old PLAYBOY cartoon. Man in a Mardi Gras clown suit is standing at the bank window receiving a stack of bills. Caption reads " I'm afraid this is the last of your inheritance sir."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, I _am_ from New Orleans, but otherwise I don't get it.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

This story has pretty much been discredited today as more climate change hysteria.

For example, satellite images show there is more ice at the North Pole this year than last year:



Nor is this a new phenomenon. Here's a picture of an ice-free North Pole in 1987:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

But...but...the polar bears! All 25,000 of them could drown! Okay that turned out to be bullshit. But it _could_ happen. Or something!

(Sure, there were only 5000 polar bears in the 1970s, before temperatures started rising).


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I mean, it's not so much that I find the global warming theory be dubious. Sure, it's unprovable. It can't be disproved either. But that's not really important for science, right? And, yeah, it's based on very weak evidence. It appears to be tailored to a political ideology. Temperatures are definitely going up. Sure, they've been going up for at least a hundred years. And they went up a lot more in the first half of the century than they have in the second half of the century.
> 
> And, yeah, they're trying to tell us that we need to abandon our entire way of life based on a dubious theory.
> 
> ...


It's similar to the media coverage of the recent security report about the effect of "climate change" on national security. They went on and on about how it would make third world countries poorer, encouraging terrorism. There was absolutely no coverage about the fact the report concluded global warming would benefit the US, by increasing growing seasons. I would guess the same would be even more true for places like Canada and Northern Europe.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

But, but, but-- nobody can live in the tropics. It's too hot down there to support human life!

Wait, isn't "change" supposed to be good!? Or is that only true if you have absolutely no idea what kind of change you're supporting?

I'm so darn confused.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I mean, it's not so much that I find the global warming theory be dubious. Sure, it's unprovable. It can't be disproved either. But that's not really important for science, right? And, yeah, it's based on very weak evidence. It appears to be tailored to a political ideology. Temperatures are definitely going up. Sure, they've been going up for at least a hundred years. And they went up a lot more in the first half of the century than they have in the second half of the century.
> 
> And, yeah, they're trying to tell us that we need to abandon our entire way of life based on a dubious theory.
> 
> ...


"dubious theory" You continue to surprise me with your "bull moose crazy" (read One Flew Over The CucKoo's Nest) statements. It is not a dubious theory, it is as clearly supported as the theory of gravity.

If you tried to understand the science at all instead of listening to the same "scientists" who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, you would see that it is not dubious and unless we act now, (although it may be too late anyway) the warming will not be reversable. Think melting permafrost releasing billions of tons of CO2 and methane that were locked up in frozen ground (already happening), lack of year around snow/ice cover reducing albedo and therefore the ability of the earth to reflect sunlight and its associated heat back into space (already happening), The increased CO2 causing a decrease in pH of the oceans due to carbonic acid and killing off the coral and many of the mico organisims that supply us much of our O2, etc., etc., etc....

It is happening and the consequenses will be incredible. repeating the tired old Bulls--- mantras that it is unprovable and that scientists are just being forced to say it is happening by some scientific conspiracy is just pure ignorance and akin to putting your head in the sand and hoping everything will be alright.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Beresford said:


> This story has pretty much been discredited today as more climate change hysteria.
> 
> For example, satellite images show there is more ice at the North Pole this year than last year:
> 
> Nor is this a new phenomenon. Here's a picture of an ice-free North Pole in 1987:


Ice free? I see a lot of ice in that picture. A lot of the water you see are pools of localized melt water on top of the ice. Also, during the summer, there have always been areas ofthe ice that open up. Its temporary and nothing like what is happening now. We are actually going to finally get our Northwest Passage.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The submarines are sitting in meltwater on the ice? Is there a giant crane somewhere out of view?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The submarines are sitting in meltwater on the ice? Is there a giant crane somewhere out of view?


They have been breaking through the thinner ice during summer since the first nuclear subs inthe 1950's or early 60's. The statement I was responding to was that there was no ice in 1987. There has always been thinner ice inthe summer (which I did say) and some melt-water on top (read descriptions of people who have traveled to the artic ocean on dog sleds).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So in other words: there's no story here...?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> So in other words: there's no story here...?


Plenty of story. The story is that there is going to be an actual Nortwest Passage instead of and ice pack. (Mackenzie, you were 220 years ahead of your time).

The picture however tells nothing other than in 1987 two US subs and one Brit sub got together for a good time at the north pole.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

I'd like to see an anthology of all the preposeterous '50/50' preditions made by various intellectuals over the years....not that global warming isn't happening, but such bold statements seem to be peposterous about 99.46% of the time (what is 50% of .54%?). I'm still waiting for that d%$^ population bomb to go off, and now I have to worry about the polar bears too!?!?

Why don't they just say its a 90% chance of melting??? That is even scarier! But not as scary as 99%!!! Either way, you can't prove a negative. It will usually _not _melt, and somehow this 50/50 coin always seems to land 'heads'


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> "dubious theory" You continue to surprise me with your "bull moose crazy" (read One Flew Over The CucKoo's Nest) statements. It is not a dubious theory, it is as clearly supported as the theory of gravity.
> 
> If you tried to understand the science at all instead of listening to the same "scientists" who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer, you would see that it is not dubious and unless we act now, (although it may be too late anyway) the warming will not be reversable. Think melting permafrost releasing billions of tons of CO2 and methane that were locked up in frozen ground (already happening), lack of year around snow/ice cover reducing albedo and therefore the ability of the earth to reflect sunlight and its associated heat back into space (already happening), The increased CO2 causing a decrease in pH of the oceans due to carbonic acid and killing off the coral and many of the mico organisims that supply us much of our O2, etc., etc., etc....


So what you're saying is that we might, just might, have a chance to head off the next ice age and save human civilization and billions of lives. Well why didn't you say so?

You sound like the guy who bet me, way back in 1988(ish), that the ozone hole would get so bad that it would be unsafe to go outside for prolonged periods--by the year 2000. I never did collect on that one, by the way...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Please, everyone write these thoughts down now, seal in an envelope and curate them for your great grandchildren. I want my descendants to know I wanted them to see polar bears like I did.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'd like my grandchildren to have air conditioning, personal transportation and just as much (more, actually) cheap plastic junk as I have.

And I'd kill every ******* polar bear in the world to make sure it happens.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I can say with near certainty the unfortunate biological result of you overcoming two undescended testicles and actually producing viable offspring without two heads ( which would give them, @ 80 cumulative points easilly twice your I.Q.) is nill. How do I know? Because should you venture forth from your maiden aunt's basement sanctuary into the real world that lipstick demarcated sewer outlet that passes for a mouth will get you very much dead or physically crippled to complement your patently obvious mental defect in very short order. The only shame is I lack the resources to track you down or I'd do it myself - very, very slowly with common household items your aunt bought in bulk at the .99 cent store. Your time is coming assure as the sun rises. When it does, remember this and know I'm kicking your putrescent assemblage of poor genetic planning in spirit too.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> So what you're saying is that we might, just might, have a chance to head off the next ice age and save human civilization and billions of lives. Well why didn't you say so?
> 
> You sound like the guy who bet me, way back in 1988(ish), that the ozone hole would get so bad that it would be unsafe to go outside for prolonged periods--by the year 2000. I never did collect on that one, by the way...


Actually, you would have lost the bet. There are places in southern Argentina where people all wear long sleeves, long dresses/pants, and hats and still have a very high rate of skin cancer because of the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere. The fact that the hole has not spread is a testament to our ability to change things as a lot has been done to reduce the chemicals that caused the hole.

(One strange note about the ozone hole, one researcher has postulated that the presence of the ozone hole may contribute to why the ice at the south pole has melted less than at the north. The hole in the ozone may allow more cooling than otherwisse would happen. I don't think it is enough to justify destroying all the ozone thoug!)

By the way, when you talk about increased warming helping the US by increasing rain etc, that is a crock. As it gets warmer, the amount and severity of storms increase (I don't think we need any more flooding right now) and weather pattens change. Weather is very simply caused by the earth trying to reach a dynamic equilbrium between the cold and hot parts. With higher temps, reaching this equilibrium is harsher (not too may thunderstorms in the mid winter althought hey can happen).

Also, no one knows how bad it will get (although it can be very bad) but climate change is basically a positive feedback system: ie, as it gets warmer, the responses of the earth increase the rate of chage and it gets warmer faster (for example, the permafrost melting and releasing huge amounts of CO2 and methane increasing the rate of warming and the ice melting nad lowerring the Earth's albedeo therefore increasing the warming rate.

It aint just the polar bears, radical changes in climate to the extent that appear to be starting to happen (much faster than the historical records shown in ice cores) will have effects we can't begin to understand but they can be huge and devastating. What will happen when several hundred million (?) people from Bangladesh go on the move as most of thheir country is just about at sea level: wars for food/land etc. What will happen when crops fail in Asia, this country and elsewhere due to increased severe weather?

Some of this stuff is already happening. Hang on and get your head out of the sand.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Kav said:


> I can say with near certainty the unfortunate biological result of you overcoming two undescended testicles and actually producing viable offspring without two heads ( which would give them, @ 80 cumulative points easilly twice your I.Q.) is nill. How do I know? Because should you venture forth from your maiden aunt's basement sanctuary into the real world that lipstick demarcated sewer outlet that passes for a mouth will get you very much dead or physically crippled to complement your patently obvious mental defect in very short order. The only shame is I lack the resources to track you down or I'd do it myself - very, very slowly with common household items your aunt bought in bulk at the .99 cent store. Your time is coming assure as the sun rises. When it does, remember this and know I'm kicking your putrescent assemblage of poor genetic planning in spirit too.


Kav, well said. 
I've put this guy on ignore.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Actually, despite the ban on CFCs they are still widely used across the third world. That bullet is not yet dodged. Regarding weather being a positive feedback system, I would assume this is also a crock, otherwise we wouldn't have variations in temperature at all. As decreasing ice decreases albedo, the clouds of storms increase it. It is as unpredictable as any chaotic system. If just one of these climate computer models would hold up a decade without being readjusted or surpassed by another I'd be more convinced.

As far as wars for food and flooding, it only happens in degenerate third world dictatorships, and there has been only one famine in world history triggered by events of nature (Ethiopia '73) - all others were infliced to various degrees by governments or other groups starving out minorities (yes, even in Ireland they imported food to make up for the lost potato crop - the British just did a bang up job of not distributing it freely). A climate catastrophe is molded more by the people affecting it than by the event itself. Katrina, The Myanmar cyclone - these were typical weather events, exascerbated by our own institutions. Global warming will NEVER kill people like their governments will, witness the determined efforts of the Myanmar Junta to condemn as many to die after the cyclone as possible.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Kav, well said.


Indeed. I saw the polar bear comment and thought about responding, but then I said to myself "Kav will not let you down" and he didn't. Well, he sort of didn't. I wanted another story, of course.

I also contemplated donating the first $5 to PT's one way ticket to Kalifornia so he could explain the proper fate of the polar bear to Kav in person...

"lipstick demarcated sewer outlet that passes for a mouth" :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Indeed. I saw the polar bear comment and thought about responding, but then I said to myself "Kav will not let you down" and he didn't. Well, he sort of didn't. I wanted another story, of course.
> 
> I also contemplated donating the first $5 to PT's one way ticket to Kalifornia so he could explain the proper fate of the polar bear to Kav in person...


Or to the North Pole so he can explain it to the bears.

Anyone know where he can find a bespoke seal costume?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Or to the North Pole so he can explain it to the bears.


I thought about that ... I thought the death by bear thing would be over too quick. :devil:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

This should do the trick:


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

vatoemperor said:


> Actually, despite the ban on CFCs they are still widely used across the third world. That bullet is not yet dodged. Regarding weather being a positive feedback system, I would assume this is also a crock, otherwise we wouldn't have variations in temperature at all. As decreasing ice decreases albedo, the clouds of storms increase it. It is as unpredictable as any chaotic system. If just one of these climate computer models would hold up a decade without being readjusted or surpassed by another I'd be more convinced.


I guess we will disagree! (Surprise).

A couple of things, there has been a difference caused by using less CFC's which although are still used elsewhere in the thirld world, are used less in the industrialized world than before. Think what it would be like of they were used even less (hopefully with the increasing movement of industry to the thirld world, we won't see an increase in the use and a return to incresing size of the ozone hole).

Re positive feedback, I said climatic warming is a positive feedback mechanism not weather: The clouds do not have the same albedeo as a white ice/snow pack (don't reflect as much), are transient and should also adsorb some spectra of light. Therefore the less ice the less albedeo which increased clouds (also, clouds won't increase everywhere) can't replace up and therefore more warmng. There is still a lot that is not understood about this:

Lots of interesting links re feedback:

https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/feedback_mechanisms/
https://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-feedback.html:

Water vapor itself can be considered a greenhouse gas as it adsorbs infared radiation, so an increase in wate vapor increses the rate of global warming (ie a positive feedback mechanism):

https://dieoff.org/page124.htm

"The main argument of one of the chief sceptics of the IPCC's conclusions, Professor Richard Lindzen, is negated. The role of water vapour in global warming is crucial. The climate models assume that as the oceans and atmosphere warm, so evaporation increases, and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. Water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, and of course it is present in far greater concentrations than the trace gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Linzen has advanced the idea that what will happen when the world warms is that increased convection will actually dry the middle and upper troposphere by a compensatory subsidence of air: that the increased vigour of circulation will effectivel y wring water vapour back out of the atmosphere. This means, Lindzen argues, that the GCMs have completely overestimated the water vapour feedback, and are hence strong overestimations of the warming that will ensue from human- enhancement of the greenhouse effect. A team of NASA and NOAA scientists now write in Nature: "we use some new satellite- generated water vapour data to investigate this question. From a comparison of summer and winter moisture values in regions of the middle and upper troposphere that have previously been difficult to observe with confidence, we find that, as the hemispheres warm, increased convection leads to increased water vapour above 500 mbar in approximate quantitative agreement with the results from the current climate models. The same conclusion is reached by comparing the tropical western and eastern Pacific regions. Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations." The instrument used is the SAGE II (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) aboard the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite."

(D. Rind, E. W. Chiou, W. Chu, J. Larsen, S. Oltmans, J. Lerner, M. P. McCormick, and L. McMaster, "Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite data," Nature, v. 349, p. 500 - 503, 7 February 1993

Here is a link to an interesting schematic:

https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/...samson/feedback_mechanisms/image/Feedback.gif

Melting permafrost: the amount of carbon and methane "locked up" in the premafrost is estimated to be huge. releasing it as the permafrost melts, increases the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and increases the rate of warming.

Plus, don't forget the positive feedback mechanism of a warming ocean becoming less of a carbon sink as ocean currents such as the gulf stream decrease and sequester much less carbon and the oceans are a HUGE carbon sink righ now althoug we are starting to see changes).


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

vatoemperor said:


> As far as wars for food and flooding, it only happens in degenerate third world dictatorships, and there has been only one famine in world history triggered by events of nature (Ethiopia '73) - all others were infliced to various degrees by governments or other groups starving out minorities (yes, even in Ireland they imported food to make up for the lost potato crop - the British just did a bang up job of not distributing it freely). A climate catastrophe is molded more by the people affecting it than by the event itself. Katrina, The Myanmar cyclone - these were typical weather events, exascerbated by our own institutions. Global warming will NEVER kill people like their governments will, witness the determined efforts of the Myanmar Junta to condemn as many to die after the cyclone as possible.


I don't believe your logic works: re potato famine not natural? By your logic, because we could have imported food into Ethiopia it would have not been a famine. What is the difference between Ethiopia and Ire,and, both countries did not have enough food and people died. Both "famines" could have been solved by importing and giving away food. (By the way, Ethiopoa exported vegetables to Europe during the famine as it wa a way to make money).

That said, I do agree that the world does create enough food for the present, lack of foods in some areas may be more a distribution and market problem but this does have the potential to change. As we reach and ultimately exceed our carrying capacity (which to date at least in the industrialized world we have been able to increase with our increassing population but how long will we be able to do that), it will become less of a distribution problem and more of a real suppy problem.

I agree in a sense that "Katrina, The Myanmar cyclone - these were typical weather events, exascerbated by our own institutions". What will happenn when these type of enevts become more and more common (as they will as warmer temps increasse severity of storms) and more severe. How long can we make up for things with our intitutions?

It won't just be third world corrupt despotic dictatorships then. Governments will kill people as resources and food reserves grow shorter.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

The crop failure was natural. There are crop failures all over - the famine and death was not. It was known that the potato crop would fail, and large quantities of corn were imported from the United States. There was _more_ food available in ireland during the famine than the year before it started due to imports. The same year that Ethiopia had it's famine, which coincided with a 12% drop in food stock, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) expeienced a 40% decline in stock, yet there was no mass casualty. In the case of Ethiopia, the million dead from the famine were concentrated in ethnic regions that endured regular ipression from the government.
My


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

My logic is dead on. While a famine is a scarcity of food, it results in starvation and death. Importing or distributing food averts starvation. That is how all countries avoid them. In the US we have experinced crop failures that would fit the definition of famine, but because hordes of people did not starve to death, we only call them 'crop failures'. We, along with the rest of the civilized world make no effort to deprive portions of our population from access to food, as was the case in Ireland, as well as Ethiopia.

In Ireland it was known that the potato crop was failing, and large quantities of corn were imported from the United States. There was _more_ food available in Ireland during the famine than the year before it started due to imports. The same year that Ethiopia had it's famine, which coincided with a 12% drop in food stock, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe expeienced a 40% decline in stock, yet there was no starvation and death, so no one refers to it as a famine. In the case of Ethiopia, the million dead from the famine were concentrated in the Ogaden and what is now Eritrea, ethnically seperate areas at odds with the central government. Similarly, Britain did not hold the rural Irish in high regard, and thus made no real effort to distribute food to save people.

Your quote on the 'supply' problem is reminiscent of the hysterical overreaction in 'the population bomb'. Just like climate computer models, these theories don't last a decade. We are always 'currently producing enough food', yet no matter how much the population grows that seems to be the case. My money says that I'll be talking to some college student 20 years from now going off on the next climatic emergency, saying 'we are making enough food now, but _later..?!'_

Regarding storm frequency, this has to with the exploding population in coastal areas than any actual increase in the number of storms occuring. Just like kiddie kidnappers are in decline, the hysteical continue to worry more about it. Where hurricanes once flooded uninhabited land, they now swamp exurbs and beachside retirement palaces. 'When these become more common' assumes that there is a great body of evidence to support that they are becoming so - there is not. The scientific study of hurricanes is relatively new, and before the advent of radar, the magnitude and effect of a hurricane would be defined by those who experienced it - usually not enough to make the headlines on the NY Times. Some hurricanes, as far as history is concerned, may as well never have happened.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any evidence that higher temperatires increase the severity of storms. Perhaps scale or frequency. Another lingering Katrina effect - it was not a powerful storm, just happened to hit a city that was on the verge of submersion for the last half century. A terrorist could have blown a levee to similar effect.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

vatoemperor said:


> there has been only one famine in world history triggered by events of nature (Ethiopia '73) - all others were infliced to various degrees by governments or other groups starving out minorities (yes, even in Ireland they imported food to make up for the lost potato crop - .


Your words: You say Ethiopia was the ONLY FAMINE in world history caused by nature. You then say that the potato famine in Ireland which although the potatio blight was natural, the famine was because the Brits didn't feed the Irish. The same could be said for Ethiopia. There was a lot of avaialble food in the world that could have fed people but we didn't and people in Ethiopia died (to a large extent along cultural and ethnic lines according to you). Why is Ethiopia a natural famine and Ireland not?

(Also, if you think there have not been "natural" famines in the past, you really need to read your world history a little better, there have been quite a few. Whether or not governments react well, a natural crop disaster is still natural).


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

vatoemperor said:


> .
> 
> Your quote on the 'supply' problem is reminiscent of the hysterical overreaction in 'the population bomb'. Just like climate computer models, these theories don't last a decade. We are always 'currently producing enough food', yet no matter how much the population grows that seems to be the case. My money says that I'll be talking to some college student 20 years from now going off on the next climatic emergency, saying 'we are making enough food now, but _later..?!'_
> 
> ...


You are right, I shouldn't have used the word supply, I should have left it as distribution problem.

As to costs of storm increasing due to increased populations being near the cost, that is true (and as we can already demonstrate a rise in ocean levels, I wouldn't plan a several generation family compound on the ocean in Florida). Where we disagree, is that the costs are going to get worse as the severity of the storms increases which they will.

As to higher water temperatures causing more sever storms: Hurricanes need water at least around 70 degrees F to form (which is why the season does not exist into December -January). With warmer water temps, the storms grow larger and more severe. With warmer ocean temps, the season grows longer and we get more storms and more severe storms.

In regards to severe thunderstorms/tornadoes: warmer temps cause more water vapor in the air and create larger and more frequent thunder storms (and tornados) which is why we have most of our thunderstorms and tornados in the summer and not the winter and the worst and biggest generally once the air has warmed up. With a warmer climate and longer summers, we get more severe storms and tornados. (The climate change will also affect the jet stream and possibly allow stronger temp contrasts on fronts also causing storms to be more severe).

Warmer temps allow more water vapor in the air and we get larger and heavier snow falls in the NE in our shorter winter (historically, we don't get our biggest snow storms in mid winter in VT when the temps are closer to 0 F. The bigger ones come when it is warmer. With larger snow falls and warmer temps, we are starting to get more flooding.

There is a lot written that demonstrates the correlation a lot more clearly than I can.

In twenty years, you will be more likely to talk to a college student who can demonstrate the damage already done than worrying about damage that will not occur. The science behind global warming is very robust and gets stronger every year and the empirical evidence for global warming increases every year.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

I meant only that the famine in Ethiopia was the only one that correlated with lower food stocks, thus it is the only one in which it could arguably be said was 'triggered' by natural rather than political events, though in fact all of them will be 'influenced' by political events, I should have worded more clearly. The fact that the victims of the famine were of a minority group in a backwater area, while Zimbabwe accrued no deaths, was intended to illustrate that the natural event more no relationship to the scale of death. This is similar to the 'percieved' increase in climate events, which may be entirely disconnected from the assumed cause.

Regarding past famines, I would repeat (more clearly , I hope) that you will not find a case of a historical famine caused exclusively by natural causes - i.e. despite the best efforts of a civilization to save everyone, many died anyway. Perhaps this is only because truly democratic societies are a spot on the canvas of history, but I think it is relevant to the dire predictions of climate change. If indeed sea levels rise and storms become more frequent, the catastrophe WILL be constrained to undemocratic societies. Democratic societies will endure economic and property damage, nothing beyond that. The best remedy for the predicted horrors of climate change is not CO2 reduction - despite lots of evidence suggesting it contributes to warming we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence that any given level of CO2 will result in a specific climate outcome or an 'ideal' number of hurricanes - but a free and democratized world that can, in the event of any climatic event (as in 'inevitable' - hurricane, volcano...asteroid) can more sensibly respond to the aftermath than the ruling juntas of the world. If CO2 levels have to go up in excahnge for wealthier, freer 3rd world societies, I think the choice is obvious.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> I can say with near certainty the unfortunate biological result of you overcoming two undescended testicles and actually producing viable offspring without two heads ( which would give them, @ 80 cumulative points easilly twice your I.Q.) is nill. How do I know? Because should you venture forth from your maiden aunt's basement sanctuary into the real world that lipstick demarcated sewer outlet that passes for a mouth will get you very much dead or physically crippled to complement your patently obvious mental defect in very short order. The only shame is I lack the resources to track you down or I'd do it myself - very, very slowly with common household items your aunt bought in bulk at the .99 cent store. Your time is coming assure as the sun rises. When it does, remember this and know I'm kicking your putrescent assemblage of poor genetic planning in spirit too.


This is a shameful response. It is amazing to me how brave people can be behind keyboards. Pedantic Turkey has his opinions. One can agree or disagree on the merits. But one's affection for his future grandchildren's ability to see polar bears, no matter how passionate, cannot excuse personal insults and schoolboy threats.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

I know for sure, without a doubt, that I can live without carbon emissions - it's what we've had for all but the last 200 years. Why chance it? Between nuclear, solar, and wind power we could go green in the next decade. Sure it would cost a lot of money but it would employ a lot of people, ensure America's future, and might be a better way of spending money than giving out tax rebate checks (I think a lot of people would rather earn $600 building a nuclear power plant anyway). 

People who argue there is no such thing as global warming confuse me. A lot of smart people say it is a real threat - so why chance it? We know eliminating carbon emissions won't kill us and we know it's a bad idea to suck on the end of a smoke stack. Just my $.02.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> I know for sure, without a doubt, that I can live without carbon emissions - it's what we've had for all but the last 200 years.


You sure about that? I mean, I am not an educated man or anything, but it seems to me mankind burned both renewable and fossil fuels for more than just the last 200 years. I could be wrong and am willing to be given proof showing that I am.

Global warming and man's role in it? I wish I had the certitude that some do, either way. Personally, I think the evidence we have indicates there is indeed global warming, to one degree or another. I lack certitude though in deciding if mankind is the key factor in it. And if he is, I certainly do not believe the efforts of the US alone will turn the tide. It needs to be world wide, and Kyoto is a chimera, due to carbon portioning based on a world where the Russia of that time no longer exists. IMO, Kyoto will just cost the US billions while at the same time putting billions into the hands of Russia.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> You sure about that? I mean, I am not an educated man or anything, but it seems to me mankind burned both renewable and fossil fuels for more than just the last 200 years. I could be wrong and am willing to be given proof showing that I am.
> 
> Global warming and man's role in it? I wish I had the certitude that some do, either way. Personally, I think the evidence we have indicates there is indeed global warming, to one degree or another. I lack certitude though in deciding if mankind is the key factor in it. And if he is, I certainly do not believe the efforts of the US alone will turn the tide. It needs to be world wide, and Kyoto is a chimera, due to carbon portioning based on a world where the Russia of that time no longer exists. IMO, Kyoto will just cost the US billions while at the same time putting billions into the hands of Russia.


Yes, you are right. A few million people burning some wood in a camp fire is the same as 7 billion people all utilizing an industrial factory pumping out emissions. Thank you for educating me. I'm a [email protected]

This is great thinking! We have to do more than everyone else, therefore we're not going to play (though if climate change is real we'll die just like everyone else). The problem with your argument is, if America does something to innovate (out of necessity or otherwise) and reduce climate change, we will own that technology. After America educated people to put men on the moon, those people then went out and developed the next generation of technology that kept America prosperous into the 21st century (like the microwave, the internet, the personal computer, etc.). Now, we can invent the next generation of clean energy that will keep us prosperous and a world leader into the 22nd century or we can wait for someone else to do it. Let's take a chance, develop some new technologies, maybe prevent climate change, do the right thing, and make some money at it. Or we can whine that India isn't doing their part (which means we don't have to do ours?) and maybe make the world a little worse in the process.

Now please parse my words and find a small discrepancy on which to hang your next argument. Or maybe you look into the spirit rather than the letter of what I said.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Yes, you are right. A few million people burning some wood in a camp fire is the same as 7 billion people all utilizing an industrial factory pumping out emissions. Thank you for educating me. I'm a [email protected]


A few million people? Why not take a peek at this to see exactly how badly incorrect you are, before you go spouting off?



Stringfellow said:


> This is great thinking! We have to do more than everyone else, therefore we're not going to play (though if climate change is real we'll die just like everyone else). The problem with your argument is, if America does something to innovate (out of necessity or otherwise) and reduce climate change, we will own that technology.


You see, this is what makes me chuckle. I will not be an ardent follower, so even though I do not disagree, I must therefore be attacked.  The problem with your argument is, if I am correct, we are all doomed anyway, no matter what the US does, *unless other countries co-operate.*



Stringfellow said:


> Now please parse my words and find a small discrepancy on which to hang your next argument. Or maybe you look into the spirit rather than the letter of what I said.


"Parsing" indicates close examination is required, which it is not with your post. Do you have any understanding of what I actually posted? Of course not. "He will not repeat the dogma. Those that do not repeat the dogma are enemies. Enemies must be destroyed..." Very tired and boring logic that is completely non-productive.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Lots of money sure, probably not your money though. This whole thing is a menagerie of finger-pointing. Actually, mankind has always emitted carbon dioxide in various forms, from breathing to fire. It is just in the last 200 years that humanity has made the greatest leaps in quality of life and life expectancy. What many of these alarmists want is worldwide 3rd world quality of life. I prefer worldwide 1st world quality. I'd rather gamble on the weather than stumble into the known quantity of increasing poverty. 

Don't forget, smart people invented housing projects, too. So too Eugenics. Doctors hawked Chesterfield cigarrettes 'for health'. It isn't their intelligence I doubt, but their extraordinary self confidence that because they are smart they cannot be doubted. Vigorous Debate is a sign of healthy science; repressing your opponents as 'deniers' and having their credentials revoked smack of police state authoritarianism. There are plenty of smart people that disagree with them; they are smart enough, though, to keep their mouths shut for fear of loosing their univesrity tenure or scientific credentials.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> A few million people? Why not take a peek at this to see exactly how badly incorrect you are, before you go spouting off?
> 
> You see, this is what makes me chuckle. I will not be an ardent follower, so even though I do not disagree, I must therefore be attacked.  The problem with your argument is, if I am correct, we are all doomed anyway, no matter what the US does, *unless other countries co-operate.*
> 
> "Parsing" indicates close examination is required, which it is not with your post. Do you have any understanding of what I actually posted? Of course not. "He will not repeat the dogma. Those that do not repeat the dogma are enemies. Enemies must be destroyed..." Very tired and boring logic that is completely non-productive.


I can't read or think either. And yes, 800 million people (very few of which lived in industrialized areas) is the same as 7 billion (the majority of which use petroleum and other carbon-derived products) . Wait, I can't read but maybe I can do math and that doesn't seem right. Wait, it's over 8 times as much? That seems significant. Someday I hope to be as logical and productive as you. It will be tough but I think I can do it.

The point of my post is that we can live without carbon emissions (even if taken to the extreme, there may have been a time when man or his descendants didn't have fire and they still managed to live). So let's try it. Even if it means doing it on our own (which it doesn't). Just like we went to the moon on our own and reaped the benefits for decades, we can go green on our own and reap the benefits for continued decades.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> I can't read or think either. And yes, 800 million people (very few of which lived in industrialized areas) is the same as 7 billion (the majority of which use petroleum and other carbon-derived products) .


So how much further would you like to change your original position? You are so far away from your original statement now, why not just start over? I mean, we went from you claiming a zero carbon foot print prior to 1808, to "a few million" with campfires, to 800 million, with some of them in industrialized areas. Why not just admit you mispoke? Too easy?



Stringfellow said:


> Wait, I can't read but maybe I can do math and that doesn't seem right. Wait, it's over 8 times as much? That seems significant. *Someday I hope to be as logical and productive as you. It will be tough but I think I can do it.
> *


Not to be rude, but after reading your last several posts, I doubt you can do this.



Stringfellow said:


> The point of my post is that we can live without carbon emissions (even if taken to the extreme,* there may have been a time when man or his descendants* didn't have fire and they still managed to live).


I am parsing now...just because it is fun. It would actually be man's ancestors, not descendants, for this sentence to make proper sense 



Stringfellow said:


> So let's try it. Even if it means doing it on our own (which it doesn't). Just like we went to the moon on our own and reaped the benefits for decades, we can go green on our own and reap the benefits for continued decades.


There is nothing stopping the US from "doing it on our own"...unless of course you believe in the science people like Micheal S are referencing. Other countries must cut back their emmisions too, if the science is correct. Further, you have yet to even attempt to understand why Kyoto is a chimera, and that is an important part in this whole discussion. Can you not see I am not necessarily completely disagreeing with you? Is the need for perfect, lockstep, dogma spouting so great you cannot help but attack me?

You might want to read some of the posts here of people that really disagree with you.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Could Stringfellow be Pedantic Turkey's alter ego?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Could Stringfellow be Pedantic Turkey's alter ego?


I am picturing Jan Michael Vincent typing at the keyboard of a futuristic attack helicopter


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am picturing Jan Michael Vincent typing at the keyboard of a futuristic attack helicopter


Wow, it has been a long time since I have heard a reference to Airwolf. I used to love that show as a kid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The seal suit is a nice touch.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> So how much further would you like to change your original position? You are so far away from your original statement now, why not just start over? I mean, we went from you claiming a zero carbon foot print prior to 1808, to "a few million" with campfires, to 800 million, with some of them in industrialized areas. Why not just admit you mispoke? Too easy?


Like I said, you can parse my words and find a small hook to hang your argument on, or you can look to the spirit of the words. If you think I didn't realize there have been people here for awhile and that those people had wood and coal and other fires (and many other ways of releasing carbon) I suppose you are superior indeed. The point still remains - we can live without it but with it we might end up extinct.

And by "we" I mean the human race and not you and I - please don't use that as a hook for your next argument as to why I am a dope and my argument of "excessive carbon release may be bad and we can live without it" is wrong. Maybe this is why few good things happen in government - they argue about the presentation of the idea rather than the idea itself. We know intuitively we can do this. It will have its costs, but it probably won't cause us to go extinct - doing nothing or pointing fingers or saying it's not our problem or it's only a little bit our problem or this thing happens all the time may. It's kind of a hedge.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> I am picturing Jan Michael Vincent typing at the keyboard of a futuristic attack helicopter


Finally someone got my screen name!!!!!!! I use to LOVE Air Wolf!!!!! Stringfellow Hawk at your service. I figured on a clothing forum people would think I was tailor or something.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Like I said, you can parse my words and find a small hook to hang your argument on, or you can look to the spirit of the words.


If you think I am hanging any argument on a "small hook", you really should slow down, re-read my posts, and ponder them for a bit. Maybe go do some reading on the various topics raised by others and myself here. Consider that your initial statement in this thread made an extremely explicit, sweeping, and *entirely incorrect statement upon which you based most of your argument.*


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> I can say with near certainty the unfortunate biological result of you overcoming two undescended testicles and actually producing viable offspring without two heads ( which would give them, @ 80 cumulative points easilly twice your I.Q.) is nill. How do I know? Because should you venture forth from your maiden aunt's basement sanctuary into the real world that lipstick demarcated sewer outlet that passes for a mouth will get you very much dead or physically crippled to complement your patently obvious mental defect in very short order. The only shame is I lack the resources to track you down or I'd do it myself - very, very slowly with common household items your aunt bought in bulk at the .99 cent store. Your time is coming assure as the sun rises. When it does, remember this and know I'm kicking your putrescent assemblage of poor genetic planning in spirit too.


I'm...not sure what to say to that. I know I can't say a four-letter word, though, because I might get reprimanded by a moderator. Two more times!

BTW does anyone have any idea where the rules to this forum are? I ask, because I looked and I couldn't find anything about cussin'.



Laxplayer said:


> Or to the North Pole so he can explain it to the bears.
> 
> Anyone know where he can find a bespoke seal costume?


Now, that's the funniest thing I've read so far in the thread. You probably don't know this--but polar bears are afraid of people. The bears would run away from me. Why? Because Kav's Injin buddies almost wiped them out like they did the saber-toothed tiger and the woolly mammoth.

And, really, what do you think would happen, anyway? It'd be like Oregon Trail-- "you can only carry 100lbs of meat back to the wagon." No, I don't know why no one ever brought the wagon to the kill.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think you guys are getting upset over the limits of this medium of discussion and finding fault in the menu and not the meal. Mellow. There's already a western brawl scene going on ( watch me shoot the chandelier with my revolver so it nails him to the faro table andflips the spittoon on his face.)


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Wait! That gunsmoke may contain greenhouse gasses. How bou't taking it out with a forest-council certified renewable wood bat?

It's unfortunate that such interesting topics degenerate into personal attacks and vitriol so quickly.

but c'mon...storms WILL increase, humanity WILL be extinct...gotta take a slap at Stringfellow (metaphorically of course, I'm slinging no guns here). That is pretty confident. I guess I'd like to see the conclusive, indisputable scientific study that shows that man WILL become extinct and storms WILL be more intense - also, the storms will only be the bad kind that flood coastal lowlands and drown pacific islanders, all the farming regions will be experiencing drought.

I guess I'm no climatologist, but I am not buying the idea that clouds are insignificant...any satellite photo of earth will show a great deal more cloud cover than ice, and not only at the poles where there is less solar absorbtion in the first place. Sure it is low albedo, but there is a lot more of it, and more likely to be where the sun is shining. And as far as weather vs. climate, as long as storms or hurricanes are going to be the evidence of climate change, then the reverse will also be true (scientifically speaking, a theory has to have some chance of being proven incorrect as well as correct)

I think the subject needs to be studied by scientists and statisticians - and no, the UN's IPCC doesnt count. I will not accept as 'unbiased' an organization whose mission statement is the scientific study of _man-made_ climate change. That is making a large and as yet unproven assumption.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> BTW does anyone have any idea where the rules to this forum are? I ask, because I looked and I couldn't find anything about cussin'.


They are cleverly hidden under the menu item _FAQ & Forum Rules_. :devil:



> What are the Rules of the AskAndy Forums?
> 
> 1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: *no* name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, *swearing*, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_ask_andy_rules


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> There is nothing stopping the US from "doing it on our own"...unless of course you believe in the science people like Micheal S are referencing. Other countries must cut back their emmisions too, if the science is correct. Further, you have yet to even attempt to understand why Kyoto is a chimera, and that is an important part in this whole discussion. Can you not see I am not necessarily completely disagreeing with you? Is the need for perfect, lockstep, dogma spouting so great you cannot help but attack me?
> 
> You might want to read some of the posts here of people that really disagree with you.


??? Huh?? The science I am referencing is not saying do nothing. Some researchers feel it is too late. Other researchers feel we still have time and we might surprise ourselves with our ability to do something. I guess what I was trying to show is that the science increasingly supports the major role of human kind in global warming and that the world has to act. If you really look at it, the potential for adverse changes caused by global warming is huge (and already starting to be seen).

While in one sense you are right that it can't be us alone dealing with the problem (China just started producing more greenhouse gasses than the US, of course a lot of that is produced making the things we in the US buy more than anyone else!), Stringfellow has a great point in that there is a potential market out there and that why shouldn't we get in on it on the bottom floor (not the fantasy of trading carbon credits which to my mind is like buying indulgences from the Church in the Middle Ages, but actual technology that will make a difference).

Why wait for another country to fully develop alternative energy sources? We need these sources anyway to break away from oil and if we are the ones to develop the alternatives, we can significantly reduce the impact of big oil going away plus help us maintain our role as a world leader.

Michael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_ask_andy_rules


Yeah, I read that. Did you? It says:



> 1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators.


Flaming is, to put it simply, being uncivil or rude toward someone (on the internet only, presumably). Using a swear word, especially when it's not directed at anyone, is not flaming. In fact, look at the sentence: _What constitutes flaming and incivility_ should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults.

name-calling.
ad homimems.
slurs.
swearing.
personal insults.

Three of them are downright unambiguous and refer to personal attacks. Considering the context "What constitutes flaming . . ." the only reasonable reading of the sentence is that "slurs" and "swearing" refer to slurs or swears directed _at_ someone.

Threatening to get off your unemployed pseudo-academic liberal butt, track someone down and beat them up--that's flaming.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, that's the funniest thing I've read so far in the thread. You probably don't know this--but polar bears are afraid of people. The bears would run away from me. Why? Because Kav's Injin buddies almost wiped them out like they did the saber-toothed tiger and the woolly mammoth.
> 
> And, really, what do you think would happen, anyway? It'd be like Oregon Trail-- "you can only carry 100lbs of meat back to the wagon." No, I don't know why no one ever brought the wagon to the kill.


You have died of dysentery. LOL, that game was great!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Heh. Dying of dysentery isn't as much fun as the game made it sound.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Heh. Dying of dysentery isn't as much fun as the game made it sound.


Yeah, I'd imagine it would be a crappy way to go.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

vatoemperor said:


> but c'mon...storms WILL increase, humanity WILL be extinct...gotta take a slap at Stringfellow (metaphorically of course, I'm slinging no guns here). That is pretty confident. I guess I'd like to see the conclusive, indisputable scientific study that shows that man WILL become extinct and storms WILL be more intense - also, the storms will only be the bad kind that flood coastal lowlands and drown pacific islanders, all the farming regions will be experiencing drought.


That's kind of my point. We have two options. Keep doing the same or change. If we keep doing the same we may cause real harm and may become extinct (say a 50% chance that something bad happens and a 50% chance nothing bad happens). However, if we change there is a 100% chance that we will stop doing harm and at least a possibility that we will reverse any harm done. It seems like a simple choice to me. Err on the side of caution.

Regardless of what people tell us we instinctively know it is not healthy to smoke cigarettes - sucking on fire is bad (and if you claim you didn't know this before the cigarette companies finally admitted it you are lying through the hole in your trachea). We instinctively know that power plant and car exhausts are bad. And we instinctively know that inventing new systems and technologies is good for the economy - growth and advancement is good.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> That's kind of my point. We have two options. Keep doing the same or change. If we keep doing the same we may cause real harm and may become extinct (say a 50% chance that something bad happens and a 50% chance nothing bad happens). However, if we change there is a 100% chance that we will stop doing harm and at least a possibility that we will reverse any harm done. It seems like a simple choice to me. Err on the side of caution.
> 
> Regardless of what people tell us we instinctively know it is not healthy to smoke cigarettes - sucking on fire is bad. We instinctively know that power plant and car exhausts are bad. And we instinctively know that inventing new systems and technologies is good for the economy - growth and advancement is good.


I'm with you. There can be both an environmental and economic upside if we're smart about this. Even if, for the sake of argument, all this pollution isn't causing global warming, it ain't doing my asthma or allergies any good. And I won't cry if BP can't pump more crap into Lake Michigan.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Finally someone got my screen name!!!!!!! I use to LOVE Air Wolf!!!!! Stringfellow Hawk at your service. I figured on a clothing forum people would think I was tailor or something.


I figured it was a reference to the Strip Club I used to go to in the '80s. Guess I was wrong.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> ??? Huh?? The science I am referencing is not saying do nothing.


That is not what I said Michael. What I said was that the science you are quoting shows that no matter how much the US curbs its output, *anthropogenic global warming shall continue without world wide action.* Or is your stance that the rest of the world can carry on its merry way and the fate of the globe rests with the output of the US?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I'm with you. There can be both an environmental and economic upside if we're smart about this. *Even if, for the sake of argument, all this pollution isn't causing global warming, it ain't doing my asthma or allergies any good.* And I won't cry if BP can't pump more crap into Lake Michigan.


That's a good point, Bertie.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

AARRGH, pleeeeeease don't tell me any of you are allergic to CO2! not as bad as the 'allergy to dancing' but bad. It isn't an allergen! It isn't toxic, carcinogenic, combustible or radioactive. This isn't a noble attempt to save babies from disfigurement of mercury poisoning, it is another red herring to divert the discussion from something too convoluded to understand (sea surface temperatures and adjusted annual average temperatures) to something simplistic (EvilCo dumping sulphuric acid into baby Johnny's kiddie pool). It is a common atmospheric gas! Forget Chernobyl, we will ANNIHILATE THE HUMAN RACE and END ALL LIFE with 380 parts per million of a nearly inert gas that is otherwise essential to life on earth! If anything, the hysteria over greenhouse gasses testifies only to the excellent job we have done of reducing the other toxins in the environment.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

vatoemperor said:


> AARRGH, pleeeeeease don't tell me any of you are allergic to CO2! not as bad as the 'allergy to dancing' but bad. It isn't an allergen! It isn't toxic, carcinogenic, combustible or radioactive. This isn't a noble attempt to save babies from disfigurement of mercury poisoning, it is another red herring to divert the discussion from something too convoluded to understand (sea surface temperatures and adjusted annual average temperatures) to something simplistic (EvilCo dumping sulphuric acid into baby Johnny's kiddie pool). It is a common atmospheric gas! Forget Chernobyl, we will ANNIHILATE THE HUMAN RACE and END ALL LIFE with 380 parts per million of a nearly inert gas that is otherwise essential to life on earth! If anything, the hysteria over greenhouse gasses testifies only to the excellent job we have done of reducing the other toxins in the environment.


If only CO2 was the only thing to come out of smokestacks and car exhausts.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, I read that. Did you? It says:
> 
> Flaming is, to put it simply, being uncivil or rude toward someone (on the internet only, presumably). Using a swear word, especially when it's not directed at anyone, is not flaming. In fact, look at the sentence: _What constitutes flaming and incivility_ should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults.
> 
> ...


ic12337:

Yes, you could read it that way, but you would be wrong.

It clearly says both flaming and incivility are not acceptable behavior and that what constitutes them is determined by the moderators. You swore at no one in particular and a moderator determined it was not civil.

I don't think we have any pseudo academics and our liberals don't believe in violence, but you could check. In addition, Howard's life coach found him a job at Pathmark. We do have one non-passivist green, but I believe he is just a "token." :devil:


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> If we keep doing the same we may cause real harm and may become extinct (say a 50% chance that something bad happens and a 50% chance nothing bad happens). However, if we change there is a 100% chance that we will stop doing harm and at least a possibility that we will reverse any harm done. It seems like a simple choice to me. Err on the side of caution.


For one, there isnt a 100% chance of ANYTHING, even in the realm of science. For all we know our CO2 emission is the only thing keeping us out of a killer ice age. As the famed average global temperature has been dropping for the past decade, this is as likely as anything (nevermind that the concept of a global average temperature is 'like the average phone number in a phone book" scientifically fact, yet the data is meaningless). I also think the 50/50 is not very rigorous, like the gambler saying' either I win or I don't, so I got a 50/50 chance'. My instincts say that things are more likely to continue as they have, with moderate variation, and ecology will adapt. I think there is a lot of climate history to back that one up.



Stringfellow said:


> Regardless of what people tell us we instinctively know it is not healthy to smoke cigarettes - sucking on fire is bad (and if you claim you didn't know this before the cigarette companies finally admitted it you are lying through the hole in your trachea). We instinctively know that power plant and car exhausts are bad. And we instinctively know that inventing new systems and technologies is good for the economy - growth and advancement is good.


Difficult to argue against instincts, but I think you underrate the effect of education on our 'instincts'. Like asking a fish about water -what water? If we had been taught all our lives that car exhaust was _good_ for us, well, we might just think that was instinctual and common sense as well. Remember the days of kids running through clouds of DDT behind the sprayer truck? Where was instinct then? We have been conditioned to fear the CO2, and even if global warming is reverible, that isn't.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

vatoemperor said:


> Remember the days of kids running through clouds of DDT behind the sprayer truck? Where was instinct then? We have been conditioned to fear the CO2, and even if global warming is reverible, that isn't.


Again, my argument is that we know that bug spray is bad for us without someone telling us that it is. The kids running through the bug spray are like adults who smoke cigarettes - they knew it couldn't be good even though no one told them it was bad. I smoked a cigarette once. I turned green and almost puked. Hence, even though no one told me it was bad, I had a pretty good idea. The same goes for bug spray. You see a bug covered in it and it dies. No one tells you the bug spray is bad for people but you have a pretty good idea.

I know car exhaust and factory emissions are bad even without a scientist telling me or confirming it is bad. I know I can live without them. We have a choice to make and instinctively we know the right one. Even if there is no such thing as human caused global climate change, seriously reducing carbon emissions can't hurt - and it just might help.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You know-- you can say maybe this and maybe that with global warming. Even I say "maybe."

But then you have to look at the historical worldwide temperatures:










Where are we headed? There ain't no freakin' maybe about that.

This is the normal state of glacial ice:










Now, how many people do you think are going to starve to death when the temperatures drop suddenly? A billion? Two billion?

But let's go on worrying about global warming and those poor polar bears.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

vatoemperor said:


> AARRGH, pleeeeeease don't tell me any of you are allergic to CO2! not as bad as the 'allergy to dancing' but bad. It isn't an allergen! It isn't toxic, carcinogenic, combustible or radioactive. This isn't a noble attempt to save babies from disfigurement of mercury poisoning, it is another red herring to divert the discussion from something too convoluded to understand (sea surface temperatures and adjusted annual average temperatures) to something simplistic (EvilCo dumping sulphuric acid into baby Johnny's kiddie pool). It is a common atmospheric gas! Forget Chernobyl, we will ANNIHILATE THE HUMAN RACE and END ALL LIFE with 380 parts per million of a nearly inert gas that is otherwise essential to life on earth! If anything, the hysteria over greenhouse gasses testifies only to the excellent job we have done of reducing the other toxins in the environment.


Asthma also occurs in people who do not have allergies. In these people, chemical irritants trigger an inflammatory response that is initiated in a different way than in allergen-triggered asthma. For example, some people are sensitive to certain common chemical irritants, such as perfume, hairspray, cosmetics, and household cleaners. Other chemical irritants include industrial chemicals and plastics, as well as many forms of air pollution such as exposure to high levels of ozone, car exhaust, wood smoke, and sulfur dioxide. 

Since you obviously have not taken basic chemistry or human anatomy, I will explain it to you in simple terms. CO2 is TOXIC to humans. Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations causes acidosis. Exhaust from an auto is TOXIC. An 8% concentration of CO2 will kill you. This is why some commit suicide by locking themselves in the garage with the car running. Exhaust contains not only CO2 (toxic), but CO (toxic), N2 (relatively harmless), H20 (harmless), hydrocarbons (toxic) and nitrogen oxides (toxic).

At least you were right about CO2 not being an allergen. If you don't want to believe in global warming, fine, but at least get your facts straight about CO2 and exhaust fumes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Can CO2 cause birth defects?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Can CO2 cause birth defects?


Good question. I did a search and didn't find any answers for you. It seems the small particulate matter from polluted air is of more concern when it comes to birth defects.

_PM, also known as particle pollution, refers to a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles such as dust, dirt, soot or smoke are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye, while other fine particles, such as acids, organic chemicals, metals, soil and dust particles and allergens, are so small they can only be detected by using an electron microscope._
_With diameters of 2.5 micrometers and smaller, a size nearly 30 times smaller than a single strand of human hair, fine airborne particles come from a variety of sources including motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, forest fires and some industrial processes._

https://www.cleanair-stlouis.com/particulate-matter.html


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Sorry, I did overstate it. It is toxic in higher concentrations, I got carried away in my discussion of the atmosphere. The apparent absurdity of the asthma comment drove me batty. The point was that no one has allergies or athsma because of it, and they aren't being poisoned by it (unless you are running the car in the garage). Are vegetables with naturally occuring neurotoxins considered toxic? Generally not, because it would be unreasonble to eat enough of them to be affected. Similarly, atmospheric levels of CO2 would not be considered toxic. I was engaging in a discussion on global warming, not general pollution. As I said before, the pollution argument can stand on it's own, the global warming one can't. It is not the idea of reducing emissions that I am against. We don't need hysterical overreaction to tell us that the sulphur dioxide in exhaust makes some people sick, it isn't a difficult argument to make. We do need the absolutist hysteria over global warming because people won't be convinced by reason, mostly because it requires absurdly specific predictions about the future.

For stringfellow, I'm certain that the kids and their parents didn't know it was bad, because they kept doing it. In fact they more likely had been taught the opposite, bug spray was _good_, and that was why they were permitted to run behind the truck. Sure, some people probably suspected it was bad to _breathe_ it based on other knowledge about aerosol chemicals, but like cigarrettes it wasn't instinctual because otherwise everyone would have caught on.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is not what I said Michael. What I said was that the science you are quoting shows that no matter how much the US curbs its output, *anthropogenic global warming shall continue without world wide action.* Or is your stance that the rest of the world can carry on its merry way and the fate of the globe rests with the output of the US?


YOU ARE CORRECT (bet you thought I would never say that:-})that the fate of the world does not rest just with the output of the US (as I mentioned earlier China now exceeds the US in CO2 output). There is no question that we are not the only cause of the problem (although we have certainly done our fair share).

I would argue however that if we wait for a treaty that every (industrialized and other) country agrees to, we will never get anywhere because a world wide treaty like that will never happen or if it does, it will be so watered down to be of no real use.

That said, our economy has a huge effect on the world economy (although not as much as it used to). If we push lower CO2 emissions, other countries whose economies are dependent on ours will have to adapt. (I know we could NEVER legislate that we should only allow CO2 neutral products (which don't really exist anyway) to be imported and am not saying we should require this, although think of the long term impact of such legislation).

If we start working right now to develop technology (and legislation?) to significantly curb our CO2 emissions, other countries will follow us (just like we would be following what is already beginning to happen in Europe). The benefits to our economy could be very large, ie: think of what markets there will be (and are now forming) for cheap alternative energy. We get in on the ground floor on this, and not only do we help the world climate, we also help create an alternative to oil of which there is not an infinite supply.

(It is interesting to see the amount of "green" companies forming now that there is a developing market. Wind is becoming more efficient and more accepted, and there are new much more efficient solar collectors developed for which the manufacturing process are being refined such that the cost is becoming competitive. Germany has heavily subsidized the solar industry and is starting to see rewards for doing this).

Again, if we wait for a "fair" agreement everyone can agree to, nothing will ever get done. I do believe the problem is serious enough that we can't wait to do something about it. Movement in this direction will occur and we need to maintain our technological edge over the world and keep our economy strong of which responding to global warming is likely an important piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

vatoemperor said:


> Sorry, I did overstate it. It is toxic in higher concentrations, I got carried away in my discussion of the atmosphere. The apparent absurdity of the asthma comment drove me batty. The point was that no one has allergies or athsma because of it, and they aren't being poisoned by it (unless you are running the car in the garage). Are vegetables with naturally occuring neurotoxins considered toxic? Generally not, because it would be unreasonble to eat enough of them to be affected. Similarly, atmospheric levels of CO2 would not be considered toxic. I was engaging in a discussion on global warming, not general pollution. As I said before, the pollution argument can stand on it's own, the global warming one can't. It is not the idea of reducing emissions that I am against. We don't need hysterical overreaction to tell us that the sulphur dioxide in exhaust makes some people sick, it isn't a difficult argument to make. We do need the absolutist hysteria over global warming because people won't be convinced by reason, mostly because it requires absurdly specific predictions about the future.
> 
> For stringfellow, I'm certain that the kids and their parents didn't know it was bad, because they kept doing it. In fact they more likely had been taught the opposite, bug spray was _good_, and that was why they were permitted to run behind the truck. Sure, some people probably suspected it was bad to _breathe_ it based on other knowledge about aerosol chemicals, but like cigarrettes it wasn't instinctual because otherwise everyone would have caught on.


That makes more sense, though I am still a little confused. Is it just the term global warming that you don't like? You don't mind if we work to reduce emissions, so why not just think of it that way? Like Bertie said, if nothing else, reducing emissions will cut down on the number of irritants in the air. That is something I think we would all appreciate.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

If it were as simple a task to cut out CO2 or other emissions as it was to replace halons and CFCs, it would be no issue; it would be a minor investment. Also a carbon cap or tax will not necessarily reduce the other pollutants; why not tax the pollutants directly? This would lead to decidedly different policies, like higher taxes on gas in urban areas, lower in rural, more incentive to move power stations away from population centers etc., and would be more effectual at reducing said pollutants and more economically feasible in the short term.

To me, the predictions of global apocalypse and mass extinction as a result of CO2 emissions are not reasonable and are not scientific. I would call it the 'day after tomorrow' effect, where climate change that in reality would take place over many years is mentally rolled into one cataclysmic event that scares people $&!#less. People underestimate the ability of species to adapt to long-term climate shifts (in tens or hundreds of years. All experiments done regarding this bring about extreme temperature changes in a matter of weeks, not decades.

What concerns me most is the apparant inability of the theory to be disproved, or more importantly, harrassing into submission those to attempt to. Rather than allow scientists to peer review or debate a Dutch environmentalist's criticism of the statistical analysys of past climate data, they first sought to prosecute him (to no avail, fortunately). No matter how serious the subject or convincing your argument, if you have to win a debate by threatening your opponent with a gag order or jail time, I will always be suspiscious.

And, of course, thank you for the _civil_ discourse - decidedly lacking on this subject!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> YOU ARE CORRECT *(bet you thought I would never say that:-})* that the fate of the world does not rest just with the output of the US (as I mentioned earlier China now exceeds the US in CO2 output). There is no question that we are not the only cause of the problem (although we have certainly done our fair share).


No, I knew you would have to say that...or disavow what you have been posting here for a year 

To a "fair" treaty. I have specifically referenced Kyoto, the imbalance and unreality in its carbon allotment system, and how it would greatly damage the US. Also, China and India, but not abiding, will have even more competative advantage, thus hurting the US economy even more. No one has even tried to counter that Russia will make billions in selling unwarranted carbon emissions and by selling those allotments, guess what? CO2 *does not get lowered!* Does no one else see the basic flaw of Kyoto? (That was rhetorical, as of course many economists and policy makers have written on it extensively).


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No, I knew you would have to say that...or disavow what you have been posting here for a year
> 
> To a "fair" treaty. I have specifically referenced Kyoto, the imbalance and unreality in its carbon allotment system, and how it would greatly damage the US. Also, China and India, but not abiding, will have even more competative advantage, thus hurting the US economy even more. No one has even tried to counter that Russia will make billions in selling unwarranted carbon emissions and by selling those allotments, guess what? CO2 *does not get lowered!* Does no one else see the basic flaw of Kyoto? (That was rhetorical, as of course many economists and policy makers have written on it extensively).


I agree that Kyoto is very flawed. As I said earlier, I see selling carbon credits similar to the Church selling indulgences in the middle ages so you could buy your way out of you know where. Carbon credits have real problems as they don't reduce CO2 output and I am not sure that they prevent new CO2 emmissions.

We do need to do something though and I still say waiting for a global agreement doesn't make sense to me (or a lot of other people).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> I agree that Kyoto is very flawed. *As I said earlier, I see selling carbon credits similar to the Church selling indulgences in the middle ages so you could buy your way out of you know where.* Carbon credits have real problems as they don't reduce CO2 output and I am not sure that they prevent new CO2 emmissions.
> 
> We do need to do something though and I still say waiting for a global agreement doesn't make sense to me (or a lot of other people).


Excellent comparison! I am going to steal it.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You know-- you can say maybe this and maybe that with global warming. Even I say "maybe."
> 
> But then you have to look at the historical worldwide temperatures:
> .


Thanks.

That's very interesting. I was not aware of the huge swings, nor where we are in the apparent pendulum.

From whence cometh them charts ?

-curious


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Fromith google image search. Both are representative samples of information that's available from lots and lots of sources.


----------



## Geoff Gander (Apr 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Now maybe we can find the entrance to Agartha!


Sign me up! Sometimes I think this planet's about had it - we just don't know it yet. Somewhat morbidly, I wonder how much of the world has to be dead, or irreparably altered, before we all notice it in our daily lives.

Geoff


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Geoff Gander said:


> Sign me up! Sometimes I think this planet's about had it - we just don't know it yet. Somewhat morbidly, I wonder how much of the world has to be dead, or irreparably altered, before we all notice it in our daily lives.
> 
> Geoff


Good point. As long as it doesn't affect the stock ticker, carry on.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

what ever happened to good stewardship? pollution is just stupid, its like shitting where you eat.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm sure many people have heard the trick for capturing a monkey. You hollow out a large gourd with sweets inside. The monkey reaches in and you simply run up and grab him. The monkey knows he should abandon the gourd, but wants the food so badly he is captured. World society is that monkey.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I'm sure many people have heard the trick for capturing a monkey. You hollow out a large gourd with sweets inside. The monkey reaches in and you simply run up and grab him. The monkey knows he should abandon the gourd, but wants the food so badly he is captured. World society is that monkey.


I've heard this for years. I wonder why Monkeys haven't evolved to the point this no longer works?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I've heard this for years. I wonder why Monkeys haven't evolved to the point this no longer works?


evolution is a myth?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, he didn't say that. I would venture a guess some traits take very short periods to change while others very long periods, this being the fine tuning the theory of evolution is going through. Perhaps people simply are not killing enough monkeys via this method to eliminate the 'hand in gourd' gene. This in fact is taking place in North America. Due to those disgusting rattlensake roundups,the only survivors in many areas are individuals who for some reason do not use this warning signal. They are the successfull breeders, and we now have population pools of buzzworms that don't buzz. Hopefully, Nature in her wisdom will use this to eliminate rattlesnake roundup morons from our pool soon.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> No, he didn't say that. I would venture a guess some traits take very short periods to change while others very long periods, this being the fine tuning the theory of evolution is going through. Perhaps people simply are not killing enough monkeys via this method to eliminate the 'hand in gourd' gene. This in fact is taking place in North America. Due to those disgusting rattlensake roundups,the only survivors in many areas are individuals who for some reason do not use this warning signal. They are the successfull breeders, and we now have population pools of buzzworms that don't buzz. Hopefully, Nature in her wisdom will use this to eliminate rattlesnake roundup morons from our pool soon.


I thought tribesmen had been doing that for centuries? Maybe not.

We have the same problem here with our rattlers. It makes looking for wayward Titleists just a bit more risk:reward.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

He actually capitalizes the word "nature." I love it!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> He actually capitalizes the word "nature." I love it!


Mother Nature is a proper noun and would be capitalized. I'm guessing Nature is just a shortened version, and why he capitalized it.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, that's the funniest thing I've read so far in the thread. You probably don't know this--but polar bears are afraid of people. The bears would run away from me. Why? Because Kav's Injin buddies almost wiped them out like they did the saber-toothed tiger and the woolly mammoth.


Injin???? You actually find that funny to say Injin??? How red is your neck exactly you moronic bigot???


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now, that's the funniest thing I've read so far in the thread. *You probably don't know this--but polar bears are afraid of people. The bears would run away from me.* Why? Because Kav's Injin buddies almost wiped them out like they did the saber-toothed tiger and the woolly mammoth.
> 
> And, really, what do you think would happen, anyway? It'd be like Oregon Trail-- "you can only carry 100lbs of meat back to the wagon." No, I don't know why no one ever brought the wagon to the kill.


Actually polar bears have been known to stalk humans as prey.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> He actually capitalizes the word "nature." I love it!


yeah as silly as capitalizing 'god', at leat nature is real


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

young guy said:


> yeah as silly as capitalizing 'god', at leat nature is real


Or "The South."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Mother Nature is a proper noun and would be capitalized. I'm guessing Nature is just a shortened version, and why he capitalized it.


I can buy "Mother Nature," but, as you note, he didn't actually say "Mother Nature." He just capitalized "nature."



BertieW said:


> Or "The South."


The South is capitalized the way any other place name would be capitalized. Were you not paying attention in grammar school?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/south



> Main Entry: 3south Function:_noun_ Date:13th century 1 a*:* the direction of the south terrestrial pole *:* the direction to the right of one facing east b*:* the compass point directly opposite to north2_capitalized_ *:* regions or countries lying to the south of a specified or implied point of orientation; _especially_ *:* the southeastern part of the United States


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Nicesuit said:


> Injin???? You actually find that funny to say Injin??? How red is your neck exactly you moronic bigot???


Obviously not red enough to be offended by "Injin."


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Obviously not red enough to be offended by "Injin."


Now, that is funny!

My wife is part Cherokee, as consequently are my children. They don't find the term offensive in and of itself, and neither do I. But then again, like most people raised on Chicago's south side, we don't view ethnic nicknames as pejoritives. We called ourselves Polocks, Bohocks, *****, Micks, Lugans, etc. all the time. I can recall stores advertising "**** t-shirts" for 99 cents. I did not realize that these terms could be viewed as pejoritives until I met candy-ass north side Cub fans.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The only way anyone could possibly be offended by that is because it's a reference to old cowboy movies, which are, I guess, evil. Right, political correctness police?


----------



## Fairlane (Jun 18, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Now, that is funny!
> 
> My wife is part Cherokee, as consequently are my children. They don't find the term offensive in and of itself, and neither do I. But then again, like most people raised on Chicago's south side, we don't view ethnic nicknames as pejoritives. We called ourselves Polocks, Bohocks, *****, Micks, Lugans, etc. all the time. I can recall stores advertising "**** t-shirts" for 99 cents. I did not realize that these terms could be viewed as pejoritives until I met candy-ass north side Cub fans.


LOL, ''candy-ass north side Cub fans. HAHA!



PedanticTurkey said:


> The only way anyone could possibly be offended by that is because it's a reference to old cowboy movies, which are, I guess, evil. Right, political correctness police?


LOL!!! OMG THE TWO OF YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Just keep It Up, Putrescent Factory Farmed Meat Poultry. You Are Going To Cap Yourself Soon Enough On This Forum. If you were familiar with 'Deep Ecology' as founded by Arne Naess, Nature is capitalised. You have in fact slurred a legaly recongnised expression of the godhead and violated forum rules.Moderators?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

CNN.com front-page headline:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> Just keep It Up, Putrescent Factory Farmed Meat Poultry. You Are Going To Cap Yourself Soon Enough On This Forum. If you were familiar with 'Deep Ecology' as founded by Arne Naess, Nature is capitalised. You have in fact slurred a legaly recongnised expression of the godhead and violated forum rules.Moderators?


Did you just say that you consider "Nature" to be some sort of diety? I'm not asking because I'm surprised, I'm just asking...


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> CNN.com front-page headline:


and your radical rightwing meaning of this is what?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Hmm--sensationalistic, misleading yellow journalism. But only a rightwinger would have a problem with that?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Nature is a diety? Go to school, get an MA in anthropology, hang out with a fairly wide spectrum of cultures who express the godhead in different ways and answer your own question. heres a hint; Taoism, Deep Ecology for starters, May the Force be with you.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Hmm--sensationalistic, misleading yellow journalism. But only a rightwinger would have a problem with that?


why do you make reference to Fox Noise, i mean news?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> CNN.com front-page headline:


CNN has, incidentally, modified this story to make it, you know, less ridiculous and misleading. After taking it off the front page.

Instead of "climate change" it's now "drought." And after only about 8 hours on their front page... *"Ruthless drought in West Timor puts children in crisis." *The unsupported assertions about climate change are removed from the story without comment. And it's been completely gone from the front page.



Kav said:


> Nature is a diety? Go to school, get an MA in anthropology, hang out with a fairly wide spectrum of cultures who express the godhead in different ways and answer your own question. heres a hint; Taoism, Deep Ecology for starters, May the Force be with you.


Nice. It's like the '60s all over again!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> CNN has, incidentally, modified this story to make it, you know, less ridiculous and misleading. After taking it off the front page.
> 
> Instead of "climate change" it's now "drought." And after only about 8 hours on their front page... *"Ruthless drought in West Timor puts children in crisis." *The unsupported assertions about climate change are removed from the story without comment. And it's been completely gone from the front page.


modifications after 8 hours - what else would you expect from a Republican conservative news station?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

young guy said:


> modifications after 8 hours - what else would you expect from a Republican conservative news station?


CNN = "Republican conservative news station." Wow, who knew?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> CNN = "Republican conservative news station." Wow, who knew?


Sure, when your preferred news source is moveon.org


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

It's rather interesting that what was mentioned in the article in the OP was only *sea ice* which would have no effect on sea levels or climate. As long as there is land based galciation and some ice off the shores, the fuzzy bears should be fine. As the majority of the past 500,000 years or so has been spent in significant glaciation, I'd be more worried about cooling than warming.

That, and if it all melts we'll still be 420 feet above sea level. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It's funny (to me) that when I am caught choosing global warming, ice packs, and water volume theories between MichaelS - an anonymous internet associate on a clothing forum and Algore - a Nobel prize winning environmentalist and former VP; that I have to go with MichaelS.

That's what Algore gets for inventing *the Internets*. :devil:


----------

