Brrrrrr...

[GBRulz]

Some dude was out this morning walking his dog. You could totally tell that the dog was cold by the walk it was walking. How stupid are people, really?

Mine go outside and the little one is already lifting her paw after being outside for 2 minutes.

The temp here is -8, with the wind -36.

[red]

it made it all the way up to a high of 0 here yesterday in the UP

right now at 11:00 am its -5, windchill of -27

i hate winter

[ahaha]

Man-made global warming is SCIENTIFIC FACT! Facts don't lie!

So it can't feel like -28 degrees with the wind chill in Green Bay. It's only your interpretation. Evil mankind has uncontrollably warmed the earth and it can't be stopped. The U.N. said so.

Yeah, scientists are such idiots. Can't they see it's really cold here right now? The upper midwestern U.S. is going through a cold spell. Certainly, that refutes all of their overwhelming data chronicling a distinct global warming pattern. How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons. I mean, c'mon, it's cold outside.

[MJZiggy]

We get your cold tomorrow. Thanks for sending it this way--I was hoping you could have used it all up there or something...

Someone remind me why I left Florida...

[Scott Campbell]

Someone remind me why I left Florida...

[Scott Campbell]

Yeah, scientists are such idiots. Can't they see it's really cold here right now? The upper midwestern U.S. is going through a cold spell. Certainly, that refutes all of their overwhelming data chronicling a distinct global warming pattern. How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons. I mean, c'mon, it's cold outside.

Early scientists insisted the world was flat.

[Joemailman]

Don't be too tough on them, ahaha. It's not easy questioning the validity of global warming. It's gotten so bad they're having to pay people to write articles supporting their position.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

[retailguy]

Yeah, scientists are such idiots. Can't they see it's really cold here right now? The upper midwestern U.S. is going through a cold spell. Certainly, that refutes all of their overwhelming data chronicling a distinct global warming pattern. How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons. I mean, c'mon, it's cold outside.

Early scientists insisted the world was flat.

Precisely. Theories are just that - They might be right, they might be wrong. So sad to see those in the "global warming is real" camp refusing to admit that they MIGHT be wrong. Those same scientists that "predict" global warming also admit that the world has had MANY episodes of heating/cooling in it's history. Guess this means that the cavemen shouldn't have had such smokey fires, and the dinosaurs should not have eaten so much green foliage.

The fact still remains that Mount St. Helen's spewed more "pollution" into the atmosphere than every combustion engine invented.

[Kiwon]

How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons.

Good questions. Apparently the global alarmist scientific community are so unified that they collectively agreed to ignore other U.N. research that doesn't fit their template.

Remember this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

(December 10, 2006)
.................................................. ..............................................

[rdanomly]

Yeah, scientists are such idiots. Can't they see it's really cold here right now? The upper midwestern U.S. is going through a cold spell. Certainly, that refutes all of their overwhelming data chronicling a distinct global warming pattern. How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons. I mean, c'mon, it's cold outside.

Early scientists insisted the world was flat.

Precisely. Theories are just that - They might be right, they might be wrong. So sad to see those in the "global warming is real" camp refusing to admit that they MIGHT be wrong. Those same scientists that "predict" global warming also admit that the world has had MANY episodes of heating/cooling in it's history. Guess this means that the cavemen shouldn't have had such smokey fires, and the dinosaurs should not have eaten so much green foliage.

The fact still remains that Mount St. Helen's spewed more "pollution" into the atmosphere than every combustion engine invented.

Mt. St. Helen's spewed 2.2x10^7 kg per day at it's peak during the 1980 event. That's about 24,500 tons. The estimate I found for tons produced by man (currently) is about 19 billion (with a B) tons per year. (Another article says we put out 26 billion tons, but let's keep it conservative). It would take Mt. St. Helen's erupting for at least 2000 years at the 1980 level to equal what we humans do.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html

(Someone please check my math, I don't do well with metric/english and really big numbers)

[ahaha]

Yeah, scientists are such idiots. Can't they see it's really cold here right now? The upper midwestern U.S. is going through a cold spell. Certainly, that refutes all of their overwhelming data chronicling a distinct global warming pattern. How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons. I mean, c'mon, it's cold outside.

Early scientists insisted the world was flat.

Those weren't scientists, they were priests.

[retailguy]

Mt. St. Helen's spewed 2.2x10^7 kg per day at it's peak during the 1980 event. That's about 24,500 tons. The estimate I found for tons produced by man (currently) is about 19 billion (with a B) tons per year. (Another article says we put out 26 billion tons, but let's keep it conservative). It would take Mt. St. Helen's erupting for at least 2000 years at the 1980 level to equal what we humans do.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html

(Someone please check my math, I don't do well with metric/english and really big numbers)

Well, I'm not the math expert either, however, we can "pick and choose" all the information that we want and find things that support out point. Then, we report ONLY that information and leave the rest aside. That's PRECISELY my point with all the academics. They leave out stuff that don't support their planned conclusion. Hell, this year, they even left off stuff that would have supported their conclusion - the glacial breakdowns in Greenland and at the south pole.

When can we point to "studies" that use incomplete info and see that we nailed it? Doesn't happen.

You might spend some time on the nasa website for some information relating to volcanos -

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm

Some relevant info (from the article):

Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

Another possible effect of a volcanic eruption is the destruction of stratospheric ozone.

(I thought this was strictly man-made, but perhaps not?)

Even if one can get to a volcano, it's practically impossible to measure its gas output because one can't synoptically see the whole cloud.

(Perhaps the 'measurement' estimates are off in all research?)

Then from a website for Mt Pinatubo that erupted in 1991:

In June 1991, after more than four centuries of slumber, Pinatubo Volcano in the Philippines erupted so violently that more than 5 billion cubic meters of ash and pyroclastic debris were ejected from its fiery bowels producing eruption columns 18 kilometers wide at the base and heights reaching up to 30 kilometers above the volcano’s vent.

In its wake 847 people lay dead, 184 injured, 23 missing, and more than 1 millon people displaced. Hundreds of millions of dollars in private properties and infrastructure lay in ruins which would require tens of billions of pesos and several years to rebuild. For months, the ejected volcanic materials remained suspended in the atmosphere where the winds dispersed them to envelope the earth, reaching as far as Russia and North America. This phenomenon caused the world’s temperature to fall by an average of 1 degree Celsius. Clearly, Pinatubo’s eruption signals the world’s most violent and destructive volcanic event of the 20th century.



So, I'll give credence to man made global warming when we can do ANYTHING that comes close to lowering worldwide temperature by 1 degree. Heck, I'll kneel and bow down if we can figure out how to stop a simple rainstorm, or even PREDICT with accuracy WHEN the rainstorm will happen and where....

Mt. Pinatubo did in a day what even the most radical "global warmingists" predict we couldn't do in a 100 years. The most recent report that I read said we could have an impact in the form of 1/2 degree in 50 years.

I'll continue to look for the stuff I read related to Mt. St. Helens. If I find it, I'll be sure to post a link since I'm such a wacko.... :lol

[ahaha]

How can we trust the scientific community on this issue? Just because they are so unified in their opinion, and they can throw lots of data supporting their claims, can we really trust these morons.

Good questions. Apparently the global alarmist scientific community are so unified that they collectively agreed to ignore other U.N. research that doesn't fit their template.

Remember this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

(December 10, 2006)
.................................................. ..............................................

This article does nothing to give credibility to your point. Cow populations, in these numbers, are not natural. They are a man-made creation to serve our needs.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Please. Let's have several rounds of both sides posting meaningless, politicized stats or articles to support their argument--which the other side will ignore or discredit.

[ahaha]

Theories are just that - They might be right, they might be wrong. So sad to see those in the "global warming is real" camp refusing to admit that they MIGHT be wrong.

Would you like them to say "Well, we might be wrong..." before every speech? I think everyone assumes there's a chance they could be wrong. But, with every new report, that chance keeps going down. Doesn't it worry you that so many, in the scientific community, are validating the seriousness of 'Global Warming'?