Wrong again Trav. Here's a scientific study documenting the increased fires in the Western United States, which you say is not happening.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1128834v1.pdf

And here's an article about wine-growers concern with climate change:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fo-wine24jan24,0,6446615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Granted, you will dismiss everything I'm linking to you with bald denials based on nothing but your or Rush Limbaugh's personal convictions.

OK, so global warming does not cause fires, sorry. and wine growers are concerned with climate change. whats your point? none of that proves man is causing global warming.

Those big 4x4s in the above pics only sell well in EU when they're diesel. Why does America not adapt this idea?

Most diesels don't pass our emissions laws. Although trucks get a pass to some extent.

Please show me which statement is false:

A. CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, which holds more heat within the atmoshpere.
B. Humans have released record amounts of CO2 into the atmoshpere.

A+B=

C. Humans are driving global warming/climate change.
D. Humans may not be the only forse propelling Global Warming/Climate Change

Please show me which statment, if any, is false. Anyone.

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates them...Hell, threads like this make ME hate Americans..

Because of the attitude displayed in this thread. Many Americans (perhaps more than half) care more about having a huge or sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles.

I resent your generalizations, sir, and find the implications biased and offensive.

I’ve been around the world more than a few times, and I deal with international customers (from no less than a dozen nations) on a regular basis. While it is true that there are some around the world who share the views of the self-loathing, anti-American apologists, those expressing such sentiments hardly constitute any sort of majority opinion. I find that Americans are by and large admired around the globe, and the American culture and spirit of free-enterprise is respected and revered.

Is it true that there are Americans who care more about being seen in a huge & sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles? Hell yes there are. Just as there are also Americans who cap their teeth with gold and diamond bling-bling, spend a fortune on over-sized spinner rims, wear their jeans sagging below their asses, and who hang around the McDonalds parking lot at two in the morning, grabbing their dicks and listening to Snoop Dogg.

But do they represent the actions, opinions, culture, and mores of the majority of Americans? I think not.

Please revisit your postings displayed above, and evaluate whether your opinions are based in fact, or whether (just maybe), your view of ‘anti-American’ attitudes are really just a crude composite of stereotypical prejudice and bias.


http://www.gifanimations.com/Image/Animations/Smiley-Faces/~TS1179915157902/smiley_029.gif

Nice post, Sparky.

As for Americans driving SUVs, for many families it is either an SUV or a mini-van and the SUV is more practicle.

Because of various state and federal laws all young children must be either in a car seat or a booster seat not located in the front seating section of the vehicle. If you have a regular sedan and more than two children under the age of ten it is impossible to legally seat them in the average sedan. In order to seat them legally you need something more than a five passenger vehicle since car seats and booster seats take up more room than the averager passenger.

Yes, SUVs tend to burn more fuel than regular cars and yes people do add to global warming but the human caused additions are miniscule compared to other causes, ie. volcanoes, nature caused fires, ruminants expelling gas from undigested grasses, increased solar heating. If man was to be completely removed from the equation global warming would go on in pretty much the same way it is going on.

Predicted temperature rises have been drastically reduced from the headline screaming predictions of just a short while ago. If temperatures go up as now predicted by most scientists there will be neither drastic nor catestrophic consequences associated with the increase.


Global warming has changed from a scientific concern to a political one pitting ecological luddites against the developed West.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess your a republican.

I resent your generalizations, sir, and find the implications biased and offensive.

And I resent your reading comprehension skills.

Did you even read what you quoted? I said "many Americans." And you agreed with me when you said "Is it true that there are Americans who care more about being seen in a huge & sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles? Hell yes there are."

Is it the majority? I can't say, but that's why I said perhaps.

Call it "anti-American" but if you follow the thread, it's a pretty disgusting display of selfishness, where a few people express concern about the environment and others respond by bragging about their gas-guzzling vehicles. I don't believe you find that attitude prevalent in any other country.

So please, spare me with this self-righteous B.S. and stick to the topic.

Call it "anti-American" but if you follow the thread, it's a pretty disgusting display of selfishness, where a few people express concern about the environment and others respond by bragging about how their gas-guzzling vehicles. I don't believe you find that attitude prevalent in any other country.

So please, spare me with this self-righteous B.S. and stick to the topic.
Well yes, I was bragging, but it was to prove a point. Ya'll get stereotypical saying rich americans buy gas guzzling cars and try to pin the blame on us. You are wrong for doing so because just as I pointed out, I don't drive much and do many other things to help out.
Don't paint people with the same brush, it shows your prejudices.

Honestly, you're trapped in the box and need to start thinking outside of it.

Large industries do much more harm if you want to point fingers, and yet you STILL fail to see that there are outside forces that are involved in global warming.
Something is heating up neptune. We didn't friggin do that now did we? No. Something else did. And the same thing that did is affecting earth and warming it up too.
Trav makes a great point, so what if the earth warms up, it has to be ever changing in one way or the other to survive, perhaps this is all part of the process.

Green, yellow cabs.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6682427.stm

Large industries do much more harm if you want to point fingers, and yet you STILL fail to see that there are outside forces that are involved in global warming.


I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm somehow excusing industry. Of course, saying industry is at fault also does not excuse your actions anymore than Paris Hilton can try to excuse herself by saying that O.J. committed murder.

Something is heating up neptune. We didn't friggin do that now did we? No. Something else did. And the same thing that did is affecting earth and warming it up too..

You need to recognize that planets don't have perfectly circular orbits, so all planets go through heating and cooling cycles....and since Neptune is so far away from the Sun, it takes Neptune well over 100 years to complete one cycle. And before you jump on the orbital cycle thing, don't worry, climatologists are well aware of that when they consider global warming.

Trav makes a great point, so what if the earth warms up, it has to be ever changing in one way or the other to survive, perhaps this is all part of the process.

The net negative impact of suddenly changing the planet's climate from what it is now isn't in dispute among anyone who has given it any real thought. Do yourself a favor and do some research before listening to Travh's exercises in ignorance.

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates them...Hell, threads like this make ME hate Americans.


Dang. I used to have high confidence in my reading comprehension skills. That sentence above indicates to me that Leper believes that the entire rest of the world hates Americans. Not sort of, not nearly all, and not perhaps. I interpreted that to mean that THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES AMERICANS.
Silly old unsophisticated me. I guess I just don't read at a high enough level of English comprehension.

Because of the attitude displayed in this thread. Many Americans (perhaps more than half) care more about having a huge or sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles.

Shoot, Gomer. This Leper feller spoke with such authority, I just assumed he knew what he was talking about when he presumed to speak for perhaps more than half of all Americans. Shucks. One of us may be splitting hairs. Reckon which one of us it is, Nell?

Hell, threads like this make ME hate Americans.
Go-o-ooo-oo-lly. A hayseed like me just don't know what to make of that there statement. Reckon that Leper feller really hates Americans, or was he maybe just talking out his ass-parts?
I'm a thinkin' it's the former and the latter, mah self.

Aw, holy Hell. There's a nuthern chicken in the bread pin pickin' out dough.
"Granny, does your dog bite?" "No, child, no."

Reckon I gotta go now. Ahm right plumb short on self-righteous BS, and I figger to go down to Georgia and git me some more.
See y'all.

Green, yellow cabs.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6682427.stm
the electricity to charge their batteries has to come from somewhere...and coal-fired plants would be the most likely:rolleyes:

the electricity to charge their batteries has to come from somewhere...and coal-fired plants would be the most likely:rolleyes:

Energy from plants (even coal-fired) is produced much, much more efficiently than energy in car-sized internal combustion engines.

Energy from plants (even coal-fired) is produced much, much more efficiently than energy in car-sized internal combustion engines.
then you're completely ignoring the infrastructure. power plants (especially on the east coast) are already pushed to the limit, so new ones will need to be built. that will take trucks, cement, steel, copper, transmission lines, trains, coal, and land.

I have little to no faith in mankind either, Ivan. It COULD be done, but more than likely not. It's on the scale of Nations now, although we as individuals could make a small impact.
North Korea has the right idea. they make it mandatory to turn the power generators off at dusk and back on at dawn. The heat index over large cities is amazing and if nations followed suit, it would make a difference. It would help 'lower the heat' so to speak and will calm some storms. *Air pollution is another story.*
Although that is still not going to change whatever the effect that is causing Neptune to heat up.

Now, don't be painting us rich folk with the same brush. I know plenty of welfare bums who are on state assistance that leave every friggin' light on in the house day and night because they are not footing the bill.

That door swings both ways, doesn't it?

I own an SUV and a cadillac deville, but I hardly drive unless I have to run an errand *ie take my son somewhere or load up for the month*, I spend most my time at home with an occasion of going sightseeing. I walk everywhere here I need to go. The store is a mile away and I walk thru the trails instead of driving. I don't fly, anywhere, ever. My heat, air con, and electric is around $50 a month, my water the same and that's only because the sewer is moved to the next town, otherwise it'd be $20.
Poor folk can walk to the store just like some of us rich folk do too.

I choose to live in the Southern Appalachian national biosphere reserve for a reason. ;)


Why not? Why not do it yourself and capitalize on it?
One of my very best friends owns 287 acres of the Adirondacks in Upstate NY and lives in the middle of it. They are completely independent of modern day conveniences. They have installed solar panels, and a windmill that collects there own electricity. Many times they make too much and it gets set to a reserve, they end up selling it to electric companies and make a profit from it. Although their reasons were for self sufficiency and in their effort created too much. So they earn a profit from it, soo what?



Edit:typo


points taken. i am literally surprised and disgusted at how lazy and spoiled the majority of the people in america really are. i use america as a sample because it is the major contributor to resource use worldwide. my wife comes from a family that uses electric like it is free. and then bitch about the bill later. and she has the habit of leaving lights on all the time when not needed. one day i may just stop helping pay the bill and live in a tent out back and piss her off on purpose. just to make a point. trying to tell spoiled brats to stop doesn't work. they need reality to bite them on the ass.

they do not care about no one but themselves. mine mine mine, me,me,me.

i do not have the money to get solar or wind power on a personal level. and i am not willing to enslave myself to pay off the bank to get it done. that would take a lot of gas driving to work to make that kind of money. damned if you do and damned if you don't.

i personally would love to see the whole thing just fucking fall in on their heads. spoiled brats need a reality check. and you can't wean a baby without TAKING the breast away first.

i have no problem with gasoline prices jumping to $6 a gallon. i just won't go anywhere, and i will walk ALOT. and people will have to slow down, and learn to run on ndn time. "i'll get there when i get there."

southern appalachian biosphere?

sorry about the rich thing. i have a chip on my shoulder about them. the majority live in a world of their own making and have no problem thinking and living like paris hilton and the ilk.

also i am mostly an anarchist. or an anarchist communist. i haven't figured that one out yet.

Energy from plants (even coal-fired) is produced much, much more efficiently than energy in car-sized internal combustion engines.

Don't forget the losses involved in transmission and battery storage.

points taken. i am literally surprised and disgusted at how lazy and spoiled the majority of the people in america really are. i use america as a sample because it is the major contributor to resource use worldwide. my wife comes from a family that uses electric like it is free. and then bitch about the bill later. and she has the habit of leaving lights on all the time when not needed. one day i may just stop helping pay the bill and live in a tent out back and piss her off on purpose. just to make a point. trying to tell spoiled brats to stop doesn't work. they need reality to bite them on the ass.

they do not care about no one but themselves. mine mine mine, me,me,me. I can only speak for my circle of friends and family here in america, but every single one of them work and work hard and can afford what you are calling spoiled(?) {we call a luxury *ie, boating, plasma tv's things of that sort.}
I only knew of one person with who I am acquainted with who tried to become lazy and leach off us and friends, so I told him what a piece of shit he was and to stay the hell out of our lives. Haven't seen him since because he got pissy but have checked up on him and find he is back working and taking care of his self.

As far as your family, there are switches you can install which turn lights off. They are motion detecting and run around $10 each at Lowes. If someone leaves the room and leaves the light on, it turns the lights off. It turns them on when you enter.


i do not have the money to get solar or wind power on a personal level. and i am not willing to enslave myself to pay off the bank to get it done. that would take a lot of gas driving to work to make that kind of money. damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's not for everyone, but don't be angry against those who can do it.

i personally would love to see the whole thing just fucking fall in on their heads. spoiled brats need a reality check. and you can't wean a baby without TAKING the breast away first. Hehe. My friends are well established enough to sit back and rake in the dough, hand over fist. Sorry, no falling thru for them.
Mine you, my friends lived in the middle of the woods with no power for years. They did install a generator and only ran it when needed. They hand built their cabin, caught rain water and had a pump to draw water from the spring.

i have no problem with gasoline prices jumping to $6 a gallon. i just won't go anywhere, and i will walk ALOT. and people will have to slow down, and learn to run on ndn time. "i'll get there when i get there." I hope it hits $20 a gallon. Then I'll start driving because a lot more people will be walking and it will be safer for me too drive then. I have major bitches about people who drive while talking on their cell phone, it almost cost me my life because some jackass wasn't watching what they were doing and chitchatting instead.

southern appalachian biosphere?http://samab.org/About/reserve.html I'm right next to the Smokys, so close I could throw a stone and hit a deer.:) My son is in 4H and learning about it and I volunteer. They go to great lengths to protect the forest and species within. It's sooo interesting and an awesome place to live.

sorry about the rich thing. i have a chip on my shoulder about them. the majority live in a world of their own making and have no problem thinking and living like paris hilton and the ilk.That's ok, thanks. I have the opposite problem, I get pissy with poor folk who bitch and cry about life but don't do a damn thing to help them selfs along. Those who act like Paris are snobs and rub others nose it in. I'm not usually like that until folk try to say I am.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm somehow excusing industry. Of course, saying industry is at fault also does not excuse your actions anymore than Paris Hilton can try to excuse herself by saying that O.J. committed murder.
No, you seemed to be trying to pin it on [['many Americans (perhaps more than half) care more about having a huge or sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles.']]

But you don't seem to understand, I'm a conservative and I don't have an 'actions' that need excusing.

I'd wager you do more environmental damage in half a year then I could do in a year with both of my vehicles. Mind you, I walk, I hate driving.



You need to recognize that planets don't have perfectly circular orbits, so all planets go through heating and cooling cycles....and since Neptune is so far away from the Sun, it takes Neptune well over 100 years to complete one cycle. And before you jump on the orbital cycle thing, don't worry, climatologists are well aware of that when they consider global warming. Yes, I do realize this.
But I also see the difference between 'global warming caused by man' and 'global warming caused by intergalactic influences'.



The net negative impact of suddenly changing the planet's climate from what it is now isn't in dispute among anyone who has given it any real thought. Do yourself a favor and do some research before listening to Travh's exercises in ignorance.
Point being, Leper.
We as mankind can try to do what we can to stop 'our' warming of the globe,and let's even say we got it to a point of mankind having NO affect on global warming:
~The earth will STILL continue to get warmer because it is part of a bigger place *space* there are changes that will occur to this earth that man can not prevent.
There are changes happening across space affecting neptune. These SAME changes will take place whether or not we already have global warming going on. These same changes will affect earth.
I don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. If you don't get what I'm saying, I don't see the sense in trying to explain it anymore.

No, you seemed to be trying to pin it on [['many Americans (perhaps more than half) care more about having a huge or sporty vehicle than the environmental consequences of driving those vehicles.']]

I'm not sure how you associate that statement with industry.

But you don't seem to understand, I'm a conservative and I don't have an 'actions' that need excusing.

I'd wager you do more environmental damage in half a year then I could do in a year with both of my vehicles. Mind you, I walk, I hate driving.

When I said "your actions," I didn't mean you personally; I meant any individual's actions.



Yes, I do realize this.
But I also see the difference between 'global warming caused by man' and 'global warming caused by intergalactic influences'.

Point being, Leper.
We as mankind can try to do what we can to stop 'our' warming of the globe,and let's even say we got it to a point of mankind having NO affect on global warming:
~The earth will STILL continue to get warmer because it is part of a bigger place *space* there are changes that will occur to this earth that man can not prevent.
There are changes happening across space affecting neptune. These SAME changes will take place whether or not we already have global warming going on. These same changes will affect earth.
I don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. If you don't get what I'm saying, I don't see the sense in trying to explain it anymore.

I recognize the difference between natural climate changes and manmade ones. I, nor anyone else, is suggesting that we try to stop natural climate alterations since we can't even control manmade ones. When the term "global warming" is thrown around, people are typically talking about anthropogenic global warming.

then you're completely ignoring the infrastructure. power plants (especially on the east coast) are already pushed to the limit, so new ones will need to be built. that will take trucks, cement, steel, copper, transmission lines, trains, coal, and land.

No, I'm not. Energy produced at a plant is much, much more efficient than energy produced by a vehicle. Google it if you don't believe me (And avoid the Exxon campaign that was designed to smother the production of electric vehicles).

Point being, Leper.
We as mankind can try to do what we can to stop 'our' warming of the globe,and let's even say we got it to a point of mankind having NO affect on global warming:
~The earth will STILL continue to get warmer because it is part of a bigger place *space* there are changes that will occur to this earth that man can not prevent.
There are changes happening across space affecting neptune. These SAME changes will take place whether or not we already have global warming going on. These same changes will affect earth.
I don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. If you don't get what I'm saying, I don't see the sense in trying to explain it anymore.

That's fine and dandy, the earth has gone through these cycles for billions of years. The problem is right now we're changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and we don't know how it will effect the planet.

Please show me which statement is false:

A. CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, which holds more heat within the atmoshpere.
B. Humans have released record amounts of CO2 into the atmoshpere.

A+B=

C. Humans are driving global warming/climate change.
D. Humans may not be the only forse propelling Global Warming/Climate Change

Please show me which statment, if any, is false and why. Anyone.
Still waiting...

We as mankind can try to do what we can to stop 'our' warming of the globe,and let's even say we got it to a point of mankind having NO affect on global warming:
~The earth will STILL continue to get warmer because it is part of a bigger place *space* there are changes that will occur to this earth that man can not prevent.
There are changes happening across space affecting neptune. These SAME changes will take place whether or not we already have global warming going on. These same changes will affect earth. As CBL said there is a swarth of toxic chemicals swirling around the planet, the effects of which we don't know (but im betting 'not good') AND these changes in the climate on earth are happening much faster then they would naturally. When it occurs slowly animals and plants have time to migrate. When it occurs fast, they die. If they die, we die. Simple as that.

And IMP sorry to say it but your knowledge on life, ecosystems and the planet in general seems severly lacking. I find it odd that you are getting frustrated with other members for not 'understanding you.' Perhaps they don't understand you because you are useing an inadequate and flawed set of assumptions.

No, I'm not. Energy produced at a plant is much, much more efficient than energy produced by a vehicle. Google it if you don't believe me (And avoid the Exxon campaign that was designed to smother the production of electric vehicles).
i'm considering the cost of smelting the copper, and the steel that comes with building more power plants or even the transmission lines if you could squeeze anymore juice out of ones that can't supply the NE now...building new cars to replace ones that don't otherwise need to be is a whole different matter. what's available now that's fit to be used as a service vehicle in a hybrid?

don't get me wrong, i don't want this idea to fail. i just don't see how it's going to happen when no one wants a power plant in their back yard and NYC traffic won't move fast enough to get over 30mph so the car will recharge itself.

and damn...my power just flashed...it's going to be a long summer.

Pay your bill

Pay your bill
i have been...things are going to get bad when i turn the A/C on:eek:

Well fone the power company.
Tell them to thro a couple more trees on the burner.

Well fone the power company.
Tell them to thro a couple more trees on the burner.
it might be that i'm the only one in the neighborhood without the A/C on...it's 87 and sunny out there (31 for the metric minded)...they were supposed to have fixed that last year...Grrrr!

87 and sunny.
Which state u in.
To hot for me.
Somethings wrong, its dark here.

87 and sunny.
Which state u in.
To hot for me.
Somethings wrong, its dark here.
Michigan...but that'll change tomorrow-thunderstorms tonight, an the highest temp in the forecast for the weekend is 71:woohoo:

i'm going fishing:drinktoth

Michigan.
OK its now on my, dont go there list.

Michigan.
OK its now on my, dont go there list.
you'd like Detriot [sic]...bunches of bars...come to think of it, even up north, they rate neighboring towns by the number of bars:lolhit:

From what Ive seen of Detroit on TV I like it.
Run down but its got character.
I dont like the temp. being over 80, cause I start to get irratable and want to sit in the shade and drink beer hehe

From what Ive seen of Detroit on TV I like it.
Run down but its got character.
I dont like the temp. being over 80, cause I start to get irratable and want to sit in the shade and drink beer hehe
all the bars have A/C....and/or patios

Whos Patio.

Now. Global Warming. Is 87f unusual for this time of year.

Whos Patio.

Now. Global Warming. Is 87f unusual for this time of year.
not really...but we did sort of skip spring.


and it's patio as in a deck, not Patty O':lolhit:

87.
Global Warming see.

87.
Global Warming see.
tied for the record for the date...
Daily Averages for Fenton, MI January February March April May June July August September October November December

Day Sunrise Sunset Avg. High Avg. Low Mean Record High Record Low
1 6:29 AM 8:35 PM 63°F 40°F 52°F 86°F (1942) 24°F (1903)
2 6:28 AM 8:36 PM 64°F 40°F 52°F 85°F (1913) 27°F (1984)
3 6:27 AM 8:37 PM 64°F 41°F 52°F 88°F (1938) 26°F (1986)
4 6:25 AM 8:38 PM 64°F 41°F 53°F 90°F (1895) 23°F (2005)
5 6:24 AM 8:39 PM 65°F 41°F 53°F 91°F (1895) 25°F (1900)
6 6:23 AM 8:41 PM 65°F 42°F 53°F 89°F (1949) 27°F (1968)
7 6:21 AM 8:42 PM 66°F 42°F 54°F 88°F (1936) 26°F (1997)
8 6:20 AM 8:43 PM 66°F 42°F 54°F 88°F (1936) 28°F (1950)
9 6:19 AM 8:44 PM 67°F 43°F 55°F 89°F (1930) 26°F (1947)
10 6:18 AM 8:45 PM 67°F 43°F 55°F 92°F (1936) 22°F (1966)
11 6:17 AM 8:46 PM 67°F 43°F 55°F 90°F (1922) 27°F (1907)
12 6:15 AM 8:47 PM 68°F 44°F 56°F 89°F (1899) 27°F (1907)
13 6:14 AM 8:48 PM 68°F 44°F 56°F 89°F (1940) 28°F (1946)
14 6:13 AM 8:49 PM 68°F 45°F 56°F 87°F (1962) 25°F (1901)
15 6:12 AM 8:50 PM 69°F 45°F 57°F 90°F (1962) 26°F (1895)
16 6:11 AM 8:51 PM 69°F 45°F 57°F 93°F (1901) 23°F (1895)
17 6:10 AM 8:53 PM 70°F 46°F 58°F 89°F (1962) 24°F (1895)
18 6:09 AM 8:54 PM 70°F 46°F 58°F 90°F (1998) 29°F (1973)
19 6:08 AM 8:55 PM 70°F 46°F 58°F 91°F (1911) 23°F (1895)
20 6:07 AM 8:56 PM 71°F 47°F 59°F 92°F (1934) 29°F (1895)
21 6:07 AM 8:57 PM 71°F 47°F 59°F 93°F (1921) 25°F (1895)
22 6:06 AM 8:58 PM 71°F 47°F 59°F 91°F (1934) 32°F (1929)
23 6:05 AM 8:59 PM 72°F 48°F 60°F 88°F (1936) 28°F (1963)
24 6:04 AM 8:59 PM 72°F 48°F 60°F 87°F (1936) 32°F (1956)
25 6:03 AM 9:00 PM 72°F 48°F 60°F 88°F (1965) 30°F (1992)
26 6:03 AM 9:01 PM 73°F 49°F 61°F 92°F (1933) 25°F (1895)
27 6:02 AM 9:02 PM 73°F 49°F 61°F 93°F (1911) 28°F (1915)
28 6:01 AM 9:03 PM 73°F 49°F 61°F 91°F (1931) 31°F (1894)
29 6:01 AM 9:04 PM 73°F 50°F 62°F 97°F (1895) 30°F (1894)
30 6:00 AM 9:05 PM 74°F 50°F 62°F 94°F (1919) 33°F (1996)
31 6:00 AM 9:06 PM 74°F 50°F 62°F 97°F (1919) 34°F (1984)


which has stood since 1936, but tomorrow will be just below average.

Gets dark early there at this time of year.

1936 was about the time of the dustbowl wasnt it.

Gets dark early there at this time of year.

1936 was about the time of the dustbowl wasnt it.
we change our clocks for just that effect...Daylight Savings Time, we call it.

i think it was the mid-30s...drought, dust, heat...some people thought it was the end of the world.

Are you gonna draw a connection from then and now.


Gets dark here about 10:30 at nite this time of year.

no real connection unless it's a cycle, but unless there were better records from the 1800s, there's no way to tell.

on the other hand, if there was as much pavement, and A/C running back then, the urban areas would have been a whole lot worse!

Yeah. The hairy elephant didnt like it either. You only see him in the Smithonian these days.

Yeah. The hairy elephant didnt like it either. You only see him in the Smithonian these days.
i think that had more to do with humans hunting practices...once we find something that tastes good we hunt it to extiction...say good bye to the cod :(

I sen the theory on TV.
Indians hunted the hairy elephant to extinction, not convinced.
If that was the case howd the buffalo survive until the white man.

I sen the theory on TV.
Indians hunted the hairy elephant to extinction, not convinced.
If that was the case howd the buffalo survive until the white man.
ask the camels that use to live in north america...the American bison was next. we pale faces just sped it up feeding Europe's need to be fashionable.


good thing for the beaver that beaver hats fell out of style:(

ask the camels that use to live in north america...the American bison was next. we pale faces just sped it up feeding Europe's need to be fashionable.


good thing for the beaver that beaver hats fell out of style:(

I wouldn't KNOW from Beaver,but the most recent item to back up
Global Warming is some New study that proves the Southern Ocean
is way too full of Carbon.The Ocean cannot take in much more carbon
from the atmosphere and therefore is causing stronger and hotter
winds to disrupt normal weather patterns.
Least one forget that in the 70's,there was an Ice Age scare that never
bloomed.I mean,done develop.

the hunting practice theory doesn't wash people. there were a hell of a lot more animals than people. it would have taken a huge number of people all over the continent hunting with just spears and atlatls to make them extinct.

the weather changes theory works better.

the hunting practice theory doesn't wash people. there were a hell of a lot more animals than people. it would have taken a huge number of people all over the continent hunting with just spears and atlatls to make them extinct.

the weather changes theory works better.

I don't suppose Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection holes mush water,
today.Or Carbon fur dat matter.

idiot.

I sen the theory on TV.
Indians hunted the hairy elephant to extinction, not convinced.
If that was the case howd the buffalo survive until the white man.

I don't see it either. For some reason the guilt trippers among us feel that anything that goes extinct since man arrived on the scene went extinct before it's time , because of man of course. It's like nothing is supposed to ever go extinct again, even though more species have come and gone before we showed up then we will ever know about. How did those all go extinct? Why do we seem to think it is our responsibility to make sure nothing ever goes extinct again, or that the climate should never change again for that matter?

we are reasonainf human beings. WE have the ability to stop and change certain things. but not meteors hitting the planet, or sun spots, or volcanoes, but WE are responsible for more carbon emissions into the atmosphere. idiot.

Ivan, what percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by human activity?

I believe we've added an additional 25% of CO2 to our atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

I tried looking for a source briefly that would confirm/deny this, but turned up empty.

lol, 25%????

lol, 25%????


It takes a monumental fool to laugh at 25% in a planetary context.

first of all, you still havent given us the scale on which 25% is based. if it is just 25 % more then it was 100 years ago (which you still havent proven) that in itself means nothing. TIme and time again I ask and all you do is call me a fool. In order for it to mean anything we need a start and end point. For all we know an increase of 25 % in the past 100 years is just getting us back up to normal. And if you insist on callin git a "global scale" perhaps you should furnish us C02 records for the entire life span of the globe.

your days of just throwing numbers out there and calling anyone who questions them a fool are over.

For all we know an increase of 25 % in the past 100 years is just getting us back up to normal. bwahahahaaaa...trav you fuckin moran...(<-- look it up)
Yes obviously nature caused humans to begin burning massive amounts of carbon to bring Earth back into balence. It all makes sense now.

Oh and what exactly caused a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place? too many trees?...

Hmmm... so we have scientific testing and analysis of historic records vs. Trav pulling some shit out of his ass...I know what I'd stake the future on...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-21-co2-buildup_x.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

first of all, you still havent given us the scale on which 25% is based. if it is just 25 % more then it was 100 years ago (which you still havent proven) that in itself means nothing. TIme and time again I ask and all you do is call me a fool. In order for it to mean anything we need a start and end point. For all we know an increase of 25 % in the past 100 years is just getting us back up to normal. And if you insist on callin git a "global scale" perhaps you should furnish us C02 records for the entire life span of the globe.

your days of just throwing numbers out there and calling anyone who questions them a fool are over.



Lol, if Orville Wright buzzed you in a glider, you would be denouncing him because he was unable to prove his flight wasn't caused by a gust of wind.

still, nothign any of you say proves anything. You can not prove that any of this is unprecedented, and you can prove man is "causing" the globla warming. I am not denying that the temerature has gone up 1 degree on average, I am denying there is anything we could do about it even if we wanted to. We couldnt heat the earth up 10 degrees if we tried, we couldnt cool it down 1 degree if we tried. There are forces way beyond our comprehension at work here. If you think CO2 alone is causing all of this it is you who are a fool. Take all of the CO2 man has made out and you would still have global warming.

still, nothign any of you say proves anything. You can not prove that any of this is unprecedented, and you can prove man is "causing" the globla warming. I am not denying that the temerature has gone up 1 degree on average, I am denying there is anything we could do about it even if we wanted to. We couldnt heat the earth up 10 degrees if we tried, we couldnt cool it down 1 degree if we tried. There are forces way beyond our comprehension at work here. If you think CO2 alone is causing all of this it is you who are a fool. Take all of the CO2 man has made out and you would still have global warming.

No, I can't prove anything according to your standards and level of comprehension, Trav. Not gravity, not basic chemistry, and not even that 2+2=4. I completely acknowledge that.

And you will never have proof that global warming exists, because you don't believe in statistics, trending graphs, empirical studies, or relying on someone's expertise.

The reality is probably that you are addicted to a wasteful and care-free lifestyle, and you refuse to believe anything that could interfere with that, just like a cokehead refuses to believe that too much cocaine is bad for them.

so are you confident if there were no humans on earth this warming trend would NOT be happening?

so are you confident if there were no humans on earth this warming trend would NOT be happening?

:rolleyes: Yessss....

that's retarded. How do you explain all the climate change that has happened in the billions of years before humans got here?

so are you confident if there were no humans on earth this warming trend would NOT be happening? nope. But just because the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles does not mean that the release of greenhouse gases doesn't either.

You're using 'creationist logic' Trah. If you can't prove evolution 100% then creationism must be the answer. No, sorry, doesn't work that way....

so in your mind we have done more damage to the atmosphere in the last 100 years then was done by natural proccess such as volcanos and solar storms in the previous 3 billion? maybe you should think a little deeper into what it is exactly that you are implying. Maybe after we get a handle on climate control we can start working on eartquake prevention :rolleyes:

and I am nt a creationist, so stop trying to label me as shuch in some pathetic attempt to discredit me.

we have done more damage to the atmosphere in the last 100 years then was done by natural proccess such as volcanos and solar storms in the previous 3 billion?

Yes. By "Damage" of course, I am referring to changes to the environment outside of natural phenomenon that threatens the delicate ecological balance that creates the conditions that supports life on our planet.

Volcanos and Solar storms are natural phenomenon that created those conditions in the first place. Man-made pollution is a new factor added to that equation which is added on top of all the other conditions that created the delicate balance we enjoy living in.

and I am nt a creationist, so stop trying to label me as shuch in some pathetic attempt to discredit me. my god youre daft. I never called you a creationist.