Well it seems that 2005 was not the warmest year in recorded history, it was 1938.

NASA and the Warmest Year
Back in August, 2007, there was a flurry of news items about how NASA had revised its temperature measurements and was now showing 1934 to be the warmest year on record, not 1998. The global warming story was one of steadily increasing temperatures, so this sounded very significant. A lot of the right wing blogs had a field day with it and made it sound like NASA couldn't get its math straight. James Hansen of NASA and other warming researchers replied that the revision was minor and didn't change the big picture at all.


http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming2/hottest_year.html

well, things are changing in the climate. that's for sure. huge areas of the arctic and antarctic melting. that ice turns to water, and water has to go somewhere. it doesn't just disappear.

i wonder if 1934 had huge global ice sheet changes?

well, things are changing in the climate.

And water is wet, whats your point? that climate should not change?

i wonder if 1934 had huge global ice sheet changes?
the data just isn't there, is it?

sea levels have gone up and down since the dawn of time, there's nothing man can do about it unless we find a way to move the planet closer to the sun.

LOL, reminds me of the joke "Bush vows to combat global warming, sending 20,000 troops to the sun"

Back in August, 2007, there was a flurry of news items about how NASA had revised its temperature measurements and was now showing 1934 to be the warmest year on record, not 1998.
Yeah.....that's what's going-on....it's NASA that's restating the figures. :rolleyes:

*

"Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml). Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand."

[QUOTE=Mr. Shaman]Yeah.....that's what's going-on....it's NASA that's restating the figures. :rolleyes:


Ah Who cares what you say anywho.
It's generally what someone else says ...anywho.
Kinda layin low,though,ain't ya Bub.?
Bubba Schmuckerooh.

As from this week the United States will remain the only ndustrialised nation not to have signed the Kyoto Agreement-when Australia signs.

Now I dont know if its because in some peoples eyes-profits comes first,
but surely isolating itself on an International Agreement sends out the wrong
message to the rest of us.

what about china?

the only thing that has changed the climate faster than man fucking things up is a meteor strike y a large meteor.

they know that it takes a very long time to build up huge sheets of ice, but the glacial ice sheets from the ice age took approximately 30 years to melt.

a volcano can screw things up pretty good in a short ammount of time too.

anyway,
Thre was a time when half of california was covered by a glacier, where did they go? This was before man was around. Sorry, but you may be able to scare the ignorant with your "ice melting is scary" crap, but anyone with half a brain knows ice does not stay around forever. If it did we would all be living in the equatorial belt.

You seem to be very-anti global warming-Trav.

Period.

How come?

As from this week the United States will remain the only ndustrialised nation not to have signed the Kyoto Agreement-when Australia signs.

Now I dont know if its because in some peoples eyes-profits comes first,
but surely isolating itself on an International Agreement sends out the wrong
message to the rest of us.

Perhaps the message is those that signed Kyoto are just like lemmings, rushing to do something, anything, even if it does no good.

The next round at Bali will be interesting. How many lemming will there be and how far will they run?

btw, the US may be the only industrialized country not to sign Kyoto, but it is doing better at reducing its CO2 than many that have signed.

That may be-but unity is an important issue here also.

You seem to be very-anti global warming-Trav.

Period.

How come?

Because the way I look at it we can no more "stop" global warming witha bunch of concerts and by changing light bulbs then we can stop earth quakes and volcanoes with tribal dances. They are just useless gestures for a "problem" that isn't even a problem, it is a part of nature. we just happen to be scared about it because we are here and aware of it while it is happening. The earth warms and cools in great cycles that have been happening long before we were here and will continue after we are gone. telling some kid he will die an early death if he doesnt listen to some Al Gore type figure as to how to live his life is just wrong.

Because the way I look at it we can no more "stop" global warming witha bunch of concerts and by changing light bulbs then we can stop earth quakes and volcanoes with tribal dances. They are just useless gestures for a "problem" that isn't even a problem, it is a part of nature. we just happen to be scared about it because we are here and aware of it while it is happening. The earth warms and cools in great cycles that have been happening long before we were here and will continue after we are gone. telling some kid he will die an early death if he doesnt listen to some Al Gore type figure as to how to live his life is just wrong.
I understand and agree with your point-that the Earth does indeed go thru
cycles of hot and cold-hell the ice age every 12,000 years or so,proves that.

However-you got to consider that human involvement does contribute to the
process-to what degree-is arguable. Even I admit that.

The thing about it all is-in EU anyway-is that I find Government here using
it as an excuse to tax anything and everything-which really gets up my nose.

That is ultimately what it comes down to Paul. A government agency telling us what we can and cant do, what we can and cant own, where we can and cant go, all predicated on "protecting the world from global warming".

If you think it sounds stupid or tin foil hat, it will happen. I am sure you see the beginnings of it in Europe already.

Yeah I do.

I know of people who refuse to fly into or out of UK airports-flights outta the UK are hit with what is called a 'green tax'.

Food from outside EU gets hit with 'green tax' as it has to travel by plane.

Petrol (gas) is running at $2:20 a fucken litre-today.

'green tax' is the new way to screw people in EU-no doubt its on the way across the Atlantic as we speak.

So we pay over the top for EVERYTHING-while China and India-help kill the planet.

I don't deny we can "do our part".. but the message is so exaggerated... I would say we humans are probably the top of the stem of the cherry on top of the sundae as far as global warming is concerned. But nobody can prove how much of an impact we have, or if it's just natural. One side can state facts about cycles back in the day, along with recent ones.. and the other side can state facts about how greenhouse gases are so harmful.. even though CO2 makes up about 3% of all greenhouse gases.. it seems kind of silly to command so much media... but hey we all have to make Al Gore rich don't we LOL

And correct me if i'm wrong.. but how does someone go around, telling people something WE ALREADY KNOW get a nobel peace prize?

Fuck Al Gore.

He dosent live in EU having to listen to the constant bullshit which is an
excuse for over taxation.

Dude, that is like blasphemy. You can't take the name of Saint Gore in vain.

Not being an American-and over here,

actually I can-everyday this lame excuse for hiking up taxes just bugs me more.

Of course if you complain about the taxes they make you feel guilty for WANTING to destroy the world! You see, if you do not embrace tax increases that they say go to wards "combating global warming" then you pretty much hate earth and want it to turn to a ball of fire.

Anyway, Paul, any idea where this money collected in the "green tax" actually goes?

"problem" that isn't even a problem.

Some time ago approximate 2002 the amount of CO2 put in the atmophere over took the amount the earth absorbs. Here's a link about evidence for the decline of the oceans’ historical role as an important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/uoea-nas102207.php)

This is the thing-nobody really wants to talk about that.

The British Gov talk about 'carbon footprints' and 'carbon offsetting'.

Havnt a clue what that means?

Ive never seen a country who treat their resdents like children so much in my life-always telling people whats good for them/whats bad for them.

Ya can do this/ya cant do that.

Any wonder nobody like em-fucken sissys.

Some ago approximate 2002 the amount of CO2 put in the atmophere over took the amount the earth absorbs.
North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/uoea-nas102207.php)
Hello and welcome.

I have no doubt that human activity does contribute to Earth warming,

but as I said-in the EU, especially the Brits,use it as an excuse to raise

taxes.

Some time ago approximate 2002 the amount of CO2 put in the atmophere over took the amount the earth absorbs. Here's a link about evidence for the decline of the oceans’ historical role as an important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide North Atlantic slows on the uptake of CO2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/uoea-nas102207.php)

and a month from now a study will come out saying the increased surface temperatures caused by global warming has increased the number of CO2 absorbing phytoplankton. That is the problem with these studys, as soon as one comes out another comes along and says the opposite, both caused by the same thing of course.

I believe this will become the new Government scam of the century.

This is the thing-nobody really wants to talk about that.

The British Gov talk about 'carbon footprints' and 'carbon offsetting'.

Havnt a clue what that means?

Ive never seen a country who treat their resdents like children so much in my life-always telling people whats good for them/whats bad for them.

Ya can do this/ya cant do that.

Any wonder nobody like em-fucken sissys.

And it is all done in the name of saving the planet I am sure. Of course they never give any specifics on how thier taking of more of your money will solve anything. It is as if they think by taking enough of your money away you will not be able to fill your car up with gas and drive it thus saving the world.

Yes.
A radio discussion today stated that car emissions are about 5% of what comes out of power stations,yet power stations are immune to any levy,
the motorist always gets screwed-at the pump.

Air passengers get screwed-yet the airline dosent.

[QUOTE=Mr. Shaman]Yeah.....that's what's going-on....it's NASA that's restating the figures. :rolleyes:


Ah Who cares what you say anywho.
It's generally what someone else says ...
....And, sometimes how someone-else votes.

At least voters (now) have specific-targets, in '08 (that need jettisoned from Congress).....the Republicans who're supporting more federal-subsidies for the oil-companies (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/07/senate-energy-bill-fails-in-bid-for-a-final-vote/)!!

Do you think the American people will react to this type of bill killing.
If so-why now,after nearly eight years of Republican dominance.

The only things I can see that are ticking off the American voter are,

Iraq and Special powers given to the President to interpret the Constitution himself.

Here is something I found interesting...


Friday, November 30, 2007
Fox News

Scientists have found a new threat to the planet: Canadian beer drinkers.

The government-commissioned study says the old, inefficient "beer fridges" that one in three Canadian households use to store their Molson and Labatt's contribute significantly to global warming by guzzling gas- and coal-fired electricity.

"People need to understand the impact of their lifestyles," British environmental consultant Joanna Yarrow tells New Scientist magazine. "Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people — let's hope it has an effect."

The problem is that the beer fridges are mostly decades-old machines that began their second careers as beverage dispensers when Canadians upgraded to more energy-efficient models to store whatever Canadians eat besides doughnuts and poutine.

University of Alberta researcher Denise Young, who led the study, suggests that provincial authorities hold beer-fridge buy-backs or round-ups to eliminate the threat — methods that Americans use to get guns off the streets.

Scientists have found a new threat to the planet: Canadian beer drinkers.
****
I thought it was going to be about methane.

ice melts, either oeans rise, or evaporation , then it forms clouds, then storms, and voila! water goes somewhere.
i don't give a rats ass about the taxes, and such. THIS climate change CAN be placed at the door step of man. i really doubt dinaosaurs, or mammoths had a bit to do with global change in their time.
man is the reason for this one. and on top of it all there is a constant yearly extinction going on. everything is disrupted.