i believe humans are the cause of global warming,and im not going to go any further cz i dont want to argue with you.ok?bye.
That's a real scientific view, there. I believe, therefore it is true! I don't want to argue, so I'm going to declare victory!

That's a real scientific view, there. I believe, therefore it is true! I don't want to argue, so I'm going to declare victory!
Something tells me Paula has neither the ability nor the inclination to succeed in the debate sections. :)

I agree, DF. Not everyone agrees on issues like anthropocentric global warming or even if global warming is actually taking place but at least most posters can back up their views with some sort of facts. Very few say, I believe it so it is true and I'm not going to talk about it any more.

That's a real scientific view, there. I believe, therefore it is true! I don't want to argue, so I'm going to declare victory!
Technically, she didn't declare victory. She just said, "I believe!" and bounced.

Now if only I could figure out how to get a religious debate to end any other way.

I agree, DF. Not everyone agrees on issues like anthropocentric global warming or even if global warming is actually taking place but at least most posters can back up their views with some sort of facts. Very few say, I believe it so it is true and I'm not going to talk about it any more.

That approach belongs in the religious section :)

That's a real scientific view, there. I believe, therefore it is true! I don't want to argue, so I'm going to declare victory!
uh did i say it was true?no.i said it was my opinion..:rolleyes:

everyone believes something different and you dont HAVE TO ABSOLUTLY HAVE something to back it up unless your a scientist or something so yeah.:)you can believe watever you want to.

everyone believes something different and you dont HAVE TO ABSOLUTLY HAVE something to back it up unless your a scientist or something so yeah.:)you can believe watever you want to.
That's true, but the point of debating is to back up your arguments and try to convince people. :)

uh did i say it was true?no.i said it was my opinion..:rolleyes:
But the debate you're in is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

But the debate you're in is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
sure it is...if you're a liberal economist looking for an excuse to redistribute wealth to the 3rd world.

everyone believes something different and you dont HAVE TO ABSOLUTLY HAVE something to back it up unless your a scientist or something so yeah.:)you can believe watever you want to.

You're right. I believe I'll have another slice of pizza.

Al Gore is nothing more then a holy roller warning us that if we dont change our ways we will all burn.

Al Gore is nothing more then a holy roller warning us that if we dont change our ways we will all burn.

Or freeze, or die of drought, or drown.

The global warming crowd blames man caused global warming for every change in the weather, cold, heat, drought, floods, it's all because of global warming.

They do. And as the weather stays cold and blizzards come and go, it starts being refered to as "climate change". In the summer, when it gets hot, it will revert to "global warming".

The scientists don't however...
You people are too influenced by media, they will exaggerate anything to sell more.

yes, because the media is well known for it's denial of man made global warming :rolleyes:

yes, because the media is well known for it's denial of man made global warming :rolleyes:

US media maybe...
I'm always skeptical to the way media represent any cause, if I want to make up an opinion about an issue, I read proper research made by people who actually work on it rather than guess or cherrypick whatever fits todays headlines :)

He was being facetious. The U.S. media have been screaming, GLOBAL WARMING as much as any other media.

He was being facetious. The U.S. media have been screaming, GLOBAL WARMING as much as any other media.

Well, I don't watch US media, so I wouldn't know.
Media loves drama, you can't deny that...

In the U. S. the main stream media loves liberalism, not just drama.

yes, because the media is well known for it's denial of man made global warming :rolleyes:
Don't you watch Fox?

You started a blog site with Vinny, Casey so you no longer have any cache' around here. You sold out. Fie on you, Borg, fie.:)

I don't watch fox news or any other news

Ooops! Another nail in the Global Warming coffin. Just how many nails does it take before the GW activists admit Global Warming is not occuring.


http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_hadcrut.jpg
Blog: Science Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM





World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Your saying that one years temeratures erase a global trend-why ?

Paul, Don't you get it? There is no warming trend.
Every time there is a short term spike in temperature the GW Commandoes claim it is proof of Global Warming but when we have a really cold winter it is discounted as a mere blip.

The issue is politicised beyond reason.
Scientists tell us the planet is warming.
Those who dont wish to change how things are-say it aint.

One side is wrong, the planets future is at stake.

the evidence is more and more showing that the Goreites are wrong.

Paul, Don't you get it? There is no warming trend.
Every time there is a short term spike in temperature the GW Commandoes claim it is proof of Global Warming but when we have a really cold winter it is discounted as a mere blip.
Aren't you just doing the opposite? Whenever there's a short-term drop in temperature you hail it as the death of global warming, but whenever it gets really warm you call it a blip? How about we agree that both are blips and that all we can do is look at long-term charts, which show a slight increase in global temperature over the past 50 or so years?

Less than a degree of warming over five decades does not add up to global warming. It adds up to a statistical pimple on an elephant's ass.

Less than a degree of warming over five decades does not add up to global warming. It adds up to a statistical pimple on an elephant's ass.
So says one guy on the Internet. I'll listen to scientists and climatologists, not Frogger. Sorry, but your (or my) opinion adds up to nothing more than a pimple on an elephant's ass when it comes to science.

I didn't post my opinion. I posted a scientific article.

I didn't post my opinion. I posted a scientific article.
I wasn't aware that blogs counted as scientific articles now.

Borg,
Are you suggesting the blog made up the facts and fabricated the chart showing temperatures?

How about this article about snow cover in the U.S.?




Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.




http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Borg,
Are you suggesting the blog made up the facts and fabricated the chart showing temperatures?

How about this article about snow cover in the U.S.?
Frogger, you're doing the same thing you accuse the global warming hysteria-mongers of doing: Looking at a limited data set and making wild inferences from them. This is the important chart, far better than any one year outlier:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I notice that your chart stops at the year 2,000. Has nothing happened since then?

Talk about cherry picking.

I notice that your chart stops at the year 2,000. Has nothing happened since then?

Talk about cherry picking.
Frogger, are you looking at a different chart than me? I count seven data points after the 2000 mark.

Oh, yeah, there they are in the corner. I see they are going down. If we add this year's down quite a bit.

O.K. this may sound incredibly stupid and I know I'm leaving myself wide open by saying that.

But according to that chart we're only a few degrees away from melting the ice caps?

Welcome to Global Warming.

*Borg's Chart*

I wonder what happened to cause the dips you see along the way. I wonder why, if it's sooo bad and global warming is on the rise, as they say, why the line doesn't just go straight up?

Thing is, Inviolable, if you read the story of the melting ice caps and those poooor polar bears trapped and dying and believe it....then a few months later read from the photographer they were taken in the fall when the ice melts, then you see the obvious twist and slants they are using to try to panic everyone about global warming.
It really makes you wonder about all the hype they are shoving at us to swallow and hold as truth.

I wonder what happened to cause the dips you see along the way. I wonder why, if it's sooo bad and global warming is on the rise, as they say, why the line doesn't just go straight up?
:rolleyes: Do I really need to recount a bunch of potential variables about what might cause the Earth to heat up or cool down temporarily? Come on, Imp, you're smarter than to ask a question like that.
It really makes you wonder about all the hype they are shoving at us to swallow and hold as truth.
Ah, that's the problem, isn't it? You have all these idiots running around yelling that the sky is falling, and that's why no one takes it seriously. Personally, I say let the Earth warm up. Why should the global temperature remain constant? But I assure you, that the Earth has been getting warmer is as much a fact as is evolution or the fact that the Earth goes 'round the Sun. Why this is occurring is up in the air, as are the effects this will have on the planet, but it is definitely happening.

*Borg's Chart*
Thing is, Inviolable, if you read the story of the melting ice caps and those poooor polar bears trapped and dying and believe it....then a few months later read from the photographer they were taken in the fall when the ice melts, then you see the obvious twist and slants they are using to try to panic everyone about global warming.
It really makes you wonder about all the hype they are shoving at us to swallow and hold as truth.
Trust me, I dont take them people seriously.
The weather has been a little weird I have to admit. When I was a kid we would always have a foot or so of snow before Christmas but now it's after Christmas.

Even when we have sub zero temps in Nov and Dec we rarely have heavy snow fall. For the most part, winter is still cold and summer is still hot.

I was watching the discovery channel about a small ice age in the 1600's.
Maybe the worlds doing an about face now. I dont know. I cant say.
Only thing I know for sure is, if the planet is warming up, there isnt much we can do about it.

I'm not saying I dont care, but the tree huggers have won either way.

I'm all for alternate fuel. If it's cheaper I'll use it. I have a 15 gallon tank in my car that cost $40 to fill up. I think the government is actually doing it on purpose to get us to want to switch to alternate fuel sources.
To be completely honest. Anything that is cheaper, I'm all for it. If it cuts down the price of gas for my car and utility bills in my house, bring it on!

I'd rather spend the money for my electric bill on my family.
I am very interested in self sufficient houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_building

As long as the maintenance bill is way smaller then my utility bill would be, I'd be happy.

Do I really need to recount a bunch of potential variables about what might cause the Earth to heat up or cool down temporarily?
haha, that's funny Borg.
The main point being if man was making an impact in the 'carbon print of global warming', then it would steady go down, not up and down and up and...

Leads me to believe the fluctuation has very little at all to do with our influence on global warming.

Ah, that's the problem, isn't it? You have all these idiots running around yelling that the sky is falling, and that's why no one takes it seriously. Personally, I say let the Earth warm up. Why should the global temperature remain constant? But I assure you, that the Earth has been getting warmer is as much a fact as is evolution or the fact that the Earth goes 'round the Sun. Why this is occurring is up in the air, as are the effects this will have on the planet, but it is definitely happening. I'm with ya, let it warm up, saves on heating bills.

Yeah well, thing is, I was believing some of what they were saying, trying to be open minded to the fact that man was playing a big part of it, until it was debunked as mere propaganda. Now I'm calling bullshit.

It's all just a natural cycle of the earth, soon a global cooling will be coming and guarantee they'll be jumping on that band wagon next.

A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1987d3e5-0c53-46fb-a01a-74bb49718c8e&k=97665&p=1)
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, January 07, 2008

'Something other than CO2 and CO2-related feedbacks ... are playing a large role in the region's recent temperature trends."

Read that again and keep in mind the "the region" being referred to is the Arctic. The plain meaning is that the warming in the Arctic is not only -- or even mostly -- man-made. It is not the result of carbon emissions, no matter how often we have been warned that this past summer's melt was unprecedented and a foreboding harbinger of a coming global meltdown.

In the most recent issue of Nature -- a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria -- Rune Graversen and others from the meteorology department at Stockholm University postulate that the recent, allegedly dangerous Arctic thaw is far from unique in history. Rather than being the result of man-made climate change, they argue, the warming northern seas and tundra mainly result from atmospheric energy transfers from southern latitudes to northern.

In other words, tropical storms and atmospheric currents travelling from the tropics to the Arctic have shifted a large amount of heat from equatorial regions to the North.

In addition to being natural, this is also a cyclical phenomenon. It has happened before and will happen again. Big melts up north very likely occurred well before industrialization and will almost certainly recur periodically even if we cork all our factory stacks and shut off all our car engines. Maybe Arctic warming is just something the Earth does occasionally to let off steam in the tropics.

Are man-made emissions magnifying the warming? The Swedes think they may be, but their effect pales next to that of nature's own south-to-north heat conveyor.

Remember, too, amidst all the headlines about catastrophic Arctic warming, there are reliable satellite images of Arctic ice coverage going back only to 1979 and -- at least in the Western hemisphere -- reliable surface and air observations going back to just 1972. So-called "record" melting is only a record compared to the past 30 or 40 years.

Then there was the news in early December that Icelandic and Norwegian scientists had determined an ancient polar bear jawbone they had discovered in 2004 was 110,000 to 130,000 years old.

What has that got to do with global warming? Only that it proves Ursus maritimus was a separate species before the Eeemian interglacial period. The Eeemian was a much warmer period than our own Holocene period, yet the big white predators managed to survive it without endangered species protection or the hand-wringing of environmentalists.

Professor Olafur Ingolfsson of the University of Iceland told the BBC "this is telling us that despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be so worried about the polar bear."

Moreover, while we in the West have good Arctic weather data for only the past half century or less, the Russians -- with their northern military bases, scientific stations and gulags -- have records going back more than a century. And many Russian scientists are convinced the Earth has entered (or soon will enter) a sustained period of cooling, rather than calamitous warming.

Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory, was quoted by Russian news agencies last week saying the Earth has passed the heat peak. The recent active period of solar activity has ended and noticeably colder temperatures could begin as soon as 2012.

Are all these facts proof positive that man-made global warming is no threat? No. But they are proof that many reputable climate scientists disagree with the alarmist belief that our planet is headed for doom unless we all remark our lifestyles drastically and turn over global energy policy to the UN.

And what about hurricanes? We have just finished the second straight year of below-average 'cane activity. That doesn't disprove global warming either. But why is it we are bombarded by claims of a warming-hurricane link only in bad years, yet hear nothing from environmentalists in good years?

My point is that coverage of global warming and climate change have become horribly one-sided. Every report about a disappearing tree tick or nasty bout of rainfall that seems to support the received wisdom is blared loud and wide, while stories that might undermine it are seldom given more than brief mention.

If the public is to make up its mind about climate change, it needs better balance.

Trust me, I dont take them people seriously.
The weather has been a little weird I have to admit. When I was a kid we would always have a foot or so of snow before Christmas but now it's after Christmas.

Even when we have sub zero temps in Nov and Dec we rarely have heavy snow fall. For the most part, winter is still cold and summer is still hot.
Yeah, I'm learning not too anymore. The weather is a bit off, but the earth has wobbled and we have lost a second or two in time, so it's nothing to get bent outta shape over.


I was watching the discovery channel about a small ice age in the 1600's.
Maybe the worlds doing an about face now. I dont know. I cant say.
Only thing I know for sure is, if the planet is warming up, there isnt much we can do about it.

I'm not saying I dont care, but the tree huggers have won either way. Yeah I watched a few hours one day of what we have to look forward too. The earth splitting from michigan to mississippi and swallowing whole cities, severe heat and drought and people dropping by the thousands and then global cooling killed many by epidemics we have supposedly gotten over. Not to mention lack of food. Nothing but doom and gloom and natural disasters everywhere you turn. :rolleyes:



I'm all for alternate fuel. If it's cheaper I'll use it. I have a 15 gallon tank in my car that cost $40 to fill up. I think the government is actually doing it on purpose to get us to want to switch to alternate fuel sources.
To be completely honest. Anything that is cheaper, I'm all for it. If it cuts down the price of gas for my car and utility bills in my house, bring it on!

I'd rather spend the money for my electric bill on my family.
I am very interested in self sufficient houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_building

As long as the maintenance bill is way smaller then my utility bill would be, I'd be happy.
That's a great idea, Inviolable. A friend of mine did that, ran solar panels in the field next to their home and run on that power, made enough to sell some to the power company. They have a well and own septic/leach bed and grow most of their own food. They hunt for meat. They are very self sufficient and pay only for gas for their machines...cars, tractors, etc.


I'm not completely self sufficient *I don't own my own house and land like my friends,yet* but I have made a big difference in my bills. I've put in energy efficient light bulbs and only drive if I have too. My electric bill {heat and electric} this month was $58 and my gas for my vehicle for the month was $40, not too bad.:D

Yeah, I'm learning not too anymore. The weather is a bit off, but the earth has wobbled and we have lost a second or two in time, so it's nothing to get bent outta shape over.

Yeah I watched a few hours one day of what we have to look forward too. The earth splitting from michigan to mississippi and swallowing whole cities, severe heat and drought and people dropping by the thousands and then global cooling killed many by epidemics we have supposedly gotten over. Not to mention lack of food. Nothing but doom and gloom and natural disasters everywhere you turn. :rolleyes:



That's a great idea, Inviolable. A friend of mine did that, ran solar panels in the field next to their home and run on that power, made enough to sell some to the power company. They have a well and own septic/leach bed and grow most of their own food. They hunt for meat. They are very self sufficient and pay only for gas for their machines...cars, tractors, etc.


I'm not completely self sufficient *I don't own my own house and land like my friends,yet* but I have made a big difference in my bills. I've put in energy efficient light bulbs and only drive if I have too. My electric bill {heat and electric} this month was $58 and my gas for my vehicle for the month was $40, not too bad.:D

I know I may regret asking this... but what is a septic/leach bed?

Signed,
City Gal

Yeah, I'm learning not too anymore. The weather is a bit off, but the earth has wobbled and we have lost a second or two in time, so it's nothing to get bent outta shape over.

Yeah I watched a few hours one day of what we have to look forward too. The earth splitting from michigan to mississippi and swallowing whole cities, severe heat and drought and people dropping by the thousands and then global cooling killed many by epidemics we have supposedly gotten over. Not to mention lack of food. Nothing but doom and gloom and natural disasters everywhere you turn. :rolleyes:



That's a great idea, Inviolable. A friend of mine did that, ran solar panels in the field next to their home and run on that power, made enough to sell some to the power company. They have a well and own septic/leach bed and grow most of their own food. They hunt for meat. They are very self sufficient and pay only for gas for their machines...cars, tractors, etc.


I'm not completely self sufficient *I don't own my own house and land like my friends,yet* but I have made a big difference in my bills. I've put in energy efficient light bulbs and only drive if I have too. My electric bill {heat and electric} this month was $58 and my gas for my vehicle for the month was $40, not too bad.:D
I've wanted to put up solar panels for a while now and have a well dug. I'd love to have free electricity. Everything in my house would be electric. lol
I dont think I'd go as far as to grow my own food and what not. But if I could spend 20 to 40K on solar panels and converting everything to electric for no utility bills, it'd be way worth it.

This from a man who delivers heating oil for a living-good one.

I know I may regret asking this... but what is a septic/leach bed?

Signed,
City Gal

Dear City Girl,

A Septic is a large tank you bury underground and your sewer runs to it. *you'll have to get it pumped out about once a year to keep it running good.*

A leech bed is pipes running off the other side of the tank and spread out, where the excess run off goes.

Signed,
Country Gal

Septic tanks kill about a dozen people here a year, mostly kids.

I've wanted to put up solar panels for a while now and have a well dug. I'd love to have free electricity. Everything in my house would be electric. lol
I dont think I'd go as far as to grow my own food and what not. But if I could spend 20 to 40K on solar panels and converting everything to electric for no utility bills, it'd be way worth it.
It's well worth the investment and pays for itself very fast. They basically hooked it all up themselves. They installed a battery panel that saves the electricity in their house. They used a closet to store it in.
The power company installed an external storage where the extra goes too.

They have a large hill with a rock on top, I was trying to talk them into putting a windmill up there. They liked the idea but are putting it somewhere else which they think would generate more power for them.

I'd definately grow my own food if I had my own land, I'd build greenhouses to keep the critters out and sell my produce or use it to barter with others who market their goods.

Septic tanks kill about a dozen people here a year, mostly kids.
Not if they were properly supervised.

Most lids to the tanks are buried a few feet underground so one would have to dig it up. and the lid should only be removed by the guy cleaning it out although I have read stories of people falling in head first and drowning. I think the reason they fall in head first is the gases that come out when you first open it.

If ya wired your house here for solar energy, youd have lite about 90 days a year.

We dont do sun :(

We dont do summer :(

If ya wired your house here for solar energy, youd have lite about 90 days a year.

We dont do sun :(

We dont do summer :(

:(

I'd move.

Not if they were properly supervised.

Most lids to the tanks are buried a few feet underground so one would have to dig it up. and the lid should only be removed by the guy cleaning it out although I have read stories of people falling in head first and drowning. I think the reason they fall in head first is the gases that come out when you first open it.

The problem here is two fold-I think.

Firstly their made of concrete, [tho for about 15 years now, building codes have stopped this practise].

The concrete detoriates when buried, and or vegetation sometimes moves or even splits the cover.

I remember having to find my Mums some years ago.
I knew roughly were it was, took me 3 days digging to find it, what a mess.

The problem here is two fold-I think.

Firstly their made of concrete, [tho for about 15 years now, building codes have stopped this practise].

The concrete detoriates when buried, and or vegetation sometimes moves or even splits the cover.

I remember having to find my Mums some years ago.
I knew roughly were it was, took me 3 days digging to find it, what a mess.

I set up a trailer deep in the country quite a few years ago in NY. We used a 1000 gal concrete tank, I'm pretty sure they are the most popular even now. I don't think the codes change on it this side of the pond.


Haha. My friend had to do the same when he bought his house, dug for days to find it.

Yeah its a shit job :D

Uh Oh.......

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

I'm gonna take a hot bath now.

SMW,

Septic tanks are sometimes known as cesspools in The States and cess pits in parts of Europe. Aussies call Americans Seppoes (sp) after septic tanks.


Some communities demand leaching fields so that the effluent is spread over a larger area than would happen with only a septic tank.

The problem here is two fold-I think.

Firstly their made of concrete, [tho for about 15 years now, building codes have stopped this practise].

only if you have access to a sewer system...can't just dump it in a stream.

The concrete detoriates when buried, and or vegetation sometimes moves or even splits the cover.

only if you use too much sand. try using a contractor that knows what they're doing.

I remember having to find my Mums some years ago.
I knew roughly were it was, took me 3 days digging to find it, what a mess.
sorry about your bad luck-was it under the greener grass?:lolhit:

SMW,

Septic tanks are sometimes known as cesspools in The States and cess pits in parts of Europe. Aussies call Americans Seppoes (sp) after septic tanks.


Some communities demand leaching fields so that the effluent is spread over a larger area than would happen with only a septic tank.
i thought "pools" & "pits" where generally "open":confused:

If ya wired your house here for solar energy, youd have lite about 90 days a year.

We dont do sun :(

We dont do summer :(
windmill? they have smaller models then the ones tha power whole towns.

i thought "pools" & "pits" where generally "open":confused:

I don't know about where you live but in New York a cesspool is a buried waste collection tank, usually made of concrete blocks stacked into a hollow, pyramidal shape and buried.

I don't know about where you live but in New York a cesspool is a buried waste collection tank, usually made of concrete blocks stacked into a hollow, pyramidal shape and buried.
here in the capital of hell, we call those septic tanks-normally with a drainage field.

only if you have access to a sewer system...can't just dump it in a stream.
Thats why you have a sceptic tank, because your NOT connected to the sewer system, and overglow seeps into the ground, not near any streams.

Here's an illustration of the septic and leech beds I was talking about, exactly like we did.

http://hudsonvalleywks.com/images/tank.jpg

Uh Oh.......

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

I'm gonna take a hot bath now.
That's beautiful! :D

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

Why would anyone run around with a shovel, looking for a septic tank? The easier way is to take an iron rod and keep poking it into the ground until you hit something hard. It might be a rock but if you move the prod and still hit it it is probably the top of the septic tank. Saves a hell of a lot of digging.

When I was a kid we had two cesspools and a grease trap. The grease trap was first in line and had a metal baffle at the inflow pipe. The metal was cooler than the water and the grease tended to congeal on it. We would periodically take out the metal and clean it and then put it back. The first cesspool, septic tank for you purists, was about twenty feet from the house and the overflow tank was about forty feet behind that. We had no leaching field.

Where were you when I was digging up half of County Tyrone :(

There is more and more evidence accumulating that shows global warming is not only not a danger but is not eaven happening.


Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

Where were you when I was digging up half of County Tyrone :(
you should have used a probe..:drinktoth

you should have used a probe..:drinktoth
OOOoooo, kinky. ;)

:drinktoth

I used a probe once in septic camp.

There is more and more evidence accumulating that shows global warming is not only not a danger but is not eaven happening.


Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

I predict in the next year the term global warming will be permanently replaced by the term climate change. It will be like global warming never existed.

Hmm-what if that change is in a warmer direction ?

I predict in the next year the term global warming will be permanently replaced by the term climate change. It will be like global warming never existed.

Uh huh, I'd have no problem predicting you're wrong - Like back in those days when you were assuming that Iraq had WMDs. Now there's a cyclical event!

I wish we could bet money on this site.

I don't know where you think all of that CO2 goes. I guess you can't hear it, smell it, or see it, therefore it doesn't exist.

Look, tell me when the climate stops changing, then I will be worried. Until then calling climate change a crisis is like being worried that water is wet.

I wish we could bet money on this site.

ROFL! That'd be a terrific idea. We could have an over/under for how many times FT uses the term "Reichwinger" in a week!

Another nail has been hammered into the anthropogenic global warming coffin. In fact a whole bunch of nails has been hammered into the coffin.

Climate panel on the hot seat
By H. Sterling Burnett
March 14, 2008
More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.
However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Another nail has been hammered into the anthropogenic global warming coffin. In fact a whole bunch of nails has been hammered into the coffin.
I swear, sometimes you're more full of hot air than our elected representatives in DC. Every study questioning some aspect of global warming is, to you, "proof" that it doesn't exist. You know that's not even close to how science works, right?

Frogger-I cant for the life of me, figure out why its so important to try and dispel global warming, is there an underlying issue here ?

I swear, sometimes you're more full of hot air than our elected representatives in DC. Every study questioning some aspect of global warming is, to you, "proof" that it doesn't exist. You know that's not even close to how science works, right?

It is a reaction to the pro global warming crowd taking any study confirming some aspect of GW as proof that man is destroying the planet. It is turning into a study contest. Who can produce the most studys, no matter how invalid or how one sided they are, that tip the balance towards their side.

Frogger-I cant for the life of me, figure out why its so important to try and dispel global warming, is there an underlying issue here ?

Paul, was it not you who were complaining about your politicians using GW as an excuse to exercise more control over our life with new taxes and regulations designed to "save the world from GW"? You should know the reasons people want to dispel the man made global warming myth.

Paul, was it not you who were complaining about your politicians using GW as an excuse to exercise more control over our life with new taxes and regulations designed to "save the world from GW"? You should know the reasons people want to dispel the man made global warming myth.

It was me yes. Here in EU green taxes are an excuse to raise extra revenue.
Thats my belief, as I see no extra funding for alternative energy of public transport initiatives.

Now, you live in one of the most 'green' states in America, and your job takes you into some beautiful locations, you tell me, 'have you seen changes' ?