• Hegemone said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Yyyeah, that's not a good sign.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 22, 2009....

  You see, global warming can produce record cold temperatures as well as record hot temperatures.
  
  Global warming also causes hurricanes,desertification, flooding, more rain, less rain, tsunamis, earthquakes, tidal waves, bear markets, bull markets, bumper crops, famines, plagues, pestilence, diarrhea, migraines, hair loss, acne, arthritis and mumps, depending on whatever scientific data emerges from computer "models" that scientist working from anti-global warming grants can conjure up.
  
  And they say Bush was against science. Obama drinks deep from the pitcher of faith-based anti-global warming Kook-aid. Yes, I said Kook-aid.
  

• javadewd said on Sep 22, 2009....

  Perhaps it is a simple matter of karma...?

• buckrogers said on Sep 22, 2009....

  I lived in Alaska for several years in the 1950's and was amazed how far the glaciers had receeded, when my kids and I took a vacation up there a few years ago.  Fairbanks used to go down to minus 60's and sometimes to the upper minus 70 degrees.  Now it gets down to the low minus 40's.  There is no question in my mind of global warming and to make a political issue out of a scientific one is stupid. 

   

  You I have no clue of what you are writting about. 

• ALIENated said on Sep 23, 2009....

  And by 2050, they may be right back where they were in 1950. Is there any way to compare it to 1850? That is the problem. If it was an exact science, there would be no discussion. Too many scientists think it is just the natural ebb and flow of the planet. As I understand it, the earth was a steamy jungle, then we had an ice age (way back before man had any cars). My take is, if someone starts taking about throwing tax dollars at it, it is most likely a crock of crap. It is like some administration starting a war to get us out of a depression. I had a college history professor who claimed FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, but did nothing about it. The attack got us off the dime, into WWII, and out of the depression. Besides, are you willing to stop driving your car. Not me. (Well, I basically have because Obama is more concerned with crap like this than getting our economy back on track.)

• javadewd said on Sep 23, 2009....

  Buck : That's because they're going the other way. Been to Argentina lately? The political aspect is coming from all these "Global Warming" proponents. They are about to introduce a bill called "Cap and Trade" which will essentially raise everyone's utility bills over 250% (that's two and a half times what you are paying now, if you don't feel like doing the math). It's a huge Cap & Tax bill that will essentially kill jobs and drive the unemployment rate well beyond the collective 10%+ we are at now.
  
  ALIEN: Nobody measured the upper atmosphere for green house gases until the 60's, so how could we possibly track any damage done in the early 1900's for that matter...
  

• CountRollo said on Sep 23, 2009....

  Glaciers have been receding or advancing at intervals for MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of years, Buck. Britain has had NUMEROUS ice coverings in 'recent' millenia. No doubt you're correct about the current state of some Alaskan glaciers, but so what? They'll all be back, sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, so lighten up. Global warming is a SCAM. You will be able to BUY 'permission' to pollute from various 'agencies, all complete with their vast offices, thousands of staff, salaries, pensions, fleets of new cars, fabulous catered banquets etc, for real money. - 'Carbon Credits' they're called, and the money raised goes where? - Into mansions, bodyguards, luxury yachts, exotic cars and inflatable, trophy blonds. Shame your new President has a gaggle of barmy 'warmists' swaying him,and he's taken all the 'warming' crap on board.
  Just for fun, google up Samuel Pepys diary for, I think, JANUARY 1691. There you'll find Sam describing the roses out  in bloom and the 'flies rising, it be so warm'!! Presumably that 'warming' was caused by the exhausts from passing sedan chairs? In northern Britain the Romans made wine about 2000 years ago, -far too cool up there now. Later there was a glorious period, many decades long, in what is known as the 'medieaval warm period', followed a few centuries  later  by ferocious winters when the Thames froze so damned hard they had 'frost fairs' on it. The source of global warming is the sun, and it's irregular cycles of activity, sunspots etc. Spellings? Apologies for any errors here, but at least I haven't written 'wriTTing'!!

• CountRollo said on Sep 23, 2009....

• javadewd said on Sep 23, 2009....

  Cherio.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 23, 2009....

  I keep writing over and over that about 1000 years ago Greenland was arable enough for farmers to export wheat to Scandinavia. What the heck do scientists think Alaska looked like then?
  
  Besides, where is the scientific proof that cutting CO2 emissions by whatever percentage Obama wants will bring the glaciers back, or lower the rate of sea-level increase, or result in less powerful storms, or slow desertification, or any of the "problems" we see in our evolving climate?
  
  I can hear it now...it is boiling up...the plaintive bleat "something has to be done!" Followed by accusations that we are shills for meanie corporate capitalists, that we are racist NAZI eco-holocaust deniers, etc etc.
  
  This whole global-warming CO2 scam is about making some rich person (like Al Gore) even richer at the expense of average Americans. Liberals want all Americans to have a lower standard of living and "saving the planet" is simply their rhetoric of the day.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 24, 2009....

  I think the problem is, leftists go to movies made by other, even more left leaning leftists, and they believe every word of what is said in the movie. I have seen scientist tear Al Gwhore's movie apart and put it back together again. It is strange to me that all this leftist do-goodism eventually results in either raising taxes or increasing the cost of something (like electricity or gasoline). My take would be, do whatever you want as long as it does not raise my taxes or cause me to have to pay more for something. I guaran-fucking-tee you, Mr. Do-Gooder would shut the fuck up and move on to something else. If you do not like what the preacher is saying, you do not put money in the offering plate. If you do not like what your politicians are saying, you should not vote for them in the future. I personally wish we had an income tax form that let people choose where their tax dollars would go. You can bet your ass almost no one would be supporting some of the crap Democrats / Socialists are trying to push on us under Obama.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 25, 2009....

  Alien - interesting idea. It would be very cool if taxpayers could allocate their contributions by percentage the way 401k programs can be allocated - 50% military, 20% health care, etc.
  
  I would vote for a bare minimum for salaries and benefits to our largely useless congresspeople.
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 26, 2009....

  It would be interesting if the IRS offered those kind of questions if only to check the pulse of the nation. It would be a true poll. However, it might surprise us that it all worked out about the same, most conservative would the the boxes for A, B, and C, and most liberals would check the boxes for D, E, and F. There would be some overlap, but I bet some things would not be supported by anyone. I just wish voters would pay better attention to the people they vote for. Even Bush did not do a lot of the things he said he would do. I figure 9/11 changed the whole substance of his presidency.

• ALIENated said on Sep 26, 2009....

  It would be interesting if the IRS offered those kind of questions if only to check the pulse of the nation. It would be a true poll. However, it might surprise us that it all worked out about the same, most conservatives would check the boxes for A, B, and C, and most liberals would check the boxes for D, E, and F. There would be some overlap, but I bet some things would not be supported by anyone. I just wish voters would pay better attention to the people they vote for and hold them accountable in the next election. Even Bush did not do a lot of the things he said he would do. I figure 9/11 changed the whole substance of his presidency.

• BELOW_TOP_SECRET said on Sep 26, 2009....

  I love the heat though!

• BELOW_TOP_SECRET said on Sep 26, 2009....

  Global warming might be good for sun tans!

• ALIENated said on Sep 26, 2009....

  And, if it works like in Bladerunner, where it rains a lot, then no more drought. No more water rationing in the summer. Trees and plants will grow wildly and replentish the oxygen and restore the balance. Oops. There goes the rain. It is almost like the world goes around in cycles. But how can we use that to raise taxes and further enslave people to big government. And liberals are supposed to be smart.

• javadewd said on Sep 28, 2009....

  Bladerunner, Johnny Mnemonic, Snow Crash, Mona Lisa Overdrive, Cyber Punk ... I'm telling you guys, the back-lash of all this happy shit will not be pretty for anybody!
  

• Black_lotus said on Sep 28, 2009....

     

  QUIT CALLING IT GLOBAL WARMING, call it climate change, because for some reason when you call it global warming some people get confused and think it means that everything suddenly heats up. that's not how it works, the planet is made of very complex systems, if you're going to argue about it at least understand the basics.

  The only real reason some people don't believe it is because it scares them, a perfectly human response. so buck up and get your head out of your ass.

  there's no reason for anyone to make it up, it doesn't help anyone, that theory is completely irrational.

  putting global warming with politics is also stupid, it's not a matter of opinion, it doesn't matter what a political party thinks, because contrary to popular belief a president can't change chemistry.

  And no we don't have all the answers, we are only human after all (though we would probably have a lot more answers if stupid people didn't get in the way) maybe we're off by a few numbers but that doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, and either way what harm is going to come from helping the environment we've already raped and mutilated.

  speaking of which, for all you religious zealots, do you think god's happy about us ass fucking his creation, you think maybe "a ball of fire" might have something to do with "climate change," no you didn't think of that, because even though the paper you use for you're bibles, your churches, the god damn, yes I said it, god damn clothes on your back are all products we wouldn't have without science, despite that you still need to jump out waving your hands and running your mouth anytime someone has a scientific theory.

  people really piss me off

• Black_lotus said on Sep 28, 2009....

  oh, and by the way, for all you liberals and logical people out there. quit being so damn passive, if they start to scream nonsense, then scream some logic back at them because no matter how much more thought you put into your opinion, if no one hears it, it doesn't matter. Quit letting these people intimidate you.

• curmudgeon said on Sep 29, 2009....

  black lotus - call it climate change if you want. That only weakens the liberal case. The geologic record proves over and over and over that the climate has changed dramatically over its 4.5 billion year history. Humans have had little to nothing to do with most of the climate change that has happened.
  
  You appeal to science - OK, where is the scientific, peer-reviewed, evidence-based proof that reducing CO2 emissions will yield the results advertised? Oh, and by the way, what ARE those results?
  
  Fewer droughts?
  Returning glaciers?
  Less intense storms?
  Reforestation?
  
  Where is the evidence that CO2 emissions curbs will do any of the above?
  
  Come on - cut the stupid insults and offer some proof or shut the fuck up.
  

• Black_lotus said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Curmudgeon - I’ll start of by apologizing if anything I said offended you, I was however referring to people who don’t actually think about it, form an opinion and then express that opinion. I can respect anyone on any side of the argument if they actually have an argument.

  There is geologic proof that the climate of the planet has changed, however the two factors one needs to keep in mind are the rate and extent, we are bringing the CO2 levels higher and faster then before. Humanities contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere undisputably has an effect, in the earths 4.5 billion-year history it hasn’t had the constant CO2 produced by people.

  So you can’t shake it off as being the normal course of events, things are different then they thousands of years ago. But I’ll give you a hypothetical, even if we haven’t had an effect and the planet continues its normal pattern, were still looking at a disaster.

  The receding ice caps will first of all cause a rise in sea level which would be disastrous for anyone living on the coast o in low-lying regions, and would change weather patterns.

  Next, melting will cause surface waters to become less cold and less salty making them less incline to sink, that can shut down the "Thermohaline Circulation", drastically changing climate and effecting sea life, which in it’s self has an enormous effect on the earths ecosystem as a whole. The rise in sea level will also contaminate fresh water supplies, another threat to ecosystems.

  The last time the Themohaline Circulation" was stopped it caused massive extinction, models have shown that it could take about 500 years to recover from a 30% reduction, who knows how long it would take if the whole thing shuts down.

  The planet’s "Business as usual" is not good fo humanity at all, we don’t want to see another ice age. And when you include humanity’s effect into the equation, the normal events are accelerated. If this process happens suddenly, plants and animals won’t be able to adapt and evolve like they have in the past.

  We could sit and bicker about this endlessly, and I doubt you’re going to change you opinion, so if you’re going to pose another argument, don’t bother I’m not going to spend to much time on this post (I’m not an expert so I don’t have all the information anyway).

  What I don’t seem to understand is the cause of skepticism, most scientists agree with the theory, and in general(fo better or worse) people listen to the experts. Tying to help the planet isn’t economical, and as I said some people might just be scared by what it could mean and go in denial, but it doesn’t seem like those are the only reasons.

  So what are your reasons for skepticism?

• javadewd said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Hey I'm all about the glaciers coming back... I like hunting for my own food. The Russians, Canadians and Brits would be the first ones without fertile soil, so what do I care? They can all import US grain! I think about that time I'll consider that perhaps I need a car that gets more than 28 MPG or change my 20 cent light bulbs for the $5 bastards!
  

• Black_lotus said on Sep 30, 2009....

  You are a perfect example, first of all, EVERYONE, got that?, EVERYONE will be affected by a climate disaster, not just Canada and the Brits(that's common sense).

  And secondly, I know you probably won't understand, but if millions of people die, and if the climate of the planet(not just Canada) changes too fast killing wild life, the resulting chaos will far out way $5.00 light bulb, and that whole "I don't care about anyone else as long as I'm safe" attitude is the cause of the recession, Americans really need to lose that attitude, because the rest of the world isn't going to put up with if too much longer, and America isn't always going to be the biggest power.

  PS I bet you'd be the first to start yelling if anyone else left you on your ass and said "it's not my problem."
  

• javadewd said on Oct 01, 2009....

  Millions of people will die... Over thousands of years. Funny, they call that life. You think an ice age will happen over just a decade or two? Now that's a real knee-slapper there. You've been watching those funny Hollywood entertainment seminars on global warming, haven't you? I don't know what sort of Kool-Aid science you were taught, but if you're worried about your marijuana becoming extinct, you won't have to worry about it. Mexico will still be able to grow it for you and Juanito will still be able to be your pusher. In the meantime, have some munchies and take yet another hit off your bong, please. It's cheap entertainment for the rest of us...
  

• curmudgeon said on Oct 14, 2009....

  Black Lotus - please offer scientific support that reduction in human-produced CO2 levels will result in reducing the rate of sea-level rise. Offer scientific support that reducing human CO2 production will result in slowing climate "change" - cooler or warmer. Prove that reducing human CO2 production will slow the glacier melt. I don't want computer models. I want experiment-based, peer reviewed proof. People can make computer models say whatever they want by simply changing their assumptions and factoring various climate processes in or out. This is the problem with the climate change debate as it now stands - whenever anyone questions whether or not the stated solutions will have the effects desired, skeptics are portrayed as Nazis and CO2 reduction proponents change the subject.
  
  Twenty years ago environmental scientists had their panties up about global cooling. Now that they cannot even support the notion of human-induced global warming, they call it climate change.
  
  And please, do not reply that something must be done.
  
  The climate is going to change no matter what we do. You agree that the geologic record proves this. Simply slowing the "rate of change" will do nothing to support human survival as the climate does, inevitably change.
  
  The best thing we can do to ensure the survival of the bulk of humanity is to make sure that humans all over the planet have  the infrastructure, technical and industrial capability, and scientific knowledge to adapt to changing climate conditions.
  
  Industrialized countries reducing CO2 production will accomplish none of this. Going by the stated opinions of some of Obama's "czars" it seems that a mass human extinction is exactly what this Administration wants.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 20, 2009....

  Oh for the fuck of sake. CO2 is not a pollutant. Has nobody seen Red Planet!? The whole argument that an abundance of CO2 is causing global warming is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Only dip shits who flunked basic science in high school should be making these stupid arguments!!
  
  Here's a practical experiment :
  
  Next time you're in bed, get a big, thick, warm,fuzzy comforter. Put it over your head. Inhale. Exhale. Repeat. After a while, you'll notice that you're getting really hot.
  
  
  Wait!? Is that the "green house effect," because you know that the planet is getting "warmer" because of the excess of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air.
  
  
  No, dumb ass, you're getting warmer because you can't breathe enough of a concentration of oxygen in and therefore your body heats up to compensate. It would do that on a fucking mountain top, too. You're exhaling carbon dioxide (CO2) and it's coming out of at 98.7 degrees from your heat-regulated chest, whereas the oxygen you breathed in was a mere 70-72 degrees on average. If carbon dioxide (CO2) was this terrible environmental pollutant, then every time you popped a can of soda (carbonic acid, which is the bubbles in your soda, is comprised of water [H2O] and carbon dioxide [CO2]) or farted you'd be "killing the earth" according to these fucking nut-bars.
  
  Now, do this again another day, but this time take your favorite blooming house plant under the covers with you. You'll find that you don't get as hot. Why? Because the plant is converting your carbon dioxide (CO2) back into breathable oxygen (O2). You'll still get hot after a while, because a plant's "lungs" don't have the capacity of yours. If you pumped CO2 into a greenhouse and left it alone for a month -- without any animals or humans entering it -- you would arrive to find some nicely grown plants and a greenhouse full of oxygen (O2).
  
  This just goes to show if you don't like the ratio of carbon dioxide (CO2) to oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere there are two ways to fix that : kill more animals or plant more trees. End of fucking story!!!
  
  But if you're still not convinced that carbon monoxide (CO) is the problem, but think that carbon dioxide (CO2) somehow is, here's another experiment for you brain-dead global warming nuts :
  
  Park your car in your garage. Close the garage door and any windows or vents. Close the door to your house... Unless you have plenty of time on your hands... Now leave the car running for about two to three hours. All the while, sit in the car. When the ratio of carbon monoxide (CO) overwhelms the amount of burnable oxygen (O2) for combustion, the engine will turn off... Not before it kills you, however, and if you left the door to your house open, killing the rest of your household, too. I'll guarantee that there is a pitifully low concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air all the while.
  
  Morons.
  

Comment on "Global Warming... Seriously!?"

Currently tagged	global warming politics weather climate change Snow Colorado Obama Spelling cods-up (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously