Welcome to PatsFans.com

Sixteen! Ten! Minus Two! Hike!

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wolfpack, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Just heard on the radio those are the current temperatures of Chicago, Minneapolis and Bismarck at 12 noon in the central time zone. And that's temperature, not wind chill factor.
     
  2. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If you're making a climate change thread I suggest you look up the difference between climate and weather. It's an important distinction.
     
  3. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am not making any sort of global warming thread at all. Just giving the good folks in here a weather update in case they have any holiday travel plans.
     
  4. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    In the political forum? What a coy way to cover up ignorance of an elementary distinction.
     
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    I thought it was called Global Warming? :confused2:

    Oh, never mind...... You guys must have changed it once the rest of the world realize you were full of sh!t, and that the globe ain't warming. :rolleyes:

    Come'on Wolfpack........ Get with the program. Not GLOBAL WARMING, it's CLIMATE CHANGE now. :singing:
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  6. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,481
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +915 / 6 / -9

    Another genius who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

    How embarrassing.
     
  7. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Climate scientists have been calling it climate change for some time now since global warming tends to focus on temperature but the issue obviously affects a lot more than just temperatures - it impacts the climate as a whole.

    Sounds like somebody doesn't know much about the science. No surprise there.

    Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

    That's what the scientists have been saying. It doesn't mean that temperatures aren't increasing, however. You'll have to choose some other topic to over-interpret.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  8. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    Convenient that they came up with another term now ain't it. You know, one that's more indeterminate and vague then the last one. That way, we can't get pinned into a corner and can claim that its encompasses more crap. After all, more crap translates to MORE MONEY. . :rolleyes:

    It's such a joke that you consider this a settled science. The globe is warming some, CO2 levels are rising......... some by human forces (some not). That part might be MORE settled. What we don't have a clue about it, what is the greater ramification or impact is NOT EVEN REMOTELY settled.

    The earth has been both, much hotter and with more CO2, and life existed. In fact, the last time, ascendants of humans were on the planet, and their evolution continued unabated.

    Stop pretending it's a settled science......... it isn't..... Well, beyond you "climate change" bullys anyway.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  9. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    Hey look, another "climate change" bully to come in and insult those of us who realize that there is too much WE DON'T KNOW to call this a "settled" debate.

    Embarassing??????? That you post the same predictable dribble ALWAYS. Yes, we agree on that. :rolleyes:
     
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Not really. It incorporates the idea of warming and includes a broader definition. You're in conspiracy land now.

    If increasing temperatures leads to a less stable climate, how do you describe the entire picture unless you have a new term?

    I have no idea what you mean here. The science is very clear, if you've been following it.

    Conspiracy land. These scientists make peanuts.

    All it takes is understanding of what settled science means, and an understanding of the arguments being made and yeah, it's pretty damn settled.

    The greater ramification is ... climate change. :ugh: Exactly how much? Obviously nobody really knows right now. That's how science at the frontiers works, by the way. You try and answer questions that nobody else has.

    Great, so we have nothing to worry about the damage caused by rising sea levels. It would cost the city of Boston billions of dollars alone.

    I'm pretty sure you are misusing the word "unabated".

    It absolutely is. Rush Limbaugh is not science. The greenhouse effect is well understood and is settled. Man's contribution to rising CO2 is well understood and is settled. Some of the end results are not well understood, but others like rising sea levels certainly are. Read the trillion threads on this board, and the trillion links I have made to real science that supports this.

    Bully? Are you kidding me? What is this, Revenge of the Nerds? :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,598
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +459 / 12 / -14

    Climate was pretty stable during ecent iceages andone want that sort of stability?

    Climate changes all the time for hundred of millions of years, the climate is driven by the big yellow thing in the sky not by any activities of the domesticated primates.
     
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,196
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +817 / 27 / -33

    November 2009 was the warmest on record....

    Drudge has become the new weather channel... not that he is talking about climate change..
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  13. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,481
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +915 / 6 / -9

    When was the last time the earth's atmosphere had a greater concentration of CO2?
     
  14. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,481
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +915 / 6 / -9

    It is a settled debate that the earth is warming up. What is not settled is whether or not human activity is responsible for accelerating said warming.

    And you want to point to some examples of cold weather to show that the earth is not heating up. Embarrassing? I think so.
     
  15. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It's never changed with human introduced CO2 until the 20th century, so this would be new territory, now wouldn't it?
     
  16. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Bully? So facts are bullying now? Awesome.
     
  17. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    If the science was settled and the end result is a warmer planet, then you wouldn't need it.


    Who can prove that it leads to a less stable planet? I don't think we really know.

    But the academic institutes that MANY of them work for do. In fact, grants that go to these typically LIBERAL institutions make MILLIONS, and collectively BILLIONS in grants and endowments related to the "climate change" movement. Let's not pretend they don't. That "science" is settled.


    Science in the abstract (like this topic) is RARELY settled.

    But the bottom line, unless you can...... with predictably the same outcome, from the same base data. In the last few weeks, this area has become "less settled" and that is really not debatable. Just about everyone agree's with that. (I happen to think the e-mail stuff it overblown too). The methodology is unquestionable suspect though.

    That's too humanistic of an interest. The Planet itself (which, after all, is what we're saving) doesn't give a sh!t if Boston is there. Only us humans do. In fact, where my house is used to be a massive inland sea. It's not anymore, and the world planet is not worse the wear for it.

    Without hindrance..... sorry, I'll use little words for you next time. :cool:

    Some of processes are settled, but the overall results, reasons, and impact are most decidedly NOT. That is my point.

    For the record and full disclosure; I believe in climate change in a broad perspective. I believe that we need to "get green". I also believe that we need to do more to have a better understanding before we start to negatively impact the economy and individuals lives within it.

    I personally would love to live in a carbon-free world, and I also think that we're not doing enough sh!t in order to more towards cleaner-energy. The fact is, we're not........ and until there are cheaper, EFFECTIVE forms of clean energy to choose from, I don't want to see my taxes go up. I'm willing to pay more for this energy if it's proven. I don't want it jammed down my through unless it is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2009
  18. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Oh God. The end result is a warmer planet and some other things. :ugh:

    Climatologists have been showing this for decades now.

    Conspiracy land mixed with a little anti-intellectualism and a lot of ignorance about how science works. Congratulations!

    Not really. Known science is settled. You know, all the physics that goes into your car? All settled science. Basic electrical laws and theory? All settled. Basic astronomy? All settled. Evolution (gasp!)? Settled.

    Nothing in the emails even speaks to the methodology nearly as much as it speaks to people not understanding what was being said and what the scientists were trying to do.

    Not really. What about the 20-30% of species that are threatened by climate change? You don't get an extinct species back, and new species don't come around very often. Lack of biodiversity is extremely bad for the entire planet. That, too, is settled science.

    If I was pointing out an inaccurate usage, how could I possibly have misunderstood the term? By the way, you used a synonym so the original problem stands. I think you just missed the point.

    Most of the science is settled. Specific outcomes may never be settled until they happen. That in no way does anything to undercut the foundational science that is taking place right now.

    We can agree.

    Clean energy is proven, and once we get there we should see a reduction in overall energy costs. Unfortunately there are significant upfront costs.
     
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    277
    Ratings:
    +1,129 / 3 / -10

    Mid Coast Maine:
    Today: Variable clouds and windy. Snow flurries or snow showers will continue through the day. High 41F. Winds WSW at 20 to 30 mph.
     
  20. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    650,000 years ago.

    At the time of Homo erectus and Homo habilis, two direct antecedents were around then too. There is no apparent slow down (or acceleration on human evolution during that period.

    Plus, historic data prior to 1958 is largely based on Ice core sample testing of CO2 (a lot of it anyway). That science has NEVER been proven to be reliably accurate in the CO2 results they yield. In fact, some very smart folks THINK THEY ARE NOT. As I said. There is still way to much we don't know. More then we do know in fact.

    I think you are mistaking me for the OP.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>