Brrrrr: Time to stop selling those carbon credits

I must admit that I did not believe that exchanging carbon credits could cure global warming. Full Story
Save the Humans

United States

#45 Jan 29, 2010
davy wrote:
it's cold so global warming must not be true...or maybe i am just a brain dead republicunt who doesnt understand the concept of global warming
CLIMATE CHANGE. That's what the correct term for the variances in average temperatures. Just because a famous person coined a phrase in the wrong way, happens all the time, doesn't make it false. Keep living with your head in the sand, and pollute all you want. We will all be dead soon anyway, what's the difference.
Save the Humans

United States

#46 Jan 29, 2010
Tarded wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that the word "retard" is a term that is considered to be inappropriate in our highly sensitive world, but I would like to propose a new use for the word. If someone is indeed "mentally challenged" then let us only refer to them by that term. When someone is not actually "mentally challenged", but their pattern of behavior or speech is as stupid as this guy... let us refer to those people as "retards".
Agreed. I would rather reply to you than that person. What a retard.

Since: Aug 08

Granite Falls, WA

#47 Jan 29, 2010
Mr Giblets wrote:
according to your lot, wicked capitalists have cut all your rain forests down, so don't talk nonsense. Also, what is left is eaten by pine beetles and Litesong says it's so hot there she (or it) doesn't need a car heater. Why isn't she on a bike like all good warmies?
For one complaining about other's errors, you make a passel of them in one post. Capitalists were cutting all American trees at a prodigous rate & they would have been gone. Deserts may have dominated the continental U.S. in the future.

However, Gifford Pinchot, working in politics & using european forestry practices, dramatically turned the ways of the logging industry to almost sustainable, not devastated forests.....at least for 6 or 7 seven harvests of trees. With beginning empathetic texts & actions by people such as Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, & John Muir, American forests, wildernesses & Nat'l Parks were different than their euro counterparts. With works of other 19th & 20th Century environmentalists, Native American & landscape photographers such as Edward Curtis, Ansel Adams & latterly Eliot Porter, Joseph & David Muench, & Nature organizations, the U.S. environmental movement has sustained the major differences between euro & U.S. environmentalism.

As for the insects, the Pine beetles major damage is to Lodgepole Pine, not the Douglas, & Hemlocks of the rainforests.

As for me, pedaled my way around for 30,000 miles till an increasingly bad back & arthritis slowed me. Do have an electric bicycle using hydro & wind turbine power. My 22 year old, 50 MPG car doesn't take any guff from Chicken Giblets, for political or environmental arguements.
NEC member

Berkeley, CA

#48 Jan 29, 2010
I don't know Denver, what would Tim McKay say? I think he'd say you are stark raving mad!
Emerald Laughter

Eureka, CA

#49 Jan 30, 2010
kookboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I find it humorous that you redicule the intelligence of others and yet get the history of Galileo completely wrong. A simple web search would have educated you but you chose not to do that.
Kook
Fair enough, I made a mistake. He was actually put under house arrest for espousing Copernicus' theory that the earth actually orbits the sun, instead of the Biblical notion that the sun orbits the earth. My point was in the face of observable facts the religious/superstitious community subjugated the truth through brute force. Seems like the same story all over again.

If you don't want to be ridiculed... you might want to learn how to spell the word.
Nor-Cal Native

Eureka, CA

#51 Jan 30, 2010
Emerald Laughter wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough, I made a mistake. He was actually put under house arrest for espousing Copernicus' theory that the earth actually orbits the sun, instead of the Biblical notion that the sun orbits the earth. My point was in the face of observable facts the religious/superstitious community subjugated the truth through brute force. Seems like the same story all over again.
If you don't want to be ridiculed... you might want to learn how to spell the word.
That is the story of the world my friend.Religeous zelots have been tearing down sociaties from the beginnings of time. IE the cout battles of today,academia has to defend science against creationism in court for GODS sake.

Since: Feb 09

Bakersfield, VT

#52 Jan 30, 2010
Gee isn't it surprising that with global warming we still have winter like warming changes the whole earth/sun summer/winter thing? Oh and just because some places have a few days of record cold then oh gee I guess the decades long trend of warming temperatures is over. Come on people if you want to argue the science of global warming at least make a valid attempt.
truthful 1

Eugene, OR

#53 Jan 30, 2010
droidamus,
Science seems to be somewhat at odds with each other on global warming.
Some say it is not the sacre many want it to be. Which science to you keep?
The one that said in the seventies we were in global cooling and Florida would be Alaska in 20 years?
Or the one now that says we can change climate?
David

Covelo, CA

#54 Jan 30, 2010
Save the Humans stated:

"CLIMATE CHANGE. That's what the correct term for the variances in average temperatures. Just because a famous person coined a phrase in the wrong way, happens all the time, doesn't make it false. Keep living with your head in the sand, and pollute all you want. We will all be dead soon anyway, what's the difference"

Coined a phrase Bwaaaa Ha Ha ha ha. Give me a break. I suggest you revisit his docu-drama and tell me he was "coining a phrase". They got busted and now they want to move to goal post, and we're just not going let that happen, now are we?

You are your climate quislings are through.
David

Covelo, CA

#55 Jan 30, 2010
Sorry, are should have been and.

Since: Feb 09

Bakersfield, VT

#56 Jan 30, 2010
From what I have be able to discern online yes there was a hypothesis of 'global cooling' in the 1970's but it was more supported by media stories than the scientific community. Of course in science you can never totally discount the dissenters but it is up to them to present their hypothesis and the studies that lead to a theory that other scientists can test in a repeatable way (these days that may have to be a computer simulation). At this point global warming is widely accepted in the scientific community and is backed by computer simulations and measurements over many decades ( I am not a climatologist so I won't even try to explain the complete theory).

What I don't understand is that if we accept the global warming theory and act to correct the problem at the very least we will have a cleaner planet in the future. Though yes we will have spent a lot of money there will still be a positive outcome. If you take the opposite view and do nothing (presuming we can do something) and the scientists are right you have saved a lot of money but you have screwed up the planet which seems to me to be a rather negative outcome. Given the choice I opt for erring on the side that global warming is in fact happening.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#57 Jan 30, 2010
Climate Lie Legislation is the worst farce that humanity has ever endured..
truthful 1

Eugene, OR

#58 Jan 30, 2010
droidamus,
And conflicting scientists that differ are theory also. Computer modles cannot replicate the future of the weather, therefore making the computer modle questionable.
This year has had record cold tempertures in almost every hemishere, and now that is debunked as a glitch in the warming?
And if not, what can man do to reverse global warming? Absolutely nothing.
If the weather or climate is going to change, duh, get in line. It has done that very thing since man was able to identify weather.
ericbollandski

Halifax, Canada

#59 Jan 31, 2010
Most of you should take your collective heads out of the snowbank and consider a new term ..Climate Change .Problems understanding that ,lets look to the the 3rd world nations ,the rising water evidence in Florida ,the increased rates of breathing issues and of course the declines in species in the north ,the oceans and the woodlands like Yellowstone park,and in our Canadian forests I supposed all that is a Hoax as well !

Since: Feb 09

Bakersfield, VT

#60 Jan 31, 2010
truthful 1 wrote:
droidamus,
And conflicting scientists that differ are theory also. Computer modles cannot replicate the future of the weather, therefore making the computer modle questionable.
This year has had record cold tempertures in almost every hemishere, and now that is debunked as a glitch in the warming?
And if not, what can man do to reverse global warming? Absolutely nothing.
If the weather or climate is going to change, duh, get in line. It has done that very thing since man was able to identify weather.
Not sure what you mean by the first sentence but if you have, let's say, 1000 scientists who's field of study is directly applicable to a question that have studied and support a particular theory (not just personal belief but actual scientific research - in this case that would be climatologists) and again let's say 100 scientists some of which are climatologists but many who are from other disciplines or are not scientists at all that disagree there is a disagreement but the theory is substantially accepted. Just because dissenters can come up with a relatively few people who disagree does not make it a controversy. On your second point, models may not be able to predict if it will rain on Tuesday or next month but they can certainly model climatological trends over long periods of time based on past research and data. Of course they are just 'models' so the output is only as good as the input. The claim that we can do nothing to effect the climate in the long run is not a given. Would it be difficult, probably ( in the short-run you can seed clouds and that seems to have some effect again not a scientist so don't know how effective). The idea that we, as another poster said, should stick our head in the snowbank and just accept that there is 'nothing we can do' is a defeatist idea that I reject. Even if it seems like with current knowledge there may be little we could do that does not mean we shouldn't try everything we can to ameliorate the situation and continue research in new methods.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#61 Jan 31, 2010
Droidamus, the models aren't accurate, there's too much data missing from their programmes that modellers are unable to programme into them.

The science of climatology is still in it's infancy and has yet to grow from the crawling stage.

This science and its models isn't good enough to bank world economy and billions of lives on.
My 2 Cents

Oakland, CA

#62 Jan 31, 2010
Droidamus makes a valid argument and one that opponents to change just seem incapable of accepting. Science is always evolving because that's the very nature of science and no doubt our understanding of climatic forces will get better as we go forward. However there are ample credible data that strongly indicate humans have modified the energy balance in the atmosphere by altering the concentration of a number of gases (i.e. the greenhouse gases).

A secondary point that folks like Earthling seem to miss is the idea of the precautionary principle - that even if the models aren't perfectly clear now, the cost of doing nothing will be catastrophic if the models are accurate. While the cost of cleaning up will be high, these aren't 'lost' dollars. Don't you think all the technology involved will mean tens of thousands of new jobs? There's already a demand for solar installers and wind generator maintenance folks.

That's the economic part that deniers seem to miss. There really isn't a downside economically to being more efficient, and hence cleaner, with our energy production. The argument about losing global competitiveness is specious; where we lost competitiveness was in labor and health-care costs and that isn't going to change. And that could easily be rectified by consumers actually paying attention to what they're buying.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#63 Jan 31, 2010
It's so cold, I saw a woman giving Sucrets to squirrels in the park.
neo-anon

Antelope, CA

#64 Jan 31, 2010
Are they going to start charging us global warming carbon credits for using our heaters too much because it's so freaking COLD lately?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#65 Jan 31, 2010
Feldspar wrote:
<quoted text>
Eh, no. 2009 was the second warmest year ever recorded. The period 2000-2009 was warmer than 1990-1999, which was warmer than the decade before that. Global warming is real. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you wish. Some people still believe the world is flat. Oh, and you don't need to shout either.
I'm afraid you have some bad data.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 12 min bliss 707
Storm May Drop A Half-Foot Of Snow On Stamford 1 hr Larry 1
Cuomo, in his typical fashion, tries to create ... 13 hr SpaceBlues 1
Gusty winds to continue 23 hr local here 1
Lawmakers hope FEMA will waive reimbursements Mon Cordwainer Trout 2
Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Mon Hanoi 475
Police asking for public's help in finding body... Mon criminal harassment 1

Weather People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE