Its unfortunate, but this sort of thing has happened more then once, to alot more species in the past and has caused extinctions--well before our time I might add.

The caribou will either adapt, or gradually perish,unfortunately.

The caribou will either adapt, or gradually perish,unfortunately.

Posted by SpiderWolve at 2008-05-03 08:23 AM | Reply


People too.

Hah, you people are funny.

Global Warming is a naturally occuring event that happens often. Its happening on Mars too, the entire solar system is feeling it. Are we responsible for that too?

And yes, we will adapt. We've managed to make it this far.

Even after all these millenia, people still think they control the natural process of the universe around them.

Remember, we orbit the sun, the sun does not orbit the earth.

It's also killing humans in Haiti and Africa.

There are hundreds of links.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-05-03 09:26

A falsehood told a thousand times is still a falsehood.

It's also killing humans in Haiti and Africa.

Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2008-05-03 12:09

Good point. Warmer weather is a boon to agriculture. The food problem is a monetary problem. The poorest countries are the first to feel the effects of high food prices caused by inflation.

Yeah sure. It's man's fault that the dinosaurs went extinct. If you are so fearful, why wait? End it now.

Still waiting for you to explain in your own words how insignificant changes of quantities of CO2 override the other greenhouse gases.

SPIDER! sorry ...typing and having lunch.

Haha, its alright. That U is awfully close to that I...

and..isn't bad nettiquette to type with your mouth full? ;)

It's also killing humans in Haiti and Africa.

Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2008-05-03 12:09 PM | Reply

So, Global Warming(tm) causes AIDS and government corruption?

On Topic ......

All animals (and plants) exist for our use. If you can't grind it up and put it on a bun, then it has no value -- except as food for something else we can grind and eat.

If people in Greenland run out of carbou to eat, they can kill whales

THE AMAZING, STUPENDOUS, SUPER-FUCKIN-DUPER GLOBAL WARMING INDICATING SWIMMING POOL!

The Global Warming crowd just gave themselves a ten-year-long reprieve, saying that cooling oceans will probably delay the inevitable warming that is happening, but isn't happening.

Maybe there were too many caribou, and this is nature's way of culling the herd. Or maybe many of the caribou moved elsewhere. Maybe some got sick of something unrelated to my preferring to drive over walking. Maybe he miscounted. Or maybe he's right about everything: the earth is warming up, which means more food--but the caribou are spending their time gorging themselves instead of cold-humping on the ice.

If I hear Go Green one more time or that Global Warming is real I am going to vomit.

Larry Mohr

Global warming can't be real because it might cut into my profit margins. - Typical Rightwinger

Still waiting for Zat to explain in his own words, how insignificant changes in CO2 can override all the other greenhouse gases.

Global warming can't be real because it might cut into my profit margins. - Typical Rightwinger

Posted by moder8
* * * *


Um, why? Warmer temperatures mean more food. Means more leisure time and travel. Throughout history, warming trends have been uniformly more prosperous than falling temperatures.

Go build your strawmen elsewhere. What's more, if YOU believe YOU'RE causing global warming and that it's BAD, just what are you doing about it? If you're like most libs, the answer is: nada. At least we money-grubbing rightwingers are consistent--we believe global warming is nonsense, and live accordingly.

Considering this factoid, one wonders why the fearful Zat hasn't moved from his Texas ranch into the highlands.

"The Antarctic Ice Sheet holds nearly 90 percent of the world's ice and 70 percent of its fresh water. If the entire ice sheet were to melt, sea level would rise by nearly 220 feet, or the height of a 20-story building. Scientists know there's a melting trend underway. The United Nations has said that in a worst-case scenario -- depending on how much global air temperatures increase -- seas could jump 3 feet (1 meter) by 2100."

Considering this factoid, one wonders why the fearful Zat hasn't moved from his Texas ranch into the highlands.
* * * *

Too much trouble.

Just like it's too much trouble to park your car and walk. Just like it's too much trouble to replace your bulbs with more expensive, but longer lasting enviro-friendly ones. Just like it's too much trouble to turn off the air conditioner.

Libs are like that. They pretend to know what's good for the world, but it wouldn't occur to them to actually make the requisite changes in their lifestyles to bring it about. What would happen to so-called greenhouse gases if the country's Gore voters traded in their SUV's for a Prius? Hell--what would happen to GAS PRICES were they to do that?

Too much trouble.

The funny irony is that Zatoichi takes the name of a fearless Samurai warrior, yet is afraid of the weather. "Chicken Little" is more apropos.

1861 John Tyndall, "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

1863 John Tyndall, "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.

1863 John Tyndall, "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

1896 Svante Arrhenius, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.

Do try and keep up.

Can you ever write something in your own words? You don't appear to understand the bullshit you post.

Do you understand what would happen if we had half the CO2 we have right now? Do you have any information you'd like to share that illustrates the relative insensitivity of CO2 in stoichiometric relation to other atmospheric gases?


I don't think anyone does, so it is as inappropriate for the global warming alarmists to make a claim as it is for the global warming deniers to deny it.

Some typically cooler areas will provide more food, and some areas that provide food are drying up and becoming desert. This isn't a "nothing but gain" argument. It is fallacious on the very surface, and the data from around the world proves it.
* * * *

Now who's not providing links and data?

I don't think anyone does, so it is as inappropriate for the global warming alarmists to make a claim as it is for the global warming deniers to deny it.

Hi Goatman, hope your Sunday's going well. If you're really, really bored you can read the amath link I posted. I did post the conclusion from it. You can see how they've analyzed data from 4 solar cycles, eliminated variables, contained the expressions to the principle point that Ray was making: CO2.

If you discount the idea, it's up to you and the deniers to post a counter. The counter MUST be falsifiable.

A Scientific Theory can not be proven. It must be possible to disprove it or it can not be called a Theory. It is up t those that dispute the theory to 1) disprove the prevailing theory or 2) counter with another disprovable theory.

This is why Creationism is invalid. The counter to GW so far has been akin to "The Theory of Evolution is invalid because Genesis says . . . and I believe Genesis."

The debate has been active and energetic within the Scientific community. The assumption that there is some group think, some agenda, some cause that unites everyone to conspire and promote a fallacy is psychologically interesting, but Scientifically meaningless.

BTW, proving the effects of changes in CO2 on atmospheric warming is a High School Science lab experiment. This point is so beyond the need for proof it's embarrassing. The only source of contention that has any validity is the relative effects of other variables, such as soot, increased desert dust/sand, and CO2 sink capacity.

If I hear Go Green one more time or that Global Warming is real I am going to vomit.

Larry Mohr


Going green is the new fad.

Now, I don't have an issue with people purchasing products that have less of an impact on the environment, but give me a break. In a few months or a year's time, just about everything will be "green", and a new catch phrase will have to be invented to make people feel guilty enough to purchase over-priced goods.

Fear mongering works two ways.

Either terrorists are out to kill us because of our freedoms or global warming is going to kill us because of our excesses. I wish someone would clarify which one of these issues is the most dangerous so that I can get on with the business of ignoring it.

This is why Creationism is invalid. The counter to GW so far has been akin to "The Theory of Evolution is invalid because Genesis says . . . and I believe Genesis."


Well if you're looking for Goatman to say "we won't become extinct from this planet until God wills it to be", you're looking in the wrong direction.

So what was the point of your post, if not to hint that those of us that don't believe one way or the other must be "bible thumping, backward ass republicans"?

BTW, proving the effects of changes in CO2 on atmospheric warming is a High School Science lab experiment.

Yes it is. But you know as well as I do, Yav, that the global warming is not based on one element. There are many. What role do the oceans play? As the earth heats up, does the extra moisture in the air make more clouds that reflect more sunlight? Are there other components of the atmosphere that act in as of yet unknown ways in the science of climatology? Do we have enough historical data? (you know how I feel on that, of course. I repeat it so much I know that readers are sick of hearing my 8 second analogy)

Though I am not blaming you of doing so, there are indeed many people who grab the fact that CO2 has risen from 288 PPM to 350 PPM (forgive me if the numbers aren't exact) like a snapping turtle that won't let go and cry "global warming, global warming".

Yes you can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But this does not prove that man solely to blame for warming the planet. There are simply too many variables and it is folly to pretend we understand even a fraction of them.

And yes, the afternoon is going much better than the morning. Thank you. We are setting down anchors and three of our four anchor winches decided to go south withing two hours of each other. *groan* As soon as I got one running, another took a crap. This puts us on downtime which at $480k/day is $20k/hr lost to the company.

I'm relaxing with a cup of coffee right now wincing everytime the PA squawks in fear it is for me.

Well if you're looking for Goatman to say "we won't become extinct from this planet until God wills it to be", you're looking in the wrong direction.

Not at all! I know Goatman's views and thought it would be particularly meaningful to him.

So what was the point of your post, if not to hint that those of us that don't believe one way or the other must be "bible thumping, backward ass republicans"?

A tad bit sensitive? There are respectable Republicans you know. The point is this:

Disprove the theory or post a counter theory that is falsifiable.

PS: Using the scientific burden of proof, isn't it up the supportors of anthropogenic global warming to prove it is ineed man's doing since there are provable historical cycles of climate change which clearly were not influenced by man?

I looked at the amath link, Yav, and it looks a little too much to absorb while I am on the clock. I'll read it tonight in bed on the laptop. Thanks for the suggested reading.

I'm relaxing with a cup of coffee right now wincing everytime the PA squawks in fear it is for me.

I have the same feeling when my cell phone rings during work hours. Glad you have some down time and can relax a bit. I'm about to go for a ~5 mile run.

YES on your first paragraph! That was exactly my point, and why I spent the time I did to find and reference the study I posted. That grabbing one variable thing goes both ways, as you've seen. I used that one because Ray grabbed hold and I thought it was useful to introduce the concept of stoichiometry and sensitivity. I can tell you this, an incredibly slight variation in primer mix and gas content can lead to devastating consequences. How can you get such a concept across at such a casual discussion level?

Anyway, your first paragraph asks some good questions. There are entire projects across the world that have taken on such questions, worked through them, looked at the data, the math, the models, the predictions, proposed hypothesis and then put the work up for review and contestation to make sure it has a reasonable level of probability.

When it's all said and done, what we're dealing with is a set of probabilities. That's all.

You roll the dice, you take your chances.

(Generally I roll with the odds, unless I'm feeling adventurous)

Speaking of that, good luck on the new drill site!

(Out of here for now)

PS: Using the scientific burden of proof, isn't it up the supportors of anthropogenic global warming to prove it is ineed man's doing since there are provable historical cycles of climate change which clearly were not influenced by man?


Sure, but we can't talk about those.

I'm not sure why, but we can't bring up the other ice ages or the other warming periods. We're not allowed to point out that the sun might be a larger factor than what is considered. If anyone mentions that Mar's is warming, they're just deflecting.

Don't forget Goat.

"The discussion about global warming is over."

A tad bit sensitive? There are respectable Republicans you know. The point is this:


My apologies. The general rule of thumb that human-caused-global-warming advocates use seems to be that us folks who don't buy it one way or another are "uneducated", "stupid" or "waiting for God to start the rapture".

All of which are just as disingenuous as someone who claims that global warming isn't happening at all.

Thanks alot Chris. Much appreciated.

Yav

Beyond poking at Zat to explain the cut-and-paste jargon he posts, this topic doesn't excite me enough to give much thought. So the weather has been getting warmer, so what?

Climates are very dynamic and complex, hence don't make for a good subject for computer modeling. They have the same weakness as economic modeling. There are too many unknowns and a lot of guesstimates put into them. And when you shroud them in politics, they are even more suspicious.

Disprove the theory or post a counter theory that is falsifiable.
Computer models can't be falsified in the sense that the modelers tend to adjust the assumptions when they drift from expectations. We see this with economic mathematical models. They never catch turns in the economy, yet mainstream economists continue to rely on them for making policy.

Greenlands getting warmer. Food grows better and bigger when it is warm longer. Therefore calfs would do better in a warm enviroment. Problem solved.

This is not as tough as Zatoichi's global warming pool.

Look for another tie in losers.

Global warming is a hoax made up by Al Gore.
The world is flat.
Science is bad.
Truth is a liberal lie.
We have very small penises.

Sincerely,

The DR Rightwing

We have very small penises.

Sincerely,

The DR Rightwing

Some of us silly human beings are vain enough that we think that we understand climatology and can say with certainty that we are the cause of global warming.

signed:
the uninformed who think they know everything
(no stupid knee-jerk political affiliation or tiny dick references necessary)

I'm a really smart, enlightened guy. I work on an oil platform.

Sincerely,

....

I'm a really smart, enlightened guy. I work on an oil platform.

You wish. I'll help. Have you learned how to correctly use the term "day rate" in a sentence? If so, we'll move on to the next lesson.

Wow moder8, you're slipping.

Usually, the "small penis" jabs come out right at the start.

You're a fucking idiot. I wish I could tell you that to your face, but I'm sure your mother, father and close family and well just about everyone else remind you on a daily basis. I'd just be piling on, wouldn't I?

"You're a fucking idiot. I wish I could tell you that to your face, but I'm sure your mother, father and close family and well just about everyone else remind you on a daily basis. I'd just be piling on, wouldn't I?"

Wow Axiom, you sure got me that time. And if you believe that you probably also believe GWB is a great President and that Iraq was involved with 9-11. You're a joke. I really don't know anybody on this website who takes you seriously, other than similarly situated idiotic rightwing douchebags. But knock yourself out.

Cheers.

(And I'm sorry if that comment about small penises hit too close to home for you.)

Moder8, republicans must have bigger penises why else would dems like you go around complaining about republicans giving you a royal screwing.

Hmm..messylink, sorry, HTML skills are lacking.

Wow Axiom, you sure got me that time. And if you believe that you probably also believe GWB is a great President and that Iraq was involved with 9-11. You're a joke. I really don't know anybody on this website who takes you seriously, other than similarly situated idiotic rightwing douchebags. But knock yourself out.


Let's pick this apart.

1. I don't have any good feelings for GWB. Nice try, but I've been just as critical about him as any real American should.

2. I am not here to be taken seriously. If you're here for validation, might want to think about therapy and pills. They do work wonders.

3. I might be idiotic. It's all a matter of perspective. Do crazy people know they're crazy? Do dumb people know they're dumb? Who knows? But I'm defiantly not a right-winger.

So what we've learned by this is that you don't really have any basis for your loathing. So which ultra-liberal blog do you take your marching orders from?

I'd love to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I don't think you could keep up. Just copy and paste the next standard reply from your handbook below.