America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

the one who lost his cool and that would be you.

...and yet you don't think it is possible that the Democrats and the rich people that own them could be pushing the global warming/climate change concept?

No. The rich democrats are more concerned with reducing the earth's population.

It is easy to find information stating global warming is catastrophic. It is also easy to find information stating global warming is not catastrophic. Global warming and cooling have previously occurred where man had no effect on them. Think Dinosaurs and Ice Age.

So the questions for me become what are the real long term outcomes of global warming, and how much of global warming is a natural effect?

sure I do. I'm insulting your intelligence and problem-solving skills, not your morality regarding homeless people. Do you live in some world where I'm not allowed to insult your intelligence simply because I did something you think is morally wrong?


For the record, you realize this discussion is about climate on the earth, right? Not the "course of the solar system". Even if you think the solar system is responsible for climate change, you don't actually HAVE to change the solar system to be able to effect an impact on the planet itself. But that goes back to your poor problem-solving skills. It's funny you think I have delusions of grandeur simply because I consider myself smarter than you... hell, that doesn't even put me in the top 50% at that level.


awww... how cute. You actually took my statement about "throw enough money at something..." literally. It's almost like you don't understand that money is a surrogate for motivating a population and is a business representation of manpower and time. If abstracting labor and time into "$" is too difficult for you to understand, then think of it as "if enough smart people work at something long enough, any defined problem can be solved". Don't worry, they won't ask you to participate.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh my god. You really are that narrow minded, aren't you. Are you really so stupid as to think that California "slipping into the pacific" isn't going to impact you? You do realize that CA produces a very large percentage of the US agriculture right? That it's the top agriculture producing state? What do you think all that water goes to? And while we're on the topic of water... why do you have a problem with that? It's a capitalistic venture. California purchases water and sells agricultural goods. Do you have a problem with capitalism now? Are you a communist on top of being stupid?

Don't be obtuce Le HockeyDad. It is obvious that this thread I started has raised the consensus of many of the people in this forum. Just think of the long term impact of so many coming to terms with the situation and doing their part – it is quite staggering.

Again, just another simple example of how liberals are Cbids’s most valuable resource.

- you're welcome.

That made me laugh.

Democrats or Republicans......Cooling or warming which will be worse? Hey what about global cooling? Whose fault would that be?

I live on a lake with fluctuating lake levels and everyone who lives on the lake has an exact understanding of what the right level is.......the height of the lake when they bought and built a dock. If it goes up...someone is causing flooding and if it goes down there is too much well field pumping. Those human influences may indeed be having an effect but no one has figured out how to parse those influences separate from what might be happening naturally. So will things like this be easier to understand on a global scale? Understanding the law of gravity or the creation of compounds from elements was way easier than this.

Is climate changing? Always
So are we having an effect? Likely so ,everything matters to some degree
Are we having a significant enough effect that changing our actions will change end results? We don't know.
Are the long term consequences of change good, bad or just different. Probably all three....from the earth's perspective it is only the third.
Should we ignore the warnings? At our risk.
Should we go whole hog changing everything at the expense of human prosperity? That seems to be the biggest point of contention.

Your break is over, so now recommence the mudslinging.....Carry on.

Yeah. Buffet is a saint.

I would point out that few people – quite few in fact - really understand the laws of gravity or creation of compounds from elements. Especially in light of us still looking for the graviton or that so few people have ever studied chemistry.

That as it may be, everyone – most everyone – gets the basics. Walk off a cliff and you fall. Add salt to water and you get saltwater. You don’t need a PhD to “get it” at the basic level.

The effects of greenhouse gases and climatology are just complex enough subjects to leave a lot of people guessing – not the experts, but the rest of the people. In fact, they stopped calling it “Global Warming” because too many dim bulbs were saying “The lake dun froze solid this winter, we ain’t got no global warming”. But our industrial pollution is altering the climate – not in a good way. And we will all set about trying to stop it. Sooner or later, it is really just a question of how long we wait.

Now I know that the real debate is fueled by the fact that a lot of businesses stand to gain or lose from industry shifting to cleaner practices. But the guvmut didn’t put the incandescent light bulb to death for no reason – it was an energy waster. And so industry must retool so we can all use LEDs. Let’s just try to remember that is why there is so much controversy and mis-information over GW. As for the science of it, the debate was over long ago.

LEDs are great, why did we get them btw?


Oh that's right the piggy tail pieces of garbage ones didn't last like they claimed and we're mercury filled.....

Also make sure you ignore water vapor and sun radiation.

I can’t. I burn too easily and don’t do well in high humidity (makes me feel sticky).
Guess that’s why I favor a dryer climate….

Some random Anti-AGW bullet points:

On the theme of flat earthers: The models used by "scientists" to test their "theories" and provide "predictions" about our future climate more closely resemble aquariums than an actual place. They are flat-earth models, making AGW an actual flat-earth theory.

Recent scientific discoveries have greatly downgraded the greenhouse effect of CO2. The AGW industry hasn't quite caught up to that yet.

During the Phenarozoic period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been as much as 10 times the current amount, well over the threshold for supposed runaway global warming, but the earth has experienced warming and cooling cycles that don't correlate at all to CO2.

The temperature range for earth over the last half a billion years has been roughly14C to 24C. During approximately 2/3 of those half billion years the earth has been close to that 24C upper limit. For the other 1/3 we've been close to the lower limit. The periods during which the earth experiences temperature in the intermediate range are typically very short, ~12000 years is the norm.

Our current interglacial period is about that long so we should expect either a rapid cooling (return to a few hundred thousand years of glaciation) or warming (many millions of years of tropical heat) sometime soon.

The entire industry bases their models on the data provided by a couple of very secretive groups. The actual raw data is not made available to the scientific community, rather the set released has been "corrected" prior to being employed in modelling.

Computer modelling and predictions aren't science. Actual science requires experimentation that is falsifiable, verifiable and repeatable. On many factors, what is often called AGW theory barely qualifies as conjecture, let alone as a hypothesis. Yet we are told to accept it as fact.

That's a core feature of AGW theory (well, not that the CO2 directly results in more wator vapor, but that some small amount of additional heating from CO2 results in more water vapor that creates a lot of heating). The catastrophic warming predictions rely on that "positive feedback" effect. Reality however hasn't cooperated. The environment doesn't react in such a linear fashion and there are several ways that the climate self-stabilizes. Among those are the formation of clouds that reflect heat back to space.

Prolly another Victor account. Or another guy who knows everything, about everything, even relationships between people from hundreds of years ago. What was Copernicus's favorite color?

You're both horribly wrong.

First, Eric... Brewha wasn't talking "flat earth" he was talking heliocentric theory. You changed the argument on him and decided to call him ignorant after doing so.

Second, the church did in fact accept Copernicus' heliocentric theories at first. However, later they then chose to ban his doctrine... for about 200 years. For saying the earth revolves around the sun.

Way to welcome the nood, Victor.

Sure it does.
He's stating that his opinions are fact.
He's a nood.
Therefore, he's a know it all nood.

To be fair, I do that all the time. :)

Well... I guess I am kind of saying I don't think it matters what we do. The planet has warmed and cooled for billions of years. It did so before we were here.

Are we exacerbating the situation? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess we're not helping.

My issue is with the people who "cherry pick" the data, or worse manipulate it to say what they want it to say, in order to make legislation that may make a marginal difference for the planet as a whole, but devastates our free market economy.

F*** the damn caribou... I want cheap gas again.

I don't see how gas is really that expensive.
I mean... I spend about 200$/mo on gas. I look at it as a luxury expense. If gas were prohibitively expensive, I'd choose to live closer to work (99% of my driving is to and from work). Therefore, that money I spend per month on fuel is really just part of my decision not to live in the sprawling sh3thole of suburbia that is Hayward.... and $200/mo is not that much money. I spend more than that just to park the car. Hell, that's the price of date night.

I guess I just don't get it, but of all the issues plaguing modern life, fuel cost (unless you're a door to door salesman, or truck driver) seems like the most fixable of all problems.... We choose not to live near work.... so a large part of our fuel expense is actually a luxury, not a base necessity. So complaining of the price is like complaining about the cost of the 4$ latte we drink while we drive.

How far is your commute if you're spending more than that? I'm driving about 1.75hr per day just getting to and from work.... that's a pain in the azz commute in my mind.

Looks like you have the "what will be, will be attitude" and a hope for cheap gas. ONly thing you might worry about in the warming stage is something like the great flood.

no we wouldn't...