backtop


Print 126 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Dec 3 at 6:22 PM


A glacial region in Norway  (Source: NRK)
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.

After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.  

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the 'Medieval Warm Period' of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just curious but
By theendofallsongs on 11/27/2008 11:05:21 PM , Rating: 1
What glaciers are growing in California? What glaciers even EXIST in California?




RE: Just curious but
By jwm on 11/27/2008 11:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
2 simple words in Google 'California Glaciers' revealed the answer.


RE: Just curious but
RE: Just curious but
By rdeegvainl on 11/28/2008 5:56:39 AM , Rating: 5
that... is the greatest thing ever


RE: Just curious but
By truk007 on 11/28/2008 6:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm having trouble stopping the laughter. That really is brilliant!


RE: Just curious but
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/29/2008 5:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com was an old favorite of mine


RE: Just curious but
By matorsfan on 11/30/2008 10:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Funny..but scary someone would actually spend money to make a domain for that.


RE: Just curious but
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 3:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
The question is where in the world are Glaciers still shrinking and when was Waldo last out there measuring them?


Incorrect data
By frag999 on 11/28/2008 1:16:40 AM , Rating: 5
I am sorry, but it is impossible for glaciers to be getting larger with the earth's hockey-sticking temperature trend. I gotta run, my Prius is double parked, later.




RE: Incorrect data
By Nighteye2 on 11/28/2008 4:49:05 AM , Rating: 3
The increase is not evenly divided across the earth. Norway, for example, has influence from a warm ocean current that may stop if global warming persists. If it stops, local temperatures in regions like Norway may drop.


RE: Incorrect data
By bkslopper on 11/28/2008 7:45:22 AM , Rating: 3
How does one double park such a small car?


RE: Incorrect data
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 3
One gets quite the mental image of these global warming believers. They are dutiful little children spouting back by rote what their mommy and daddy tell them.

...yes my mommy told me that we are hurting the earth. She told me that we are naughty and must be punished.

Meanwhile the father is estranged in our woman dominated culture and the children no longer listen to the logical parent. They are told not to listen to the evil man who knows how to spot the con. And thus our socialist hopey changey United States is drug further down the road of liardom to the socialist utopia where the left gets to dictate how you live. What is utopian about that? To the left it is perfection.


RE: Incorrect data
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think it would help to require learning to play chess in grade school? Or would it improve the authority of educated men if there was a geeky nerd tax on Hollywood films and television shows?

The movies and TV did not start out with every logical man a sexless idiot. That came only after the New York networks started making their own shows and selling off sponsorship in thirty second bites.


RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:37:00 AM , Rating: 1
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=how to double park a small car

Wow. That IS fun!


RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 4:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
I got rated down to 1 for saying I suck? Woohoo! Someone doesn't think I suck!


Coconuts in Britain?
By omgwtf8888 on 11/28/2008 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 5
Based upon my study of cinema the world is warming, as coconuts were found in Britain.

# THE HOLY GRAIL

Arthur approaches an isolated castle guarded by soldiers ( #1 & #2 ) .....

S #1: Where'd you get the coconuts?
A : We found them.
S #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
A : What do you mean?
S #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
A : The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
S #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
A : Not at all. They could be carried.
S #1: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
A: It could grip it by the husk!
S #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
A: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.
S #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
A: Please!
S #1: Am I right?
A: I'm not interested!
S #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
S #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.
S #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
A: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
S #1: But then of course a-- African swallows are non-migratory.
S #2: Oh, yeah...
S #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...




RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/1/2008 9:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
Coconut palms are found on the western coasts of England and Ireland, since they DO migrate on the Gulf Stream, which also provides enough warmth for them to grow on those shores. So you see, a bit of an inside joke on the Python's part.


RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By matorsfan on 12/1/2008 9:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
Coconuts growing in England? Someone's been pulling your leg!


RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 3:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Coconuts did not even grow in Palm Beach, Florida until a ship wreck dumped a load off shore during a storm. Coconut palms are an invasive species relatively new to the Gulf Stream.


Made me happy :)
By ninus3d on 11/28/2008 7:49:25 AM , Rating: 4
Disregarding wether or not this proves or debunk any global warming/ice age theories but I'm from Norway and these glaciers are stunningly beautifull :)
Keep growing strong!!

I swallowed the "Al Gore" movement whole and was one of those who started showing the movie to friends and families and what not and was ALL THERE on what we had to do etc etc.
Now this was all before I started reading this page where you guys are pretty DARN GOOD at posting scientific sources of studies and while I havent done a complete reverse of my belief of "manmade effect on planet earth" its gone completely away from "affecting weather" to "pollution is really bad".

Btw, one thing I dont like about An Inconvenient Truth is how it appeals so much to humans great fondness of drama, make you feel like you are in a "critical time, action required NOW" kindoff state.
Are there any other movies or books that present this concept a slightly more intriguing or entertaining compared to research study paper on pollution and climate change both!




RE: Made me happy :)
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 1
I have never heard any of my friends from Norway use the phrase "What Not".


RE: Made me happy :)
By Ammohunt on 12/1/2008 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I swallowed the "Al Gore" movement whole and was one of those who started showing the movie to friends and families and what not and was ALL THERE on what we had to do etc etc.


http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html


RE: Made me happy :)
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
At least you only had to hear the "Global Warming" and the "I invented the Internet" tales and did not have to listen to Cousin Al's dating successes. (Mother’s side and about five generations separation) Al was always in rare form while his father "Big" Al was shaking down the family reunions for contributions, of course I was only eleven at the last on he attended.


There it is.
By chose on 11/29/2008 9:22:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected


A.K.A. they don't know /&%"# about /&%"#.




Interesting post
By Andy35W on 11/28/2008 1:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
A nice pairing with the Alaska post you did, cheers.

I live in Enland so not too far away. For the last couple of years the summers have not have very large temp. peaks, 20C+ rather than 30C+ for the years before, presumably because air masses from Africa have not intruded too much into the north and therefore the more prevailing cooler maritime westerly air masses have rained (spelling mistake intended!) supreme. Therefore the current Norwegian glacial increase might be more a weather event than a climate one.

Will be interesting to watch though in case it is climate related, bit hard to tell at the moment.

Regards

Andy




Y'all!
By tyanlion on 11/28/2008 11:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
George W. Bush was right.




Losers
By overlandpark4me on 11/30/2008 12:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when people post they don't believe it because it doesn't line up with their left whacko views.

Not called global warming anymore people, it's "climate change" lol....It only took 10 years before the argument was over. Now the losers want to play both sides of the fence. The painful part of that is, it rams right up your arse when you do it.




Climate Models
By drilloil on 12/1/2008 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Catastrphic Global warming is based upon the results of computer models that as yet have been ineffective when attempts were made to history match. Virtually all models when run from 1900 to present predicted as much as 4 degrees of warming that we haven't observed. Models are the result of finding numerical solutions to partial differential equations relating a grid square to the one beside it and so on. the only history matches that have occurred have had to tweak the data to force a match and are therefore intrinsically unreliable about predicting the future.

In short, if you don't know enough math to have taken differential calculus and then done numerical computer models then I suggest you refrain from expressing your opinions about fictional global warming.




Global warming?
By resisty on 12/1/2008 5:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of hockey sticks and bogus global warming reports...

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.la...




Every time I go to town....
By RoberTx on 12/3/2008 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Every time I go to town the boys start kickin' my dog around....

My neighbor is an environmentalist. I showed this article to her then pushed the old woman down. I feel powerful and vindicated.




Glaciers and Mussolini
By FPP on 12/3/2008 6:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, California has Glaciers i.e. on Mount Shasta, for anyone not knowing.

This so called "science" is the worst example of personal bias you can find in a scientific field since a Brit scientist was caught filing off part of a Pyramid to prove his thesis in the 19th century.

NASA's Goddard center has flubbed it's job so many times that Robert weeps in the afterlife. In the latest caper, it tried to blame the giant temperature flub on NOAA, who promptly reminded them that it is only responsible for U.S. temperature data.

By the way, the US crushed Mussolini in WWII. If he did admire us, I do not think it was forever, do you?




Global warming is not a yearly thing
By PrinceGaz on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
By wookie1 on 11/29/2008 1:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
"It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming"

Wait, cooling is a side effect of warming? What are we worried about then? Also note that the models "predict" everything from slight cooling to steep warming, depending on which one you're looking at. They have model ensembles that run a wide range of scenarios, and they average the results. I'm glad I don't live on model earth, even if it is more predictable.


RE: Global warming is not a yearly thing
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
we should be looking at averages over at least 10 years instead of individual year results,


Funny you mention that, hasn't the last 10 years been flat/slightly cooling?

quote:
It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming,


Of course, it's not just Norway. Florida has already set several historic daily lows this fall, along with several freezes. It snowed in Baghdad last year, and China saw perhaps the greatest dislocation of travelers in history last winter. A pretty wide variety of places are feeling a little chilled lately.


By Hexxx on 11/30/2008 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
It snowed in my hometown of Johannesburg, South Africa last July 2007. And the previous 2 or 3 years we had sleet. We're a few degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn.


By Avitar on 12/1/2008 4:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
Global Warming nuts are a yearly thing. The problem is the models. I had some professors from NASA while I was in collage and learned a few things in the early days back when "The SST was going to destroy the ozone layer"

If the temperature rose to 150°F degrees, average the remaining ice sheets would still take four thousand years to melt. The sea level would rise about 40 feet, with another thirty feet rise to come as the depressed land underneath the Ice sheets rebounds over the next fifty thousand years.

Finally, an honors physics problem was that without green house gases the earth in its present orbit would be thirty degrees Celsius cooler than it is now. Other people who worked that problem came up with the Snowball Earth theory. Google “Snowball Earth” if you want to know what taking measures against "Global Warming" could hurt.


YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By smokedturkey on 11/27/2008 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 5
yeah, global warming is kinda false. The only thing that causes it is solar radiattion and the Earth's core. Since we are at a cycle where sunspots are no longer present, global cooling is in effect. It is to be expected, since it is natural for the Earth to go through these phases. I wished liberals would just stfu about global warming. Enjoy life!


RE: YAWN...
By smokedturkey on 11/27/2008 9:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Also, CO2 comprises less than .05% of air at sea level.
We need CO2 in order to survive, so the idea that this so-called "greenhouse gas" is causing "global warming" is a complete farce. Another scare tactic by the ultra-liberal wackos.

Nitrogen 78.08
Oxygen 20.95
Argon 0.93
Carbon dioxide 0.03
Neon 0.0018
Helium 0.0005
Krypton 0.0001
Xenon 0.00001


RE: YAWN...
By sprockkets on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:16:14 AM , Rating: 5
Any one who still clings to the Church of Later Day Global Warming is a true believer. The world is cooling. Where I go in Southern Brazil the rivers are up 32 feet this year because of all the rain. This is because with no sunspots / less solar wind we receive more cloud forming cosmic rays. Just like detailed in the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Yet you see people here trying to say we are warming because we are cooling. ( Global warming is preventing the next ice age ). You guys better stoke up the excuse factory because over the next few years you are going to need alot of them to keep your scam alive.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By porkpie on 11/28/2008 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
what will happen when the next fire age hits us?
Lol, the next what? Did you skip all of high school science? There have been hundreds of ice ages, but I don't remember reading about any "Fire Ages".


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 4
oh, it's coming..... I read about it in Revelations.

Now he is missing his information when he said another fire age. There will be only one fire age... and when it happens, I'm going to be a Stephen Colbert's house, because that will be the only safe place on earth.


RE: YAWN...
By Regs on 11/28/2008 7:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But you can't deny that hurricanes have become more ferocious in the last few decades


I'm sure the Inca's, after their sacrifices too their gods, booted up their MAC lap tops in the 14th century to measure how bad their hurricane season was.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:31:22 AM , Rating: 1
Lies. They didn't have computers! By the way, I was pretty much poking fun at people who think they can measure global temps over a very short time frame like one hundred years. Maybe nobody understood that I was kidding. But for the record, during times of global temp change, many people died. We've studied Europe and the last ice age.


RE: YAWN...
By DASQ on 12/2/2008 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
The last ice age climate data consists of a cave relief of a guy huddling in a mammoth skin cloak in a cave with a bewildered look on his face that seems to question 'why sharp stick hurt?'


RE: YAWN...
By gregpet on 12/1/2008 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you can't deny that hurricanes have become more ferocious in the last few decades


Tell that to the people of Galveston in 1901. The entire city was LITERALLY wiped off the map by a hurricane. Because of that Houston displaced Galveston as the major Texas city on the Gulf coast.


RE: YAWN...
By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2008 3:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't gotten more ferocious or more frequent. You're just hearing about them a whole lot more because the news entertainment channels love stories about destruction and death. What gets more viewers, one story about death and destruction of the world or one story about how the day was just your average day?


RE: YAWN...
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/29/2008 5:26:17 AM , Rating: 1
Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly. Just say "raises the question" kthxbye


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/3/2008 12:44:15 AM , Rating: 1
I don't have to google the phrase "I should of done that" to know what was meant either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's also wrong.


RE: YAWN...
By zivnix on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By grenableu on 11/28/2008 11:41:16 AM , Rating: 3
We haven't used "almost all" the carbon. We've barely begun to touch coal deposits, and haven't even started on things like oil shale.

Also, there's a thousand times as much CO2 stored in the ocean as there is in the atmosphere. And guess what? When you warm water, the CO2 comes out. That's the real reason CO2 levels are climbing. It gets warmer, and the gas comes out.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By TheSpaniard on 11/27/2008 10:40:54 PM , Rating: 4
the sun has the GREATEST effect on the changes in earth's temperature because it is constantly changing (see: sunspots)


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/27/2008 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
How do you call the sun stable? The fact that it is always the same size in the sky means that its output is a constant? Like stated above, look up sunspots for one. The sun's output is extremely variable, and is a large cause of fluctuation.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2008 12:37:13 AM , Rating: 5
In total insolation, the sun changes very little during a solar cycle, yes...a few tenths of a percent. However, in some frequency bands, such as the far ultraviolet, energy output can very by several percent. Do feedback effects exist which amplify these insolation changes to cause climate shifts? Many solar physicists believe they do.

Even more compelling is the widespread belief that orbital variations (ala Milankovitch cycles, etc) cause widescale climatic changes. The evidence for this is compelling...but those cycles also only cause very slight changes in total solar insolation themselves. Therefore, if one accepts the "orbital wobble" explanation of past climate shifts (many of which occurred much faster than the one we're now experiencing) then one has to accept such positive amplifications exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By whiskerwill on 11/28/2008 10:15:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just what is the real downside to not polluting so much?
You mean, besides the $50 trillion dollars the UN says it'll cost to reduce emissions? And that's just to get started. The final bill is so large they're even afraid to even estimate it.

Maybe you and me are different, but I really don't look forward to a future where energy (and every product and service that depends on it, which is literally everything) is much more expensive. All to solve a "problem" that apparently doesn't even exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
OK, now take all of the billions of people who actually cant afford that, then all of the countries that aren't going to play along, and what do you have left? a LOT more per person.


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Like the other guy just pointed out, that's more money than some people will earn in a lifetime.

Divide the 50 trillion by the 1 billion who actually could pay it, and it's $50,000. That's, what, two years or so of global rich-world output? As the current economy shows, just slight variations of 1 and 2% of total output can lead to huge increases in unemployment, and, well, just a lot of all-around suffering. The suffering isn't limited to just people who would pay the cost either because the world is deeply connected by international trade. A bank collapses in Europe, and Malaysians may loose chunks of their retirement. Euro-zone consumers cut back, and thousands of factories close (and have already closed) in China, etc.

If you think 50 trillion is trivial, stop paying attention to the current global government as if they are some kind of good example, tossing hundreds of billions around as if its nothing. Governments are going to have to "thread the (monetary) needle" carefully; if they get it wrong, hyperinflation catastrophe, if they get it right, possibly a repeat of Japan's decade-long stagnation.

It's not just me saying this, either. Numerous economists have done cost-benefit analysis suggesting that it makes sense to only spend relatively small sums of money curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Higher levels of spending could reduce output and thus reduce global warming damage in the long run, but by less than the value of forgone investments with that same marginal dollar. (Yeah, I know, left-wing ideology and economics doesn't mix well)


RE: YAWN...
By TomZ on 11/28/2008 10:32:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
do you still want to breathe in pollution?

The AGW debate is about CO2 - and CO2 is absolutely not a pollutant in the sense of the word as you are using it.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/2008 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. CO2 is a NATURAL gas. However, I'll drink to not being polluted with toxins. Except alcohol. That toxin running through my veins is often intentional (except when I'm forced to drink it at thin camp - they love us all liquored up because let's face it, anorexia is hot and beer makes freshman college girls fat within 2 years) and should only be of concern to parents who let their good-looking teenage daughters frequent the university bars on weekends. Scientists and the mass public however, can relax. CO2 is a natural gas, and so is my after-effect from drinking a few beers.


RE: YAWN...
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 5:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
What planet is JonnyDough from? Where I am from we have things called Volcanos. And every five hundred years or so a big one goes off and emits more CO2 than the last one hundred years of the industrial revolution. The biggest impact we have here on the levels of Carbon Dioxide is deforstation.

We would like to get people to replant the forest trees, primarily for the wood, like the United States started doing a century ago but we keep getting resistance from people who want to run their cars on "biofuels." The rest of us would use the coal-to-oil conversion for the next 300 years and pave the parking lots with nanoantennas during the next century.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 12:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
It depends exactly what you mean by stable. Is it going to explode or collapse? no. Is it going to massively fluctuate? no. But it will fluctuate. Again, i urge you to look into sunspots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

Each sunspot causes a fluctuation in the sun's energy output. (ie, temperature)


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
How does health care and sun screen have anything to do with proving there are fluctuations in the sun? I never said it wasn't going to affect anything.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:19:43 AM , Rating: 1
Get a REAL job! Dude, you're too serious.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 2:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
I knew it wasn't serious, but it wouldve helped if your post had anything to do with what i was talking about.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 5:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well now, that's a bit selfish!


RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tom Cruise is stable in his acting output.... but does that make him stable in real life?

uhhhh...no.


RE: YAWN...
By porkpie on 11/27/2008 11:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pick one tiny fact in one place on Earth
Norway, the Arctic, Antarctica, Canada, California, New Zealand, are all just "one place"? I think you need to learn basic counting skills.

Yeah, greenhouse gases warm the earth. That's why CO2 doesn't matter. Because water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and its a thousand times more prevalent.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:19:43 AM , Rating: 3
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 12:19:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill .

So, in your opinion, AGW can be reduced to a conspiracy impulsed by non-scientists and government schills. And if this is not enough, you compare the support of a scientific theory with something that's faith-based (beliefs)
quote:
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.

And then I'm supposed to take right-wingers seriously. Everything is a government-sponsored scam or a conspiracy of some sort. I'll give you some advice: if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)

In other unrelated news, the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years. Links in Spanish:
http://genteadiario.blogspot.com/2008/11/noviembre...
http://www.lacapital.com.ar/contenidos/2008/11/26/...

This site tends more and more to the right. Even my right leaning friends (I'm considered a radical centrist) like to poke fun at the opinions (and some articles) written on this site.


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years
That means it was even warmer 75 years ago. If that's the best you can do to show the world is still warming up, you better give up while you can.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
It seems that your reading skills aren't up to the task:
- First, I didn't want to imply that this hot November here in Argentina is in anyway proof of AGW. If you read that sentence again you'll find a little amount of sarcasm ("... in other unrelated news...".
- Second, if you even bother to read the links (use an online translation service if you aren't fluent in Spanish) you'll know that this is the hottest November using reliable records. Some excerpts:
-"Con su máxima media de 31,4 grados hasta anteayer, este noviembre es el más caluroso del que tiene registro el Servicio Meteorológico, que elabora series de esos valores desde 1935, es decir, desde hace 73 años."
"With an average high of 31.4 ºC until yesterday (11/26), this November is the hottest (1.8 ºC more than the previous record and 4.7 ºC more than the "normal" average high) on the records kept by the National Weather Service, which began keeping records since 1935, 73 years ago"


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 7:59:14 PM , Rating: 3
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country. It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 12/1/2008 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country.

I only posted two examples (a blog referencing Buenos Aires and the online version of Rosario's main newspaper). Both cities are a mere example of a phenomenon which affected vast areas.
quote:
It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.

Bad call for the UHI effect.
- Most climate models are already adjusted for the UHI effect which, BTW, is thought as not being important in the general scheme of things.
- Rosario isn't a "very fast growing city".
- The weather stations of Bs. As. are placed in places not affected by urbanization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroparque_Jorge_Newb...
http://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/areas/barrios/buscad...
- The records are far off the scale
"Aunque parezca pequeña, la diferencia de 1,5 grados entre las marcas de 1994 y las de este noviembre es muy elevada , explicó el licenciado Leis. Y agregó: Lo habitual es que las marcas se superen por apenas unas décimas ."

Straight from the horses' mouth:
http://www.smn.gov.ar/?mod=clima&id=73


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)


So, to spin things slightly different, you say he thinks its a conspiracy theory because he doesn't understand the science. Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.

Thanks, but I understand those financial and economic issues. I even profit from them. Since you didn't understood my sarcasm, I'll make it more obvious:
Conspiracy theories are silly explanations made by ignorant people or people who developed high degrees of cynicism (lots of plausible explanations for this cynicism). Conspiracy theories have one key element, an elite who wants to hide things.
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.
When you analyze the evolution of the global financial system in the last decades, you may find some well-connected people and some hints of an elite. Even if I think that this conspiracy theory is silly, stupid and lacking some key evidence I can "accept" that it has some "merits".


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.


Since you understand economics, then perhaps you'll see what bothers me most about all this "science." In economics, if one has a model, they take the known population data, split it up, input some of the data and attempt to predict the rest. If it fails, the model is refined until it or does or trashed entirely as nonsense -- it definitely never sees the light of day in the public realm. As Masher points out, we're just now starting to get such climate models. The fact we've gone on and on about global warming with such guesswork suggests motivations exist beyond mere science. These people in the real world of finance wouldn't last a week.

Indeed, listen to some activists own admissions, and you'd know what those motivations are. I've linked before to environmentalist websites, particularly those with blogs and thus expressed views on a range of issues. They're almost all anti-trade, anti-development, left-wing front groups who find environmentalism a cute shroud to hide behind. Most are anti-nuclear, and many apparently still claim clean-coal doesn't exist or is an oxymoron -- despite the functional German coal plant that proves otherwise. If it's a solution, they're against it, unless its onerously expensive.

Of course politicians of different creeds would pander to those groups. They want to get re-elected, and a large portion of the population has been brainwashed with 'green' ideology and ideas like wind and solar being our future salvation. Notice some of the Republican's advocating a shift to the left for the party; they'd rather embrace John Maynard Keynes and get elected rather than embrace Goldwater or Milton Friedman and get left in the cold.

But this popular appeal therefore trickles back to the science. Want to study, say, squirrel populations? Forget it, times are hard, budgets are thin. Want to study squirrel populations and the impact of global warming? Ka-Ching, here's your grant money! The amount of government money spent globally on 'global warming' is amazing, but it has to be done by politicians to gain green 'cred'. And where have all these climate scientists come from? Where were they 30 years ago? Did we suddenly train thousands of competent climate specialists globally? I find it interesting that some of the climate scientists who were plying their trade long before this recent fad are some of the ones who tend to put up caution flags on GW.

At any rate, the conspiracy of GW isn't so much the science IMHO. The scientific consensus is just part of a feedback loop that represents the fundamental weakness of democracy. The conspiracy is in the response to global warming, and the policies advocated. Thats where the extremists are.


RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2008 8:25:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians...
Consensus among politicans is meaningless. AGW is a dream come true for most elected officials: an excuse for more government, more taxes, and a "crisis" that only they can solve.

Among scientists, consensus doesn't exist. Just before reading your post, I happened to be watching some proceedings from the International Geological Convention this year in Norway. Attended by hundreds of researchers from around the globe, A panel debate on global warming was part of the agenda. With it headed by IPCC climate modelers and even an environment minister for the Danish government, the conclusion seemed foregone. However, once the panel allowed questions from the researchers in the audience, you'll see scientist after scientist question whether AGW exists and is a crisis:

http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&Pa...

About half the scientists were openly skeptical of AGW; several denied it outright.

Last year, 100 scientists wrote an open letter to the UN IPCC, telling them their efforts were misguided. Among the signatories on that letter was the president of the World Federation of Scientists, a past president of the American Physical Society, and many other noted figures. Several were even IPCC expert reviewers themselves:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10032

Since that letter was initially sent, several hundred more have chosen to add their names to it as well.

In any case, the claim of consensus itself is meaningless. As Michael Crichton says:
quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had .

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

... Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough . Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
My thanks again to Ringold or whoever it was who originally posted this text.


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
DAMMIT MASHER!

I should have been on yesterday (or finished reading the Thread), So I could have posted this before you! (or not posted it as you already had)


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
WARNING WARNING DANGER DANGER DANGER WARNING WARNING
The previous post contained an idiotic statment that SHOULD NEVER be used in a scientific discussion!

quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians


Consensus has NO place in science. You are either CORRECT or INCORRECT, and Politicians are never allowed in science.

Look up all the Scientific consensuses in history, you will witness an astronomical failure rate. The only time Scientific Consensus is correct is after the Scientific Individual (Discoverer/Inventor) has prooven it to the rest of the world, and the scientific community has to accept it because it is true. All other cases of Scientific Consensus were adopted to thwart or obstruct discoveries or inventions that the Scientific Consensus does not want to allow.

The only benefit of Scientific Consensus is to prevent Bogus Science from reaching main stream. It is not an indication of proof but rather disproof, such as mechanisms used in court which cannot proove guilt but only innocence.

As such anyone who cites Scientific Consensus as proof of a subject, only cites consensus as there is no other evidence. Stating Consensus is an admission that there is no proof and none forthcomming. It is a political ploy to further an ajenda of obstruction or misdirection.

If you had discovered a scientific principal or law. You could proove it scientifically. If you cannot proove it scientifically, it should be nothing more than a theory or hypothesis, no action should be taken, other than further studies until proof can be made.

Anything further?


RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 10:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore's next assignment is to attack the effect that Global War....errr...Climate Change is having on our lunar friend.

His next docu...err...movie will be titled, "An inconvenient night in Bangkok".

The movie will discuss how the moon's phases have been altered, thus causing mankind to become filled with hatred towards one another --- how not only is the temperature rising on our planet but in each of our very own hearts.

...it's a tear jerker I predict.


RE: YAWN...
By whiskerwill on 11/28/2008 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every increase in temperature due to CO2, will put more water vapor into the atmosphere and increase the temperature that much more.
Yeah, and Santa fits down my chimney also. Even my 7 year old is too smart to believe that any more. If runaway warming can happen, why did it never happen before? There's been plenty of times CO2 levels were several times above what they are now.

Water vapor BLOCKS the same wavelengths CO2 does. Too much water, and you just get clouds, which reflect back a lot more solar energy than they absorb.


RE: YAWN...
By PKmjolnir on 11/28/2008 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 5
Thee conditions of venus shows what?

Do you mean that if we let some CO2 out in our atmosphere, our earth will become a fiery ball of death trough the following transformations:

A transformation of the surface to 80% cover of volcanic plains.
Abolishment of plate tectonics
Days growing longer; A lot longer in fact, to be specific: 243 times longer days.
An increase of air pressure at ground level by 90 times.
An increase of CO2 levels from 0.038% to ~96.5%(a 2500 times increase).

Or perhaps you just tried to scare us into converting to enviromentalists by pulling some grossly farfetched example with no scientific basis out of your ass?


RE: YAWN...
By MatthiasF on 11/28/2008 5:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
I really wish that:

a. The debate would stop getting political. This is science, not politics. Most of my views would probably qualify me as a "liberal" yet I do not support the CO2 Global Warming hype. Respect each person as an individual thinker, or you might find yourself in a stereotype you can't escape.

b. People would stop spewing reasons for the things that are happening. We do not know enough about what is going to to blame any particular thing. So, stop acting like you have the answers and just support the fact that the reasons behind the Global Warming crisis are lies.


RE: YAWN...
By thepalinator on 11/27/2008 11:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's hard to believe one sided and cherry picked reports
If you use a web translator on the link in the article, you see Norway's official news service saying the same thing. I think I'll believe the real world over your new religion of global warming.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/2008 11:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Real world? LOL My point is not that the information is totally false but that IT'S CHERRY PICKED out of context. Its meaning has thus been misrepresented.

I am going to believe REAL scientists that assess ALL facts in their proper and FULL context :) I am not going to believe Masher, a blogger with a following of school boys that has never managed to write an unbiased article on climate change and clearly has never had proper training in how to write a science review (judging by what he puts out on this site).

So, NO, I am staying with REAL SCIENCE for my information, and I am not joining the church of Masher, or scientology, or the Free Masons, or Satanism, or born again paganism, or the Gaia movement, etc.


RE: YAWN...
By TomZ on 11/28/2008 10:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
All the AGW hoopla is based on computer modeling - not "real science." If you look at real science, i.e., actual temperature measurements, you'll see we're clearly in a period of global cooling.

And on top of that, even if it were happening, all of the dire predictions about the consequences of global warming are also extrapolations based on computer models. Again, no "real science" there.

It seems like all you "believe in" are fictional computer models. That takes a real faith, and I applaud you for that.


RE: YAWN...
By Procurion on 11/28/2008 11:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Better study your definitions. You speak of consensus, not science. Science must stand on it's own merit. Consensus is "because everyone says so". As I have said before, CO2 levels from eons before during previous warm periods measure existing levels of CO2. They have a string of information and make suppositions about them. CO2 MUST be present in a hot atmospheric environment, but does it cause it or is it there as an end result? There is no scientific proof of the cause of warming periods thousands of years ago, only educated guesses and consensus.


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Last Friday (Black Friday) a Wal-Mart Employee was trampled to death by Scientific Consensus. The equation in question was:
BLU-Ray player Sticker Price - 10%(Sticker Price) > Value of Human Life

Scientific Consensus is not only wrong (if it is not wrong it is irrelevent, as it is provable and therefore consensus is not needed) it is dangerous as it is only used to incite mob-like behavior in the sheep of society.

The sheep of society are the cannon fodder of Socialism.


RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2008 12:25:46 AM , Rating: 4
> "Here is something far more interesting: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/08..."

That's actually a very interesting study. It's simply modelling, of course, not hard science -- but its some of the first modelling that doesn't clash with the hard facts of earth's history.

Paleoclimatology tells us that ice ages didn't begin until CO2 levels dropped to a certain point, causing the earth's climate to enter a chaotic state. We also know that extremely high levels of CO2 never caused runaway warming either. The obvious assumption to be drawn is that CO2 is a strong GHG when temperatures are very cold and water vapor levels low. But when temperatures are higher, water vapor predominates; it's a much stronger, more more prevalent gas, and it absorbs in a much wider spectrum, leaving little for CO2 to do.

The study you cite is one of the first that begins to duplicate what we actually know has happened in the earth's past. We're still of course many decades from being able to accurate model climate...but this work is real progress on that front.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:32:12 AM , Rating: 3
Only you of the left can equivalate the holocaust to an imaginary change in the weather! How does that go?

Fred - "oh is seems a bit chill today"

Lefty - "I bet you would just love to poison and burn some jews wouldn't you???!!! "

It may just be possible you need to pop a midol.


By PhobosAnonomly on 11/28/2008 7:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
I can't understand why that one's believing in a possibility that pouring hundreds of billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere could potentially cause undesired consequences is a bad thing.

When .08 percent of your blood content consist of alcohol your are legally drunk, at .4 percent I think they declare you dead. So even if they amount of of pollution poured into the atmosphere only accounts for very small percentages of the total amount of Co2 actually found in the atmosphere, it could still potentially have a noticeable effect.

That being said, it would seem that the variations in the suns radiation has a greater effect on the earths climate than Co2 emissions.


Corporate propaganda
By NubWobble on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Corporate propaganda
By rakishone on 11/28/2008 12:16:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
less rain falls on the earth on average than decades ago.
Congrats on getting the science 100% wrong. More rainfall falls on the earth now than decades ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/sc...


RE: Corporate propaganda
By SeeManRun on 11/28/2008 10:03:29 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is not the amount of rainfall, but where the rain falls and how often. Everything loves consistency, and global warming is making it harder to predict the weather, or grow crops in places that were barely managing before. Imagine driving to work everyday, but the roads all change themselves and you have to find a new route every day.. Not very efficient.
Now imagine trying to grow crops and your rain either comes 2 weeks too early, or 2 weeks too late, or not enough, or too much... I think you get the idea (I hope)


RE: Corporate propaganda
By wookie1 on 11/29/2008 1:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
News flash, not only do plants thrive with more CO2, but also a bit of warming would increase growing seasons for much of the land where farming is done. We should be more concerned about cooling and lower crop yields, crop failures, etc.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By foolsgambit11 on 11/29/2008 8:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
News flash, plants also need water. Frequently, water within certain times of the year to germinate and grow before the end of their growing season (either too hot or too cold, or too wet or too dry, depending on the crop and location). I'm sure that's what the OP was referring to.

He was also making an argument that recently, the climate has been less predictable than it used to be. Whether you believe that or not is up to your judgment. But instead of blurting out the talking points given to you by the anti-global warming newsletter ("plants love CO2!"), you should learn to apply them appropriately as counter-arguments to global warming supporters arguments. For instance, you should have argued something about the lack of consistent, accurate data with which to establish trends over long enough periods of time, or the problem being with the climatologists models, and not with the consistency of the weather. After all, humans have never been good at predicting the weather more than a few days out. Ever. Not only that, but global rain patterns frequently change. The Sahara Desert got more rain 5000 years ago than it does today - it was something like the Northern Mediterranean climate is today.

This isn't to say that dramatic cooling wouldn't be dangerous to global food production, as you argued. But, since the anti-global warming argument is that this is a natural cycle of cooling, and it will keep getting cooler, then there's nothing we can do. And since we can't do anything about it, it's not really worth being concerned about. We just have to accept that we won't be able to produce enough food for 6 billion people, billions will starve, and global anarchy will reign. But there's nothing that can be done, really - I mean, are you willing to change your lifestyle because the human race is in danger? I'm not. Are you willing to spend the money it would take to develop hearty, cold-resistant crop varieties? Not my tax dollars!

Sorry, I think I'm being more confrontational than I really feel on this issue. Fact is, I don't know what's going on with the climate - but I've got a boat in case it's a Waterworld-style scenario.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 5:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since we can't do anything about it, it's not really worth being concerned about. We just have to accept that we won't be able to produce enough food for 6 billion people, billions will starve, and global anarchy will reign
What? There's PLENTY of things we can do to adapt to colder weather.

The problem is that anytime the subject of adaption to climate change comes up, the Alarmists freak out and shut down the debate. If we can adapt to colder weather, we can adapt to warmer even easier. And that would kill their entire anti-industrialization argument.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But there's nothing that can be done, really - I mean, are you willing to change your lifestyle because the human race is in danger?


The real question is "Will European's drop their zealotry with regards to GM crops?" or "Will trade protectionism in agricultural trade continue to distort global food markets, and will the EU and US be willing to drop trade barriers?"

Those are the two primary issues that hold back further increases in global food production, distribution, etc.

quote:
Are you willing to spend the money it would take to develop hearty, cold-resistant crop varieties? Not my tax dollars!


Of course not. Because several household name ag companies do it for us all for free, and have been doing so for years! Monsanto comes to mind first, but there are many smaller firms. Capitalism. Google it.

quote:
Sorry, I think I'm being more confrontational than I really feel on this issue.


No, alarmist. On top of everything else, Brazil has huge areas of land that can be made arable. American farmers in some cases have been thriving in Brazil. The only thing that can cause starvation is government.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 5:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
This same guy tried talking economics elsewhere recently, and asides from repeating Marxist theory in general he was spouting data that was perhaps half correct 6 - 12 months ago. He doesn't care about silly things like accuracy, data never sways the radicals, he cares only about his agenda, which explains why he doesn't bother to keep up on data. It simply doesn't matter to him.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2008 12:32:42 AM , Rating: 5
> "...and that we need the world to consist of 90% carbon dioxide"

The atmosphere is currently 0.038% CO2. I don't think we need to worry about "90% carbon dioxide" levels for the next few million years.

> "If you really think we need to emit more CO2 then why don't you shove your head in a chimney"

Chimneys tend to be full of particulates, sulfur compounds, and many other actual pollutants. A more apt comparison would be a commercial greenhouse, most of which are artificially raised to CO2 levels 3-4 times higher than the atmosphere. It helps the plants grow...and, of course, humans working inside suffer no ill effects.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By SeeManRun on 11/28/2008 10:00:06 AM , Rating: 1
Workers don't live in greenhouses along with the rest of the earth (well, not yet anyway). Since we breath carbon dioxide it doesn't hurt us unless there is no oxygen. But not hurting us is not quite the same thing as not hurting the globe on a long term basis.

Remember acid rain was all the rage back in the day. Plants spewing out chemicals that caused corrosive rain. I think the plant owners at the time said there was no evidence of anything damaging and more research was required, but the government went ahead anyway and put a stop to that kind of pollution. I think that was a good decision.
You can't listen to people that are biased, because they are incapable of seeing the facts without their personal views affecting their interpretation.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
...and who would magically be unbiased? The left? Give me a break. As Rush Limbaugh says "if you are human you are biased"...... ( I love using Limbaugh's name because you can get a libtard to deny gravity if you say Limbaugh supports the concept of gravity )

It is only the left that sets themselves up as demigods given to an incredible lightness of being unbiased.

Its time for me to break into song. ( to the Monkey's Tune "I am a believer" )

THEN I SAW THERE FACTS
NOW I'M A denier
NOT A TRACE
OF Dung IN MY MIND
I'M IN Clear
I'M A denier
I COULDN'T buy'er
IF I TRIED


RE: Corporate propaganda
By weather weenie on 11/28/2008 8:07:52 AM , Rating: 3
A better experiment with a CO2-enriched atmosphere would be to stick your head into a greenhouse where CO2, the gas of life, is artificially maintained at 1000 ppm+

"Those who love the biosphere will do anything to save it except takes a science course"--P. J. Rourke


RE: Corporate propaganda
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:46:09 AM , Rating: 1
Quite on the contrary to what this noxious communist said. Anyone who travels outside the USA quickly discovers it is only the white cultures that are obsessed with "gaia" dieties that are OCD about global warming. Here is the list of countries:

-1- USA - biggest ethnic group? = german
-2- germany - duh
-3- England - well duh they are germanic in alot of senses of the word also.

And what of Spain / Italy and Eastern Europe? mmm...Strange you don't hear much of them on this subject. Brazil? You have to be kidding. They have had so much pucky from their government they have PhD's in spotting B.S. Mexico? China? Russia? Not a peep.

You have to accept it. If you obsess about global warming you are a neurotic white person. There is a cure. Do what I did early in life. Smoke some good maui wowey. Use your own mind. See the objective truth in front of your face. Release your need for anxiety. Live a better life.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By Fnoob on 11/28/2008 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
"... good maui wowey."

Amen! Is there such a thing as bad maui wowey? Could you please send me some seeds for my greenhouse? I promise to use them to cut down CO2!


RE: Corporate propaganda
By kontorotsui on 11/29/2008 10:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quite on the contrary to what this noxious communist said. Anyone who travels outside the USA quickly discovers it is only the white cultures that are obsessed with "gaia" dieties that are OCD about global warming. Here is the list of countries: -1- USA - biggest ethnic group? = german -2- germany - duh -3- England - well duh they are germanic in alot of senses of the word also. And what of Spain / Italy and Eastern Europe? mmm...Strange you don't hear much of them on this subject. Brazil? You have to be kidding. They have had so much pucky from their government they have PhD's in spotting B.S. Mexico? China? Russia? Not a peep. You have to accept it. If you obsess about global warming you are a neurotic white person. There is a cure. Do what I did early in life. Smoke some good maui wowey. Use your own mind. See the objective truth in front of your face. Release your need for anxiety. Live a better life.


Excuse me? So in Spain/Italy, Eastern Europe and Russia there are no whites? Or they don't just have a white culture?
Ah, maybe they are white but not neuritc. Yes, duh.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By kontorotsui on 11/29/2008 10:48:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is the true face of Mussolini's fascism, he would have been proud of the US had he been alive.


Indeed Mussolini was well known for being a supporter of the US oil and car industry.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By matorsfan on 11/30/2008 10:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
He was well known for being a fan of big, controlling governments. You know, the kind that can force people to make the lifestyle changes to fight climate change.

Do I need go get my big crayon and connect more dots for you?


RE: Corporate propaganda
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 10:21:24 AM , Rating: 1
Nub,

This? This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This? This is NubWobble. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.


RE: Corporate propaganda
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
wha?!

I quote one of the greatest movies ever and my rating gets dinged! ha!


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki