Deleted
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html
Their homepage headline? “NASA warns of Doomsday”… in about 36pt type.
Kind of reminds me of the hype over global warming AND CFCs. The entire article is 60% hysterics, 30% wild ass guesses and 10% facts. I guess it’s time for us to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, (plus building a bunker, hoarding canned goods and bottled water, and stocking up on ammunition), and demand the government throw billions at this too.
Maybe the editor at Fox used to work at Weekly World News?
Mik said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.htmlTheir homepage headline? “NASA warns of Doomsday”… in about 36pt type.
Kind of reminds me of the hype over global warming AND CFCs. The entire article is 60% hysterics, 30% wild ass guesses and 10% facts. I guess it’s time for us to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, (plus building a bunker, hoarding canned goods and bottled water, and stocking up on ammunition), and demand the government throw billions at this too.Maybe the editor at Fox used to work at Weekly World News?
That’a a clear example of something I said earlier, that there’s a difference between what a scientist says and what a reporter says a scientist said.
You hit the nail on the head though. Fox News and World Weekly News are not very far apart. If it wasn’t for The Simpsons I doubt I would ever have watched Fox at all.
Steve Featherkile said:And then there are the "unusual suspects". They are the sort of people who, when you ask them not to crap on your front lawn, scream "The enviro-wackoes in their black helicopters are trying to ban taking a dump!"
Notice how the usual suspects conveniently ignored the shrinking icecaps on Mars.
Mik said:Steve Featherkile said:Naw, I think THIS ONE works better, lol
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4&feature=related]How does that song go?[/url]
Hey guys, this is ignorant.
Mik said:mike omalley said:If giving a couple hundred thousand to LaRouche for nothing in return makes one incompetent then what are those nice Bronfman fellows who figured out how to USE the pollies and press and only spent tens of millions to rake in billions in return? Wonderful environmentalists who "just happened" to gain monetarily? Brilliant businessmen with no souls? or simply brazen crooks?
Eight years before, Lewis du Pont Smith had been declared mentally incompetent to handle his affairs after he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lyndon LaRouche"As YOU said, follow the money…
What ARE you talking about? The Bronfman family owns Seagrams, the liquor business. What does it have to do with freon and the ozone? I can’t make any sense out of what you posted, and the link to Lewis Dupont Smith actually seems to prove the opposite of what you say it proves
Mik said:mike omalley said:If giving a couple hundred thousand to LaRouche for nothing in return makes one incompetent then what are those nice Bronfman fellows who figured out how to USE the pollies and press and only spent tens of millions to rake in billions in return? Wonderful environmentalists who "just happened" to gain monetarily? Brilliant businessmen with no souls? or simply brazen crooks?
Eight years before, Lewis du Pont Smith had been declared mentally incompetent to handle his affairs after he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lyndon LaRouche"As YOU said, follow the money…
Sheesh Mik, last I remember is you being stone broke
… follow the money and you’ll find some for yourself. That would fix you up. 
BTW on that global warming bit, is it just me who hears and reads about one effect being very unusual weather - varies with the regions on the globe - or do some people delight in being Chinese monkeys?
Last I heard was that the young Bronfman son, sold off the booze busness in order to get his name in lights as a Hollywood “Big Dick”…imagine selling off a Booze Empire, that would never go broke, for a trendy entertainment spot in Hollywood…He looks and appears to be a bit of a twit…his father and uncle; I’m sure would not be pleased.
I’ve met maybe 1 in 10 professors that reward original though, most of the rest base you grade on how well you parrot back what THEY think…
An educated public is also a governmental nightmare… so dumb down schools even further.
Sorry, I don’t deny that climate change exists, I object to the way it’s being sold to us, and the infringement on civl liberties thar will come from nanny state that is likely to follow.
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:Nice job Tony. Now we are back to page one :D Ralph
Now you need to accept that actvities by mankind are part of the cause.
I kinda see it this way…if global warming is indeed mostly nature and it piles poop up to within an inch of my nose, then why should I care if mankind only adds another two?
I’m not wearing sack cloth but I do believe we need to take a tad bit more care in what we do to our own back yard.
I recently read an article pointing out that an NOAA weather station at an airport in California has recorded a 4 to 7 degree F rise in the average temperature starting about three years ago.
This significant average temperature increase has now been reversed by removing the weather station from the middle of an asphalt ramp that had been built and newly paved . . . three years ago.
I guess this is proof positive of both global warming and of the ability of mankind to fix the problem!
BTW, one of my primary job functions over the years has been the inception, design and construction of high temperature (up ~4500 degrees F) thermal processing and test equipment. Careful consideration and knowledge of the points of power input and points of measurement is critical when you need to keep the temperature at say 1150 degrees F plus or minus less than 1/4 degree in a volume of more than three cubic feet.
Google around for “measuring average temperature” or similar and you will find some shocking results. As an example, see:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Scroll down and look at the positions of the official stations. This is the height of stupidity as well as being a total fraud when used to prove global warming and mankind’s effects.
Mankind is definitely responsible for some of the recorded increases in temperatures, but much of it (not all) can be traced to the methods and locations of the measurements, not to other human activities.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
TonyWalsham said:
Hey Mik.Nice to see you acknowledge Global warming exists.
Now you need to accept that actvities by mankind are part of the cause.
Once you accept that, this new “religion” will provide you with the all answers you need to know about reversing the effects.
Not much different really from believing in a main steam religion, and accepting the answers and protocols of behaviour provided by that mainstream religon of choice.
To me that is also a form of mind control.But, to each his own.
THANK YOU FOR SO SUCCINCTLY DEFINING THE PROBLEM!! It HAS taken on too many of the trappings of a religion… of the Peoples Temple variety. Don’t question, silence all infidels, dig deep to help spread the word, always say baaa like the rest of the sheep…
When it comes time to join hands, sing Kumbaya, and drink the Kool-Aid, y’all are welcome to mine cause I ain’t buying.
Deleted
There is NO global warming. We don’t really know WHICH way the climate is going. All we know is that there is CLIMATE CHANGE. It could go either way, but it appears that the PREFERRED direction of warming is the LESS LIKELY of the two possible courses (or the third where nothing changes at all). Of course, what is really meant here is man-made climate change. That is unproven and highly unlikely as a significant factor in climate change.
Ron Simpson said:And your evidence for this is...
There is NO global warming. We don't really know WHICH way the climate is going. All we know is that there is CLIMATE CHANGE. It could go either way, but it appears that the PREFERRED direction of warming is the LESS LIKELY of the two possible courses (or the third where nothing changes at all). Of course, what is really meant here is man-made climate change. That is unproven and highly unlikely as a significant factor in climate change.
Deleted
mike omalley said:What always gets me about this AGW debate is that it is up to the AGW proponents to prove their case. They contend that carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere creates a "greenhouse effect" and that man is the major cause of this effect because he is creating increasing amounts of CO2 as a result of his (normal) human activities. This all started with something called the "hockey stick" graph which purported to show how man has "polluted" the atmosphere in the last 100 years by this means and that this has resulted in an increased world-wide temperatures. This was further expanded upon by computer models which took early 20th century temperature readings and much later ones, supposedly at the same locations and made extrapolations that seemed to back up the hockey stick theory. Then there were the ice-core readings which were used to further substantiate these claims by showing what appeared to be a clear and distinct relationship between rises of temperature and CO2. Then there are the satellite photos which seem to show a shrinking of the arctic ice mass.
And your evidence for this is...
Unfortunately for the AGW proponents, almost none of this has held up under close scrutiny, including the allegation that CO2 is a cause of this so-called greenhouse effect which itself is dubious. Instead of rigorously following through with research to explain the contradictions to this AGW theory, politically-motivated organizations have claimed that “the debate is over” and that the only question is how to deal with the problem they have identified. In the last year increasing numbers of scientists who once backed AGW have now changed their minds. Anotherwards, the debate is NOT over and the theory remains unproved.
Of course, it does not help that the last decade has not only seen no warming despite increasingly CO2 in the air–in itself enough to DISPROVE the AGW theory, BUT it now turns out that those ice core readings were misinterpreted such that the CO2 increases FOLLOWED warming of the atmosphere, thus taking CO2 as a cause of increased warming off the table.
You can make all the arguments you want that man is the polluter who is ruining the earth and there is some validity to that. But you CANNOT legitimately claim that AGW exists when it remains ONLY a theory that appears to be mostly politically-driven and has NEVER been proven as a cause of a global warming that right now at the very least is on hold. And THAT itself is enough to make that theory worthless.
Finally the arctic ice mass is now back to 1979 levels. From my standpoint this is not such a good sign. I would rather see a continued warming trend than what I see coming for those of us who live in the North Country. And THAT brings about another question: Who are YOU (those of you who are AGW proponents) to say just WHAT is the ideal temperature for earth and THEN to attempt to make that happen? Does that not strike you as the height of arrogance? Does that not bring about the possibility of man unleashing things that truly CAN get out of hand–the law of unintended consequences? How about if we continue with the progress we have made in the west to reduce pollution instead–and in a way that does not endanger the very economic system that allows SOME people the luxury to think they can determine what is best for others?
As I see it, those who insist on holding on to this AGW nonsense are more interested in pursuing a political agenda then in dealing with reality. I am not here to make scientific arguments. But even a layman such as myself can see the obvious, which is that the AGW emperor has no clothes.
TonyWalsham said:
Mike.No evidence is required.
It is all just a left wing conspiracy, dontcha know?
How about “mantra” instead of “conspiracy?” I see most people who believe in left-wing ideology as unquestioning followers looking for some leader to save them from themselves rather than face up to the responsibility of dealing with their own problems like adults. Thus AGW is more a religion–an article of faith, if you will–than any kind of conspiracy. HOWEVER, it does present a rather convenient way to impose severe restrictions of free-enterprise, does it not? I can certainly SEE why AGW would appeal to the left.