Large Scale Central

A tale of two houses

Steve Featherkile said:
TonyWalsham said:
Steve Featherkile said:
Tony, you found me out!

I’m still waiting for the debate to occur.


You are bit slow my lad.

The debate is over.
It seems even your beloved Dubya has seen the light.
It took an Austrian ex body builder to show him the way.

Or is big Arnie really a closet Democrat? :wink:


Arnie is a member of the Kennedy clan. Follow the money. He is out of the closet.

So how come he was endorsed and supported by the Republicans as a Republican candidate for Governator of CA?

Quote:
The debate has not occurred. So, if it has never happened, how can it be over? Only in a Kool-Aid drinkers mind, I guess.
The debate on Global warming started in the '70's and has been ongoing eversince. If you were asleep to it or in denial since then, how is that the responsibilty of the Green movement?
Quote:
I, too live in an environmentally sound house. It is even recycled. Its first life was as a WWII barracks. It was purchased for a dollar (they went further, back then), moved on site, taken down to its bones and rebuild as a solar friendly home. I have natural heating a cooling from underground piping. Demand hot water. Wrap around porch that keeps the sun out in supper, and allows it in during winter. No windows on the North side.

I’m all in favor of saving a buck whenever I can.

So, it would seem, is W.

Algore, one would think, would set the example, but so far, he has failed miserably.


Well good for you and for W. But, as you have admitted, that by citing the housing arrangemnt of W, you were just trying to take a cheap shot at Al Gore. You then state you don’t really believe in what W is doing anyway. I believe most casual observes will think that looks like a breathtaking display of hypocrisy.

Although Al Gore no doubt has many faults, at least he can understand what is at stake and take a position on the matter. Attacking the messenger because you don’t like the message shows you have a paucity of logic in your arguments and seems to be the only plan of action denialists like yourself have left.
In the meantime big Arnie is tackling the problem head on.

Sometimes it is better not to take the cheapest and easiest alternative. Rather open your eyes to reality and take the correct option which may cost a bit more but prove to be the best way to a satisfactory outcome in the future.

TonyWalsham said:
The debate on Global warming started in the '70's and has been ongoing eversince. If you were asleep to it or in denial since then, how is that the responsibilty of the Green movement?
Tony, the debate has not occurred. Each time someone tried to speak the other side, he was shouted down. And, get your facts straight. Back in the 70's you lot were spouting that a new Ice Age was upon us. How's that, again? I missed something.
TonyWalsham said:
Well good for you and for W. But, as you have admitted, that by citing the housing arrangemnt of W, you were just trying to take a cheap shot at Al Gore. You then state you don't really believe in what W is doing anyway. I believe most casual observes will think that looks like a breathtaking display of hypocrisy.
Yes, I admit that I took a shot at Algore, but then he is such a tempting target, and not one easily missed. But I guess that I missed the part about where I said that I don't really believe in what W is doing. You can't make something so just by wishing it.
TonyWalsham said:
Although Al Gore no doubt has many faults, at least he can understand what is at stake and take a position on the matter. Attacking the messenger because you don't like the message shows you have a paucity of logic in your arguments and seems to be the only plan of action denialists like yourself have left.
If you have paid attention to this thread, you will note that I did not attack Algore, just his actions and statements. His message, if you will. Al has no position, because each time someone asks him a question about Global Warming that is in the least bit challenging, he ducks out the back door.

And your attack on me exposes the paucity of thought on your part.

TonyWalsham said:
In the meantime big Arnie is tackling the problem head on.
How is Arnold tackling the problem head on? I must have missed something.
TonyWalsham said:
Sometimes it is better not to take the cheapest and easiest alternative. Rather open your eyes to reality and take the correct option which may cost a bit more but prove to be the best way to a satisfactory outcome in the future.
And if it doesn't? Remember, the science, as the debate, is still not settled. A consensus of kool-aid drinkers is not science.

It amazes me how people attack Gore as if he invented all the volumns of science backing the research that it is really happening, he DIDNT, he’s just the messenger, and we ALL what happened to the messengers with the LGB debacle :wink:

Even Dubya admitted Global Warming is real…pack ice in the arctic was the lowest ever last winter, ice shelves in the antarctic began melting last year and what happens again in Greenland this year remains to be seen. Now argueing if its by natural or unnatural causes is also completely pointless, A flood is a flood, a drought is a drought, its how are we going to deal with it?

Now I’m not going to get into it with the naysayers as its completely pointless, remember what I said about the ventilator situation, Theres two types of people you cannot argue with, the Fanatic, and the Idiot. The fanatic will not accept any other viewpoint, the idiot simply cannot comprehend any.

Back to my workbench…

Victor Smith said:
It amazes me how people attack Gore as if he invented all the volumns of science backing the research that it is really happening, he DIDNT, he's just the messenger, and we ALL what happened to the messengers with the LGB debacle ;)

Even Dubya admitted Global Warming is real…pack ice in the arctic was the lowest ever last winter, ice shelves in the antarctic began melting last year and what happens again in Greenland this year remains to be seen. Now argueing if its by natural or unnatural causes is also completely pointless, A flood is a flood, a drought is a drought, its how are we going to deal with it?

Now I’m not going to get into it with the naysayers as its completely pointless, remember what I said about the ventilator situation, Theres two types of people you cannot argue with, the Fanatic, and the Idiot. The fanatic will not accept any other viewpoint, the idiot simply cannot comprehend any.

Back to my workbench…


Vic,

Quite true, in the end it all comes out in the wash. Just look back at July 26th 2007 and how utterly dumbfounded the Ventilators have been ever since! And there is more to come!

Same goes for the climatic changes, it’s in the works!

Yep, back to working on the GRR. Damn that shoveling can certainly get to you. :slight_smile: :wink:

BTW there is a third species added to the ones you mentioned. It is a Superspecies: Fanatical Idiot.

In German there is a nice proverb for the Species: “Dumm geboren, nichts gelernt und das auch noch vergessen.” (Born stupid, never learned anything and forgot that too).

:wink: :slight_smile:

Steve

What’s this debate you’re talking about? Are you referring to the scientific debate that occurred years ago? Perhaps you didn’t notice because you were too busy screaming at the top of your lungs about how ozone depletion was a government plot. Or are you suggesting that there should be a public debate? Perhaps you could hold a town hall meeting and take a vote. While you’re at it you could vote away floods and earthquakes.

I did some interesting reading while trying to verify your claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record. It turns out that it was indeed a hot year in the northwest United States. According to NOAA:
“1934 ranks as one of the warmest years on record in the United States. … The Northeast set low temperature records while the Northwest set high temperature records.”

But:
“2006 ranks as one of the warmest years on record in the US. … In NO state were temperatures at or below normal for 2006 …”

In any case, one hot year in the northwest United States is not evidence for or against a GLOBAL climatic trend. You have to look for clusters of extreme events. In 2006, NASA figures suggested:
“The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

In 2007 they revised that list:
“The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.”

And then:
“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements.”

What’s the cost of acting? Nothing. There are big bucks to be made in green industry. And there are also a lot of bucks to be saved. I want a pick-up truck that gets 30-40 mpg. That will never occur until the vehicle/oil industry is forced to deliver.

And when it comes to a harness on our backs, I note that Dubya (and his pet bonsai in Australia) has done far more to limit your freedoms than any other president.

Your comments thus far remind of the self-appointed advocates for the tobacco industry. They say things like, “My Uncle Fred smoked all his life and he lived to be 90.”

Probably would have lived to 120 if he had nt…

We may be having a cooler than usual August here in the Northwest but it already stands that July was one of the hottest on record. August isn’t over…and September has yet to arrive. I’ve only lived in the Northwest for 17 years, but I can say that winters are getting milder and milder. What used to fall as snow all winter now falls as rain. :frowning: …months on end of gloomy rain. If we ever loose our winter snowpack in the higher elevations we will screwed for sure. That spells DROUGHT. So far most winters have been cold enough for the higher mountain elevations to receive their winter snows…but it’s been barely.

Steve Featherkile said:
TonyWalsham said:
Well good for you and for W. But, as you have admitted, that by citing the housing arrangemnt of W, you were just trying to take a cheap shot at Al Gore. You then state you don't really believe in what W is doing anyway. I believe most casual observes will think that looks like a breathtaking display of hypocrisy.
Yes, I admit that I took a shot at Algore, but then he is such a tempting target, and not one easily missed. But I guess that I missed the part about where I said that I don't really believe in what W is doing. You can't make something so just by wishing it.
Steve, earlier in this thread you said this:
Quote:
Global warming, my a$$!
Seems to me that you want to take advantage of W embracing Green practices in his housing to take a shot at Al Gore and at the same time deny that those practices are necessary, because Global Warming does not really exist.

A perfect example of hypocrisy if I have ever seen one.

Tony, when you run out of ideas, you start calling names. Is that the idea?

So far, only Kevin has tried to deal in fact.

When I was a kid, we lived through summers where the temp got up to 106 every day for weeks, and the winters were so mild that there was no snow in the lower elevations.

Then the cycle changed a bit just before Warren moved her and things cooled down a bit and there was more snow. I remember shoveling tons of the white stuff, and having a ball on the ski slopes.

It is cyclical.

I have yet to see anything that would convince me otherwise.

Steve,
You can wriggle and squirm with as many weasel words as you like, but, there is no getting away from the fact you used an example of something you don’t believe in (W’s enviromentally friendly house) to take a cheap shot at someone who thinks the opposite of you.
You got caught out and don’t like it.
Sorry it was not me who was the hypocrite.

There is nothing to debate with you. The proof that Global Warming is taking place is irrefutable.

Steve, you continue to use the “My uncle smoked all his life” argument. You argue that the small pocket of air surrounding your community is proof that the whole world is cold. I guess that while you were enjoying the mild weather in your neck of the woods you failed to notice what was going on around the world.

Around here (southern Alberta) we just came out of a 3 week heat wave, the likes if which have never been seen before. On several days the old temperature records were bested by up to 7 degrees C. Worse still, it was way too hot to drink Scotch. I drank so much beer that I actually began to get sick of it.

I recently spent >3 years in the arctic, working near the Beaufort Sea coast in Inuvik. I met Inuit elders who were hearing thunder for the first time in their lives. I was there when a funnel cloud was spotted for the first time ever. There was another one the next year. A robin was sighted on Banks Island for the first time, and I personally saw soil erosion from melting permafrost.

Are any of these things, taken in isolation, proof of global warming? No. One hot day is not a trend. But when these events begin to occur in clusters, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

And you said:

Steve Featherkile said:
That said, where are the greenies advocating nuclear energy? "Oh," they say, "it is too dangerous!" Well, tell that to the coal miners in West Virginia and Indiana. How many people have died in the last month at a nuclear power plant? Zero! How many have ever died anywhere outside of the former Soviet Union as a result of Nuclear Power? Zero! How many die each year digging coal out of the mountains each year? The reason the greenies can speak against nuclear power is because they know that they will never have to work in a coal mine.
What a wonderful way to fight an argument. You exclude the one piece of evidence that would oppose your point and then claim to have arrived at some sort of conclusion.

How many people have died in all of history from coal mining? Far too many, but how many?

“The Belarus National Academy of Sciences estimates 270,000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93,000 of those cases are likely to be fatal.”

“Another report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since 1990—60,000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus—probably due to Chernobyl radiation.”

“The biggest challenge facing communities still coping with the fallout of Chernobyl is the psychological damage to 5 million people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.”

“The psychological impact is now considered to be Chernobyl’s biggest health consequence,” said Louisa Vinton, of the UNDP. "People have been led to think of themselves as victims over the years, and are therefore more apt to take a passive approach toward their future rather than developing a system of self-sufficiency.”

It might help to remember that Chernobyl radiation fell on Spokane in rain water.

Tony, I don’t think Steve is trying to deny that global warming exists. What he’s questioning is whether or not it’s man made…himself believing it’s a natural occurrence. Personally I feel it’s a combination of both. My attitude is that we need to slow it down enough to give us time to figure out how to survive it.

A note from His Exalted Highness, King Bob.

I wont be mucking around in this thread. If you’re getting pissed off (or on), be an adult and take it. Dont come crying to me.

Warren Mumpower said:
Tony, I don't think Steve is trying to deny that global warming exists. What he's questioning is whether or not it's man made...himself believing it's a natural occurrence. Personally I feel it's a combination of both. My attitude is that we need to slow it down enough to give us time to figure out how to survive it.
Finally, a breath of fresh air. Someone who actually reads what i post without an agenda. Thank you, Warren.
Kevin Morris said:
Steve, you continue to use the "My uncle smoked all his life" argument. You argue that the small pocket of air surrounding your community is proof that the whole world is cold. I guess that while you were enjoying the mild weather in your neck of the woods you failed to notice what was going on around the world.

Around here (southern Alberta) we just came out of a 3 week heat wave, the likes if which have never been seen before. On several days the old temperature records were bested by up to 7 degrees C. Worse still, it was way too hot to drink Scotch. I drank so much beer that I actually began to get sick of it.

I recently spent >3 years in the arctic, working near the Beaufort Sea coast in Inuvik. I met Inuit elders who were hearing thunder for the first time in their lives. I was there when a funnel cloud was spotted for the first time ever. There was another one the next year. A robin was sighted on Banks Island for the first time, and I personally saw soil erosion from melting permafrost.

Are any of these things, taken in isolation, proof of global warming? No. One hot day is not a trend. But when these events begin to occur in clusters, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

And you said:

Steve Featherkile said:
That said, where are the greenies advocating nuclear energy? "Oh," they say, "it is too dangerous!" Well, tell that to the coal miners in West Virginia and Indiana. How many people have died in the last month at a nuclear power plant? Zero! How many have ever died anywhere outside of the former Soviet Union as a result of Nuclear Power? Zero! How many die each year digging coal out of the mountains each year? The reason the greenies can speak against nuclear power is because they know that they will never have to work in a coal mine.
What a wonderful way to fight an argument. You exclude the one piece of evidence that would oppose your point and then claim to have arrived at some sort of conclusion.

How many people have died in all of history from coal mining? Far too many, but how many?

“The Belarus National Academy of Sciences estimates 270,000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93,000 of those cases are likely to be fatal.”

“Another report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since 1990—60,000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus—probably due to Chernobyl radiation.”

“The biggest challenge facing communities still coping with the fallout of Chernobyl is the psychological damage to 5 million people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.”

“The psychological impact is now considered to be Chernobyl’s biggest health consequence,” said Louisa Vinton, of the UNDP. "People have been led to think of themselves as victims over the years, and are therefore more apt to take a passive approach toward their future rather than developing a system of self-sufficiency.”

It might help to remember that Chernobyl radiation fell on Spokane in rain water.


Kevin,

If you go back and really read what I wrote, you will find the phrase, “outside the former Soviet Union.” There is a reason for that. Their safety record is admittedly abysmal. However, in the Western world, there is a perfect safety record. 3 Mile Island was in large part, dinosaur press hysteria, coupled with a Hanoi Jane movie called “The China Syndrome,” pure fiction. I am very sorry about the human damage done by the Soviet Union, but I do not think that it should be included in any sane discussion about nuclear power.

Bob McCown said:
A note from His Exalted Highness, King Bob.

I wont be mucking around in this thread. If you’re getting pissed off (or on), be an adult and take it. Dont come crying to me.


Oh, come on in, King Bob, the water’s fine. I have an extra umbrella. :lol:

I enjoy a good debate. Unfortunately, some of the kool aid drinkers just want to shut me up, because “the debate is over.”

How’s that? I missed something. Mebbe I was playing with trains. You know how it is. I’m a 60 year old man who still plays with trains. When they were passing out brains at First Issue, I thought they said trains and got in the wrong line. How can anyone count on anything I say? :lol: :smiley:

SteveF

TonyWalsham said:
Steve, You can wriggle and squirm with as many weasel words as you like, but, there is no getting away from the fact you used an example of something you don't believe in (W's enviromentally friendly house) to take a cheap shot at someone who thinks the opposite of you. You got caught out and don't like it. Sorry it was not me who was the hypocrite.

There is nothing to debate with you. The proof that Global Warming is taking place is irrefutable.


Tony,

Did you read the post where I describe my home?

I guess not.

Still, you do make nice R/C stuff.

SteveF

Kevin,

The northern ice pack is getting thinner, of that there is no doubt.

Curiously, the southern ice pack is getting thicker.

Go figure.

SteveF

  1. What Crichton Says about Global Warming in “State of Fear.”

Early in the book, Crichton has one of his characters define global warming as “the heating up of the earth from burning fossil fuels.” (p. 80) Not so, says another character, who defines global warming as follows:

... global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’ (p. 81, italics in the original)

The second definition is correct. “Global warming” really is only a theory, not a fact, and the words Crichton chose to italicize are all key terms in the scientific debate over whether the theory is correct or not. Over the course of the book, other characters document the following flaws in the theory of global warming:

* most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);

* temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);

* temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);

* “full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90);

* temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);

* data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);

* “No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);

* Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);

* The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);

* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);

* James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);

* there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);

* temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);

* changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);

* temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);

* carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);

* increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);

* the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);

* sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);

* the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);

* sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);

* El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);

* the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);

* a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions ... totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);

* change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and

* computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).

One character in State of Fear concludes, “The threat of global warming is essentially nonexistent. Even if it were a real phenomenon, it would probably result in a net benefit to most of the world” (p. 407).

FOr more info, see http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260

Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin,

The northern ice pack is getting thinner, of that there is no doubt.

Curiously, the southern ice pack is getting thicker.

Go figure.

SteveF


“The Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km Larsen B dropped away in 2002.”

“University of Colorado at Boulder researchers have used data from a pair of NASA satellites orbiting Earth in tandem to determine that the Antarctic ice sheet, which harbors 90 percent of Earth’s ice, has lost significant mass in recent years.”

“The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.”