# where is global warming when you need it



## 1basshunter (Mar 27, 2011)

I don't know about the rest of you but I've had just about enough of the cold and snow !!
and with only 27 more days till spring I'm saying Come on warmer weather just my opinion and going stir crazy


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

I agree but it is feb that is winter ,it,ll be here before you blink. [so will next winter]


----------



## RedJada (Jun 21, 2009)

Check accuweather for March. Looking like it's down hill from here.


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

now that makes more sense than golbel warming


----------



## NCbassattack (May 5, 2014)

We southerners don't let snow keep us down!!


----------



## papaperch (Apr 12, 2004)

As a side note. Of all the global warming ( climate changes ) whatever the current popular name of it. Hundreds of predictions were made of the effects that global warming would cause. The predictions I am thinking of were made in middle 70's and early 80's.

One was that my children would never see snow. Since I have great-grandkids right now that have seen snow I think they missed on that one. Also all of New York would be underwater. Still high and dry last time I looked. In fact not one of all those dire predictions that were supposed to happen by the year 2000 ever came true.

How many people would pay attention to a sports expert if none of their predictions ever came through ? I am of the opinion that "global warming " is one of the biggest frauds in history.


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

My personal belief is there are long term weather cycles to which we simply do not understand. We've had dust bowls out west and we'll have them again. We've also had glaciers sitting on top of the great lakes (they actually created them) and will again...


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

papaperch said:


> As a side note. Of all the global warming ( climate changes ) whatever the current popular name of it. Hundreds of predictions were made of the effects that global warming would cause. The predictions I am thinking of were made in middle 70's and early 80's.
> 
> One was that my children would never see snow. Since I have great-grandkids right now that have seen snow I think they missed on that one. Also all of New York would be underwater. Still high and dry last time I looked. In fact not one of all those dire predictions that were supposed to happen by the year 2000 ever came true.
> 
> How many people would pay attention to a sports expert if none of their predictions ever came through ? I am of the opinion that "global warming " is one of the biggest frauds in history.


The founder of the Weather Channel completely agrees with us.


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

Global Warming huh? Tell that to the freighter crew stuck on board ship at conneaut. Been trapped several days and the ice cutters cant get through the 6-10 foot ice thickness. LOL! Lucky they have lts of food and supplies.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

papaperch said:


> As a side note. Of all the global warming ( climate changes ) whatever the current popular name of it. Hundreds of predictions were made of the effects that global warming would cause. The predictions I am thinking of were made in middle 70's and early 80's.
> 
> One was that my children would never see snow. Since I have great-grandkids right now that have seen snow I think they missed on that one. Also all of New York would be underwater. Still high and dry last time I looked. In fact not one of all those dire predictions that were supposed to happen by the year 2000 ever came true.
> 
> How many people would pay attention to a sports expert if none of their predictions ever came through ? I am of the opinion that "global warming " is one of the biggest frauds in history.


IDK, a lot of people pay attention to that goofy NFL draft guy on ESPN, and he's wrong more often than the weatherman!  As far as the second sentence in that paragraph goes, I don't know if you like to read, but if you do, read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It's a fictional novel, but packed with a lot of science facts. You might be amazed.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Not that long ago EVERY state in the union reported freezing temperatures , including Hawaii......while the rest of the northern hemisphere was dealing with the same cold. Where is global warming ? If atleast "some" part of the world were getting the warmer temperatures then it could be "claimed" that global warming had everything screwed up and the heat was atleast going somewhere , there might be a case made for it. Regardless of the spin they put on it , we are just not seeing global warming to any degree thats conclusive. Global warming = the largest scam in history , for profit and political agenda. 

I do believe we have been seeing cyclic climate change , but even that hasnt even come close to the dire warnings and predictions that have been made.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

NCbassattack said:


> We southerners don't let snow keep us down!!


Haha! It doesn't take much down there to really mess stuff up. An former boss of mine used to talk about how about 1" of snow all but shut down Atlanta once while he was living down there in the 80s.. They just didn't have any way to deal with it.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

yonderfishin said:


> Not that long ago EVERY state in the union reported freezing temperatures , including Hawaii......while the rest of the northern hemisphere was dealing with the same cold. Where is global warming ? If atleast "some" part of the world were getting the warmer temperatures then it could be "claimed" that global warming had everything screwed up and the heat was atleast going somewhere , there might be a case made for it. Regardless of the spin they put on it , we are just not seeing global warming to any degree thats conclusive. Global warming = the largest scam in history , for profit and political agenda.
> 
> I do believe we have been seeing cyclic climate change , but even that hasnt even come close to the dire warnings and predictions that have been made.


There really isn't a debate on whether the planet is warming or not, the only real debate is over the cause.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...constructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v3b


















www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripps_Institution_of_Oceanography


> The Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, founded in 1903, is one of the oldest and largest centers for ocean and Earth science research, public service, undergraduate and graduate training in the world.


Why on earth should we trust them!?

Just because it is cold today, doesn't mean the planet isn't warming in general.


----------



## Workdog (Jan 10, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Why on earth should we trust them!?


Good question!
http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-to-hold-hearings-on-nasa-climate-change-data-adjustments "... after revelations have come to light that NASA had been &#8220;adjusting&#8221; the raw data from ground-based temperature stations to suggest more warming than the data indicate, the veracity of global warming has been placed in doubt."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/inside-the-global-warming-scandal.php "...the scientific agencies which are keepers of the world&#8217;s historical temperature data are all, or nearly all, under the control of warmists. These warmists have systematically altered historic temperature records."

http://www.examiner.com/article/global-warming-hoax-exposed-by-climategate "...Some excerpts from the emails that show an undeniable attempt to manipulate climate data and hide the fact that the Earth is actually cooling ...."

If there actually was man-made global warming, why the need to fabricate the numbers?? I think man-made global warming is a big steamy pile of BS.


----------



## baitguy (Dec 17, 2013)

I was in Atlanta once in the 70's and an inch of snow did shut down the city ... the Cleveland boys went out, it was no big deal to us, but all the bars and nightclubs were like ghost towns, those folks acted like it was another ice age ... hell, even if they didn't have snow plows, we got more snow today than they ever get ... my very liberal, progressive thinking bro-in-law will go on ad-infinitum that this arctic weather is a byproduct of global warming ... messing up the jet stream, screwing around w/el nin'o, all kinds of BS ... after a few adult beverages, it can be moderately entertaining, but his masters degree college education can't come up w/a reasonable explanation or answers to intelligent questions why ... but the theories abound for those folks ... did you know Al Gore invented the global warming theory, it was right after he started the internet ... NYC will be under water soon ...


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Workdog said:


> Good question!
> http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-to-hold-hearings-on-nasa-climate-change-data-adjustments "... after revelations have come to light that NASA had been &#8220;adjusting&#8221; the raw data from ground-based temperature stations to suggest more warming than the data indicate, the veracity of global warming has been placed in doubt."
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/inside-the-global-warming-scandal.php "...the scientific agencies which are keepers of the world&#8217;s historical temperature data are all, or nearly all, under the control of warmists. These warmists have systematically altered historic temperature records."
> ...


 How about some credible sources Workdog? I'm putting all my eggs in a some amateur bloggers basket?


----------



## IGbullshark (Aug 10, 2012)

While I cant prove global warming is a thing, it think its pretty simple minded to think that nothing will happen in the long run with all the pollution we put out as humans. I still advocate for alternative fuel sources and the change i believe needs to happen because the simple truth is that the fossil fuel will run out eventually. We need to be ready for that instead of burying our head in the sand and waiting for that day to come before we start to worry. The world runs on oil and much of that is syrian oil. Syrian oil officials claim that they are decades away from peak oil while speculators claim that theres a good chance syria has already passed peak oil and is simply lying in order to keep investors satisfied. A major drop in oil production (entertaining the idea that Syria is lying, and that the lack of oil finally comes to a head) would result in a huge financial crash the likes of which has never been seen.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

jeffk said:


> I was in Atlanta once in the 70's and an inch of snow did shut down the city ... the Cleveland boys went out, it was no big deal to us, but all the bars and nightclubs were like ghost towns, those folks acted like it was another ice age ... hell, even if they didn't have snow plows, we got more snow today than they ever get ... my very liberal, progressive thinking bro-in-law will go on ad-infinitum that this arctic weather is a byproduct of global warming ... messing up the jet stream, screwing around w/el nin'o, all kinds of BS ... after a few adult beverages, it can be moderately entertaining, but his masters degree college education can't come up w/a reasonable explanation or answers to intelligent questions why ... but the theories abound for those folks ... did you know Al Gore invented the global warming theory, it was right after he started the internet ... NYC will be under water soon ...


Coulda been then he was talking about then. The way he described it was pretty wild. You might have ended up at the bar with him that night. Lol!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

IGbullshark said:


> While I cant prove global warming is a thing, it think its pretty simple minded to think that nothing will happen in the long run with all the pollution we put out as humans. I still advocate for alternative fuel sources and the change i believe needs to happen because the simple truth is that the fossil fuel will run out eventually. We need to be ready for that instead of burying our head in the sand and waiting for that day to come before we start to worry. The world runs on oil and much of that is syrian oil. Syrian oil officials claim that they are decades away from peak oil while speculators claim that theres a good chance syria has already passed peak oil and is simply lying in order to keep investors satisfied. A major drop in oil production (entertaining the idea that Syria is lying, and that the lack of oil finally comes to a head) would result in a huge financial crash the likes of which has never been seen.


There we go! I'm not ready to tackle the whole syrian oil thing but we have to be asking questions about the environment. I'm more worried about the bees colony collapse disorder and amphibian populations crashing(not blaming anything on global warming btw) than Syrian oil tbh. For those who don't care because you won't be around to see it, there will be others after you. And after them.. And after them.. At some point crap will hit the fan on Earth I believe. Lets try to make that as far away as possible. Or who cares, we won't be around for it?!


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I'm partly to blame for the frog demise and I'm not sorry...


----------



## kritterkare (Jul 30, 2014)

Quite simple, pollution sucks and the whole debate on Global Warming should still be on reducing pollution. We learned our lessons when rivers caught on fire, well we didn't but it created the EPA and if you think the EPA is bad compare America to other countries which have completely dead rivers cause there is no regulations. 

If you are a scientist or pay attention it is obvious that temps are warmer, falls last longer and springs come sooner. I am back in Colorado and live miles away from above treeline, we are having our first Ozone alerts due to fracking hndreds of miles away. Mercury is getting in to the ecosystems and advisories to not eat the fish because of coal fired power plants are on many of our waters weather next to the power plants or again many miles away.
Also our forests are dying due to over a decade of above average temps that has allowed pine beetles to flourish and nature is the only way to control them and with that less co2's are converted to oxygen and on top of that massive wildfires with all the dead trees make things worse. 
Having dabbled in Bee Keeping I have seen colony collapse and Monarch Butterflies are just a step away from being gone and without natural pollination we are screwed but we can always hire people to pollinate with Qtips, it would create jobs. 

So I spend time between Colorado and Ohio, when in Ohio I saw algae blooms and same here but for the last 10 years I have seen the pine hillsides turn from green to brown and wildfires become a huge threat.

I am a bit passionate about this because over the years I see the earth failing, a little bit here and there but when I have witnessed this in such a massive scale I must say something. Great lakes have major Algae blooms and here major tree die offs.

http://www.csindy.com/imager/a-few-...b/original/1314655/7b81/441c_cover-26737.jpeg

Here is what happens when over a decade of above average temps happen, it throws off natures balance


----------



## kritterkare (Jul 30, 2014)

Wars will be waged over water in the future over the world, some is population exceeding the water available in the region, the other is raising global temps that high in the mountains melt far faster to sustain over a summer. 

Here is Colorado as I understand it there would be few if any ponds and lakes on the front range that are natural, we had as of a decade ago the Two Forks project that would have created a reservoir on The Platte and it failed and a big part of that was trout fishers that did not want to see their river wiped out and turned in to a lake.
We needed that back then and could use it now, We are buildig well beyond our water capabilities and if Warming and drought is real there is no way nature can keep up.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

Misdirection said:


> My personal belief is there are long term weather cycles to which we simply do not understand.


I'm more in line with this way of thinking. When you compare the length of time temperature records have been kept, it's miniscule in comparison to the age of the Earth. Climate study is still in its infancy.

IMO, persons that blindly follow conclusions that are based on such a relatively small amount of data, are being just as foolish as persons that completely dismiss it.

As far as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere ... we are not at historic levels.

http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

There is a chart in the first link depicting the up and down trend that atmospheric CO2 levels have shown throughout the history of earth. The data for that chart came from information extracted from the second link. 

One thing I find amusing in the debate concerning the validity of temperature recordings, and you see it here in this thread, is the fact that both sides are rather vehement when it comes to believing their side is telling the truth, and the other is lying. That's being a bit hypocritical and elitist in my book. 

There are actually scientists that have offered a theory that part of the reason for the accelerated temperature rise is the result of cleaner air. They postulate that less particulate matter in the atmosphere is allowing more of the suns heat, to reach the Earth's surface. 

And before any of the Global Warmists out there start chuckling at their hypothesis. Particulate matter in the atmosphere from volcanoes is scientifically accepted as being the cause of the ice ages.

Anyhow .... I don't think anyone really has a clue what is going on ...


----------



## geoffoquinn (Oct 2, 2011)

It's in Alaska right now.


----------



## Workdog (Jan 10, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> How about some credible sources Workdog? I'm putting all my eggs in a some amateur bloggers basket?


MB, Apparently Congress is going to hold hearings to discuss the temperature revisions, per my first link. The East Anglian (UK) weather data coverup was in the news a few years back. A google search would bring up info on each of those stories.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Agree that weather cycles are by their very nature `cyclic`, and can vary greatly for apparently still unknown reasons. Understand too a single relatively `minor` volcanic eruption can release more CO2 and `green house` gases that the 3 largest cities on Earth do in 1 year COMBINED. However, anyone whom truely believes that mankind`s ever increasing populations and use of fossil fuels and resulting pollution have absolutely no measurable effects upon the planet should consider the passenger pigeon, rhino, tigers, American buffalo, sturgeon, Dodo bird, ect, ect...if we don`t change WHAT we do and HOW we do it, we`re ultimately in line for the SAME fate and largely due to our own arrogance and denial. The sad thing is, it`s not us who will PAY the bulk of that price; it will be our kids, grandkids and their grandkids...


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

It's strange to think there was a mile-thick sheet of ice and rock, more than once, where I'm sitting now in Columbus. Google "teays river" and "deep stage ohio"


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Agree that weather cycles are by their very nature `cyclic`, and can vary greatly for apparently still unknown reasons. Understand too a single relatively `minor` volcanic eruption can release more CO2 and `green house` gases that the 3 largest cities on Earth do in 1 year COMBINED. However, anyone whom truely believes that mankind`s ever increasing populations and use of fossil fuels and resulting pollution have absolutely no measurable effects upon the planet should consider the passenger pigeon, rhino, tigers, American buffalo, sturgeon, Dodo bird, ect, ect...if we don`t change WHAT we do and HOW we do it, we`re ultimately in line for the SAME fate and largely due to our own arrogance and denial. The sad thing is, it`s not us who will PAY the bulk of that price; it will be our kids, grandkids and their grandkids...


IMO I find that most people respond to global warming by what they hear on the news or read in the papers, which could be a positive or negative response to the effects warming has on this planet, and therefore form their opinions from that. They don't take the time to research(read)what global warming really is and the impact that it can have on this earth. At least if they did they could then make an educated opinion on what they believe any impact it would have, be it positive or negative. Unfortunately I believe most people form opinions from hearsay more often than not.


----------



## JignPig Guide (Aug 3, 2007)

polebender said:


> IMO I find that most people respond to global warming by what they hear on the news or read in the papers, which could be a positive or negative response to the effects warming has on this planet, and therefore form their opinions from that. They don't take the time to research(read)what global warming really is and the impact that it can have on this earth. At least if they did they could then make an educated opinion on what they believe any impact it would have, be it positive or negative. Unfortunately I believe most people form opinions from hearsay more often than not.



Polebender. Your post is very intelligent. 
Here is the definition of the last sentence in your post: 
*Ideologue *- someone who very strongly supports and is guided by the ideology of a particular group.

Regardless of your stance on this issue. You promote individual responsibility of researching for oneself. Thank you polebender.


----------



## snakedog (Feb 12, 2009)

As a long-time outdoorsman, I can tell you that the dogwoods bloom two weeks earlier in about the last decade than they did in the previous four decades. They were like clockwork for years. Bloom always and without fail came on April 15th in these parts. Now it's April 1st. And that the autumn turn (leaves) comes about two weeks later than it did in my youth. We also know glaciers worldwide are in retreat and Greenland's ice shield is disintegrating.

Whether or not this is TEOTWAWKI, we can only speculate. Something's happening to the climate, but I'm not sure there's much we can do about it, short of falling over dead en masse.


----------



## Workdog (Jan 10, 2007)

JignPig Guide said:


> Polebender. Your post is very intelligent.
> Here is the definition of the last sentence in your post:
> *Ideologue *- someone who very strongly supports and is guided by the ideology of a particular group.
> 
> Regardless of your stance on this issue. You promote individual responsibility of researching for oneself. Thank you polebender.


So, in my first post in this thread I linked two cases where "scientists" cooked the books to make it look like the earth is getting warmer. I then asked why would it be necessary to fabricate bogus numbers to prove one's point? What other question should be asked? I jes wanna be inteligint like...


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Warming and cooling cycles are not just theory , like "global warning" is , they are established fact. Not only that but the climate has gone to many extremes far beyond anything man has been around to see , its gone from so warm that most of the planet was tropical to so cold that there was a sheet of ice a mile high or more extending southward to atleast where most of us are standing now. And it has happened many times. But many scientists claim that since the global temperature may be as much as one degree warmer over the past couple decades that means we are causing a global catastrophy and destroying the world ? If you are actually buying that , considering the extremes the climate has reached over the millenia over and over , I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona. Given what we do know of the historical climate changes there is no sane or even intelligent way to jump to the conclusion of man made global warming , thats a wild guess to try and explain something nature does all on its own. Yes , the climate is a changin....and it has been for millions of years , and it has been an extinction level event many times for millions of species , at some point it may just be our turn but thats how nature works. The same scientists who preach global warming have also been saying for years that according to observable fossil record and geology we are due for another ice age.....really ? If thats the case then a warming trend in the climate , if it really is warming , may just be a good thing. I dont tend to rely too much on what I get from the media or the government , I look at all the information available and compare it to what I see going on around me. What I see is a fluctuation or disturbance going on in the climate , something that could be set in motion by either a warming or a cooling , and its still too early to tell which way its going to tip for the long run.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> IMHO there are two issues that are often muddled when discussing GW, scope and time scales. Climate is not weather and most certainly goes beyond what's happening in your own backyard. Secondly, climate does fluctuate but not in human relevant time scales. Thirdly, the loudest critical "scientists" are often not qualified to speak on the issue. I would not take financial advice form a climatologist so why would you take climate advice from an economist?
> 
> Side note, an unintended consequence of increased atmospheric co2 is acidification if the worlds water bodies. The largest sink of co2 is the ocean and when co2 enters water it becomes carbonic acid.


"Human relevant time scales" is an interesting term. Like the remains of ancient animals found literally frozen in place with food still in their mouth ? And there have been too many extinctions over history attributed to likely changes in climate , relevant to the extinct species so relevant to humans as well. For the climate to change from global tropic to ice age would indeed not be human relevant , but the relatively miniscule changes we have seen could very likely be human relevant and observed in just a matter of decades , and be completely natural. We have not been around long enough to determine what is human relevant and what isnt.


According to the definition of the word "climate" , its actually a stretch to call a one degree average rise in global temperatre over a decade or so "climate change". Considering the normal degree of error in collecting , recording , and processing of data is higher than one degree thats not even conclusive that there is any rise in global temperature. What we do see is some crazy and abnormal "to us" weather patterns , but we have only been collecting the data for what...50 years or so ? ....Do we even know what "normal" is ? Not likely.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

IGbullshark said:


> While I cant prove global warming is a thing, it think its pretty simple minded to think that nothing will happen in the long run with all the pollution we put out as humans. I still advocate for alternative fuel sources and the change i believe needs to happen because the simple truth is that the fossil fuel will run out eventually. We need to be ready for that instead of burying our head in the sand and waiting for that day to come before we start to worry. The world runs on oil and much of that is syrian oil. Syrian oil officials claim that they are decades away from peak oil while speculators claim that theres a good chance syria has already passed peak oil and is simply lying in order to keep investors satisfied. A major drop in oil production (entertaining the idea that Syria is lying, and that the lack of oil finally comes to a head) would result in a huge financial crash the likes of which has never been seen.


It might interest you to know that the term "fossil fuel" was basically decided by decree, and it was by no means a unanimous decision! Already, so called fossil fuels have been found at levels far deeper in the earth than fossils should be, and there is a body of thought that the processes that produce these fuels continues in the earth to this day! That doesn't mean I'm in favor of being a wastrel! I live my life quite frugally. I drive a 4 cylinder vehicle, wear my sweats in the winter, and keep my heat at a moderate level. Also, when the hell has Syria become so important? From what I've read there are oil reserves under the Gulf of Mexico alone that dwarf Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait put together!



MassillonBuckeye said:


> There we go! I'm not ready to tackle the whole syrian oil thing but we have to be asking questions about the environment. I'm more worried about the bees colony collapse disorder and amphibian populations crashing(not blaming anything on global warming btw) than Syrian oil tbh. For those who don't care because you won't be around to see it, there will be others after you. And after them.. And after them.. At some point crap will hit the fan on Earth I believe.
> Lets try to make that as far away as possible. Or who cares, we won't be around for it?!


Of course the crap will hit the fan,,,,,,,,again! The crap has hit the fan many times in this earth's history before man was even on the scene! Consider the Chicxulub asteroid or the super volcano underlying Yellowstone National Park. As George Carlin said, "The planet isn't going anywhere, we are!" What we call human history may be nothing more than a small blip in this planet's life.

I once read a post somewhere on these boards talking about the "balance of nature". I didn't feel like getting into it at the time, so I let it pass. But, I was immediately reminded of an article I'd read, written by a scientist, that the human ideas about the balance of nature or "Mother Nature" were fictions. According to him nature has never been, is not now, or will ever be "in balance"! It's always wobbling from one out of balance state to another. The only problem is, the wobbles are so large, and take so much time, that one, or a few, human lifetimes are insufficient to describe them.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> I did not coin the term. Typically means something that occurs within 100-150yrs. Animals with food on there mouth is another category all together, stochastic or catastrophic or one off events. Again, it is not temperature alone but rather many variables that make up "climate". But if we are hung up temps, 1C is the difference between ice and water or water and steam. 1c also will determine if a stream will hold trout. We, humans, can easily alter our local environment by 1c.
> 
> Another pet peeve of mine, the use of the word "theory" to dismiss a scientific principle as a hunch.




I know you didnt coin the term , Ive heard it before. And just so you know , I dont mean any of this as mean spirited arguement , I just enjoy this type of discussion. 

1 degree is the difference between ice and water , water and steam , but with the admitted margin of error ( I could find the source but it should be widely known ) in data , collection , and processing , being more than 1 degree , there just isnt enough accuracy to declare a one degree rise unless you take an aweful lot on pure faith. Thats strike one. Nobody has either been around long enough or collected enough data to determine if a one degree variance means anything at all , or even what effect it would have...there is a lot of assuming going on and with bias. I would call that strike two. And even with all that , if thepossible change man has done to the climate "exceeded" what nature is known to do on its own , then I would have to admit that we have done some damage somehow. But a one degree averaged change is but a speck of sand on the beach compared to the radical swings and extremes nature does and has done on its own. A variance of one degree is nothing compared to the natural variance the planet has seen before man was a player. As slow as change happens , even the miniscule one degree rise in global temperature could easily have been a process going on for a thousand years. Its just recent that we have had the ability to possibly detect it. Strike three. Is it just coincidence that this "global catastrophy" happens to be just what certain "groups" need to attempt worldwide change according to their view ? Kinda doubtful since they are the ones pushing it so wholeheartedly. I guess it just depends on your point of view. I dont feel that anything has been proven either way. I just bring up reasons to be skeptical , and I dont mind if we disagree. Its just an interesting discussion.

We , humans may be able to easily alter our environment by one degree , but one degree is not outside of the realm of natural variation. 

I understand your peeve about the misuse of the word "theory" , and understand the difference between theory and scientific theory. But in this case the scientific theory really is just a theory , there is no accurate method for testing...not at scale , and there is not enough data for base comparison. Science is observation , looking for clues that may answer questions. In the case of global warming , they have already decided on the answer to all the questions , and they are looking for ways to support their conclusion , its backwards.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Side note - Columbus is planning to plant thousands of trees, and in making their selections they're looking farther south to trees native to warmer areas, expecting conditions to warm up here within the ~100-year life span of the trees they intend to plant.


----------



## tepar (Feb 23, 2015)

a good question


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

ezbite said:


> I'm partly to blame for the frog demise and I'm not sorry...



U Bastard! No, you should t be sorry. I want the frogs to be there for you when you decide to go gigging. My uncles gigged plenty of frogs. People eating them aren't the problem, they could end up being part of the solution though. Too many people are "out of sight, out of mind" with these types of things. If it doesn't directly impact their commute from work, to the corner store, to home and back, they don't really care.

Who's idea was it to start a Global Warmjng thread anyhow?!? Lol


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

fosr said:


> side note - columbus is planning to plant thousands of trees, and in making their selections they're looking farther south to trees native to warmer areas, expecting conditions to warm up here within the ~100-year life span of the trees they intend to plant.



a conspiracy!!!


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

MORPC is planning ahead for water resources in the Scioto watershed, they expect future years to bring longer dry periods and fewer, but bigger, rain or snow events.


----------



## murphy13 (Jun 30, 2013)

Great article!
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/barnett.pdf


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Just dont be surprised if you see all climate change predictions turn out wrong and all precautions end up for naught. The official scientific term used has already been changed from global warming to global climate change , indicating a change in perception , admitting their original perception may be slightly inaccurate. Thats what happens when you "start out" with a result and try to craft science to favor that result.


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

I'll have to go dig it up, but an employee of mine had sent me a link to an article in Time Magazine from back in the 70's...the consensus among scientists at the time was that we were entering another mini ice age...now those of us that lived thru thru the 70's understand why...it was cold!


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> The globe is warming. The term was altered to include all aspects of climate such as precipitation and wind patterns.


Yes , it was altered to be a little more accurate , as if new information coming may indicate something other than mans blundering. Global climate change is more in line with cyclic activity than "global warming". The truth is there , just behind the curtain , if you look for it.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Misdirection said:


> I'll have to go dig it up, but an employee of mine had sent me a link to an article in Time Magazine from back in the 70's...the consensus among scientists at the time was that we were entering another mini ice age...now those of us that lived thru thru the 70's understand why...it was cold!


Exactly right! I think that's why many people about my age look at this stuff with a jaundiced eye. We remember those predictions, and then, when the global warming idea was being promoted, we were like, huh? What happened to the next ice age? One idea is that they couldn't get anybody excited about an event that might be thousands of years in the future, and that we couldn't do anything about! 



sd136405 said:


> The globe is warming. The term was altered to include all aspects of climate such as precipitation and wind patterns.





yonderfishin said:


> Yes , it was altered to be a little more accurate , as if new information coming may indicate something other than mans blundering. Global climate change is more in line with cyclic activity that "global warming". The truth is there , just behind the curtain , if you look for it.


The term hasn't been the only thing altered. Data has been altered as well. And it's not just the big things like the crew from East Anglia U who, when suspicions were aroused and things got a little too hot for them, erased all their e-mails and tried to cover up. Temp data from long established weather stations are fudged every day to account for the "urban heat island" effect. Anytime you have to fudge data, it calls it's accuracy into question. After all, is the "fudge factor" correct?

When someone hits me with the climate change term I ask them if they can delineate for me a time in the earth's history when the climate was static? Umm, errr, uhhh! If one is to believe the paleo-climatologists, there have been times in the earth's past when it has been much warmer than now, and other times when it's been much colder. All before man was on the planet.

Then, someone will hit me with it's a proven fact that sea levels are rising. And I tell them that they are exactly right! In fact, sea levels have been rising for about the last 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age! Ummm, errr, uhhh! 

The entire thing revolves around the idea that this is all man's fault and that we can actually do something about it. How do they know, and can they prove it? Can they demonstrate whether or not the earth is just going to go on doing what it's doing despite our efforts to change it?

Above all, I am troubled by science in the service of special interests, either political or industrial. That's why I am in complete agreement with Michael Crichton in his afterword to State of Fear, where he makes a great argument in support of "blind" funding for this kind of research. One of the comments you always hear when data against the prevailing wisdom comes out is that the results are questionable because of who funded it. Well, who funded the research that you cite? And what are their desires? 

Overall, I think scientists are bright, curious, consciencious people who search for knowledge. But, they are people. They have to make a living. They know where their bread comes from and who butters it. This is why blind funding makes so much sense. Just give us the unvarnished, unaltered data, and the conclusions that come from it. I think I could live with that.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)




----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

Misdirection said:


> I'll have to go dig it up, but an employee of mine had sent me a link to an article in Time Magazine from back in the 70's...the consensus among scientists at the time was that we were entering another mini ice age...now those of us that lived thru thru the 70's understand why...it was cold!


I believe the term they used back the was we were entering a "nuclear winter".
In essence the sun's rays were going to be blocked by our polluted atmosphere.


----------



## thebear (Apr 24, 2014)

Give me ice on erie from December-March, and then open water the rest.

Allegiant air has 69 each way tickets every thursday and sunday to florida.


----------



## lomssl (Mar 25, 2006)

Good one Buckeye!!!!


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Misdirection said:


> http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1




They started with cooling and ice age , when that didnt really amount to what they thought it would they went the other direction , now its waming....and all these colder temperatures spread out in diverse places are "actually the effect of warming". Something stinks :S


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

MassillonBuckeye said:


>


LOL! LOL! !



crappiedude said:


> I believe the term they used back the was we were entering a "nuclear winter".
> In essence the sun's rays were going to be blocked by our polluted atmosphere.


Actually the term "nuclear winter" was a phrase coined by scientists to describe what they believed *"might"* happen should the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. engage in an all out attack on each other with nuclear weapons. That so much crap would be thrown into the atmosphere that it would block the sun's rays and result in the rapid cooling of the planet.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)




----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Globe > Midwest

Planting zones being moved, buckeye trees surviving in Michigan in the future...

Regardless of what's causing it, it's happening. While the temperature change will be more gradual, I'll try to find the book that documents extreme weather events. While I would argue weather is much easier to track because of technology advances, the amounts of record breaking events is increasing (both lows and highs) in frequency.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

I encourage you to read this blog...it does support the idea of global climate change but certainly offers a lot of the perspectives out there. This article is a good one.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2921&page=21


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

cheezemm2 said:


> Globe > Midwest
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean to tell me a world exists outside of the Midwestern United States??? I think your papers have been rigged sir.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

I actually saw some flowers (tulips I think) coming out of the ground a couple of weeks ago. "Frozen"


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> You mean to tell me a world exists outside of the Midwestern United States??? I think your papers have been rigged sir.


:C

Thanks for keeping it light...judging by all the threads I'm seeing on some of the historically, "fun" GFO/OGF topics, I think it's time for the polarvortexingglobespinningcowfartingwarmer (winter) to stop. Boats and kayaks are getting lonely.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

cheezemm2 said:


> Globe > Midwest
> 
> Planting zones being moved, buckeye trees surviving in Michigan in the future...
> 
> Regardless of what's causing it, it's happening. While the temperature change will be more gradual, I'll try to find the book that documents extreme weather events. While I would argue weather is much easier to track because of technology advances, the amounts of record breaking events is increasing (both lows and highs) in frequency.




There is some evidence for the planting zones changing , slightly. But I was picking up buckeyes all over northern michigan back in the 1970's , when we were supposedly cooling , so the buckeye tree thing isnt an issue.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

cheezemm2 said:


>



Maps like this one are misleading. The colors they use show such a drastic difference between the warm and cool that they make it look as if the world is burning. When if they represented the temperature variance with actual temperatures you would see the world not as HOT like the map suggests , but as only a slight difference in temperature , in some areas barely noticeable. But sure , when your agenda is to scare the public into submission you paint the picture to be as alarming as possible. If someone didnt know what they were looking at in this map , they might assume we are all dying of heatstroke by now.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

I honestly did not KNOW that ! What will be revealed next; the world wonders...


----------



## LoweBoat (Apr 14, 2004)

So bring on this global warming if it really exist. I have my palm tree and mai tai ready.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

cheezemm2 said:


> :C
> 
> Thanks for keeping it light...judging by all the threads I'm seeing on some of the historically, "fun" GFO/OGF topics, I think it's time for the polarvortexingglobespinningcowfartingwarmer (winter) to stop. Boats and kayaks are getting lonely.



Haha, I try! No one is ever going to agree on everything. Might as well have some fun while you are doing it! I'm driving to pick my boat up right now actually. Treated her to a nice new custom travel cover from our friends at Erbs Tarp Shop in Millersburg.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> Maps like this one are misleading. The colors they use show such a drastic difference between the warm and cool that they make it look as if the world is burning. When if they represented the temperature variance with actual temperatures you would see the world not as HOT like the map suggests , but as only a slight difference in temperature , in some areas barely noticeable. But sure , when your agenda is to scare the public into submission you paint the picture to be as alarming as possible. If someone didnt know what they were looking at in this map , they might assume we are all dying of heatstroke by now.


It reminds me of the map of the universal microwave background radiation mapped by George Smoot and associates. It hardly looks "uniform", but they were mapping very small differences in the temperature of the microwave radiation, minute fractions of a degree Kelvin. 

The earth temp map purports to show differences in temp compared to an "average" rather than an absolute. Well, how much above or below average are these temps? Is it a tenth of a degree, or a hundredth? Or is it measured in whole degrees? And what kind of degrees are they? Centigrade or Fahrenheit? Why is there no scale? 

And as far as a comparison to average temps goes, how long have those averages been calculated? At best I'd guess 150 years. That's not even an eye blink in geologic time! And what is an average anyway but a midpoint between extremes.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

An aquantaince of mine is on assignment in New Zealand studying global warming. From what I do understand about those theories "they" wil know by 2025 if the Earth is doomed. 

Not doubling down on it all but his scientific knowledge and listening to him talk could make a guy wonder about it all?


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)




----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

why do you think the aliens left?


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

shroomhunter said:


> An aquantaince of mine is on assignment in New Zealand studying global warming. From what I do understand about those theories "they" wil know by 2025 if the Earth is doomed.
> 
> Not doubling down on it all but his scientific knowledge and listening to him talk could make a guy wonder about it all?


I'm sure . The thing that gets me on all this is when we all go south for vacation

The places we all vacationed at as kids on the beach, be Atlantic/Myrtle....etc........some of those old beachfront hotels.......still there, but more importantly the property is still there.

Has anybody on here priced out beach front property down south? I have and the prices aren't going down, but rather the opposite for all this land that should be under water by now due to all the warming


----------



## snakedog (Feb 12, 2009)

Weather patterns are changing. Whether this is natural or not, I leave to the reader, but Alaska has had one of the warmest and driest winters on record as the jet stream's shifted arctic weather our way. They even had to move the Iditarod farther north.

http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/alaska-compare-east-winter

Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, weather patterns are shifting and one big thing, glacial ice continues to retreat at unprecedented rates.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

shroomhunter said:


> An aquantaince of mine is on assignment in New Zealand studying global warming. From what I do understand about those theories "they" wil know by 2025 if the Earth is doomed.
> 
> Not doubling down on it all but his scientific knowledge and listening to him talk could make a guy wonder about it all?


To reassert my quote of George Carlin, "The planet isn't going anywhere, we are!" The earth will not be doomed, though we may be! And because we've accorded ourselves the position of "most important" of all the species living on the planet, that freaks us out! It kind of reminds me of some religions. Man was created "in the image of God". God is just like us! We are just like God! Cool, huh?! 

I will quote from the novel Micro by Michael Crichton, completed after his death by Richard Preston. "What is it about nature that is so terrifying to the modern mind? Why is it so intolerable? Because nature is fundamentally indifferent. It's unforgiving, uninterested. If you live or die, succeed or fail, feel pleasure or pain, it doesn't care. That's intolerable to us. How can we live in a world so indifferent to us? So we redefine nature. We call it Mother Nature when it's not a parent in any real sense of the term. We put gods in trees and air and the ocean, we put them in our households to protect us. We need these human gods for many things, luck, health, freedom, but one thing above all-one reason stands out-we need the gods to protect us from loneliness. But why is loneliness so intolerable? We can't stand to be alone-why not? Because human beings are children, that's why."

"But those are all disguises we create for nature. You know how Danny loves to tell us that the science narrative privileges the balance of power. How there's no objective truth, except for who's got the power. Power tells the story and everyone accepts it as truth, because power rules." He took a breath. "But who's got the balance of power now, Danny? Can you feel it? Take a deep breath. Feel it? No? Then I'll tell you. The balance of power lies in the hands of the entity that always holds the balance of power-nature. Nature, Danny. Not us. All we can do is go for the ride and try to hang on."


----------



## leckig (May 11, 2005)

so many people confuse Weather with Climate. Weather is something today. Climate, this is long term. With climate, you talk about expected average temperatures.

Climate tells you that typically, you can expect good weather in Florida in December.

Those insisting on this or last winter weather indicating long term weather changes: my parents in Poland have seen nearly no snow for over two years now. They have had no winter. Typically, Poland is as cold as Ohio or colder.

NASA, Academy of Science, US Navy, most large corporations - especially insurance companies, they have no doubt that the climate is changing and they are all getting ready to deal with it. Climate change is as doubtless as gravity - the climate has been changing for years. There is a very direct correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and increased average global temperatures.

It is very worrisome that so many people believe what a radio host tells them but they will stick fingers in their ears or close their eyes instead of reading the most respected Journals such as Science or Nature. How is it that a radio host is more trustworthy to many than a researcher that spent most of his life working on the subject? We we want to listen to what is convenient to hear, even when not true?


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

What up Greg?!?! I actually checked to see when you were last active (about a week ago....) last night. Good to see you on here again(actually youve prob been posting all along, I took a break and this is the first post of yours I've). Anyways peace out and we will fish again, as crappielooker used to say, dooooooood!!! Also met your friend (in your program) who works at oakland nursery (original). (If you are not sure who I am think scioto goldfish, cosi shinbone, and osu hockey game).


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

And to be relevant to the thread (which I havent read any of, nor do I care to), I 99.99999% think this is real. Really!

In the simplest sense, we live in a "spherical bubble".

The gases get to the edge of the bubble....and......stop (super simplifying of course).....and build a thicker and thicker layer.

Which affects stuff like temps. Last winter and these cold days havent changed my opinion one bit.....nor should they.

Id rather not get into this, but I do know that the air in Beijing is cleaner than the air in the mountains of Colorado...

:T:T:T


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

beaver said:


>


I wonder what foreplay starting from down south was like in 1720, even 1920?

Thanks for sharing Beaver!


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

JamesT said:


> And to be relevant to the thread (which I havent read any of, nor do I care to), I 99.99999% think this is real. Really!
> 
> In the simplest sense, we live in a "spherical bubble".
> 
> ...


First of all, Id like to know how you know this. And if Beijing doesn't suffice, try Shanghai! Heard a guy who worked for GM in Shanghai describe what it was like over there. Even on a "sunny" day you can't see blue sky. It's grey and brown! You know it's sunny just because it's a little brighter out than normal. And the air doesn't stink as bad through the hospital mask you wear if you dare to go outside! 

I've also read that the smoke from wood cooking fires in SE Asia are contributing mightily to global pollution. What are we to do? Tell these folks they have to eat raw, uncooked food? I wouldn't want to do that, but if you're going to sic the "smoke police" on people, shouldn't they be sicced on them equally?



streamstalker said:


> Greg, I'll just give you an old axiom which explains a lot about our society these days: _You can't reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into._
> 
> When do you want to do another kayak trip?


And that goes both ways! I'm all for reasonableness, but what I see from the "global warming" or now, "climate change" crowd is, "It's my way or the highway!" All supported by government and the media! This alone should make one suspicious! There are plenty of climatologists who don't buy into the doom and gloom scenario, but they can't get any face time because their narrative doesn't support the action line of the story currently in vogue! They are skeptics, therefore they must be shunned!

But isn't it the responsibility of scientists to be skeptical? There have been plenty of scientists in the past, and present, who were wrong! Scientists used to believe in "phlogiston", a substance supposedly contained in combustible materials that allowed them to burn! Physicists used to believe in the "luminiferous ether" which allowed light waves to propagate through space, until the Michelson-Morley experiment (among others) and Albert Einstein consigned their ideas to the scrap heap!


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

leckig said:


> so many people confuse Weather with Climate. Weather is something today. Climate, this is long term. With climate, you talk about expected average temperatures.
> 
> Climate tells you that typically, you can expect good weather in Florida in December.
> 
> ...



What does a radio show host have to do with anything ? You think everyone gets their information from radio shows ?

What I find a little worrisome is that many of these researchers that spent many years working on the subject disagreed with the popular theory offered ( man made global warming ) , came out against it and were immediately fired , ridiculed , drummed out of the scientific community as if there is absolutely no room for alternative opinions. Who do you suppose is putting so much pressure on the scientific community that this would happen ?...and why ? Thats not even science. None of it is , from their starting with the answers and working backwards to find only supporting evidence for these particular answers ( opposite scientific method ) , to the total exclusion and intolerance of alternative views ( opposite scientific method as well as very short sighted ) , the science is all wrong. And I dont need to be a scientist to say that all I need to know is what science is and understand the principles. Complete intolerance of alternative views is the absolute LACK of science ,.......thats what kept the belief of a flat earth circulating for so many centuries. Opposition to the global warming theory by so many , including many scientists , does not mean there is a lot of stupid people out there as the government would suggest.....it means something is wrong with the explaination given. We may not be able to fully explain it either but we do know bullpucky when we see it


----------



## sd136405 (Jan 19, 2015)

Provide the names of the scientists that were fired, the institutions they were associated with, and the degrees held.

"Many" scientists disagree. How many? What are their areas of expertise? 

Observation: global temperatures have risen faster than expected in the last 100yrs. During that time, co2 levels have increased as a result of industrialization. 

Hypothesis: increases in global temperature are a result of increased co2 concentration from human consumption of fossil fuels. 

Experiment: numerous experiments manipulating co2, methane, ect concentrations and measure changes in temperatures. 

Expand: take the results of the experiments and model the results forecasting future temperatures based on projected co2 concentrations. 

Not sure I buy your tail wagging the dog argument. There have been many experiments at many scales to provide the data to generate the models.


----------



## lunker4141 (Apr 19, 2010)

Google "Is global warming real or fake" and tell me that the views against global warming don't get any traction or are pushed aside by the government and media. Comical.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> Provide the names of the scientists that were fired, the institutions they were associated with, and the degrees held.
> 
> "Many" scientists disagree. How many? What are their areas of expertise?
> 
> ...



From Wikipedia:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999&#8211;2003)[36][37]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]
Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.[54][55][56][57][58]


Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[59]

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[60][61]
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[62][63][64]
Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[65][66]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[67][68]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[69][70]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[71][72]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[73][74]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[75][76]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[77][78]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[79][80]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[81][82]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[83][84]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[85][86]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[87][88]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[89][90]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[91][92]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[93][94][95]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[96][97]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[98][99]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[100][101]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[102][103][104]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[105][106]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[107][108]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[109][110][111][112]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[113][114]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[115][116]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[117][118]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[119][120]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[121][122]


Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[123][124]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[125][126]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[127][128]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[129][130][131]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[132][133]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[134][135]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[136][137]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[138][139]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[140][141]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[142][143]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [144][145]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[146][147]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[148][149]



This is by no means a complete list. As for the rest of your assumptions about the experimenting , testing , and scales ,.....those are labratory testing ,....sterile small scale. But we dont live in a labratory , or a test tube , or a computer model , we live on a huge jagged rock hurling through space with an uncountable number of systems and balances in place ( try accounting for that in a simulated experiment ) There is no accounting for any of that in the small scale "testing" and predicting we are able to do. And the climate as well as the world itself will continue to change for the next million years as it has for the past million years.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

lunker4141 said:


> Google "Is global warming real or fake" and tell me that the views against global warming don't get any traction or are pushed aside by the government and media. Comical.


I did do that. The views against global warming , or atleast "man made" global warming are everywhere , yet very obviously pushed aside by government and "MAINSTREAM" media. Why ?...independent views , observations , and opposing theories are what science is all about. Yet the only coverage opposing views gets is from independent sources. What is being pushed by the mainstream as being the science behind global warming has been significantly PURGED of any other view besides the one they are pushing. While admitting they are a long way from totally understanding what is happening by the way.


----------



## sd136405 (Jan 19, 2015)

yonderfishin said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
> 
> ...



So, being generous, ~1% of the scientific community? Sorry if I'm not overwhelmed. 

What scientists have been fired? 

So the burden of proof you require would be a global manipulation? 

Do you disagree human activity increases green house has conc? 

Do you disagree that green house gasses "trap heat"?

Or are you arguing that the world is so big and complex humans can have no effect? 

Is acid rain a hoax?

One of the biggest lies in grade school science is the "balance of nature".


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

I dont have to prove my stand on the issue. They still have to PROVE that whatever change we are seeing happen is NOT just part of the natural cycles or "hiccups" the planet goes through on its own.

And to add just another interesting bit of information ,....they say the temperature has risen on the other planets as well , coinciding with the changes in our climate. . How could that be ? Too many aliens driving SUV's ???

There is an agenda being pushed that has nothing to do with the climate. 

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

While you can take this more than one way , you should clearly see that all the effort is not to save the world , but to drastically change it economically. And to make sure we all wind up reading by candle light and riding bikes or horses to work. This is a severe threat to capitalism and a significant move deeper into socialism , on a worldwide scale. There is more going on behind the scenes than people realize.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> So, being generous, ~1% of the scientific community? Sorry if I'm not overwhelmed.
> 
> What scientists have been fired?
> 
> ...




All the information you are asking for is easily found if you actually looked for it.

Its proven that greenhouse gasses reflect heat and radiation from the sun , so 12 of one ..half dozen of the other. Neat little coincidence thatmost studies dont mention that morsel of information , if they did anybody could see the problem is not what they claim it to be.

Acid rain,.....believe it or not is a natural thing. Yes , it could well be influenced by pollution , but thats because the rain picks it up in the atmosphere on its way down....just as rain and snow pick up nitrogen which feeds springtime plants. Acid rain is not "acid" falling from the sky its just rain made slightly more acidic ( PH ) by pollution in the atmosphere. Cause by volcanic activity and large fires all the time.

The world is so big and complex as well as old ,....that its doubtful humans have caused it to see anything that it hasnt seen before , probably many times. It is also so big and complex that puny little man could never do any testing on such a grand scale , we are forced to computer models and "test tube" type analysis and testing which only tells us what would happen inside our little tests.

"if" what you are seeing is 1% of the scientific community , thats fine , there is still a lot of great credentials there and the list is not comprehensive or complete either. All it really takes is ONE anyway , to prove global warming is not a consensus. More than enough minds in this incomplete list to show room for difference of opinion among the scientific community , yet they only allow one opinion. Look this stuff up , its not hard. Read something besides the innoculated and sterile information pushed by the mainstream and the government.


----------



## sd136405 (Jan 19, 2015)

yonderfishin said:


> I dont have to prove my stand on the issue. They still have to PROVE that whatever change we are seeing happen is NOT just part of the natural cycles or "hiccups" the planet goes through on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well there ya go. We scientists can never prove anything. Just present data. Unfortunately we have to defend that fat in the arena of opinion. The majority of descending scientists have no training in the field or data to support claims. Certainly little data that would pass peer review. Again, it's about trajectory and scale. This will be my last post on the issue. Still waiting on my lobar conspiracy check, who do you think I should call?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

sd136405 said:


> Well there ya go. We scientists can never prove anything. Just present data. Unfortunately we have to defend that fat in the arena of opinion. The majority of descending scientists have no training in the field or data to support claims. Certainly little data that would pass peer review. Again, it's about trajectory and scale. This will be my last post on the issue. Still waiting on my lobar conspiracy check, who do you think I should call?


You can present the data saying climate has changed significantly many times through history. You can show greenhouse gasses reflect heat and radiation from the sun and back into space as well as trap heat. You can show data that the temperature is also rising on the other planets due to solar activity. The data is enough to prove these things. However , man made global warming is not supported by the data unless you can completely disregard atleast the three examples I started this paragraph with....and there are more. 

But thanks for the chat. Its been interesting.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

You can find whatever you want to hear, read, find, buy, and watch (tehehehe) on teh intraweb, especially on controversial topics. That includes gobs of so-called facts for, against, and every shade of gray in bw. Especially on such a "hot topic" as global warming.

As far as air pollution, I lived in a suburb of L.A. (Thousand Oaks)with "zero smog for all practical purposes, in my 10 years all I saw was crystal clear blue skies with zero hint of discoloration". Every time I drove into San Fernando Valley/L.A. Basin (unless it was just after a (good)rain which brings the smog down for a day or two while it rebuilds). And fwiw it really only rains from Dec-March (can vary a little depending if el nino or la nina is happening) out there. In addition to seeing this "ominous layer over the city" as I dropped down into the valley, my eyes would start watering and stinging. Once it was so bad I had to pull off to the side of the road to safety. I had friends who lived in the valley and their repsonse was " oh yeah it was like that when I first moved here but my eyes have gotten used to it".

And quite honestly I could care less if you are pro or con. Just try to be the best steward to the environment possible. And no doubt many people that dont believe in GW are good/great stewards(even better than me). What I cant stand is people who think their actions have no consequences.

Think about what the fishing was like 50 years ago. Think what it will be like when your (great great great great) great great great grandhildren are around(maybe you havent thought about this or dont care, though it is not going to be, I want the earth to be better than it is now in 1000 tears). I bet more people fish for things like carp in the "not so distant" future. And not by choice....

I seriously doubt trout habitat, especially high up in the mountains is being affected/lessened as we speak......doesnt affect me....


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Well, if they are wrong, awesome!
If they happen to be right, we're screwed!

Did anyone get picked for that flight to Mars..


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

shroomhunter said:


> Well, if they are wrong, awesome!
> If they happen to be right, we're screwed!
> 
> Did anyone get picked for that flight to Mars..


Everyone is worried about Global Warming...its that next Ice Age that we need to be worried about!


----------



## Hatchetman (Apr 13, 2004)

Misdirection said:


> Everyone is worried about Global Warming...its that next Ice Age that we need to be worried about!


I believe these same GW scientist predicted an ice age coming. I think it was on the cover of "Time" magazine around 1976 or. Maybe it got here this year !!


----------



## snakedog (Feb 12, 2009)

Anchorage never saw a day below 0 degrees in 2014. What's up with that? Been colder here in the Ohio Valley than in Anchorage. I figure the North Pole's shifting and moving down across the Hudson Bay. Should settle in somewhere just north of Toronto according to my slide rule. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ge-alaska-never-saw-a-day-below-zero-in-2014/


----------



## Bluewalleye (Jun 1, 2009)

yonderfishin said:


> I did do that. The views against global warming , or atleast "man made" global warming are everywhere , yet very obviously pushed aside by government and "MAINSTREAM" media. Why ?...independent views , observations , and opposing theories are what science is all about. Yet the only coverage opposing views gets is from independent sources. What is being pushed by the mainstream as being the science behind global warming has been significantly PURGED of any other view besides the one they are pushing. While admitting they are a long way from totally understanding what is happening by the way.


Where does the money come from to research all of this stuff ?? And who benefits from that money?? And those people who do benefit from that money have anything else to do if this subject ever ends?? Find those answers and we all will have our answer as to how accurate all of this really is..


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

streamstalker said:


> Why are conservatives so suspicious of conservation?




There is a lot more to be suspicious of , conservation is not part of it.


----------



## Bluewalleye (Jun 1, 2009)

yonderfishin said:


> I dont have to prove my stand on the issue. They still have to PROVE that whatever change we are seeing happen is NOT just part of the natural cycles or "hiccups" the planet goes through on its own.
> 
> And to add just another interesting bit of information ,....they say the temperature has risen on the other planets as well , coinciding with the changes in our climate. . How could that be ? Too many aliens driving SUV's ???
> 
> ...


The entire argument is political. The problem is that most people don't understand that. I mean look at how much money Al Gore has made with his stand on it. He could careless about it with his private jets and huge enormous house that he lives in. But you and I are suppose to live in a shack with no running water and no electricity from the evil Cole mines. and drive those ugly European egg cars that they want to shove down our throats. While they all drive those big evil SUV's. It is comical really


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Bluewalleye said:


> Where does the money come from to research all of this stuff ?? And who benefits from that money?? And those people who do benefit from that money have anything else to do if this subject ever ends?? Find those answers and we all will have our answer as to how accurate all of this really is..


Well the organization we know of as the united nations both funds and benefits the most from pro global warming research , as well as multinational corporations and whole countries like China , just to name one of many. They benefit greatly because , in case nobody else has noticed , the U.S. is the only one that will honor agreements to cut production and reduce. This brings our domestic product and ability to compete in the market down to the level of these other countries , lower in fact since we are held to the agreements and the other countries arent. THIS...........is the global warming agenda. The united nations wet dream.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

streamstalker said:


> Why are conservatives so suspicious of conservation?


I'm not. When the cold weather comes I put on my sweats and my thermostat rarely goes above 65. I had the walls and attic of my house insulated so that; A. I could save money on energy costs by B. burning less natural gas. I guess that makes me a money grubbing, conservative swine! I don't contribute much to the solid waste stream. I put out a bag of garbage tonight, my first in 3 weeks. I recycle a lot! I drive a 4 banger that gets about 30mpg highway. I grow many of my own veggies and love eating wild foods.

What I am suspicious of is about half of a field of scientific inquiry, which has generated an unproven theory, being used to support a radical political agenda. All of this supported by a sycophantic, leftist media.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

buckeyebowman said:


> I'm not. When the cold weather comes I put on my sweats and my thermostat rarely goes above 65. I had the walls and attic of my house insulated so that; A. I could save money on energy costs by B. burning less natural gas. I guess that makes me a money grubbing, conservative swine! I don't contribute much to the solid waste stream. I put out a bag of garbage tonight, my first in 3 weeks. I recycle a lot! I drive a 4 banger that gets about 30mpg highway. I grow many of my own veggies and love eating wild foods.
> 
> What I am suspicious of is about half of a field of scientific inquiry, which has generated an unproven theory, being used to support a radical political agenda. All of this supported by a sycophantic, leftist media.


Amen to the first paragraph. No comment on the second(not entirely untrue though. Peace out everyone.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Had a talk with the cows about putting corks in their butts cause their flatulation was highly contributing to Global Warming. 

The cows weren't crazy about the idea but I think they could be talked into it.

The bull just looked at me over his horns and replied, " Not today pal...don't think so. 

IMO, Global Warming ='s Biggest sham ever sold to the American public.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Not to get in the way of a good story, but the methane from cattle is mostly from their belching.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig. posted by *FOSR*:
> 
> Not to get in the way of a good story, but the methane from cattle is mostly from their belching.


Okay...so we now have to plug both ends???

Don't think even the cows would go for this. Let alone the bull.

Ever tried to stop a fat girl(cow) from eating? Would probably have a better chance of plugging the North end of the Southbound bull


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

Be glad we live in the great lakes area, I'll take rain and snow all day long. 
Check this out http://upriser.com/posts/alarm-bell...mega-city-to-run-out-of-water-in-just-60-days


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

In Idyllwild, CA (where I used to live) the general mentality is "if its yellow, let it mellow, if its brown flush it down". This was posted in many bathrooms around town, both private and public. Vegas, L.A., Phoenix, American SW.....wonder what they will be like to live in 50 years from now?


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

JamesT said:


> In Idyllwild, CA (where I used to live) the general mentality is "if its yellow, let it mellow, if its brown flush it down". This was posted in many bathrooms around town, both private and public. Vegas, L.A., Phoenix, American SW.....wonder what they will be like to live in 50 years from now?


Northern Province of Old Mexico


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

True - but that isn't due to climate change, that's from water theft. And yes, we don't know how good we have it here around the Great Lakes.


----------



## 1basshunter (Mar 27, 2011)

yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show he was saying that scientists are saying that global warming is a big factor why there is fighting in the Middle East.!!


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

1basshunter said:


> yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show he was saying that scientists are saying that global warming is a big factor why there is fighting in the Middle East.!!


Let's go ahead and buy their oil now while they have it, and they can drink sand later.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

We need to be better stewards and more responsible with our resources , that much I think everyone would agree on. Diversion and obstruction of waterways , distruction of forests and mountain ranges , urban sprawl.... there is a large list of things contributing to the distruction of our environment. Yet the "brilliant minds" of society choose to spend trillions and fly thousands of private jets around the world to discuss but one very controversial "possible" theoretical contributing factor. If they happened to be even partially correct in their assumptions , then they are contributing greatly to the problem themselves by their methods. You would think that if they really took what they are saying seriously they would start walking the walk and lead by example. But they dont , and then they wonder why there is so much skepticism. Whether the climate is warming or cooling , or just fluctuating normally , there are many other problems threatening to " do us in " even if global warming dosent. But you rarely hear anything about them , you only hear about the big money generator that has potential to socialize the world.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

1basshunter said:


> yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show he was saying that scientists are saying that global warming is a big factor why there is fighting in the Middle East.!!




The fighting in the middle east that has been going on for thousands of years ? I think those scientists need to focus a little more on their own education.


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

1basshunter said:


> yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show he was saying that scientists are saying that global warming is a big factor why there is fighting in the Middle East.!!


You're getting ready to go over the edge!


----------



## 1basshunter (Mar 27, 2011)

all I did was hear it on the show I don't believe it and thought it was kind of funny


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Rush, are you getting addicted to those Oxycotins again ? STOP, man, just STOP !!!


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

They had to truck snow into Anchorage for the ceremonial start of the Iditarod race.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/other-sports/iditarod-has-ceremonial-start-over-trucked-in-snow/


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

FOSR said:


> They had to truck snow into Anchorage for the ceremonial start of the Iditarod race.
> 
> http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/other-sports/iditarod-has-ceremonial-start-over-trucked-in-snow/


In 25 years (hopefully much less) we'll look back and it will the equivalent of stringers full of hawg larries from the (insert years here).

Now I will read it.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Nuff said.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Bring it, bring it, bring!!!!


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

James T, it seems you are suffering from a particularly acute form of cabin fever! After all, didn't you give a "peace, out" after my last post? I can appreciate it, though. We're getting the "teaser" weather now. Yes, it feels nice, but it will be a while before we can really go "outside" in any meaningful way. 

Limbaugh's comments don't surprise me all that much since scientists, over the years, have said many crazy things as I referred to in a prior post. They also subscribed to the "Theory of Acquired Characteristics" and declared, without a doubt, that flies came from horse hairs that were dropped in mud puddles! 

As far as Alaska's weather goes, it seems to me that when we down here have a particularly rough winter, the great white north gets off kind of easy, and vice versa. I've lived long enough to see that several times. 

It seems that much of society today suffers from something you could call "expertitis". They expect experts to always have the right answers to every question. I remember when I used to watch the Sunday morning news shows with regularity. They'd have some "expert" in national security, social security, foreign policy, domestic policy or whatever, on. Someone would ask a particularly pointed question, and the reaction would be priceless! The "expert" would get a blank expression on their face like, "What the heck?", then pull themselves together and deliver a rambling, cobbled together bunch of gobbledegook that meant absolutely nothing! After all, it's anathema for an "expert" to say, "I don't know"!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Thanks! While it might seem like Im in "battle mode" all the time, Im actually not. I enjoy reading what everyone has to say and can agree to disagree(most of the time). Trying to slowly influence peoples viewpoints? Absolutely. Butmost of all I enjoy people just being themselves and enjoy all the different people we have on here. This place would be boring as heck if that was not the case. Case in point? A great friend of mine (who graciously let me rent a room in his house with his family when I first moved to California while I found a place for myself, thats how I met him) is one of the most conservative people I have ever met(fwiw Im not), heck I used to listen to Rush with him. But he is also one of the coolest persons I have ever met and a great friend. Shortdrift's quote in my sig (he may not know it  be we have publicly battled on here before)from a recent pm sums up how I feel. When I first read it, I was just like "magic". He summed up how a feel in less than 1000 words.

Back to battle mode...

Oh yeah, I got in some raaaaaays today(if you check my posts you will see a gap)!!!! And you didn't


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

I tried to plant a Norway Spruce today. Even my DeWit shovel was no match for the ground, which was "a tad less than" frozen solid(my yard is a wetland, complete with leeches and finned slamanders in the "soil"). I gave up after about 10 kicks. Actually I havent checked the weather in weeks, probably over a month ago, but I think it will be fine. "Fiiiiiiiiiine.....,just fiiiiiiiiiiiiine"


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

I felt global warming finally kick in today as the temps rose above 40 so I bought some fire wood for some fires in the back yard....I might just have one tonight matter of fact. I will sit by the fire for a while reading a book as I toast the coming spring with a couple cold brews.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Cheers to ya *yonderfishin*.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

No need to buy wood at my place. You can see the second, even bigger, pile in the back left. For size scale that is an 18" machete.  Tons of birds are living in them right now. Pretty cool to see and hear them all fly out at the same time.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

:Banane35::Banane35:

Sierra Nevada IPA Hop Hunter


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Okay *JamesT *.

It's not nice to fool with us older, half blind guys. 

Looked at that pic for 5min. thinkin there was something not right about it. Finally realized it was upside down.


----------



## NCbassattack (May 5, 2014)

It's 73 here today, so we'll take it. But there is lots of of evidence that the planet is actually cooling, and there is little or no correlation between co2 levels and warming.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...CO2-link/RK=0/RS=lM.bFtdCmXA2plRUVcMljqsCKg4-


----------



## Dovans (Nov 15, 2011)

Not wanting to start argument, I am in Curacao and couple locals have said it has gotten much hotter and they say rainfall has been noticibly less in last ten years. I have not checked out facts for this country, just repeating what was said at local watering hole. <g>


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

fastwater said:


> Okay *JamesT *.
> 
> It's not nice to fool with us older, half blind guys.
> 
> Looked at that pic for 5min. thinkin there was something not right about it. Finally realized it was upside down.


I am not sure what is going on, and it is driving me nuts, but for a picture to appear right side up on ogf it must appear upside down on my ipad. Its almost like Brandon is messin with me or somethin'

If anyone can help me solve this I would greatly appreciate it. ipad mini3.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

JamesT said:


> I am not sure what is going on, and it is driving me nuts, but for a picture to appear right side up on ogf it must appear upside down on my ipad. Its almost like Brandon is messin with me or somethin'
> 
> If anyone can help me solve this I would greatly appreciate it. ipad mini3.


I posted on here a week or so ago about Ipad issues, same thing with pictures they end up sideways or upside down. I noticed yesterday while taking multiple pics with the Ipad that whenever I would look at a pic then go back to camera it would change rotation of the picture. I have no idea what is going on with the darn thing, I know I would trade this for MSFT Surface any day! 
Good Luck maybe someone can help you out, nobody seemed to have any answers for my constantly having to log in with the Ipad issue, I just log in everytime, or use the laptop which keeps me logged in indefinitely.

Cheers Yonderfishn, I'll have my fire tonight, been saving a Hopslam for the moment!!!


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

shroomhunter said:


> I posted on here a week or so ago about Ipad issues, same thing with pictures they end up sideways or upside down. I noticed yesterday while taking multiple pics with the Ipad that whenever I would look at a pic then go back to camera it would change rotation of the picture. I have no idea what is going on with the darn thing, I know I would trade this for MSFT Surface any day!
> Good Luck maybe someone can help you out, nobody seemed to have any answers for my constantly having to log in with the Ipad issue, I just log in everytime, or use the laptop which keeps me logged in indefinitely.
> 
> Cheers Yonderfishn, I'll have my fire tonight, been saving a Hopslam for the moment!!!


If you still have warranty or bought the extended warranty, I would suggest you call the Apple Store. They usually can fix any problems while talking with them on the phone. It may be a simple fix and someone here can help, but if not I would give them a call.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Thanks! Makes sense. No matter what I did it basically never worked. I would take a picture holding my ipad "right side up" then it posts to ogf upside down. So I flip the ipad 180 degrees and take pic...then apple software decides (I must want it flipped?) or flipped 90 degrees. Aaaaaargggghhh wasted so much time yesterday trying to get pics to post rightside up and they still wouldn't. hate when computers "try to make decisions/do things for you" to "make it easier".......spells checks, the ipad crap. all of it. That's just how it is these days? They assume everyone is an idiot when they design their software? Heck I used to hate the "paper clip wizard guy who spews out worthless drivel on Microsoft word 2000" HATE!!! Now he is my friend cause the newest version is 1000 times worse!!!

Seriously my computer (windows 8.1, downloaded and am running classic shell but it hasn't really solved anything) is like the game mousetrap and operation from the 70s/80s. Its a joke. I will seriously take Microsoft word 1988 over the crap they have now. WIsh I had XP back, even windows 98 or 95 over the "latest greatest".

Suck it Microsoft and Apple...you both suck. Unintuitive junk loaded with useless whistles and bells.....

If apple is so user friendly, why can't one just use their fingers to rotate the darned pictures?


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

and yes I feel much better now....

Thanks again SH and PB, I was starting to wonder if it was me!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

NCbassattack said:


> It's 73 here today, so we'll take it. But there is lots of of evidence that the planet is actually cooling, and there is little or no correlation between co2 levels and warming.
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...CO2-link/RK=0/RS=lM.bFtdCmXA2plRUVcMljqsCKg4-


Extremely biased right wing reporting from 2007 isn't very convincing I'm afraid. As a matter of fact, the only reputable source of data they provide is the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which tells a very different story. Heres a chart from the very website they cite as a source.. Look familiar? How is that cooling? 










If thats not a warming trend, I don't know what is. It certainly isn't cooling.

The evidence is everywhere yet people continue to deny for mostly political purposes which just astounds me. Yet again, people also believe in Bigfoot, that Man HASN'T landed on the moon and the US government was responsible for 911. Yeah. People will believe just about anything I guess. Which makes me sad


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

I understand challenging NCbassattack's assertion that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperatures. There is more than enough evidence to debunk that assertion. In actuality most of the reliable data shows there is a fairly close correlation between the two. And there is no doubt that average global temperatures are rising. 

What cracks me up about the debate is that seemingly, the majority of the blame, and I'll call it blame because that's what it amounts to. Is being placed on the activities of man. And I really shouldn't say seemingly, because it is being squarely placed on the activities of man, by the extremists in the global warming community. 

There are a lot of other contributory factors to CO2 levels, besides man. I don't think man caused the more than 100 volcanic eruptions that have occurred between 1900, and 2009. I'm sure there is information listing volcanic eruptions that have occurred since 2009, I just don't feel like looking for it. 

Don't get me wrong. I'd be stupid to say that man's activities haven't added to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's not all on man. And according to the chart I'll be posting at the end of my post. It is clear that the Earth goes through the same type of increase in CO2 and global temperature about every 100,000 years. 

In fact, I'd be curious as to what the scientists attribute the up and down cycle of CO2 in past history to? 

This is the link to the NOAA web site that I got the chart from. Read the accompanying article. It's a short read. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

And in a previous post to this thread it was asked if something looked like something it wasn't.

Does this chart show anything but a cycle that's been repeating for hundreds of thousands of years?


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

I think its laughable that anyone gives any credit to these and all theories on global warming. We can only pretend to know what has happened for 4.5 billion years. The science and technology used to calculate and make these theories is less than 100 years old.....really?

We dont fully understand carbon dating which accounts for about 99% of the evidence for these studies. 

we are continually using solids and turning them to gas. At some point its gonna cause problems.


----------



## lotaluck (Dec 17, 2009)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Extremely biased right wing reporting from 2007 isn't very convincing I'm afraid.


You do a good job of sneaking in your left jabs from time to time. I assume your thought process on anything reporting from the right is false, try broadening your news sources from time to time.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

ostbucks98 said:


> we are continually using solids and turning them to gas. At some point its gonna cause problems.


Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I could have zero data on anything, yet the above statement, combined with my "sperical bubble we live in" gives me the gut feeling that we are responsible and that it will get progessively worse, tipping point, etc.

while to some it might seem the earth we live on is huge/"unlimited", as well as the sperical bubble too,....but really they....aren't. Thats basically the point Im trying to make. So thanks for helping me clarify it!

Would you rather take a cast in your favorite fishing spot today, a year ago, 5 years ago, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 60, 80, 90, 100, or 150(before industrial revolution and back when population was a lot less). same thing just one (global warming) takes a little longer to "get going".....


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

One way people kill themselves is by going into their garage, closing it, and letting the car run...


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

I try to remain neutral on everything but it's difficult at times, my most neutral position which I've stated before.
If these scientists are wrong and this is all just a big political move, well we sure are lucky....PARTY ON!!!!
However..
If the scientists are actually dead on....man we're really screwed!!!! ain't nowhere else to go...
SO, I'll plant a few trees, recycle, try to reduce my footprint and be the best steward of the Earth that I can without making a big scene. I've got nothing to gain or lose by doing this, it's just how I choose to live, not pushing it on anybody...Peace Out as James would say!!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

shroomhunter said:


> I try to remain neutral on everything but it's difficult at times, my most neutral position which I've stated before.
> If these scientists are wrong and this is all just a big political move, well we sure are lucky....PARTY ON!!!!
> However..
> If the scientists are actually dead on....man we're really screwed!!!! ain't nowhere else to go...
> SO, I'll plant a few trees, recycle, try to reduce my footprint and be the best steward of the Earth that I can without making a big scene. I've got nothing to gain or lose by doing this, it's just how I choose to live, not pushing it on anybody...Peace Out as James would say!!


Yes. I will add that I am not by any means "100% certain ln my beliefs. Ill give the opposite poi t of view a few % chance that they are correct. I understand "geologic" times scales, primary factors, secondary, tertiary, hear ya on the vokcanoes etc etc etc. Thats kinda why I said "I dont need no stinkin data ($&@£ in = &@%# out, etc, but I think they are at least putting the best #%+? In, who really knows for sure but they are trying their hardest and these are some damn smart mofos believe it or not). However I tend to side with the scientists because I used to be one and can appreciate the scientific method(why people live longer these day, etc). But mostly the burning stuff/spherical bubble/gut instinct is all I need and thus why I stay out of all the news,etc,etc,etc.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Dovans said:


> Not wanting to start argument, I am in Curacao and couple locals have said it has gotten much hotter and they say rainfall has been noticibly less in last ten years. I have not checked out facts for this country, just repeating what was said at local watering hole. <g>


I'm not wanting to start an argument either, but those local reports have no more validity than our bitching about the last couple of brutally cold winters we've been through. But, even in my short life span, I can recall winters even colder than the last couple, as well as several very mild winters. I can also recall blazing hot, dry summers as well as cool, wet summers. 



MassillonBuckeye said:


> Extremely biased right wing reporting from 2007 isn't very convincing I'm afraid. As a matter of fact, the only reputable source of data they provide is the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which tells a very different story. Heres a chart from the very website they cite as a source.. Look familiar? How is that cooling?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't be sad. I don't believe in bigfoot, I do believe that man landed on the moon, and I don't believe the U.S. Gov't was behind 9/11! Just as I don't believe that the case for human caused "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever name you want to hang on it has been made!

As far as the graph you posted, let's examine the scale. They have decided to plot the scale in 10th's of a degree centigrade which, of course, makes the curve much more dramatic! If they'd plotted it in whole degrees, the curve would be nearly flat, but still showing a slight increase. 

The important question is why? It's well known that the earth has gone through drastic changes in climate before. What makes this time different? Simply because we're here? Where did the CO2 come from before? Are all those sources absent now? 

Consider the "little ice age", that period covering about 500 years of medieval to pre-modern history, from about the mid 1300's to the mid 1800's. This occurred just after the "Medieval Climate Optimum" or "warm period". If those folks had been of a scientific bent they might have thought the earth was heading for another ice age. But, back then, they'd have probably figured that God was cheesed at them for some reason.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Political move or not it comes down to "peoples livelihoods vs. environment" and balancing the two in the most efficient/least destructive to environment way possible. Then you have the fact that there are so many countries (why should we economically choose to penalize ourselves(lower peoples quality of life) for the sake of the environment when other countries arent and the environment is global anyways)and yadayadayadada and back to political.

The environment isnt going to get any better, ever. Just dont go shooting buffalo for the sake of shooting buffalo is all im saying....and be environmentally consious or maybe they are one in the same...


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

buckeyebowman said:


> I'm not wanting to start an argument either, but those local reports have no more validity than our bitching about the last couple of brutally cold winters we've been through. But, even in my short life span, I can recall winters even colder than the last couple, as well as several very mild winters. I can also recall blazing hot, dry summers as well as cool, wet summers.
> 
> I think Dovans was joking, but yes.
> 
> ...


Good point. 

Also.

How many people were living back then? Did they drive cars and burn coal for electricity? Put the last 100 years of manmade greenhouse gase in the time period before the little ice age, and zi seriously doubt you would even have a little ice age(for the exact same reasons the scientists are warning us about now).

I doubt (majorly majorly majorly doubt)we will ever have any ice age ever again in thhe history of the world. Why?....because of global warming. Throw all those "cyclic ice ages of the past that would most certianly suggest there will be another in the future" out the door. I never see any "ice age" Ever ever ever ever ever again. Just aint gonna happen, we can't reverse what weve done and its only gonna get worse at an ever increasing rate.

James "doom and gloom glass is always half empty" T.

As always, my opinion only.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig. posted by *shroomhunter*:
> 
> I try to remain neutral on everything but it's difficult at times, my most neutral position which I've stated before.
> If these scientists are wrong and this is all just a big political move, well we sure are lucky....PARTY ON!!!!
> ...


This is an excellent post. 

I believe we should all be the best stewards of the land we can be and try and leave it better then we found it.

I don't buy into the reasons that are trying to be sold to the public for the changes that are happening. I do believe that the earth tilting on its axis is happening and I do believe we are seeing climate changes because of it. I also believe it is going to happen regardless of what we do.

But yes, again, we each need to do our part in being resourceful with what we have. 

We also need to find a way to persuade other countries such as China (for example) from dumping tons of waste daily into the ocean. Or stop the hundreds of tons of nuclear waste water that has been dumping into the Pacific ocean daily for years from the Fukushima Duiichi nuclear plant fiasco.



But sadly, I don't see either happening in the near future. 

FWIW, here's a rather sobering article written in 2013 on the fallout of the F.D.N.P. nuclear waste water that 1st reached Canada and has currently reached our shores:

Aquatic Fukushima Radiation Plume to Reach West Coast in 2014 ...
www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3726/20130829/aquatic...C

another from 2014:

Fukushima Radiation Reaches Waters Off the Coast Of Canada ...

www.ibtimes.com
&#8250; Technology
&#8250; Science


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

JamesT said:


> The environment isnt going to get any better, ever. Just dont go shooting buffalo for the sake of shooting buffalo is all im saying....and be environmentally consious or maybe they are one in the same...


Hah. I can sound a bit harsh at times. I dont think any of you hunt buffalo lol.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

JamesT said:


> Good point.
> 
> I tried to min quote what you posted, but you seem to have hosed it up. So I'll try to respond as best I can.
> 
> ...


True, there were fewer people living back then, and they didn't drive cars, but they burned wood like there was no tomorrow. And for those of you who still burn wood to augment your heating, get ready. The EPA is now gunning for you. You're about to get the government's big, green weenie right up your wazoo! 

And as you said, we can't revers what we've done. If that's the case why should we modify our behavior?



fastwater said:


> This is an excellent post.
> 
> I believe we should all be the best stewards of the land we can be and try and leave it better then we found it.
> 
> ...


As I've said before, I don't believe in being a wastrel. I believe that living frugally and conservatively is the best way to go.

The earth has been tilted on its axis for a long, long time. The north polar axis has been tilted toward Polaris for the extent of human memory. It's the only reason we have seasons! There has been no significant increase or decrease in that tilt that science is aware of, other than a slight "wobble" in the tilt of the axis which takes about 28,000 years to complete! 

As far as "persuading" other countries to join us in the environmental fight, well, good luck with that! Check the environmental performance of second and third world countries as compared to ours. Hell! Compare some of the other so called "first world" countries compared to us! They treat the world as their garbage dump, but we're supposed to pay the price! I'm all for environmental responsibility, but how about we share it equally?


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Modify behavior to slow GW down, otherwise we are basically on the same page in your last post (could debate/discuss/discuss/debate last paragraph, and a detail or two, but tired). Thanks, good stuff!


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Notice how the temperature "appears" to rise , mysteriously....as we have more and more ability to record and analyze those temperatures ? Is this really a rise in temperature , or just an increase in the availability of data over the years ? This chart would look very similar whether there was any warming or not since the rise tracks the expansion in technology and number of sources involved. There were very few meteorological stations around to record data before the 1970's , those that did exist had very different priorities and didnt really collect the data needed to be accurate. But the chart shows after the 70's when there was concern of a cooling climate there was more interest in adding stations and increasing the data available. Since then , especially in more recent years , not only has there been a huge increase in assets available to record the data but the technology has made it much easier. With more data available every year of course the chart is going to rise. Anything on this chart much before the 1970's is pure guesswork , there is not enough data , and literally none going back as far as the 1800's. But again , this type of chart is very misleading....I believe intentionally so. You can completely disregard everything on it before the 1970's due to lack of data , and attribute everything afterward to literally just an increase in data available. The chart represents an increase in "recorded anomalies" , not an increase in temperature.


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

buckeyebowman said:


> True, there were fewer people living back then, and they didn't drive cars, but they burned wood like there was no tomorrow. And for those of you who still burn wood to augment your heating, get ready. The EPA is now gunning for you. You're about to get the government's big, green weenie right up your wazoo!


Burning wood is not causing global warming. Burning oil and coal which have been carbon sinks for millions of years is. Wood, propane, and natural gas are "new" fuels. The carbon in them has been in the atmosphere far more recently than that in oil and coal. That is why they are seen as more environmentally friendly alternatives.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

tomb said:


> Burning wood is not causing global warming. Burning oil and coal which have been carbon sinks for millions of years is. Wood, propane, and natural gas are "new" fuels. The carbon in them has been in the atmosphere far more recently than that in oil and coal. That is why they are seen as more environmentally friendly alternatives.


But as we increased the amount of fossil fuels we burn we have drastically "decreased" the amount of wood we burn. Almost a carbon for carbon swap , except we do burn more overall now than we once did. The type of fuel shouldnt matter , only the amount is relevant. If we were all burning wood for heat and power/transportation it would all be the same , probably worse since its less efficient and takes more to do what less fossil fuels are capable of.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

JamesT said:


> Good point.
> 
> Also.
> 
> ...


Take the amount of greenhouse gases man has put into the atmosphere and there probably wouldn't have been a "little ice age"? You are aware that greenhouse gas levels have been higher in the past than they are now? And that ice ages have occurred after those high levels? Unless of course the Earth is still in an ice age. Now global warmists will chuckle at such a thought. But there are those in the scientific community that would assert that it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Now there are some members that may believe PBS is an "extremely right wing" organization and therefore not find such an article.... "convincing." BTW, there are other just as reputable sources that mirror what the above article puts forth. They're real easy to find via a simple internet search. Of course they may not be reliable sources because their opinions differ from that of the global warming community. 

There is never going to be another ice age because of global warming? News flash ..... Global warming has occurred in between every ice age. You can choose to throw out all of the evidence supporting "cyclic ice ages" as well as cyclic changes in greenhouse gas levels and global temperature if you want to. But a true scientist wouldn't do that. On the other hand a scientist with an agenda, or one that was trying to strengthen their hypothesis through the exclusion of data, would.

And lastly ... this trend can never be reversed because of what man has done? The trend has reversed itself at least 3 times in the last 400,000 years. And from levels that were higher than they are now. Everyone points to retreating glaciers as a sign of global warming. Duh ..... Around 15,000 years ago my area of northeast Ohio was under the Laurentide ice sheet. I guess it was man's activities that started its demise?

It's ok to be doom and gloom, but at least have some reason behind it. And JamesT, I only used your post as an example of how quite a few others feel. It's not a direct attack on you personally. It just had a lot of what I've heard other people say, when I've had discussions about global warming with them in the past.

With that said ... I've said in the past that it would be silly to think that man hasn't had an influence on the environment. The emphasis is being put on greenhouse gases, because that's the "in" thing to do. I haven't seen one person mention deforestation, or an increasing number of hard structures as playing a roll in the temperature increase. Hard structures absorb and radiate heat, and have a large influence on temperature readings between areas with high concentrations of hard structures, and those without. Take a drive from the city to the country at night, and you'll feel the difference in temperature. 

There's really no reason to go any further. As with most things, people are going to believe what they believe. All I'd like to see is both sides being reasonable in their thinking. To me, the people that think man's activities have no influence on the environment are just as closed minded as those that believe everything is the fault of man.

I love the topic


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Bassbme said:


> Take the amount of greenhouse gases man has put into the atmosphere and there probably wouldn't have been a "little ice age"? You are aware that greenhouse gas levels have been higher in the past than they are now? And that ice ages have occurred after those high levels? Unless of course the Earth is still in an ice age. Now global warmists will chuckle at such a thought. But there are those in the scientific community that would assert that it is.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
> 
> ...


I still don't think there is going to be another ice age. Just forgot to mention a few things. It was late and I was tired. You got me. Good stuff, carry on!


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

I would take 1.6 billion people burning wood fires compared to 7.2 billion people and what we do today. You know how much forest we are harvesting now? I wish there was some way to get a satellite photo of Vinton County in 1990 compared to today.

World population estimates

0 - 300 million
1200ad - 450 million
1850 - 1.2 billion
1900 - 1.6 b
1950 - 2.5 b
2000 - 6.0 b
2015 - 7.2 b


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

ostbucks98 said:


> I would take 1.6 billion people burning wood fires compared to 7.2 billion people and what we do today. You know how much forest we are harvesting now? I wish there was some way to get a satellite photo of Vinton County in 1990 compared to today.
> 
> World population estimates
> 
> ...


Yet levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures were higher 100,000 years ago and 300,000 years ago than they are today. I wonder how many humans were burning wood back then? 

I understand the point you're trying to make. But the amount of wood being burned by humans pales in comparison to the amount of wood burned in wildfires. Close to a million acres of forest was burned in the 1988 Yellowstone wildfires alone.

If you're talking strictly about deforestation, that's one thing. If you're trying to correlate the amount of wood humans burn, to greenhouse gas levels. It's another

Well ..... time for me to get outside and fix a brake line on my truck. Have fun peoples !!!


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

So you whole heartedly believe that science has without a doubt been able to even guess what co2 levels were 100,000 years ago


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

ostbucks98 said:


> So you whole heartedly believe that science has without a doubt been able to even guess what co2 levels were 100,000 years ago


A little cold out to get under the truck right now so ...... do I wholeheartedly believe without a doubt that scientists have been able to guess what CO2 levels were 100,000 years ago? Sure, they can guess, but that doesn't mean their guess is accurate. 

Which is exactly what you're trying to say. Do I believe science can more accurately guess how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago, than anyone can guess how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere as a result of humans burning wood? 

You bet I do. 

CO2 levels taken from air trapped in samples of ice that is 100s of thousands of years old show higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere then, than there are now. Can that data be 100% trusted? I don't know anymore than you. Are we sure the ice is the age its reported to be? I don't know anymore than you. 

We have to trust some data, don't we? I mean ... you evidently trust the data that shows CO2 levels are higher now, than they were in 1900. If you didn't, why put forth the theory that 5.6 billion more people burning wood has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, since then? 

For that matter .... can you wholeheartedly without a doubt say that the ability to detect CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900, is what it is today? 

I forget which member it was that pointed out the temperature gradients that were used in a chart depicting the rate that global temperatures are climbing. That was an excellent example, and an extremely valid point. Has there been a trend of the Earth warming? If you trust the data, of course there is. But humans are visual creatures. Show us something in one manner, and we'll be complacent. Show us the same data in a different manner, and we'll freak out. 

Both reactions can lead to disaster.

IMO the bottom line is, if a person is on the fence about a particular situation, then that person is considered as being part of the problem by the extremists on either side of a debate. When in fact, the extremists themselves are the problem. In any situation! They're the ones that draw the ire of those in the middle of the road. They're the ones over reacting or over simplifying a situation. And they're the ones causing people to move towards one extreme or the other. 

If an extremist wants to see why people join the side opposite theirs ... all they have to do is look in the mirror.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

streamstalker said:


> I am always skeptical, but here you go: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html


While they can get some information from ice cores , the data is only specific as the location that gathered the cores from. Kinda like judging the validity of global warming based on what you observe in your back yard. 

We do know that during periods of volcanic activity at the very least , that the amount of CO2 and particulates in the atmosphere must have been many times what they are now since they literally caused the last mini ice age. Which by the way is in direct conflict with the global warming theory.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> While they can get some information from ice cores , the data is only specific as the location that gathered the cores from. Kinda like judging the validity of global warming based on what you observe in your back yard.
> 
> We do know that during periods of volcanic activity at the very least , that the amount of CO2 and particulates in the atmosphere must have been many times what they are now since they literally caused the last mini ice age. Which by the way is in direct conflict with the global warming theory.


Amen !!! 

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see detailed breakdowns of recorded temperatures as they pertain to percentage of cloud cover present throughout the period of record keeping for each individual reporting station. 

Clouds both reflect, and retain heat.

I'd like to see ground cover types, and the percentages of each type of ground cover within a a specified area. I'd also like to see soil composition, and soil coloring within the same specified area.

Different types of ground cover absorb and radiate heat, more than others. Different soil compositions and colors also absorb and radiate more heat than others.

The areas location in relationship to a large body of water. The size of the body of water, and not just the body of water's average depth, but the percentage of coverage each depth range within that body of water represents. 

Water is slower to warm than a solid object, and depending on a solid objects density, it may absorb more heat than a solid object. But at the same time it retains and radiates its heat for a longer period of time than a solid object does. Is it a wash? Or does it influence average temperature readings one way or another? 

Does wanting such detailed information seem ridiculous? To the average citizen it may be. But as an average citizen I would hope these things would be considered as influences when trying to determine the reason for higher global temperatures. 

There is a lot more that goes into a temperature reading, and what causes that reading, than just the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

Global warmists want society to look at the bigger picture .... but are they?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bassbme said:


> Take the amount of greenhouse gases man has put into the atmosphere and there probably wouldn't have been a "little ice age"? You are aware that greenhouse gas levels have been higher in the past than they are now? And that ice ages have occurred after those high levels? Unless of course the Earth is still in an ice age. Now global warmists will chuckle at such a thought. But there are those in the scientific community that would assert that it is.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
> 
> ...


I highly doubt anyone on the planet would consider PBS an "extremely right wing" organization.

I never said what I thought was causing it, just that the trend is the globe is currently warming. The topic was "where is global warming when you need it". Oh! It's right here! Yet, for some reason(political bias I believe) we try to deny. Mans effect on "global warming" would be whole 'nother discussion. We have a tendency to stray way off topic sometimes..


----------



## crankbait10 (Oct 8, 2014)

Bassbme said:


> Global warmists want society to look at the bigger picture .... but are they?


I think that no matter how you slice it, the truly ignorant people are the ones who believe that 7+ *billion* human beings can exist on the planet without having any effect at all. 

But hey, call me crazy. I've got some fracking wells I want to put on your land.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I highly doubt anyone on the planet would consider PBS an "extremely right wing" organization.
> 
> I never said what I thought was causing it, just that the trend is the globe is currently warming. The topic was "where is global warming when you need it". Oh! It's right here! Yet, for some reason(political bias I believe) we try to deny. Mans effect on "global warming" would be whole 'nother discussion. We have a tendency to stray way off topic sometimes..


I never said you shared your thoughts on what was causing the Earth to warm. I quoted words and phrases that you used in a prior post because the link I provided in the post that you quoted, contained an article stating that the Earth is still in the midst of an ice age. 

In my defense, your use of the phrase "extremely right wing" in your one post lead me to believe that you would find an article stating that the Earth is in the midst of a cooling period, as being right wing.

My apologies for reading between the lines.

And while the thread has strayed off topic from what its original purpose of being humorous in light of the colder than normal temperatures at it's beginning. The discussion of why the Earth is warming has been the topic for quite a few pages.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

crankbait10 said:


> I think that no matter how you slice it, the truly ignorant people are the ones who believe that 7+ *billion* human beings can exist on the planet without having any effect at all.
> 
> But hey, call me crazy. I've got some fracking wells I want to put on your land.


Oh there's no doubts that the population of the Earth has an affect on the planet. 

And I live in a city on a quarter acre piece of land. No room for a well here. 

Time for me to get out of this conversation. I've began reading too much into other members posts, and they've began reading too much into mine.

I did get that brake line fixed though.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bassbme said:


> I never said you shared your thoughts on what was causing the Earth to warm. I quoted words and phrases that you used in a prior post because the link I provided in the post that you quoted, contained an article stating that the Earth is still in the midst of an ice age.
> 
> In my defense, your use of the phrase "extremely right wing" in your one post lead me to believe that you would find an article stating that the Earth is in the midst of a cooling period, as being right wing.
> 
> ...


As a fisherman who actively participates on(in?) an online forum where users post pictures and descriptions of their catches, I'm all too aware of scale...  Forced perspective is a thing. And quite effective on those who don't care or want to put much thought or effort into understanding things.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

crankbait10 said:


> I think that no matter how you slice it, the truly ignorant people are the ones who believe that 7+ *billion* human beings can exist on the planet without having any effect at all.
> 
> But hey, call me crazy. I've got some fracking wells I want to put on your land.


Very few people deny that we have had an effect on the planet. But its what effect we are having that is the question. If the man made global warming story wasnt so full of holes and inconsistencies as well as obvious deliberate attempts to make it sound worse than it is , it might not be as hard to accept. I and many others dont know that we ARENT having an effect on the climate , only that climate changes naturally and it has changed even more drastically , many times through history without our help. In fact , its well known and accepted that we are still in the warming swing from the last ice age. All the fabricated data in the world isnt gonna change that. What bothers people the most is being lied to and the misrepresentation thats going on from the global warming crowd is indeed lies , whether they mean well or not. Exaggeration to make a point and manipulating data so that it has more impact are misleading , and I wonder why they have to spike their story if its the truth ? If you are getting a biased and inflamed version of the truth then it isnt the truth is it ?


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

yonderfishin said:


> But as we increased the amount of fossil fuels we burn we have drastically "decreased" the amount of wood we burn. Almost a carbon for carbon swap , except we do burn more overall now than we once did. The type of fuel shouldnt matter , only the amount is relevant. If we were all burning wood for heat and power/transportation it would all be the same , probably worse since its less efficient and takes more to do what less fossil fuels are capable of.


I don't think you fully understand the problem with fossil fuels. It is old carbon. As in millions of years out of circulation in our atmosphere.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

tomb said:


> I don't think you fully understand the problem with fossil fuels. It is old carbon. As in millions of years out of circulation in our atmosphere.



I understand that , but carbon is carbon. Just as all energy is a continual cycle of transformation , carbon is too. Never really gone , only converted from one form to another. The point has merit , since we are digging it up out of the ground and putting it back into the environment again but lets face it , that carbon has been there before.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

In the "bigger picture" of things, the "scientific method" (what all those studies are based on) is not biased by by left wing, right wing, Rush, or Obama. Just saying. Are the scientists slightly "on the left" Probably, they are....scientists and i would say the typical scientist is "slighlty on the left" when it comes to this (but also with right leaning views on other things) But if there is a hole in their theory/findings of study, another scientist will be there more than ready to shoot it down for 2 seconds if fame. That is how science works and how we progress- scientific method (5 steps). I guess what Im saying is that if this (manmade GW)is all b.s.(which i hardly think it is) Then the truth will slowly come out...via...scientific studies. And yes #$&# data in (you can find plenty of "legit shif data" to prove any point on either side and every shade of gray in bw, just like the polticians do and kinda like what is happening in this thread) equals }%^* conclusions. Even with a scientific background, I say most of all of those studies (with conclusions favoring either side)are a bunch of bs anyways. Well not exactly (what was that one quote edison had about success and perspiration and the numbers 99 and 1as they helped steer us to where we are now (learn from them/their shortcomings). Just my gut feeling. But there are also plenty of legit, solid studes with good input dat and thus good conclusions.

And these just keep backing non-believers of Man,ade GW into a corner as time goes on.....the studies just keep showing that " science is showing that man is resposible" yadayadadada.

Maybe bc ive tried to improve brake pads containing 15+ ingredients (that variable thing, except there are about 1000+ ingredients and they are arguing over what the ingredients even are?. Heck we (rockwell automitive) tried to design a brake pad with just 4 i gredients and even trying to figure out the roles each play and how they relate to performance with just 4 is tough. But yeah, i was sputtering off layers of atoms 10-20 atom layers thick (auger electron spectroscopy, xray photoelectron spectroscopy, sputtering off atoms, repeat to get depth composition profile, worlds most sophisticated tribometer at the timem designed mostly to run tests at cryogenic temps for space shuttle liquid oxygen fuel applications such as fill and drain valve) to get chemical composition of semi truck brake pad/rotor friction film (every 10-20 atom layers)as a function of depth on the friction film produced by 15+ ingredients that were "thrown in over the years and seem to work well but we have no idea why" and trying to turn into science and draw conclusions?!? Really? Its like this is the equivalent of that but waywayway more complicated and with hella more variables (yes GW is just a tad more complicated that semi-truck brake pads lol). Heck finding, knowing what the variables even are is damn near impossible(then argue over whether primary cause, secondary, maybe irrelevant, etc,etc,etc)

I guess i am more about defending the scientists. I already said I mostly stay out now of all the latest greatest studies (used to read much more). Seriously if I was "ruler of this country", I woukdnt waste so much/ANY money on mars (total waste of money) and rather than sinking so much money knto these studies, say "look I dont care what you all think bc my gut instinct tells me that i am 99.99% sure there is a problem" Now rather than trying to figure it out (spend so much money trying to figure out of man is responsible) we will spend that money to look for solutions(i know you must understand prob to find solution,yadada). But then it really doesnt matter all that much bc of population explosion, global environment, poltics, etc. We can slow the "pain" but not stop it, earth is screwed!! (Imagine picture of smiling moon looking down at earth saying "man you look soooooo wasted!" (Old tshirt gf got me) i was not joking when i said james "gloom and doom" t. The world is gonna suck azz (much different, maybe an extremely small % like the people who like living in nyc, may "like" etc), but everything environment is just gonna....suck(in the simplest sense, earth cant handle so many people)in 1000 years, much, much, much less actually". 

too many people, not enough surface area of productive land= environment destruction and wars! Simple as that. Illgegal immigration, wars in middle east (spread those mofos out/give more/more productive land other than oil and.....pooof suddenly reiligion isnt the primary issue/cause of probs?!?

I know how much time it takes to "battle" (always must win, get in last "shot", etc) and im trying to stay out (havent keot up with the latest GW news anyways, ive concluded its real, manmade is contibuting significantly, but thanks everyone has has posted anything. This is a "thinking" and very educational thread and those are good.

Thanks! James (the(parentheses)using) T


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

yonderfishin said:


> I understand that , but carbon is carbon. Just as all energy is a continual cycle of transformation , carbon is too. Never really gone , only converted from one form to another. The point has merit , since we are digging it up out of the ground and putting it back into the environment again but lets face it , that carbon has been there before.


That is just it. That carbon was here before, but then it was locked away under ground. Take coal for instance, during the carboniferous period as trees. When the earth was a hothouse. They died and were buried. Taking the stuff out of circulation and allowing the earth's climate to cool. We are putting it back. Essentially terraforming right back to the carboniferous conditions.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

What tomb said.

No offense yonder, but the point you are trying to make "has a foot inserted into its mouth".


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

In the even bigger picture of things...

You can't beat Ma Nature......But you can kill her.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

tomb said:


> That is just it. That carbon was here before, but then it was locked away under ground. Take coal for instance, during the carboniferous period as trees. When the earth was a hothouse. They died and were buried. Taking the stuff out of circulation and allowing the earth's climate to cool. We are putting it back. Essentially terraforming.


Well as long as you understand that every bit of that carbon was once out in circulation completing cycle after cycle. And that as time goes by its building beneath us as well , layer after layer. All still the same carbon every living thing is made of , dying off and returning to where it came from. We certainly are having some effect but the cycle goes on with or without us. If the earth is warming its still not doing anything it hasnt done before. And the earth was a hothouse at times without our interference , what does that suggest ?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

JamesT said:


> What tomb said.
> 
> No offense yonder, but the point you are trying to make "has a foot inserted into its mouth".


Not necessarily. The earth has been around a very long time and has seen every extreme many times , without our interference. Thats not saying we havent had any effect , only that we have been warming for longer than man has been part of the equation.


----------



## tomb (Oct 9, 2004)

yonderfishin said:


> Well as long as you understand that every bit of that carbon was once out in circulation completing cycle after cycle. And that as time goes by its building beneath us as well , layer after layer. All still the same carbon every living thing is made of , dying off and returning to where it came from.


It is not being buried at the rate it was millions of years ago. Bacteria did not exist to digest most of the things that died yet. Now trees rot when they die and don't have a chance to take the stuff out of circulation again.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

We can slow the "pain" but not stop it, earth is screwed!! (Imagine picture of


> Orig. posted by *JamesT*:
> 
> smiling moon looking down at earth saying "man you look soooooo wasted!" (Old tshirt gf got me) i was not joking when i said james "gloom and doom" t. The world is gonna suck azz (much different, maybe an extremely small % like the people who like living in nyc, may "like" etc), but everything environment is just gonna....suck(in the simplest sense, earth cant handle so many people)in 1000 years, much, much, much less actually".
> 
> *too many people, not enough surface area of productive land= environment destruction and wars! Simple as that. Illgegal immigration, wars in middle east (spread those mofos out/give more/more productive land other than oil and.....pooof suddenly reiligion isnt the primary issue/cause of probs?!?*


 If the above statement is trying to imply that GW is in any way the reason for our current problems in illegal immigration, wars in the middle east etc. , I think you have finally stretched the GW 'current affects' rubber band' well beyond its elastic capabilities. lol!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Lolol thats why i need to stay away from this thread(and ogf).....sorry didnt mean to break TOS, feel free to erase. Tend to "get going" lol.

Or just pretend you didnt see that


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

sorry about that - it does not belong in this thread or anywhere on this site, feel free to erase, did not mean to offend anyone. 

I apologize, sorry.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

tomb said:


> It is not being buried at the rate it was millions of years ago. Bacteria did not exist to digest most of the things that died yet. Now trees rot when they die and don't have a chance to take the stuff out of circulation again.


No need for bacteria. Vegetation as well as animals remain carbon regardless of whether they have rotted or not. Along with all the settling going on all around us of what is in the air and atmosphere , anything that dies puts essentially all of its carbon back into the ground. Anything in the air eventually makes its way back to the ground as well , it just takes longer. Man hasnt broken anything , just mixed it up a little. Natures process is still alive and well.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Pretty much every point made for or against man made global warming can mean something completely different , depending on how you present it. In any other subject in life that would normally indicate its all opinion and the issue is moot. Every point or counter point can be presented another way , be completely true , and support the opposite. Anyone ever notice that ? It usually means there is not enough evidence to fully support any claim for or against. Trillions of dollars spent over a few decades and all we have to show for it is opinion. At the very least , that causes me to think that if there is something to it , then we are trying to treat the problem all wrong.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

yonderfishin said:


> Well as long as you understand that every bit of that carbon was once out in circulation completing cycle after cycle. And that as time goes by its building beneath us as well , layer after layer. All still the same carbon every living thing is made of , dying off and returning to where it came from. We certainly are having some effect but the cycle goes on with or without us. If the earth is warming its still not doing anything it hasnt done before. And the earth was a hothouse at times without our interference , what does that suggest ?


I dont know how to break up quotes.

Sentence 1. Correct
Sentence 2. You are talking time scales that take millions (oil, coal less)or hundreds of thousands (ice ages about every 80,000 to 100,000 years). I am saying look at the temp increase data from the last....10...20....50....100 years any number after industrial revolution... and look at the range of years and the temp increase. Next "extrapolate this data to much larger time scales that cover like.....ice ages" Scary. Woukd you enjoy a nice day when its 150 degrees outside? And no Im not saying that would happen (not linear model, etc), just sayin.

3. Correct (how does your beer that has a small % of the water that was once the water in dinosaur urine taste?...cycles are cycles)

4. (Mentioned above) Lets say the "data on the last 20 year Temp graphs that have the exagerated y axis" is actually "legit data" (imagine that). Now look at the range of years on the x-axis(20 years). Now scale up this recent (fraction of a degree) data to your "much, much larger temp fluation graph that shiws cyclic ice age cycles, carbon cycles, whatever). So 80,000 divided by 20 times 0.0748391 degrees (or whatever it is). Scary, and exactly the point Im trying to make (earth is effed, we're over the tipping point, no going back, just prolong the pain lol)

Basically you are using an argument, the "while not, not true" is orders of magnitudes off on its time scale to even be relevant to the issue at hand.

I dunno, maybe it me...


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

JamesT said:


> I dont know how to break up quotes.
> 
> Sentence 1. Correct
> Sentence 2. You are talking time scales that take millions (oil, coal less)or hundreds of thousands (ice ages about every 80,000 to 100,000 years. to data from the last....10...20....50....100 years stop there..to the temp increase data the scientists are showing with thhe scaled up y-axis to exaggerate the point they are trying to make)
> ...



Scales and magnitudes as well as time are something man has so little grasp of to be so sure of an outcome. The only "legit" data available was collected since the 1970's and in some cases since the 80's and 90's ....even thats incomplete. Data is being falsified or at best misrepresented. Man made global warming still has "opinion" written all over it in spite of all the resources being thrown at it. If the opinion was unanimous throughout the scientific community that would be one thing , but its not. But I refer to what I said in an earlier post , every point can be presented another way and mean something completely different. Throw in some misrepresentation and falsification and you have all the ingredients of a very successful scam. But nothing is gonna be proven or changed on an internet forum like this , we can make our points but we are still welcome to our opinions.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

I understand and really appreciate the point you are trying to make as well as your questioning things/data, both here and in previous posts. While I "generally disagree" with your viewpoints/opinion you have raised some very valid points and things for discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. Usually Im skeptical of everything until I form opinions based on first-hand experiences. I just am not a skeptic of manmade GW. Thanks and regards!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Correct me if Im wrong, but havent the vast majority of scientists (not just Obamas pals) concluded that manmade GW is "the real deal"?


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig posted by *JamesT*:
> 
> Correct me if Im wrong, but havent the vast majority of scientists (not just Obamas pals) concluded that manmade GW is "the real deal"?


Many have...but the theory as to the reason 'why' seems to be the biggest issue. The reason 'why' has also been turned into a multi-billion $ business in which people/groups have found a way to make a very lucrative living off of. 

Modern day 'snake oil' salesmen.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Like I said I have not kept up, but that kind of $#+% pisses me off.

People making big money "doing nothing as far as Im concerned".

But that seems to be the way we roll...

Reminds me, early 2000s, soldier got shot didnt die, Ceradyne used this "sweet new game playing piece", lobbied congress and pushed for "every piece of body armor any branch of armed forces buys must now be able to stop armor piercing rounds". They won.....and many soldiers felt safer...."without their klunkster Ceradyne" armor...(at the time only a very small % of the rounds fired were a.p.)

I hear ya, bunch of parasites making money doing nothing (not including the scientists of course).....

Probably shouldnt have said that....oh well....


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

JamesT said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, but havent the vast majority of scientists (not just Obamas pals) concluded that manmade GW is "the real deal"?


Actually the vast majority no longer call it man made global warming , they have backslid a bit and now , and more correctly call it global climate change , though they still attribute it to greenhouse gasses , etc. With a little searching you can also see many in the ranks allowing more credibility to natural cycle or other factors playing a part. Its mostly the government or united nations funded and sanctioned sources that will not consider anything but American greed and prosperity as the root cause , but if THEY let slip any interest in possible other causes they likely lose their sanction and funding for not playing by the rules set forth by those overseeing them. Government sponsored science is as corrupt as government sponsored religion would be , and can be as inadequate as government sponsored healthcare seems to be. But as many holes or reasons for skepticism as there are in the "state sponsored" scientific theory , they have succeeded in making up the minds of so many who are willing to disregard the indications and signs of deceit. So the U.S. is becoming a third world country as our competitors continue to become more and more able to outproduce us. If we are causing the planet to warm , then we need a real plan that will realistically help find a solution ,...... not a plan to strengthen the global economy by restricting American prosperity. As others have said , follow the money and you will see whats "really" happening , and who is behind it.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Thing is, on a per capita basis, our country is gonna thrash the planet (carbon footprint, etc, data) more than any othher country (well more than china, believe it or not) in the world no matter what happens(cant change things over night but can work to slowly tirn in the roght direction), just like we have been doing for years (comment on that please yonder). Sounds like you are suggesting we should go back to pre-1970 EPA to jump start OUR economy! Having said that, I understand what you are saying (why not, moenymoneymoneymoney?!?!! Capitalism brah!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

If I ruled the world, people around he world would be taxed on one and only one thing.

They would be taxed solely on how much they tax the environment. It is the ONLY thing everyone in the world shares. Might as well make the world "equally fair" for all...

And for things that really piss me off like hummers, youd have an official "king james" smog inhaler and you would have to inhale "a defined certain amount of CO and other pollutants based on body weight" inorder to have the privelege of purchasing one.

Lol joking,y serious. i would not be a popular ruler and would probably get shot within a few days of ruling the world.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Joking on te hummer thing (but the fact I thought about it shows myntrue glowing colors), but gas would probably ve more expensive than it is now. Hope you donthave a long commmute by yourself in a suburban each day...


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Did I ever tell you how much all the hottie trophy wives in Powell, and their "hubby purchased" trophy suvs piss me off?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

yonderfishin said:


> Actually the vast majority no longer call it man made global warming , they have backslid a bit and now , and more correctly call it global climate change , though they still attribute it to greenhouse gasses , etc. With a little searching you can also see many in the ranks allowing more credibility to natural cycle or other factors playing a part. Its mostly the government or united nations funded and sanctioned sources that will not consider anything but American greed and prosperity as the root cause , but if THEY let slip any interest in possible other causes they likely lose their sanction and funding for not playing by the rules set forth by those overseeing them. Government sponsored science is as corrupt as government sponsored religion would be , and can be as inadequate as government sponsored healthcare seems to be. But as many holes or reasons for skepticism as there are in the "state sponsored" scientific theory , they have succeeded in making up the minds of so many who are willing to disregard the indications and signs of deceit. So the U.S. is becoming a third world country as our competitors continue to become more and more able to outproduce us. If we are causing the planet to warm , then we need a real plan that will realistically help find a solution ,...... not a plan to strengthen the global economy by restricting American prosperity. As others have said , follow the money and you will see whats "really" happening , and who is behind it.


So how about you just tell us whats "really happening" and who is behind it please.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

What he said.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Foxy Fox news and Bill O'Reilly!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

For shiggles I googled bill o'reilly global warming and came across this. While I pretty much disagree will Bill always, this right is a pretty good summary.

Go Bill!!! (Remember I had "per capita" in my last post)

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/05/20/bill-oreilly-climate-change-chaos/


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Yea *JamesT*, when you start grounding some of the private jets and limo's some of the big $ proponents of the big GW theory use to get around to their different political events, to star in movies , use on their concert tours, red carpet events and book signings etc., you will not last very long as king. 

And don't you dare think about limiting the use of the fuels and energy they use in their multiple 50,000 square foot shacks.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Lol, and yes!

Also I rewatched the Bill vid and while I generally like the point he is tryiing to make, a lot of his (scientific based) statements crack me up. Man I need to stay out. Just dont think I agree with a lot of what bill is saying in that, I dont. But I like the point he is tryng to make (the economics/global,thing, just like I mentioned in y earlier posts).

But I think Bill is generally wrong on the more and more fires thing, sandy,etcetcet. Thing is is takes more educated/smarter people to inderstand that kind of thing (slam to fox news viewers, ot ogfers :buldge eyed dude here:

Peace out, thanks!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

I will be tearing my shack down and building a new "custom shack".

Sledge is ready to go!!!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Believe it or not my 77 vw westy (sage green color, cherry, pumpin stereo, custom everything) that was my home for 3 years while I was a climbing bum in cali had a bumber sticker that said "be free"(and a few others. Summers in yosemite, winters in joshua tree and the sierras in between! Not much gas when you are camped in Yosemite from May-Oct and Josh during the winter!

I should see if I can find pics of some of the earth domes my friend built up in Ojai and at Pomona college. His whole thing is "in 1000 years they become one with the earth again"


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Good vid that is peripherically relevant to this discussion. My principles of engineering students at village academy liked it so I figured you might too.

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch?language=en


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> So how about you just tell us whats "really happening" and who is behind it please.




Whats really happening isnt hard to figure out , they hide in plain sight. We may be contributing to an already warming planet but those behind the move toward multinationalism , world economy and government , ...the U.N. to name one , have seized this as an opportunity to bring about some changes they would like to see happen and some of these changes have nothing to do with the climate , but more to do with world economies and the demise of capitalism. These people have worked for decades to expand socialism , a "new world order" that every president since Ronal Reagan has mentioned openly in speeches but never really expounded on the meaning. What better way to do this than to play out the whole "brotherhood of man " thing , and use nations laws and fines for enforcement. Whether warming of the planet it a problem or not , they now have the perfect tool and excuse to change things the way they see fit. Theres not enough room or time to put everything here , but if you go and read up on the changes the UN has been discussing for years and their goals , almost from the beginning you could see that things have virtually fallen right into place. Yes the climate is changing but is that the real motive ? And is their answer to the problem an real answer or just an excuse. Im not into conspiracy theories , but this stuff is just so darn obvious it aint funny. But keep swallowing those bitter pills , because after all they told you to. No offense intended with anything I have said , just talking here and maybe make you think about it a little more.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

One more seventh inning stretch....for lovers of "anything old school"

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0[/ame]


----------



## Biodude (Nov 5, 2004)

JamesT said:


> Believe it or not my 77 vw westy (sage green color, cherry, pumpin stereo, custom everything) that was my home for 3 years while I was a climbing bum in cali had a bumber sticker that said "be free"(and a few others. Summers in yosemite, winters in joshua tree and the sierras in between! Not much gas when you are camped in Yosemite from May-Oct and Josh during the winter!
> 
> I should see if I can find pics of some of the earth domes my friend built up in Ojai and at Pomona college. His whole thing is "in 1000 years they become one with the earth again"


Of topic, but great to see a fellow climber on OGF. Never been to Yosemite, but visited Joshua Tree, and most major climbing areas in the East back in the late 70's -90's and overseas. Old School!


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

JamesT said:


> In the even bigger picture of things...
> 
> You can't beat Ma Nature......But you can kill her.


No you can't. She'll kill us first! That is, if we don't end up killing each other off! The planet will go on. Nature will go on as it has, completely indifferent to anything living on the planet. It just doesn't care. Only we do. Which is why there is so much debate. 

My, my. This has been a lively place the last few days since I've checked in. But I've seen nothing that moves me from my stance.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Biodude said:


> Of topic, but great to see a fellow climber on OGF. Never been to Yosemite, but visited Joshua Tree, and most major climbing areas in the East back in the late 70's -90's and overseas. Old School!



Looks like I started when you got out. Climbed with/met lots of east coasters, need to hit up the gunks(when I was in Yosemite I met Lynn Hill she told me I need to  etc before I die, love chimneys and roofs! "The needles" in cali <== best granite in the world.

Camped next to Timmy O Neill in Josh for a couple weeks, climbed with him for 3 days(led me on I cant believe its a girdle but that climb is nearly as scary following. dean, mcneely, cedar, hans, yuji, huber bros, sharma,caldwell, kauk, herb laeger (josh/needles routes)all those guys. Lived the life for 3 years. 

Cheers maybe we can hit up wv sometime! I havent climbed (except vertical adventures a couple times) in over 10 years. We could climb some 5.6 and 5.7s!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

buckeyebowman said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> No you can't. She'll kill us first! That is, if we don't end up killing each other off! The planet will go on. Nature will go on as it has, completely indifferent to anything living on the planet. It just doesn't care. Only we do. Which is why there is so much debate.
> 
> My, my. This has been a lively place the last few days since I've checked in. But I've seen nothing that moves me from my stance.


I understand and agree with what you are saying bb. Didnt explain myself fully (started to/distinguish bw bubble vs ma na but decided it wasnt worth the time, etc). Thanks, and I totally agree.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Mr. O'Reilly is so scientifically savvvy!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

streamstalker said:


> Do any of you remember the the Marathon Oil pipeline from WV to Ohio that was a source of controversy about 15 years ago? I used to park my bicycle that I road to work in the parking garage at Riverside Hospital here in Columbus. I always chuckled at a bumper sticker on one of the vehicles in the prime parking (Doctor's Row) section of the garage....Bicycles were the only vehicles with better parking spots right next to the door. Why did the sticker make me chuckle? It was on the bumper of a Hummer.


remember when the feds gave rebates to small business owners who bought hummers to help "jump start the economy" remember when the h2 furst came out and all the "total total tools" would be out tooling around. Hardly see them anymore bc it is not the "in thing"...and our countries views are changing too as the population ages.....remember when pizza predicted the demise of hummer back when they were booming....

-Lee Guhlize


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

With all the talk about CO2 a person may forget that the worst and most dominant of the "greenhouse gasses" , according to even the mainstream is ( drumroll ) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... water vapor !!! 


But they have you so worried about CO2 that you probably never even considered it. Thats because its usually a footnote , in small writing in a obscure place.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

What they told you was....

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)&#8230;the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

What they didnt tell you was.....there has been no global warming since 1998 ( look it up ). They have just come up with another term " global warming hiatus" and try in vain to explain how it hasnt stopped at all , the earth is still collecting heat , its just not been detected with the popular methods as it was before. As you get deeper into it they spin a good line , but sound a lot like they have no idea and prefer to skip over that " inconvenient truth" and stick to their story. 

What Im getting at here isnt necessarily that there is no global warming , but that these guys seem to be making up a lot of this as they go. And a lot of what you think is considered "fact" may just be a clever way to fill in space on a report.

If what they claim is true , there would be no such thing as a warming hiatus. The warming would have continued and be very apparent no matter what their methods of gathering and recording the data. Something as drastic as they report it is would leave every skeptic speechless.


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

JamesT said:


> One more seventh inning stretch....for lovers of "anything old school"
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0


Now......


Imagine the size of "the bubble" (hardly the best example as it does not just binarily turn into space, but that, for all practical purposes is irrelevant, I would think the fact our atmosphere gradually thins works to our favor though...

And imagine all the crap (Chinese factories in big cities, Los Angeles, etc, etc, etc). Why do some people stop 100 feet behind the person in front of them at a red light, etc,etc being pumped 24/7/365 into our atmosphere.

No joke, I realized how big of a deal second hand smoke was/ issue it would would become back in 1976 when I was 6.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out, really.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

And on that note ! ,......anybody notice spring has apparently sprung ?


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

There's one thing that makes Spring complete for me...


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig. posted by *yonderfishin*:
> 
> And on that note ! ,......anybody notice spring has apparently sprung ?


Speaking of Spring...has anybody seen or heard of any forsythia blooming yet?

GW'ing may have made a few changes but I'm thinkin we'll still get 3 more snows after they bloom.

At any rate, am anxious for turkey season and getting back on the water. 
Shotgun is dialed in...boat motor tuned up and ready. trailer wheels all repacked with grease. Tackle boxes all organized and the reels have been cleaned and oiled. 

Grandson and I are in waiting mode.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Getting my soft water fishing gear together , even though the fishing really sucks around here lately. But the metal detector is ready to go , all set for hopefully another $300 season. Firewood bought for the back yard fire pit and I think I will get some gas for the grill. Too many things to , not enough time to do them.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Dug out the shroom bags, dusted off the stick, it's right around the corner!!


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

streamstalker said:


> Don't read anything into it, just interesting weather stories from this week:



Yeah , those types of things happen now and then as the earth is on the warming side of an ice age


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig posted by *shroomhunter*:
> 
> Dug out the shroom bags, dusted off the stick, it's right around the corner!!


With GW bringing all this snow and then all this rain and flooding, do ya think we'll have any shrooms this year???


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Ok I ripped some walls off the house I am tearing down and feel much better. I totally appreciate where everyone is coming from on this one. Great discussion!


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

JamesT said:


> Mr. O'Reilly is so scientifically savvvy!


Oh, I don't know. When I was in chemistry class that's what we called it. Just like we called water "aich 2 oh", hydrogen peroxide was "aich 2 oh 2", and sodium hydroxide was "en ay oh aich". Or, as my Thai college chemistry prof called it "yen yay yoh yaich". Lord! That dude was hard to understand! 



streamstalker said:


> Don't read anything into it, just interesting weather stories from this week:


Interesting stories, yes, but the type of hyperbolic reportage that the herd let's go by unchallenged. Unchallenged hell! They swallow it whole! *"Possibly the worst cyclone in the Pacific's history?"* How do they know? We haven't been around for the entirety of the Pacific's history, much less keeping records! 

The story from Italy is a bit more reasonable in that it's a "record" snowfall. Which, of course, limits the time span to that in which we've kept records.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

There is so much emphasis on increased or larger storms and strange weather patterns lately , but I refer to so many cities and even whole civilizations in the past few thousand years that were either wiped out by some unknown cataclysm or now resting beneath the ocean as they have been for so long. Talk about rising sea levels !!...... Imagine what it would do to the data available if these things could have been recorded. Huge floods and ancient seas turned into deserts all over the world , and long before man was able to start keeping track of it. The evidence is everywhere that maw nature has been indiscriminate , fickle , and very cruel at times for as long as she has been around. In fact the environment bears the scars of ages far more unstable , unpredictable , and violent than anything modern man has ever seen , definately more than we have seen since the 1950's or 1970's. Hurricanes/typhoons in the 1920's and 1930's have set records not broken since , how could this be ?

Sorry , I was trying to get away from the debate but couldnt help myself


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig. posted by *yonderfishin*:
> 
> Hurricanes/typhoons in the 1920's and 1930's have set records not broken since ,* how could this be ?*


The above is fairly easy to explain from a scientific standpoint.

In the 1920's and 30's, cows were on more of a grass diet instead of their diet being supplemented with corn as they are today. This would have caused more bloat. Thus causing an increase in gaseous outburst such as excessive flatulence and belching. The results being record breaking hurricanes, tornadoes and such. 

Our current tsunami's are caused by plugging the orifices of today cows. These cows will be standing by the water when they finally explode causing massive tidal waves of great magnitudes. 

I fear it's just a matter of time till we have 5-6 plugged cows standing in a group at the water edge that go off simultaneously causing a tsunami strong enough to swallow all of California.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

fastwater said:


> The above is fairly easy to explain from a scientific standpoint.
> 
> In the 1920's and 30's, cows were on more of a grass diet instead of their diet being supplemented with corn as they are today. This would have caused more bloat. Thus causing an increase in gaseous outburst such as excessive flatulence and belching. The results being record breaking hurricanes, tornadoes and such.
> 
> ...





 well...... makes sense to me. Im sure the data somewhere must support this theory


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

JamesT said:


> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Yonder your argument in 229 does zero for me (timescales like I mentioned earlier).
> 
> ...




I dont mind if you disagree , no biggie. But timescales are irrelevant , change has been ongoing for as long as time has existed ,....all the same changes , all drastic changes. Time on this "scale" isnt broken up into years , decades , centuries , etc.....we are riding a giant wave that has been in motion from the beginning , and its been breaking records , toppling cities and civilizations , and reinterpreting the planet the whole time. These are not new changes we are seeing , they are old changes still in progress. We think we can burn a fossil fuel today to raise the temperature tomorrow ,....relatively speaking , but the planet itself bears witness that it dont work that way. 

As for the civilizations , may be more accurate to call some of them communities or towns , under water they are all over , from the culture surrounding the Bimini road to the communities they have found under the Mediterranean , and Asia , I dont have the names but they have been found in many regions of the world. From suprisingly intact more recent ones to barely identifiable much older ones. Just something I read about a few years ago and seen programs on the discovery channel about. Wouldnt be too hard to find them with google.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

fastwater said:


> With GW bringing all this snow and then all this rain and flooding, do ya think we'll have any shrooms this year???


Just stay home and out of the woods, the ticks are terrible and the morels won't come up!
If I find a couple strays I'll post a picture


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Ive found only 2 morels in the past 9 years of searching for them. I think the data suggests man made global warming as the culprit  , but it could be that I just havent looked in the right places


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig. posted by *shroomhunter*:
> 
> Just stay home and out of the woods, the ticks are terrible and the morels won't come up!
> If I find a couple strays I'll post a picture


Gee, thanks *shroom*. 



> Orig posted by *yonderfishin*:
> 
> I've found only 2 morels in the past 9 years of searching for them. I think the data suggests man made global warming as the culprit ,...


Hmmm...you may have something here *YF*...
'A new excuse ODNR can sell the public for the depleting deer herd.'


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Lol yonder you responded to that before I erased it (trying to stay out of it so i dont lose it like before lol). Thanks again, you are making me think and lots of good stuff. Still generally agree to disagree(hardly with everything, I do like the bigger picture you are trying to paint, I just dont necessarily agree with the gist of it), but I respect and totally appreciate your thoughts, thanks!


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

shroomhunter said:


> Just stay home and out of the woods, the ticks are terrible and the morels won't come up!
> If I find a couple strays I'll post a picture


 I was only being sarcastic in my previous post, all sarcasm aside...
With the amount of moisture we have had this winter and provided we continue to get rain and the April Showers, it should be a good year! Compared with my past years hunting, wish I would've kept better records instead of scratching something on the girlie calendar in the garage but that's just how it goes.
My earliest find ever in ohio was March 25th!

PS more morel info down below under wild edibles a sub forum of the Home and Garden forums, I guess enough of us mushroom and other wild roots and herb gatherers got our way. I been hijacking James Global Warming thread posting useless mushroom information!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

shroomhunter said:


> I was only being sarcastic in my previous post, all sarcasm aside...
> With the amount of moisture we have had this winter and provided we continue to get rain and the April Showers, it should be a good year! Compared with my past years hunting, wish I would've kept better records instead of scratching something on the girlie calendar in the garage but that's just how it goes.
> My earliest find ever in ohio was March 25th!
> 
> PS more morel info down below under wild edibles a sub forum of the Home and Garden forums, I guess enough of us mushroom and other wild roots and herb gatherers got our way. I been hijacking James Global Warming thread posting useless mushroom information!


Whats funny is I ignored this thread for the longest time and jumped into it with a joke about the picture of the "panties thru the years proof of global warming".

I have and am enjoying this one a lot, great thread and discussion!


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

One last hijack, Yonderfishn, was it you that I gave directions to a spot I stumbled upon just outside of Findlay? I know it's still there I hit it once last year. Obviously PM from here on out.....I hate to see a guy blame Global warming for the lack of shrooms, we'd have all kinds of officials stumbling around in the woods banning mushroom gathering, getting lost and all kinds of other terrible things!


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

JamesT said:


> Whats funny is I ignored this thread for the longest time and jumped into it with a joke about the picture of the "panties thru the years proof of global warming".
> 
> I have and am enjoying this one, great thread and discussion!


I thought for sure it was going to get the lockdown a couple times but this one,despite the differences of opinion,has remained civil. It has also for the most part been free of politics which can be difficult but kudos to the main contributors for arguing nice in the sandbox! Been interesting and enjoyable!

Now I'm no scientist and I don't know a whole bunch about Global Warming but I'm doggone certain I'm ready for some LOCAL warming! Come on Spring!!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

shroomhunter said:


> I thought for sure it was going to get the lockdown a couple times but this one,despite the differences of opinion,has remained civil. It has also for the most part been free of politics which can be difficult but kudos to the main contributors for arguing nice in the sandbox! Been interesting and enjoyable!
> 
> Now I'm no scientist and I don't know a whole bunch about Global Warming but I'm doggone certain I'm ready for some LOCAL warming! Come on Spring!!


Yesterday (after it rained) was gorgeous, today is gorgeous, and tomorrow is 70!

And Im tearing down a house with a sledgehammer from the bottom up (march to beat of different drummer). Gotta love it! But yeah, a difficult thing to do in life is to open your mind and learn from people who have opposing viewpoints, try to understand where they are coming from. I am learning a lot and opening my mind with this one. Still generally agree to disagree with some of the stuff in here, but yeah! Good stuff, carry on!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

buckeyebowman said:


> Oh, I don't know. When I was in chemistry class that's what we called it. Just like we called water "aich 2 oh", hydrogen peroxide was "aich 2 oh 2", and sodium hydroxide was "en ay oh aich". Or, as my Thai college chemistry prof called it "yen yay yoh yaich". Lord! That dude was hard to understand!


Lolol, was his name Professor Liu by chance?  (half Asian here, Im allowed to make fun of half of me)


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

When I was a kid, I had this 45 (for you younguns, that means a record which was what was before cds, with a song about 5 minutes long)which told the story of a "Young China Man named Sam Fu Young"

I so wish I still had it, cant find anything about it on the web.

From waht ai remember....

"there once was a young china man named sam fu young (insert chinese sounding "ching ching" here)
He came to the united states very young (ching ching)

Goes on.....then he's trying to learn his vowels...

"Aaaaa eeeeee iiiiiii oooowwwww youuuuuu"

"Okky okky hoy"

Anyways Sam Fu young ends up becoming a professor of english. Classic,Ive spent time trying to find it on the web, no go....


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

> Orig posted by *shroomhunter*:
> 
> I was only being sarcastic in my previous post, ...


I figured so *shroom*. 

I should have put a smiley at the end of my response indicating so as well.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

fastwater said:


> Speaking of Spring...has anybody seen or heard of any forsythia blooming yet?
> 
> GW'ing may have made a few changes but I'm thinkin we'll still get 3 more snows after they bloom.
> 
> ...


That's at least a month away for us!



yonderfishin said:


> Ive found only 2 morels in the past 9 years of searching for them. I think the data suggests man made global warming as the culprit  , but it could be that I just havent looked in the right places


Man! I thought I was bad! But I found more than that last year alone, and it was only my second year. Get out there and start hiking man! 



shroomhunter said:


> I thought for sure it was going to get the lockdown a couple times but this one,despite the differences of opinion,has remained civil. It has also for the most part been free of politics which can be difficult but kudos to the main contributors for arguing nice in the sandbox! Been interesting and enjoyable!
> 
> Now I'm no scientist and I don't know a whole bunch about Global Warming but I'm doggone certain I'm ready for some LOCAL warming! Come on Spring!!


Same here! According to the weather forecast we're in for some delightful days here. Hope it gets of the remaining snow! Also, we're not supposed to have a St. Patty's Day blizzard this year (huzzah!), although we'll see what happens when the next low pressure system crawls up the east coast!


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Cant let this make it to page 2 lol



JamesT said:


> -Lee Guhlize


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-care-more-jobs-war-peace-less-weed-222622928.html

" WASHINGTON (Reuters) 15 hours ago - President Barack Obama has a stern message for the younger generation about their political priorities: care more about climate change, and less about legalizing marijuana."


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Yes, the biomass of cannabis serves as a carbon sink, and smoking it desequesters the carbon.

So grow it, but don't smoke it. Just sit there and look at it.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

Just so ya'll know.. It's pike season&#128077;


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

Even better...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obam...ng-people-want-legal-marijuana-100000746.html


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

JamesT said:


> Cant let this make it to page 2 lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes , unfortunately weed is one of the only things that inspires many to vote these days. Pretty sad really. So many real problems that need attention but all so many people care about is legalizing marijuana. One might think that we have so few other freedoms that we just cant live without weed or something. But I finally have something I can agree with Obama on , people need to care a lot less about weed and pay attention to the serious stuff going on in the world.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

I hope not...another excellent very active forum member who is a pretty smart fella....


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

streamstalker said:


> Is posting that link what led to the the latest JamesT banning? I hope not. It was on topic as it was tied into Obama's recent statement on climate change...nothing really political about it at all, and I have seen far more political posts slide by. Please tell me it was for something more than that.




tip toeing... i guess mods havent seen it yet..... :S


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

streamstalker said:


> Is posting that link what led to the the latest JamesT banning? I hope not. It was on topic as it was tied into Obama's recent statement on climate change...nothing really political about it at all, and I have seen far more political posts slide by. Please tell me it was for something more than that.


You gotta be kidding me! There was some stuff I posted on this thread that he agreed with, but much that he did not. Yet his disagreements were never demeaning or mean spirited. I've posted much more political things on other threads and, while it might have gotten the post pulled, I've never been banned! I thought the overall tenor of this thread was really civil. People had differences of opinion but there was no name calling, denigration, or character assassination. I guess it's like the strike zone in MLB. Whatever ump is behind the plate calls 'em as he sees 'em. 

About these "bannings". How long do they last? Is it a month? A year? Forever? I don't have the patience to wade through all the gobbledygook of the TOS to know.


----------



## crankbait10 (Oct 8, 2014)

buckeyebowman said:


> _About these "bannings". How long do they last? Is it a month? A year? Forever? I don't have the patience to wade through all the gobbledygook of the TOS to know. _


A lot of forums will do like a week or 10-day ban for a first time...let's hope it was something like that. Somebody must really hate the Devil's Lettuce. I may be new around here but I do know that the quickest way to kill off a forum is to get rid of the guys who are the quality content makers. JamesT started a ton of quality threads. !$


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

James is on a vacation for an extreme TOS violation and the decision was made by Administration. His suspension has nothing to do directly with anything in this thread. That's all we are going to say on the matter. 

BTW, what does marijuana legalization have to do with global warming? Back on topic please?


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

KaGee said:


> James is on a vacation for an extreme TOS violation and the decision was made by Administration. His suspension has nothing to do directly with anything in this thread. That's all we are going to say on the matter.
> 
> BTW, what does marijuana legalization have to do with global warming? Back on topic please?


As for back on topic, tell us, please, what was James T's "extreme" TOS violation! And if his suspensions had nothing directly to do with this thread, which thread did it have to do with? Tell us please, so that we mere minions may avoid such grievous faults in the future!


----------

