[Thread Split] Climate-change

[Top Gun]

...because of the lie of man-made, catastrophic global warming?

And this pretty much invalidates your entire post. If you're going to prattle on about people not thinking, perhaps you should consider taking your own advice.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Don't be an ass, TG. "Global Warming" is a political vehicle, plain and simple. Anyone spewing that kind of closed-minded, dismissive bull★■◆● really needs to take a step back, set the kool-aid down, and reconsider what they're so invested in, because it ain't a closed case by any stretch of the media's (or Al Gore's) imagination. Given another 20 years, if expectations and reactions weren't being handled so carefully, people would begin to feel really stupid for having bought into this stuff. The climate constantly changes, and we're in the middle of a lot of solar activity right now, but CO2 is not our enemy. I'd back all-around reduced emissions any day, within reason (industry must go on), but this is nothing but a political and social coupe.

[Top Gun]

Don't be an ass, TG. "Global Warming" is a political vehicle, plain and simple. Anyone spewing that kind of closed-minded, dismissive bull★■◆● really needs to take a step back, set the kool-aid down, and reconsider what they're so invested in, because it ain't a closed case by any stretch of the media's (or Al Gore's) imagination. Given another 20 years, if expectations and reactions weren't being handled so carefully, people would begin to feel really stupid for having bought into this stuff. The climate constantly changes, and we're in the middle of a lot of solar activity right now, but CO2 is not our enemy. I'd back all-around reduced emissions any day, within reason (industry must go on), but this is nothing but a political and social coupe.

Don't be an idiot, Thorne. Anyone who takes an objective look at climate data over the past several thousand years can see an unprecedented spike in temperature over the past century, exactly corresponding with the massive spike in human-generated CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution. We're already seeing widespread shifts in regional weather patterns that can be directly attributed to this change...scientists have generally been wary to point to any single event and yell "Global warming!", but we're now at the point where even some of the most hesitant have pointed to the current horrific drought in much of the Midwest and South as being at least partially fueled by anthropogenic climate change. Any scientist who looks at these data and reaches a different conclusion is either a total quack, or in the pocket of the oil industry. Really, I'm staggered by the sheer stupidity of a statement like "CO2 is not our enemy." There's NO excuse for that level of scientific illiteracy. Maybe you need to get your ass back to high school

This sort of ★■◆● is why I hate dealing with this board anymore. The anti-intellectualism is staggering.

[Sergeant Thorne]

but we're now at the point where even some of the most hesitant have pointed to the current horrific drought in much of the Midwest and South as being at least partially fueled by anthropogenic climate change.

See, that's BS. We've had droughts in the past, and we will again. Just because "some of the most hesitant" were wowed by a recent climate event, combined with their own short memories...

This sort of **** is why I hate dealing with this board anymore. The anti-intellectualism is staggering.

When reasoned dissent is moved straight to "anti-intellectualism", it's little wonder you tire of dealing with this board.

[Ferno]

This sort of ★■◆● is why I hate dealing with this board anymore. The anti-intellectualism is staggering.

then do what I do. don't respond to it or, put it on ignore.

[Krom]

Scientists don't point at one single event and say "that is global climate change" because no single event matters that much, it is the whole pattern and accumulation of events that add up to an undeniable reality that it is happening. And it doesn't really matter what is causing it, all that matters is that if nothing is done to manage it, it will make life more difficult for you and or your offspring.

It couldn't get any more obvious short of the nearest ocean knocking down your front door and then carrying the whole house away. But I guess when you have your head buried in a flower pot full of fossilized bull★■◆● somewhere in a room with no windows, that's about what it would take.

[Top Gun]

but we're now at the point where even some of the most hesitant have pointed to the current horrific drought in much of the Midwest and South as being at least partially fueled by anthropogenic climate change.

See, that's BS. We've had droughts in the past, and we will again. Just because "some of the most hesitant" were wowed by a recent climate event, combined with their own short memories...

Yes, droughts happen. Yes, they've happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future. Global warming doesn't change that, but what it does change is the intensity and duration of these events. The current drought situation is unprecedented in how swiftly it came on, how long it's lasted, and just how bad it's been. And the broader climate conditions, the jet stream positioning and front movements and such, that have brought on and sustained the drought are things that we can certainly point to and say, "Look, this isn't normal. This shouldn't be happening."

This sort of **** is why I hate dealing with this board anymore. The anti-intellectualism is staggering.

When reasoned dissent is moved straight to "anti-intellectualism", it's little wonder you tire of dealing with this board.

There's very little "reasoning" in anything you do here, Thorne. A hell of a lot of ostrich head-burying, and a disturbing amount of treating three-thousand-year-old texts as equivalent to current human knowledge and research, but not much of what a sane person would label reasonable. This is just one more example in a long line of them. And what disturbs me the most is that you're far from alone. Probably explains why our country is so screwed right now.

To close, there's a wonderful old xkcd strip that kind of sums things up beautifully. It doesn't matter what you as an individual believe...at the end of the day, reality happens.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And it doesn't really matter what is causing it, all that matters is that if nothing is done to manage it, it will make life more difficult for you and or your offspring.

That's a political argument if I ever heard one. Try something more original, Krom (no disrespect intended). Doing something to manage it is the whole problem. Pop-culture has left the argument behind until someone like myself voices dissent, but in reality that doesn't mean anything. Responsible management of climate shifts could mean as little as trying to accurately map them (something we can't even do, if I'm not terribly mistaken... funny that) and plan for the agricultural shifts that will naturally follow. The problem is that in all of this there is a lot of room for taking advantage, and it has already been done. One example: the whole time Al Gore was campaigning for the issue he was invested in green technologies (he was also engaged in hypocrisy, which is telling, in that he was a great consumer of energy), and while you could say that makes sense if you believe in it, and taken at face value you'd certainly be right, it is inescapably a conflict of interest, something that is always best avoided when you want the straight truth on an issue, or conclusions or ideas that will be in the best interest of all concerned. It could conceivably lead to the suppression of inconvenient facts. I heard Al Gore defending himself in court and trying to express the purity of his intentions (something to watch)... sadly that's something we can only really judge by his actions, and if he were fit for any office he might understand the importance of that concept.

Now... we find it does really matter what is causing it, because if we are causing it then they want to tax our emissions as a way to reduce them... incidentally they wanted to tax them on a global scale, which I'm certain is unconstitutional. If we are not causing it, then I want my damn 100W incandescent bulbs back. You feel me? It's costing us a hell of a lot of money, in a bad financial time, to force the transition to energy conscious technologies. That's a bad move unless they really are at fault. Personally I'm concerned that our energy infrastructure will be weakened by all of this before we're through. Just look at California.

Yes, reasoned, as much as you may not like my reasons, TG.

EDIT: Speaking of conflict of interest, the whole scientific community seems to be one big conflict of interest on this topic--global warming has become their meal-ticket in a big way. Disproving it would kind leave them looking for another field or suffering drastic cut-backs. Deny that if you like.

[Top Gun]

EDIT: Speaking of conflict of interest, the whole scientific community seems to be one big conflict of interest on this topic--global warming has become their meal-ticket in a big way. Disproving it would kind leave them looking for another field or suffering drastic cut-backs. Deny that if you like.

That's...not how academia works. At all. Try again.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Just gonne throw this out there, 'cause I'm feeling punchy... I could out-reason you on a bad day, Top Gun. You may have more of a classroom education than I do (I wouldn't deny that), but I'm not dull. If you take someone who obviously has a certain level of intelligence, and insist that their intelligence level is lower because of one or even several conclusions they've come to which you don't agree with, then who is being ignorant?

Now I'm just gonna sit back and watch you answer, if you bother, by changing the subject instead of addressing the above directly.

[Sergeant Thorne]

EDIT: Speaking of conflict of interest, the whole scientific community seems to be one big conflict of interest on this topic--global warming has become their meal-ticket in a big way. Disproving it would kind leave them looking for another field or suffering drastic cut-backs. Deny that if you like.

That's...not how academia works. At all. Try again.

Academia involves people, and that is how people work.

[Krom]

We used to mow the yard every weekend during summer. Now we mow the yard in spring around March (when it used to be buried in snow), mow a bit more in May, by June the grass dies, by July even the weeds die (don't even ask about the crops) and this pattern has gotten alarmingly consistent. I remember at our old house, our basement used to flood every spring like clockwork, and then one year it flooded a lot less, then after a couple years it didn't flood at all, and hasn't since. We also lived there 15 years without ever having a need for air conditioning, but by around the time the basement quit flooding, we had to buy air conditioning or nobody was going to be able to sleep for weeks on end. And our summer power bill isn't improving any, it's making our lives more difficult NOW.

One thing we can be pretty sure about would be that reducing CO2 emissions can't hurt, so unless you get on nuclear power, you can't have those 100w incandescent bulbs back (although the mercury filled CFL isn't really an improvement IMO). Although if you are like me and you catch CFLs on sale for $5 for a 6 pack, and have a handy little power meter, after a couple weeks of adding the differences up, the CFLs more often than not do pay for themselves in energy savings and not just because in the right situation they will outlast an incandescent by 10x. (But I could still live without the mercury...).

[Sergeant Thorne]

We used to mow the yard every weekend during summer. Now we mow the yard in spring around March (when it used to be buried in snow), mow a bit more in May, by June the grass dies, by July even the weeds die (don't even ask about the crops) and this pattern has gotten alarmingly consistent. I remember at our old house, our basement used to flood every spring like clockwork, and then one year it flooded a lot less, then after a couple years it didn't flood at all, and hasn't since. We also lived there 15 years without ever having a need for air conditioning, but by around the time the basement quit flooding, we had to buy air conditioning or nobody was going to be able to sleep for weeks on end. And our summer power bill isn't improving any, it's making our lives more difficult NOW.

I appreciate that. My observation is that this years drought is the worst I've seen. Some crops actually all but died off before we did finally get some relief. Still it doesn't necessarily mean much when we're talking about the possibilities of man-made global warming. If it weren't for the "man-made" part, and then the expanding bureaucracy that would like to follow, it wouldn't be a politically divisive issue at all.

One thing we can be pretty sure about would be that reducing CO2 emissions can't hurt, so unless you get on nuclear power, you can't have those 100w incandescent bulbs back (although the mercury filled CFL isn't really an improvement IMO).

I agree about the mercury. But I think bureaucracy can always hurt.

Although if you are like me and you catch CFLs on sale for $5 for a 6 pack, and have a handy little power meter, after a couple weeks of adding the differences up, the CFLs more often than not do pay for themselves in energy savings and not just because in the right situation they will outlast an incandescent by 10x. (But I could still live without the mercury...).

We actually went CFL a long time ago because they are cheaper to run, outlast incandescent, and run cooler. More recently we have become concerned about the mercury, but LED is not quite a mature enough technology yet (almost, IMO). I am very suspicious of the move to eliminate less efficient types of lighting. I think the market alone ought to drive that.

[Top Gun]

Just gonne throw this out there, 'cause I'm feeling punchy... I could out-reason you on a bad day, Top Gun. You may have more of a classroom education than I do (I wouldn't deny that), but I'm not dull. If you take someone who obviously has a certain level of intelligence, and insist that their intelligence level is lower because of one or even several conclusions they've come to which you don't agree with, then who is being ignorant?

It's not a handful of conclusions...it's an entire pattern of thinking that you've established over years. Remember that one quote from Adam on Mythbusters? "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" That's you, Thorne, and it's pretty much always been you. It doesn't exactly reflect well on a person's intelligence if they can't even acknowledge what our eyes and ears tell us.

That's...not how academia works. At all. Try again.

Academia involves people, and that is how people work.

No. You don't get it. Pure researchers research things...that's literally what they get paid to do. Scientists studying our climate over many years came to the conclusion that the observed warming trend was caused by human activity. If that had not been the conclusion they reached, they would have happily continued researching to find out just what was causing it. In a field where pretty much anything is falsifiable given enough proof, there's no inherent value in one result over another. Climate scientists don't have anything invested in what their results are telling them; the results themselves, no matter which way they go, are their investment.

[flip]

I don't think anyone denies the earth is being destroyed and global warming is a reality. I remember the whole time growing up it would start raining here and not stop for 2-3 days and did this frequently. Now, we're lucky if it rains for an half a day for weeks at a time. Pollution is going to be the number one killer of us, the whole earth is contaminated atomically with stuff that has no natural couterpart to bind to. So, it collects and builds up. I think the problem is the political forces pushing the issue are less than benevolent not that it isn't reality.

[woodchip]

That's...not how academia works. At all. Try again.

Academia involves people, and that is how people work.

No. You don't get it. Pure researchers research things...that's literally what they get paid to do. Scientists studying our climate over many years came to the conclusion that the observed warming trend was caused by human activity. If that had not been the conclusion they reached, they would have happily continued researching to find out just what was causing it. In a field where pretty much anything is falsifiable given enough proof, there's no inherent value in one result over another. Climate scientists don't have anything invested in what their results are telling them; the results themselves, no matter which way they go, are their investment.

Sorry but not all scientist are stating climate change is man made. Take your generalities and hype elsewhere

[vision]

Sorry but not all scientist are stating climate change is man made.

That is true. However, there are scientists that have alternate explanations for everything from gravity to the big bang, but that doesn't mean their explanations negate the reality of what we can observe.

I used to be a huge climate change denier. 10 years ago if you said something about global warming I would call you a farking idiot to your face, and actually did to many people. When I was a kid the big news was global cooling and the coming ice age, so when the conversation turned to warming I was like, "wtf is this crap?" My confidence was reinforced by professors in college who also denied climate change. However, as a skeptical person I needed to subject this personal belief to scrutiny just like all my others. And over the course of a decade I came to accept the reality of what I was learning about the world.

It did not come easy. I made excuses every step of the way. Every time I came across a new study I would fight to find fault. Every time we launched a new satellite I would say, "ah, now we'll find out everything is Ok." But it never was. I kept fast to the belief that even though the climate was warming it wasn't man-made. I can't believe this anymore. And neither can Richard Muller. (I strongly suggest you read the link then begin your own research.)

Not only have I accepted that climate change is real and man-made, I also now understand it to be the greatest problem since Mutually Assured Destruction. In light of this problem, which doesn't just affect people, but every single species on the entire planet, we must do every thing we can to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion. It doesn't matter what your flavor of activism is: gay-rights, human trafficking, whaling, abortion -- all of it seems petty and trite compared to the struggles all of us will face in the next several generations. No matter what your disposition, you cannot escape global warming. We are all in this together. Climate deniers will call people like me "alarmist." The truth is, the alarm bells aren't nearly loud enough.

Just remember, we are long past the window of stopping climate change. Now it's just damage control. And survival, literally.

[Heretic]

Not only that any scientist that speaks out lose funding or their jobs.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9098538277

[Top Gun]

Not only that any scientist that speaks out lose funding or their jobs.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9098538277

Man there is a ton of hilarious stuff in there. Let's start with the biggest smoking gun: that conference mentioned was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a wonderful think tank who in the past has worked with tobacco companies to insist that secondhand smoke produces "no health risk," and who has been funded by such notables as ExxonMobil, Philip Morris, and coal industry lobbyists. Funny what jumps out at you when you start doing a bit of digging, isn't it? It seems that the person responsible for most of what's mentioned in this page is the illustrious Senator Inhofe; I'll leave it to the reader to see what he's been up to over his career. I will leave you with this little gem of a quote by him, though:

Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because “God’s still up there.” and that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”

So yeah...great work there, Oklahoma.

[Foil]

I'm pretty familiar with Inhofe, being from Oklahoma. He's definitely... out there.

[Top Gun]

Now that I think about it, I have a friend in Oklahoma, and she was complaining last election about some congressman getting re-elected. Guess I know who it was now.

[vision]

Not only that any scientist that speaks out lose funding or their jobs.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9098538277

Great article about climate skeptics getting denied all the awesome grant money from our pro-"global warming" government, the same government that has pulled out of every international climate conference so far. Oh wait, that doesn't make sense...

Here is a nice gem from that article:

2008:
"Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.” ~Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist

2012:
"Strong La Niña years are typically 0.10 to 0.15°C cooler than the years preceding and following them. 2011’s global temperatures followed this pattern, being lower than those of 2010, but were still warmer than the most recent moderate to strong La Niña years, 2008 (+0.36°C), 2000 (+0.27°C) and 1989 (+0.12°C)." ~ World Meteorological Organization.

Oops! Better check your science astrophysics guy!*


*I'm poking fun, but it's pretty scary that 3 years after the guy makes a prediction of cooling we see a warming of 0.36°C.

[woodchip]

Sorry but not all scientist are stating climate change is man made.

That is true. However, there are scientists that have alternate explanations for everything from gravity to the big bang, but that doesn't mean their explanations negate the reality of what we can observe.

I used to be a huge climate change denier. 10 years ago if you said something about global warming I would call you a farking idiot to your face, and actually did to many people. When I was a kid the big news was global cooling and the coming ice age, so when the conversation turned to warming I was like, "wtf is this crap?" My confidence was reinforced by professors in college who also denied climate change. However, as a skeptical person I needed to subject this personal belief to scrutiny just like all my others. And over the course of a decade I came to accept the reality of what I was learning about the world.

It did not come easy. I made excuses every step of the way. Every time I came across a new study I would fight to find fault. Every time we launched a new satellite I would say, "ah, now we'll find out everything is Ok." But it never was. I kept fast to the belief that even though the climate was warming it wasn't man-made. I can't believe this anymore. And neither can Richard Muller. (I strongly suggest you read the link then begin your own research.)

Not only have I accepted that climate change is real and man-made, I also now understand it to be the greatest problem since Mutually Assured Destruction. In light of this problem, which doesn't just affect people, but every single species on the entire planet, we must do every thing we can to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion. It doesn't matter what your flavor of activism is: gay-rights, human trafficking, whaling, abortion -- all of it seems petty and trite compared to the struggles all of us will face in the next several generations. No matter what your disposition, you cannot escape global warming. We are all in this together. Climate deniers will call people like me "alarmist." The truth is, the alarm bells aren't nearly loud enough.

Just remember, we are long past the window of stopping climate change. Now it's just damage control. And survival, literally.

Perhaps Vision, you should go back to being curious:

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). "

"NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

[Top Gun]

Out of morbid curiosity, exactly how does growth of Antarctic sea ice somehow invalidate the claim of global climate change? Isn't the fact that we're seeing record highs in the Antarctic, coupled with record lows in the Arctic, pretty much a smoking gun that things are getting out of whack?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Sorry but not all scientist are stating climate change is man made.

That is true. However, there are scientists that have alternate explanations for everything from gravity to the big bang, but that doesn't mean their explanations negate the reality of what we can observe.

I used to be a huge climate change denier. 10 years ago if you said something about global warming I would call you a farking idiot to your face, and actually did to many people. When I was a kid the big news was global cooling and the coming ice age, so when the conversation turned to warming I was like, "wtf is this crap?" My confidence was reinforced by professors in college who also denied climate change. However, as a skeptical person I needed to subject this personal belief to scrutiny just like all my others. And over the course of a decade I came to accept the reality of what I was learning about the world.

It did not come easy. I made excuses every step of the way. Every time I came across a new study I would fight to find fault. Every time we launched a new satellite I would say, "ah, now we'll find out everything is Ok." But it never was. I kept fast to the belief that even though the climate was warming it wasn't man-made. I can't believe this anymore. And neither can Richard Muller. (I strongly suggest you read the link then begin your own research.)

Not only have I accepted that climate change is real and man-made, I also now understand it to be the greatest problem since Mutually Assured Destruction. In light of this problem, which doesn't just affect people, but every single species on the entire planet, we must do every thing we can to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion. It doesn't matter what your flavor of activism is: gay-rights, human trafficking, whaling, abortion -- all of it seems petty and trite compared to the struggles all of us will face in the next several generations. No matter what your disposition, you cannot escape global warming. We are all in this together. Climate deniers will call people like me "alarmist." The truth is, the alarm bells aren't nearly loud enough.

Just remember, we are long past the window of stopping climate change. Now it's just damage control. And survival, literally.

What? Are you channeling Al Gore from An Inconvenient Truth?

[woodchip]

Out of morbid curiosity, exactly how does growth of Antarctic sea ice somehow invalidate the claim of global climate change? Isn't the fact that we're seeing record highs in the Antarctic, coupled with record lows in the Arctic, pretty much a smoking gun that things are getting out of whack?

No. If global warming is truly global then you would expect both poles to be melting. Since we only have the arctic experiencing warming then I'd say regional warming is occurring.

[Top Gun]

Out of morbid curiosity, exactly how does growth of Antarctic sea ice somehow invalidate the claim of global climate change? Isn't the fact that we're seeing record highs in the Antarctic, coupled with record lows in the Arctic, pretty much a smoking gun that things are getting out of whack?

No. If global warming is truly global then you would expect both poles to be melting. Since we only have the arctic experiencing warming then I'd say regional warming is occurring.

...you're exactly proving my point here. "Global warming" doesn't mean every single spot on the Earth's surface is increasing in average temperature; indeed, there are many regions experiencing a drop in average temperatures. The key is that the entire planet's average temperature is substantially increasing, which leads to all sorts of climate effects. One of these is a change in the patterns of global ocean currents; such a change could easily contribute to Antarctica experiencing an increased ice pack. You can't say that you'd "expect" both poles to behaving in the same fashion without looking at what the ocean currents were doing.

[vision]

Are you channeling Al Gore from An Inconvenient Truth?

You know what Thorne? I've never seen it. When "An Inconvenient Truth" came out I was a heavy climate change denier. I said to myself "why the frack would I want to see Al Gore's idiotic movie? Screw that loser." So no, it wasn't until much later that I started to think seriously about my beliefs. It took a long time and countless hours of research. One of the things that is strange about global warming is that

No. If global warming is truly global then you would expect both poles to be melting. Since we only have the arctic experiencing warming then I'd say regional warming is occurring.

It's a little more complicated than that woodchip. I'm not going to bother to explain it all here since you are just going to believe what you want anyway. It takes a lot of effort to filter through years of misinformation on the web, but it can be done. Many of the arguments that climate deniers used years ago have been debunked and new measurements and techniques are being implemented daily to build a better picture of the environment.

You know, the planet has been warmer in the past. Actually, a warm planet is better for everyone, so we shouldn't have an issue it. The problem is, Earth is warming way too fast. And the warming is just a byproduct of the even bigger problem, which is pollution. We'll probably run out of fresh water and clean air long before we suffer a potential ecological collapse. :/

[callmeslick]

[No. If global warming is truly global then you would expect both poles to be melting.

the problem is that only head-in-sand types call the phenomenon 'global warming'. It is Extreme Climate Change. The idea of global warming is that such change will, on average, lead to warmer temperatures on the planet, but NO scientist I have ever read suggests any sort of uniformity.

[flip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/se ... features11

[callmeslick]

the question involved with your linkage, Flip, is around the accuracy of the records kept prior to 1914. I cannot imagine accurate temperature measurements,especially(rainfall might be more reliable) from the 18th century and before, and even later on calibration to standards was really spotty.

[flip]

Yes, the records go back 200-300 more years but nobody trusts them (hence nor uses them) in their calculations.

[woodchip]

We went over climate change in a large multi-page forum fest a couple of years ago. During the course of discussion I sent a email to Dr. Easterbrook, Prof of Geology. He kindly sent me a email back:

"The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook's version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today." (this from a warmer)

"This is totally false--below is the Greenland data for the past 10,000 years (Holocene) from the published paper by Cuffy and Clow (1997), two distinguished US scientists. Note that temperatures for almost all of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than present. Oh, and while you're looking at the data, also note all of the temperature ups and downs that occurred thousands of years before modern increase in CO2, most of which were of greater intensity than recent warming."

I can copy the email and paste here if anyone wishes.

[vision]

One person told you what you wanted to hear and that'sconclusive proof? Ok, sure. Whatever man.

[flip]

No, the point is there is no "conclusive" proof.

EDIT: Yeah, I want to see the e-mail.

[vision]

Right. You can draw your own line of conclusiveness wherever you like. However, with each passing day more and more evidence points to man made climate change while evidence against dwindles. What I'm saying is maybe it is time to challenge your beliefs? Not that it will change the reality of the situation, but we can certainly use your help. It is a tough road ahead for all of us.

[flip]

No don't get me wrong. Pollution is our number one threat and I have no problem with global climate change, the Bible predicts it fairly well.

2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared

My only problem is people using it as a political vehicle.

[callmeslick]

anyone have the quotes from Nostradamus' take on this whole matter? Geez, Flip, that was lame at best.

[flip]

We'll see . Lame to you maybe, but I was giving my reason for accepting the fact that the climate will change.

[callmeslick]

the problem, Flip, with such reasoning, is that it allows one to concede to change without resolving to try and fight it or at least address it. Maybe I'm reading you wrong on this?