Elbmek

Stoker Owen? The link does not work; cut and paste original link from the site, oh learned one

__________________
Never lie, then you have nothing to try and remember.

Sombra

Even at their best time living in Greenland was harsh. Analysis of the bones show a severe level of mal nutrition and severe lack of fresh food like vegetables.

Its probable that today the weather conditons are better in Greenland than a 1000 years ago.

The UN report came up with a 90% chance that human influence is the driving factor behind global warming. Taking into account that these reports is a group consens including skeptics etc. its quite sure for me that we are changing our planet. Alas the 2nd conclusion that right now it doesnt matter anymore what we do because we put a process in motion which can´t be stop didnt find as much atttention.

What I would like to see is certain acceptance of fact and not political driven denial of resposibility. And here I go with Brokensickle either way if something is changeing try to make the best out of it. Dont waste your efforts on something you won´t be able to change anyway.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

dalem

Probable? Really? I find it difficult to believe you really mean this - the warming of that period is well-known.

Wow. 90%. Measured how? Against what?

Why do you equate adherance to the scientific method as politically motivated?

-dale

mostlymad

today in the House

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result.
Albert Einstein.

gunnut

Why? Other signees have massively violated the treaty limits. Observe the terms will merely put Carada at a severe disadvantage on the global market.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

You know something funny I noticed...

My house runs entirely on energy efficient compact florecent bulbs. I changed my car from 18/25 MPG to 23/28 MPG. I try my best to recycle all the plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and glass bottles I can. I replaced my computer monitors from CRT to LCD. All because I think conservation is a good idea.

I don't need the government to tell me to.

I don't believe in global warming.

What have those who believe in global warming done? I bet most of them still drive their bigass SUVs that get 12 MPG.

Gun Grape

But how are you, when it comes to the mercury from those lamps that will someday become landfill material?

Here is something that rubs me wrong (its not you GunNut). Some of the long days that I have been spending away from the WAB was a contract to remodel a commercial building. Rip it down to exterior and load bearing walls
and replace everything.

What caused some of the biggest headaches? Fluorescent bulbs.
For me to dispose of them properly, I have to find a permitted reclamation site to take them. It ain't cheap.

A homeowner can just throw them in the trash where they are sent to the local landfill or incenerator.

We already have enough problems with mercury levels in fish, don't need to be introducing more of the stuff in the water table. (and yes I know that most of the mercury is natural not pollution caused)

Sombra

Dalem, simply put the temperature today is higher than during the "Medival warm period" Temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you come up with a 90% consens that the HIV virus provokes aids, that smoking can provokes cancer etc, that perpetual motion is impossible, that the world is older than 4000 years? There will be always people with conflicting opinions especially if lots of money are in play.

Dalem, what would be proof for you that the earth gets warmer?

Regarding your point that the warming period 100 years is well known . Right now there is a debate if it had been a local phenomenon in Europe , a global phenomenon, was it resposible for wiping out the Mayas etc... Lots of open questions.

It seems that you are cherrypicking your arguments here. You believe the results from a 1000 years ago (much warmer globally) but are very suspecting of global temperature measurements today.

dalem

Temperature is not "living conditions" though.

I can get actual scientific proof with tested theorems and the like about all of those things you mention, yes.

And 10 years ago I could have probably gotten a group of paleontologists to assert that there is a "90% probability" that a comet strike caused the K-T mass extinction. Anyone who held that opinion would have still been wrong however.

Once again I point out that getting 9 out of 10 scientists to share the same opinion in their field is not meaningful - scientists are wrong all the time. When they can run 10 different solid tests regarding a mechanism that shows a real connection between the introduction of industrial C02 (for instance) and an increase in global temperature and get 9 positive results, then your "90%" number will have scientific meaning. Until then it's just tripe.

I've never disputed the idea that the planet is warming in general.

Right. Debate about how widespread it was, not whether it existed.

If you've truly been reading my posts on this topic for the last couple of years then you'd understand that my objection is to the annointing of mankind as the driving force (or indeed any force) behind the current warming trend.

-dale

gunnut

I was not briefed on the problems with these bulbs. I was brain washed by the global warming cult to do everything I can to conserve energy, mercury be damned.

I often have trouble just throwing light bulbs, regular or florecent, in the trash. I just don't feel comfortable throwing glass into a trash can. Luckily those florecent bulbs don't break down often. I may have had 10 in the last 5 years throughout the entire house. I probably would have had 10 in a year if those were regular bulbs.

Gun Grape

Yea but regular bulbs don't have heavy metals in them. Glass is mostly silica (sand) with fillers to determine strength and color. No problems with that.

Fluorescent bulbs from homeowners making their way into landfills may not be a problem now, but with the push for everyone to convert "To save the Planet"?

Isn't there a law pending in Ca to ban incandesent bulbs by 2012?

Which is worse Global climate change(BS) or high mercury content in the food chain?

And I looked it up. I'm sure you meant to say "I would feel uncomfortable throwing fluorescent bulbs in the trash. But since thats against the law in Cali, I always take the bulbs to the recycling center.

gunnut

You are correct, sir. There is a law in CA pending that will ban the sale of incandesent bulbs.

I personally believe mercury in the environment is far worse than "global warming." Here is yet another example of how the tree huggers, in their quest to "save the planet", pulling us down a different and much more dangerous path.

The first was what caused the rise in burning fossil fuel in the first place. The greens freaked out about nuclear power plants in the 70s so they pretty much lobbied to have them outlawed. And we can't build hydro plants because damming the river might disrupt some fishes' mirgratory pattern. So we were left with fossil fuel plant. But wait....we can't build new plants because of all the environmental regulations make it unprofitable. Power companies just keep upgrading their old plants. How efficient can those really be?

I will look up on how to safely dispose of florecent bulbs. I don't want to be an ignorant tree hugging hippie.

Triple C

Respectfully,

The theory that global climate change is a long term cycle exacerbated by human activies is one that is supported by the majority of experts on the issue. That experts are fallible and had failed in the past in no way prove they are wrong this time. Short of a unanimous agreement in the scientific community (and when was the last time that happened?), propenets of alternative models must demonstrate a superior theory supported by a greater preponderance of evidence. So far I am not convinced that this is the case, either.

By global warming, I take it to mean a rise of average temperature on a global scale. As such it is no hoax. Call it anything one would prefer, and the problem is still there--fluctuations in sea temperatures and salinity for example will damage fisheries, not to say major disruptions in weather patterns. Nor do I see anything to congradulate ourselves with in those strange snow storms.

There are scare mongers out there, but there are also scientists bank-rolled by big oil man. Bias goes both ways.

dalem

You have it exactly backwards. Anthro-driven global warming is the theory that needs to prove itself in some scientific way, and it has not yet. The burden is on the believers to show some evidence that they are right, and as such they have shown nothing.

-dale