For all you people who thing Global Warming is man made, just like that fake Al-Gore and his Nonsense

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 2:43 PM GMT


    http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 5:27 PM GMT
    What I've wrote below is why you would have fit nicely in the nazi regime......



    Another moronic Republican making statements similiar to something Hitler would think and say himself....if he wasn't saying them about himself that is.

    (and to think, the republican party was born in Jackson, Michigan...ugh. I would have thought pre war war II Germany)

    FACT: The ninties are the hottest decade ever recorded and from 2000 until now is already prevenient then 1990-1999. (just think more hurricane's, far worse storms...but no, it's not getting hotter at all)

    _____________________________________________

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is reminded of the Third Reich when he observes the tactics of people like Al Gore in their attempts to raise awareness about global warming.

    Think Progress:

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the nations most prominent global warming denier. He famously declared that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Now, hes taken the argument a step further. In an interview with Tulsa World, Inhofe compared people who believed global warming was a problem to Nazis:

    In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
    It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie, Inhofe said.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 6:08 PM GMT
    Schnitt's show is carried here in the South Florida area. I stopped listening long ago. What an idiot. He makes Limbaugh look smart. He makes Hannity look honest. (or is it the other way around?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 7:40 PM GMT
    Wow -

    Provocative - Aggresive - Confrontational - Ill Informed - Judgemental - apparently unable to think for yourself...

    All at age 18?

    Where, oh where, do you have to aspire to?

    Sign up today... http://www.youngrepublicans.com/

    Hint: The cherry flavor tastes better than the grape or orange.

    BTW - You are starting to alienate even the conservatives around here.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 7:43 PM GMT
    Lay off the hooch, Tyler. It doesn't suit you.
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Dec 07, 2007 7:54 PM GMT
    Gotta love posts where the entire message is actually encapsulated in the title. It seems to be a red flag no matter what camp the post is coming from.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 7:56 PM GMT
    Which one is Tylerjock and which one is the Hooch?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 7:59 PM GMT
    "FACT: The ninties are the hottest decade ever recorded and from 2000 until now is already prevenient then 1990-1999. (just think more hurricane's, far worse storms...but no, it's not getting hotter at all)"

    While I don't know anything about Schnitt or his show, this statement isn't necessarily true. Hottest decade ever? There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth was significantly warmer by a few degrees during other periods of history. It was also significantly colder during other periods. All without any assistance from mankind. Warming is definitely happening. The question is, are we the cause?

    What bothers me most about the Global Warming "debate" (it really isn't a debate) is how extreme and intolerant most people are towards any dissent. Question the dogma and you're insulted, or worse. I guess it's okay to be an intolerant a*hole when we're talking about climate, but if it's religion, for example, intolerance = bigotry and prejudice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:07 PM GMT
    Today is 82 F in Austin. Tomorrow will be 85 F. Records.

    Happy Holidays from the greenhouse!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:37 PM GMT
    Aero:

    Tylerjock


    hooch:
    marijuana-joint.jpg

    ...fine for some, not for others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:41 PM GMT
    I am no saying global warming is not true. It is getting some what warmer. I am saying that MAN is not the cuase of it like Al dumb ass Gore says in his stupid movie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:43 PM GMT
    Oh... k. got it.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Dec 07, 2007 8:47 PM GMT
    I guess I'll just ignore the word of the environmental scientists I work with here at UCLA.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:50 PM GMT
    In other news, the earth is NOT flat.

    Just bringing you up to speed, Tyler.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:52 PM GMT
    "hooch" is alcohol

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hooch
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 8:54 PM GMT
    tylerjock - judging by your writing skills, I'd watch who you're calling a dumbass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:04 PM GMT
    Sorry I am at work and I have to sneak around my boss. So I don't get caught being on the net. So forgive me if my grammer, spelling is not up to par. Again I am not saying the is no such thing as Global Warming. There is, but it is a caused by the earth going into a cycle. Man has very little to do with Global warming. But if you want to go buy a Carbon Credit to make you all feel better go ahead.
  • vince_the_cyc...

    Posts: 126

    Dec 07, 2007 9:06 PM GMT
    tylerjock

    Defending your position might give you a little more credibility than calling people names.

    This is a lame attempt at starting a flamewar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:07 PM GMT




    EARTH IN THE BALANCE

    Don't Believe the Hype
    Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

    BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
    Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

    Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

    That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

    The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

    So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

    They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.





    The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
    Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

    A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

    A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

    There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

    Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

    The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

    In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:09 PM GMT
    Global Warming . . . right here.

    I'll try to stay inside more. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:11 PM GMT
    This one's to hsierrahiker...the aforementioned 'fact' is a true fact.

    Read again and maybe you'll see I said that it was the hottest decade ever RECORDED. Obviously we don't know anything prior to that, well, because it wasn't recorded.

    You must be a republican, because you opted to look at what you wanted and not what was actually written.

    Maybe the lack of oxygen where you hike has something to do with that hmmmm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:16 PM GMT
    Having been to several global warming related conferences, highsierrahiker, there really is no *dogma* within the scientific community. In actuality, the IPCC report on climate change and the climate change academia as a whole are models of accountability, peer review, appropriate caution in the claims and thoroughness of error analysis.

    New techniques of measurement and methods of metanalysis are being developed *all* the time to corroborate and enhance the data available. The limitations of the present models are manifest, well-understood within the scientific community, and there is a clear roadmap to the development of enhanced models. The computational demands of climate simulation are *enormous*.

    Notice that the links on the site are not to any peer-reviewed articles disputing the particulars of any methodology---rather they are full of non-sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, claims to inappropriate authority and other circus tricks of empty rhetoric.

    Don't believe it, tylerjock!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:16 PM GMT
    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Dec 07, 2007 9:26 PM GMT
    I really think you're missing the point. While your unwarrented disdain for Al Gore and anyone other left-leaning person is clouding your views, perhaps this little excerpt will help you understand what really is at issue.

    For those of you that don't like a religious stance on issues, please excuse the following. I felt that it might help tylerjock to see another statement from someone that's not left oriented. Perhaps when he grows up he'll learn that, unlike our current administration, the scientific community has checks and balances and when the Catholic church which fought scientific knowledge for so long, listens to such people as Al Gore, then he might actually be on to something useful.

    Catholic Bishops message on Climate Change

    "The dialogue and our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence. While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth's climate. Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious (see the sidebar "The Science of Global Climate Change"). Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future."

    also see
    http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate/index.shtml


    --by the way, i'm not now, nor have ever been a Catholic. i just hope this info helps you not be such a putz tylerjock. i know that's asking for too much, but it's the Christmas season; it could happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:37 PM GMT
    tell this to the islanders in the pacific whose islands are disappearing. And the tens of thousands who have already had to relocate.