Bush conversion on climate change?

Bush conversion on climate change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 3:59:28 AM)
Maybe this article is wishful thinking because there doesn't seem too many facts in it but could Bush be set for a conversion on climate change and what would be the result? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html

ScooterTrash -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 5:17:21 AM)
And a position change would mean what I wonder? And of course political agendas run in decades as milestones, not years it seems, so any change would be long coming and likely not credited to the current administration. I'm still curious if global warming wouldn't happen as a natural ecological development, even if man, in his infinite wisdom, decided to change everything he perceives as the cause. Funny how humankind seems to take credit for bad things, as well as good things that happen to the planet....when it seems that climate shifts are cyclical and a natural phenomena.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 6:33:58 AM)
I would imagine everyone who says climate change is being driven by man realise that climate change is cyclic, it is the difference in the figures of what what went before and now and that difference can only be explained by human activity. For those who say it is simply natural climate change, it is for them to explain the disparity in figures.

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 7:14:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I would imagine everyone who says climate change is being driven by man realise that climate change is cyclic, it is the difference in the figures of what what went before and now and that difference can only be explained by human activity. For those who say it is simply natural climate change, it is for them to explain the disparity in figures. I'm not about to deny climate change seems to be occuring. AOL informs me it is 5 degrees F in my high desert this morning and that ain't normal. I even find it concieveable that human activity might be adding to a cumulative effect. My statistics course gave me a severe headache, but I'm pretty sure you need a sample larger than 'one' to draw any kind of conclusion though. If someone can explain to me, in clear English and without techno-babble, how human activity is melting the Martian icecaps, I will volunteer my time and pick-up truck to move chairs to some community center for the next screening of "An Inconvenient Truth."

Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 8:52:13 AM)
Human activity isn't melting the Martian ice caps. The Martian ice cap nonsense has been dealt with. I posted this link in the last global warming debate (right before people called me an ideologue because I constantly refuted their ignorant assertions): http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/polar2006/pdf/8035.pdf Apologies if that constitutes "techno-babble" for you; difficult concepts require difficult analysis. quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich If someone can explain to me, in clear English and without techno-babble, how human activity is melting the Martian icecaps, I will volunteer my time and pick-up truck to move chairs to some community center for the next screening of "An Inconvenient Truth."

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 8:58:57 AM)
I can't get the link to work properly. Could you send it to me on the other side or check it?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 9:47:50 AM)
I read the article before. I don't read it to mean that they aren't shrinking. Only that it's part of a long cycle. FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 9:53:32 AM)
The link works fine. And yes, the whole point is that the waxing and waning of Martian ice caps is part of a long and complex cycle that can be explained by reference to events on Mars. It has nothing to do with increased solar activity, as some people would like to believe. The global-warming deniers are constantly grasping at straws, and as more and more of these straws are removed from the realm of possibility, they start grasping at things that are utterly ridiculous. quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I can't get the link to work properly. Could you send it to me on the other side or check it?

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 9:55:13 AM)
Thanks, Firm. Adobe tells me the file is damaged, I'm simply drawing a blank screen. If your read is accurate, I'm going to have a hard time accepting that Mars is on warming part of a cycle for reasons completely unrelated to the simultaneous warming on Earth. We both use the same 'space heater.'

Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 9:59:53 AM)
That's terrific. Without even reading the article, you're prepared to declare what it means. You people are unbelievable. And the link works. The file isn't damaged. I've checked it twice. Maybe your Adobe is damaged? quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Thanks, Firm. Adobe tells me the file is damaged, I'm simply drawing a blank screen. If your read is accurate, I'm going to have a hard time accepting that Mars is on warming part of a cycle for reasons completely unrelated to the simultaneous warming on Earth. We both use the same 'space heater.'

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 10:15:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Maybe your Adobe is damaged? Not outside the realm of possibility, LaM. And the other 'puter in the house has developed some form of hard drive epilepsy. My mind is not closed on this. I'm willing to be persuaded. After hearing 'the sky is falling' for so many years, and becoming pretty well convinced that many environmentalists are happy to twist facts to serve their agenda, it won't be easy, but it is not a dead issue to me.

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 10:50:42 AM)
Ok, the other one actually went 5 minutes without a grand mal. This was different than what Firm referenced. Erosion huh? Wouldn't that indicate a change in weather patterns though? Nowhere near conclusive enough to make me fire up the truck.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 11:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Ok, the other one actually went 5 minutes without a grand mal. This was different than what Firm referenced. Erosion huh? Wouldn't that indicate a change in weather patterns though? Nowhere near conclusive enough to make me fire up the truck. People who are still sceptical of climate change will only be convinced when they can take a summer vacation in Alaska in January and need a suntan lotion factor 25.

luckydog1 -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 11:48:35 AM)
Interestingly the article Meat cites on Mars states, " The assumption we will make which enables this work is that each CO2 facet behaves as if it were sur-rounded by an infinite flat plain. " Does anyone here think Mars is an "infinite flat plane"? Consider the absurdity, Mars is a sphere just like earth not flat. And it certainly is not infinite. Would it be rational to pretend it is? Why would assumptions on Mars' Climate based on it being flat and infintite be of any relevance whatsoever( or considered rational or Proof of anything? ). Yeah, you put an object in a snow field and it melts faster around it (and the darker the object the faster it occurs), everyone in Alaska knows this . The old fire coals/ashes I throw in my garden are doing the same on the snow I have blocked so the dogs do not trample it. But the meltholes from an object are not even nor circular as the observed pits on Mars are, hence the nonsese assumption of an infinte flat plain must come into effect. So it is rational to accept an argument that must posit nonsense to work?

WyrdRich -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 11:52:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Ok, the other one actually went 5 minutes without a grand mal. This was different than what Firm referenced. Erosion huh? Wouldn't that indicate a change in weather patterns though? Nowhere near conclusive enough to make me fire up the truck. People who are still sceptical of climate change will only be convinced when they can take a summer vacation in Alaska in January and need a suntan lotion factor 25. I'm not skeptical about the climate changing. I'm just far from convinced that human activity is the cause, or that spending an extra $10,000 for a hybrid car is going to fix it. These things have been happening for millenia (is there such a thing as billenia? That too, if there is).

luckydog1 -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 11:54:03 AM)
By the way if you go skiing or snowmachining in Alaska in January, you absolutly need to use some sunscreen. Plenty of Aussies and Kiwis come up for their "Summer vacations" in our Winter. Of course, no one in the Northern Hemisphere can ever take a summer holiday in January, its winter.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 11:56:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 By the way if you go skiing or snowmachining in Alaska in January, you absolutly need to use some sunscreen. Plenty of Aussies and Kiwis come up for their "Summer vacations" in our Winter. Of course, no one in the Northern Hemisphere can ever take a summer holiday in January, its winter. OK I was being dumb, you have to in Switzerland, Austria, France and Italy too. However I said 'while taking a summer vacation in January'.

TexasMaam -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 12:09:34 PM)
If you've been to China in the last decade and seen the smog and soot there that is hundreds of times worse than that in the US, and if you've seen the population of India swarming and seething, all with the drive to own all of the nifty things we enjoy here in the US, you'd realize the impact that industrialization of those 2 nations alone will have on our environment. No, I don't think we need to take the position of 'do as we say, not as we do', but I do believe that we need to encourage other nations to do much better than we have at conservation of our planet's resources, including air and H2O. If we continue to spew poisons and Carbon Dioxide into the air, we won't have to worry about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or even our own GNP before very long. shivers TexasMaam

popeye1250 -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 1:28:31 PM)
I think that one of the reasons that so many people are sceptical about global warming is that the "U.N." is trying to get involved in it. I know that that's a big turn-off for me. I don't want to be involved in anything that they are involved in and I certainly don't want to see them get one penny of my money. They take all credibility away from the argument. There's still $22-$24 BILLION "missing" in that "Oil for food" scam that (they) were running and they still can't find it? Anyone who is interested in furthering their cause for global warming needs to divorce themselves from the "U.N." or they're just shoveling shit against the tide with me. Look at that farce called the "KYOTO protocal!!!" If anyone brings up "global warming" and the "U.N." in the same sentence I just walk away and don't listen to them.

TexasMaam -> RE: Bush conversion on climate change? (1/14/2007 1:33:55 PM)
Well I can certainly understand skepticism over the efficacy of UN policies and pet projects. So, UN removed from the equation, watch the program on PBS that's airing titled Global Warming vs Global Dimming. Interesting stuff. TM

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125