tvashtarkatena

What about putting a smiley face on the region?

From: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371 Judge Michael Burton... did order the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie's falsehoods. These were identified in court as follows: Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming. Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct. Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases. Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years. Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans. Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case. Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice. Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm. Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age. Finding: A scientific impossibility. Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming. Finding: No evidence to support the claim. Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously. Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia. Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting. Finding: It is, in fact, increasing. Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people. Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years. Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand. Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim. Conveniently out-of-context quoting. What does the British High Court's 'expert witness' (oh jesus, it doesn't get much better than that...is that anything like the 'expert witnesses' our government supplies? Al-ber-to! Al-ber-to!) say about NOAA's climate models, which, after all, were what I was pitting against FW's misapplied Milankovitch cycles? As for Gore's movie, no doubt there are uncertainties and innaccuracies, as there are in any treatise designed to persuade, or any scientific paper, for that matter. No shit, Sherlock. Just for the record, though, the court's 'findings' (teehee) are also riddled with innaccuracies. For example, shortcircuiting the Gulf Stream is not only scientifically possible, but it occurred many times after the last ice age when large fresh water lakes in canada suddenly drained into the north Atlantic, changing the salinity/temperature gradient which drives that warming current. Gore also never claimed that Katrina was a direct result of global warming. He claimed that storms like Katrina would become more common. This conclusion has been accepted by the scientific community, given that it is well known that hurricane frequency and severity is driven by sea surface temperatures, which, um, go up when it gets warmer. Furthermore, sea levels could rise by 7 m IF one of the lobes of the Antarctic ice cap collapsed into the sea; a possibility given the fact that the Ross Ice Shelf is rapidly breaking up and that we have yet to fully understand the the movement of Antarctic ice. I could go on, but the audience gets the idea. Stop in again for another ass fucking anytime, brother.

One word: Pest control futures.

I've seen it - and if you call that "raw data" then you truly are just a Kool Aid drinking stooge who's mama spoon fed the peaches for just a few too many years. (Does she still bathe you too?) BTW: I'm still waiting for that for that graph you promised showing The Milankovitch Cycle producing a modern ice age! Do you have it? Or were you just making shit up? - again. If we could only reduce Trashtalkintina's hot air and farts alone we'd be able to stop the Coleman glacier from receding a few dozen feet over the next 30 years! Just one of my farts could wipe out your whole lineage. FW: Malinkovitch cycles are used, with many unexplained flaws I might add, to explain very slow climate changes in increments of tens of thousands of years. That's why researchers who have studied these cycles disagree on whether we are sliding off down the backside of a peak, inbetween a double peak, or still on the upswing of one of these very long term cycles. Predictions vary from the start of an ice age within 5000 years (with no anthropogenic warming) to no ice age for the next 50 to 100,000 years. Yeah, real fine tuned, that one. It's also well known that we have enjoyed a relatively warm period, as per your graph. That's not news. Look backward, however, and you'll see many irregularities that are still not completely understood. Furthermore, we only have 20 years of solar output data, so our understanding of that cycle is poor at best. Even if we had more data, that effect is much less than an order of magnitude less than other climate factors, such as CO2. Due to the glacial rate at which Malinkovitch cycles occur, they are useless for predicting the extremely rapid, year by year warming that is occurring today. On the other hand, current climate models (go to NOAA's website and take a looksie, they also validate everything I've said here) using short term climate factors, mainly greenhouse gases, do a very good job of explaining the current warming (they match well with 600,000 years of historical data) and where it is taking us. I realize that the fallacy of using a long time scale model to explain short time scale changes blows a bit of a hole in your silver bullet argument, but with enough warm milk, absolute quiet, and lots and lots of concentration, that tiny bulb will eventually illuminate and possibly melt away at least one of the host of junk science deposits that seem to collect in your fuzzy noggin.

"Next time you serve me grubs as an appetizer, you'll get the whole fist."

I was driving down the Chewack Road to Winthrop the other day after passing hunter after hunter who couldn't seem to find a target to save their lives, when suddenly the road was covered with deer. I thought about just hitting one. I already know the part about using somebody else's car, but how would I dress it using this harvesting technique? Please advise.

"Yessuh, Mistah Clahmin' Panthah, Suh!"

No, silly, there's a bunch of fat welfare recipients below the deck on these: "Latifa! Pass me dem Ho Hos so Whitey up deah kin git hissel sum soadfish o sum shit!"

Here's where you are entirely wrong. The last hundred years of Mid-East policy has been a resounding success, playing out in a manner supported by BOTH parties (wow, we in this democracy really live in a two party state!). The US and other western nations have continued to maintain access ("access"? is this fair to say? is "control" more accurate?)to hydrocarbons through the machinations (and other market developments, manipulations etc) that we are speaking of in iran. the iranian blowback is certainly a consequence of this meddling, but to rate US foreign policy as a "failure" because of this instance is a bit over-reaching; i would think it would simply be called a statistical "necessity" in the bigger FP game of geopolitics. Actually not. For the trillions we've spent on our Middle Eastern policy, we could have been energy independent years ago. It has been a very poor investment.

Perhaps not, but a single phrase might do: "Lakalakalakajihad!"

You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it. correction... gore presents SOME raw data i don't have to see the movie to realize that. text books, scientists, experts....each only present some data (of their choosing) Yup. I knew it. But Gore's still a real dickhead, right? Cuz, cuz...somebody else said he was.

Kepler and Newton's concepts of motion and gravity are now known as LAWS. Are you proposing to give anthropogenic global warming the same stature? And they're dated. No one actually knows what gravity is. We don't even know what the distance vs gravitational force relationship is below a distance of 1 mm. We do, however, know how much fossil fuel generated CO2 is in the air, and what it does to global average temperature, however. Our climate models, well tested retroactively, are quite accurate in that regard.

Are those boats taunphin powered?

Americans WASTE. There are easy ways to make a difference with little personal change. For example, plan you excursions. If you have to drop the kids at a soccer game AND go for groceries, combine them into one trip minimizing distance travelled rather than doing two round-trips. Drive less? Unless half the Chinese kill themselves, that's TOTAL BS.

You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it.

Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS. This information has been posted on this forum before, but certain idiots were too busy straining their cement filled tire chains to remember: Greenhouse Gas Wedges These, of course, are the same morons who will defend a non-position argue through gritted, grinding teeth without ever bothering to click into NOAA's climate models to check the worst case/best case scenarios. Little hint, lil' fella: .05 degrees isn't one of them. Good doggie. The solutions are at hand, and no, we don't have to return to paleolithic times. And yes, even if the United States acted unilaterally, the world would benefit. After all, we produce a quarter of the world's human generated greenhouse gases. In the worst case, we'd wind up with a sustainable, relatively self sufficient society. Golly, that would just suck, wouldn't it? As for JayB's common assertion that action consisting of what we've needed to do for a long time anyway to create a sustainable civilization might produce more catastrophe than a 2 to 5 degree increase in global temps...oh, what utter bullshit, and he knows it. No amount of gradual regulation or technology transfer is going to even come close to the economic and human cost of just a handful of Katrinas. (Oh, and speaking of possible economic collapse, you all probably caught the article about the insurance companies abandoning their East Coast homeowners just in time for storm season). Essentially, his argument is a choice between sustainability, which some of believe is necessary regardless of climate change, and unsustainability, which means fucking your (or other people's) kids in the ass. He defends inaction based on the false notion that massive sacrifices and societal upheavels, rather than a re-orientation of existing priorities and resources (which would be MORE than enough to solve the problem), MAY be required. Yet the solutions outlined in the link clearly indicate that the investments required are doable without unraveling the global economy if the proper reprioritization (away from stupid fucking wars, for example) happens. Furthermore, this information, for anyone interested in the issue who is not in a coma, has been out there for several years now. But hey, let's all 'talk about it' for another decade, shall we?

Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS. The answers aren't that tough. First and foremost, vote for policy makers who give a shit about the issue, and who will vote for cleaner energy production, fleet mileage standards, stricter land use regulation, etc.... Meanwhile: drive less, ride a bike, or a motorbike, or a more fuel efficient car, get efficient appliances, choose to live in a higher density area, grow stuff, plant trees, buy local, have fewer kids, fart less, blah blah blah. There shouldn't be a whole lot of bewilderment at this point.

Damn you, Klenke! And I've even mounted that Sheep on a previous trip....

Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. True enough, except the part you left out; the '79 Iran hostage crisis is in no way part of the justification the administration has put forth recently for a possible 'sanctions' against that country. Given our track record for stabilizing the Middle East through military force, I'd say that any attack on any nation in that region, under any pretense, would constitute insanity right about now. Unfortunately, given our administration and its allies (someone who, say, wants our boys and girls to 'go git sum' for a crisis that happened over a quarter century ago, for example), insanity seems to be what we do best these days.

Yeah, that's right. No bikes allowed in the Pasayten. 1200 pound horsies are fine, though.

With some effort. The horsies have done a number on it. It's 3700' of gain up to Andrew Pass.

Telenaut:

Taken Sunday:

Trip: Pasayten Wilderness: Bald, Andrew, Peepsight - Date: 10/14/2007 Trip Report: “Peepsight, Bald, and Andrew? What, are you guys making a gay porn flick?” This weekend my friend Jess and I headed east for a three day Pasayten ramble. Jess had never tagged a Cascade summit before, so when the forecast improved, off we went. Other than one woman hunting a hundred yards from the car, and three gunshots, we had the place to ourselves. Night time temperatures ranged from 36 to 28 F, with about a foot of patchy snow on north facing or shaded terrain above 6500 ft. We chased a fox on the drive in, but other than that, the only critters we saw were birds and insects. Jess on Bald. Cathedral and Amphitheatre in the distance Larches from the SW ridge of Andrew The Bears feelin’ strong on Andrew A bear feeling his way up Crazy Man Pass Our-Dollar’s-Worth-More-Than-Yours Mountain. Canada from Peepsight Pine sapling after the burn. Andrew Creek Fireweed. Andrew Creek Fireweed. Andrew Creek Blueberry. Andrew Creek Blueberry. Andrew Creek Willow. Andrew Creek Homeward bound. Andrew Creek

Guilty. I don't resent anything.