Halliburton truck driver pay

[olyclimber]

Birch Hound

[j_b]

Why doesn't your graph go back further...say to the 1500's warm period? All your data shows is the ongoing emergence from The Little Ice Age, not the big picture. Nice try, idiot.

 

it's historical data which goes back to 1880. there is no evidence to say that the little ice age was a global phenomenon. the little ice age in europe was over ~1650, it's only in coastal alaska that some glaciers were still in an advanced position in ~1900. it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century. the medieval warm period was not global either, and it was not warmer than today. if you have reputable reference to refute the above please oblige me, and we will see who is the idiot.

[cracked]

 

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

 

Yeah, baby! The system isn't MY enemy!

[cracked]

it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century

Now this turns into a game of "I know you think so, but I don't!". Science is religion! Either you believe, or you don't!

[j_b]

The data is there. Temps are going up, and carbon in the atmosphere is going up. Is there a correlation? We don't know

 

we have known about the greenhouse effect, especially co2 gas, since the mid-19th century (arrhenius) but you say we do not know about the link between greenhouse gas concentration and warming? i strongly suggest you crack open a book on the topic.

 

despite media efforts to convince us that we do.

 

the mainstream media tells you what the scientifc consensus is. if you'd rather listen to rush limbaugh to learn about global warming there is little i can do about it.

 

There are plenty of smart people who say we don't know.

 

too bad they aren't independent scientists (as in not funded by the fossil fuel industry)

 

It's the causality, j_b, not the data.

 

do you deny the greenhouse effect? gee, you are going to make some engineer ....

 

Too bad this is no longer science, but politics.

 

the only one arguing on a non-scientific basis between the 2 of us is you

 

And working off the premise that we are, indeed, raising the temperature of the earth (ignoring evidence that the Earth has been through plenty of melt/freeze cycles before humans started screwing around), what are we gonna do about it? I think we should just kill off 90% of the population. That would solve everything.

 

In the end, that's what will happen. Some natural disaster will wipe most of us out, and Earth will happily start over. Maybe the will evolve and do something stupid, too. Either way, we're fucked!

 

i think i'll let this stand as is. it speaks for itself.

[Dru]

temperature, iraq, arizona and snopes.

 

all here http://www.snopes.com/crime/deserts/pink.htm

[cracked]

the only one arguing on a non-scientific basis between the 2 of us is you

[j_b]

it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century

Now this turns into a game of "I know you think so, but I don't!". Science is religion! Either you believe, or you don't!

 

no, science is based on observations and theories. if you have a reputable publication (as in peer-reviewed paper) which says that 20th century warming is due to natural variability why don't you provide it?

[Fairweather]

Why doesn't your graph go back further...say to the 1500's warm period? All your data shows is the ongoing emergence from The Little Ice Age, not the big picture. Nice try, idiot.

 

it's historical data which goes back to 1880. there is no evidence to say that the little ice ice was a global phenomenon. the little ice age in europe was over ~1650, it's only in coastal alaska that some glaciers were still in an advanced position in ~1900. it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century. the medieval warm period was not global either, and it was not warmer than today. if you have reputable reference to refute the above please oblige me, and we will see who is the idiot.

 

Perhaps you could cite the sources for your claims above that I have made bold. In the meantime, some good reading that refutes some of your statements...

 

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm

 

Also note: I will continue to finish post replies with names like 'idiot', 'moron', and 'ass-wipe' until you cease your smug, arrogant, condescending replies in kind.

 

I believe you are missing one or two important sequences along the gene that determines social adaptability. Seek help.

[cracked]

You guys are hilarious!

[cracked]

Acually, Fairweather, that co2sciece page seems a bit whacked-out to me. They seem to be trying to convince people that if we screw with the climate more, we'll be better off. I'm not sure if I believe that.

 

Nothing like good, old-fashioned bias!

[JoshK]

The average surface temperatures have been rising *faster* than any point in history...that is the prevailing scientific theory at least.

 

Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that the majority of scientific thinking points to some amount of human influence? Would you be a pinko liberal communist if you believed this?

[cracked]

The amount of human influence is the question. And I don't believe that anyone really knows the answer. This is not so say that we shouldn't try to minimize our impact on the planet; we should. Too many people like to make too big a fuss about global warming, and I tend to be skeptical of anything so politicized. I can go either way, but nothing is very conclusive.

 

But as AlpineK likes to point out, I'm just a stupid kid.

[Fairweather]

The amount of human influence is the question. And I don't believe that anyone really knows the answer. This is not so say that we shouldn't try to minimize our impact on the planet; we should. Too many people like to make too big a fuss about global warming, and I tend to be skeptical of anything so politicized. I can go either way, but nothing is very conclusive.

 

 

Well said. My thoughts, exactly. But in the meantime, isn't it fun to fuck with these quasi-religious zealots?

[j_b]

Why doesn't your graph go back further...say to the 1500's warm period? All your data shows is the ongoing emergence from The Little Ice Age, not the big picture. Nice try, idiot.

 

it's historical data which goes back to 1880. there is no evidence to say that the little ice ice was a global phenomenon. the little ice age in europe was over ~1650, it's only in coastal alaska that some glaciers were still in an advanced position in ~1900. it is well established that natural variability cannot explain the warming of the 20th century. the medieval warm period was not global either, and it was not warmer than today. if you have reputable reference to refute the above please oblige me, and we will see who is the idiot.

 

Perhaps you could cite the sources for your claims above that I have made bold. In the meantime, some good reading that refutes some of your statements...

 

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm

 

the medieval warm period is a western european period and was from 900-1400:

however from your own linkhttp://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm

"Then, from 1700 to 850 years ago, there was what they call an "amelioration of climate,"... According to their analysis, the Medieval Warm Period was already firmly established and growing even warmer by the early 7th century..."

 

thus, in fact, what the co2science write up shows is that warming was not synchronous globally. having examples of warming that are not synchronous is not evidence of a global climatic variation.

 

btw CO2science is not a peer-reviewed publication but a mouth piece for the fossil fuel industry.

 

warming of the 20th century:

here is the december 2003 statement on climate change by AGU (the world largest association of scientists doing climate-realted research)

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

 

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century

 

[...]

 

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

 

[...]

 

The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

 

 

etc ...

 

 

little ice age: "While there is evidence that many other regions outside Europe exhibited periods of cooler conditions, expanded glaciation, and significantly altered climate conditions, the timing and nature of these variations are highly variable from region to region, and the notion of the Little Ice Age as a globally synchronous cold period has all but been dismissed (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Mann et al., 1999).

 

ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/littleiceage.pdf

 

Also note: I will continue to finish post replies with names like 'idiot', 'moron', and 'ass-wipe' until you cease your smug, arrogant, condescending replies in kind.

 

do as you wish. we'll see who, in the end, benefits from it

 

I believe you are missing one or two important sequences along the gene that determines social adaptability. Seek help.

 

weak ...

[j_b]

The amount of human influence is the question. And I don't believe that anyone really knows the answer.

 

not true. read the statement by AGU in my post above.

[gotterdamerung]

godderdamung is getting paid to protect the Iraqis from global warming?

 

Does he just shoot them if they don't apply sunscreen?

...those lawless bastards!

 

You're pretty much a warm blip on my radar screen and getting zeroed in on. Do you actually have ANYTHING useful to contribute?

 

I think Henry Rollins wrote these lyrics with you in mind Beck:

 

"tension builds up so quickly, my judgement becomes affected, and without my even knowing it I have started to act like a dick"

[Off_White]

I dunno GD, I thought it was a good quip, no need to get all brittle about it.

 

So logging in this morning, I see 39 new posts, doubling the size of this thread, and i think, man, there's gotta be some kinda rude fireworks going on in there, I gotta see this. Turns out it's just Fairweather and global warming again. Does this remind anyone else of Pope, Dwayner, and bolting? Does he have some kind of bot combing the internet, zooming in anytime the word "fahrenheit" is used, so that mighty Pro-Industry Man can ride to the defense?

[AlpineK]

I'm a little disappointed too OW

 

I was hoping to turn this thread into a discussion of slash fuel.

 

BTW according to Will's post diesel has more energy by volume...you buy fuel by volume...therefore I'm right

 

[AlpineK]

[stinkyclimber]

Holy shit, what is all this crap about global warming and diesel BTUs?

I think the thing that most people are confused about is that we are not here to provide employment for every iraqi out of a job.

Hmm, I was under the impression that you were there to create a stable, peaceful, democratic country. Just like the Marshall Plan. And the Marshall Plan, like just about every other nation building effort since, discovered that the path to peace is thru employment....unemployed young men tend to get bored, then violent.

 

So in fact, if the US does want peace, then its mission SHOULD be to help create employment, no? It would surely make you job easier if young men were happily employed driving trucks or whatever than shooting at you.

[gotterdamerung]

I'm doing my part. What are you doing besides complaining on the internet?

[Skeezix]

A spirited discussion! I will wait and see how things go after we turn Iraq over in 60 days. Would I be guilty of hyperbole if I pointed out that, so far, things have not been going well? Bush and Dumbsfeld are in charge, and they're losing their grip of late...

[Dru]

rumsfields gonna resign over the gay human dogpile prisoiner thing and take his big pension back to the private sector

[Alasdair]

The temps can range from about 140+ to snowing.

 

just a slight exageration... Try about 120+

 

"the record highest temperature ever measured in the U.S (134 degrees F at Death Valley, CA in July of 1913), and the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al' Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922)"

 

When you are standing next to a thermometer in the hot sun and the damned things says 141 you tend to believe that. I believe there is a difference between the actual temp and the temp as it is affected by humidity. So if it is 90 degrees the dew point can be a certain level and the actual feel is 100. Something about refraction of light through water molecules. I'm not a scientist, .....

 

No shit... I couldn't tell. But I love the attempt at science, it kind of made me smile, or shudder one of the two.

 

No i dont want to see it for myself. No americans should be there, and when they reinstate the draft and my name gets called up Canada here I come. Fuck the US if the draft is returned. I am too old anyway.

 

Have fun in Iraq.