Noreaster

http://i27.tinypic.com/zsu13p.jpg

it's a clock

http://www.bountyfishing.com/blog/images/axolotl.jpg

twilight prophets goooo

http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg

I love starting threads. Anyway, I don't think this is a stunt by Kucinich in that I believe he really does want Bush to be impeached. I don't think that he's just doing this to increase his popularity, I think he duly believes it's his responsibility. He is very unlikely to lose his seat in Congress. Grandstanding? Well, that's what Congressmen do. They renamed french fries, and in the time it took to do that, we probably paid them millions of dollars. What excites me is if a Democrat takes the Oval and declassifies all the goodies!

frosted butts

Dennis Kucinich is introducing the articles the impeachment against George Bush right now, 35 articles to be exact. Whoo!

As an aside, what evidence would it take for people to switch their position? For me, it would be the majority of worldwide scientists to provide data that humans have no effect on global climates.

So as long as nothing affects you, people can try and save the environment. That's NIMBY to a perfect degree. Sure the world may be burning, but as long as it doesn't inconvenience you, we're gold! I hear this a lot, and I'm convinced it's said by people who just don't understand science. The same folks who say, "So and so is a THEORY not a FACT." Blind faith doesn't work in science, because other scientists call you out on it. Every time a scientist makes a claim, its results have to repeatable. That a nobel laureate and a well trained orangutan come up with the same results under the same conditions with the same data. There's no faith in that. Yes, that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that we can only move to improve the world as long as you aren't inconvenienced to the least, even to the point of buying a lightbulb that will pay for itself in a year.

Faith is belief with no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. My belief in AGW can be shaken by systematic evidence to the contrary. If my faith lays anywhere, it's that I have faith that the vast majority of scientists dedicated to the climate are not part of some vast left wing conspiracy. Are we trying to take away freedom? If you mean the current freedom that we have to destroy the environment without recourse, then I suppose yes.

The human population graph you provide has a very interesting point to it - human growth is exponential. And the direct available data we have from the past two hundred years is that we are warming up exponentially. Here is direct and reconstucted temperature data from the past two thousand years. http://i25.tinypic.com/2u4ngpc.jpg You can see with the burst of the industrial revolution, so did the aggregate change of global temperature. Per the graph with the spikes in global temperature - the spike occured about 11,400 years ago as determined by the International Union of Geological Sciences. There's all this jazz about the Halocene period and interglacials, but that's starting to exceed my lay knowledge. The earth is equipped to deal with gradual changes, but at the rate we are going, it is a rapid change. Probably not rapid to the span of a human, but to the span of an eco system. Here's a graph of the past 20,000 years. We entered the newest interglacial 11,400 years ago, at which point global temp changes should trend downward. http://i30.tinypic.com/k9axlh.jpg You mention war, famine and disease as things we should fight now. What do famine and disease rely on? The weather. Global warming will change the weather by desalinating the ocean, increasing water vapor levels which produces more rainfall, make northernly climates more hospitable for infectious agents. We can barely provide for the victims of natural disasters now, and the trend shows that things are going to get worse, not better.

From the article: Also: So the scientists do agree with AGW, just that there will be about five years in which ocean currents will offset greenhouse gas emissions. So whereas the earth should be cooling, it'll just stop warming. For a few years. And then it will continue warming.

That it's too complex for a lay person and should be left up to the climatologists? That's why I first referenced scientific organizations which support anthropogenic global warming, because they are a lot smarter than me. My conservative brother got drunk over the weekend, and my moderate scientist brother and I all got into some very interesting arguments (He called me Kim Jong Il because we are both short). Global warming came up, and the drunk conservative brother said that there is no consensus on it. I said, there is scientific consensus on it. Drunk brother said, "Well I'm no scientist...." and moderate scientist brother and myself said in unison; "WE KNOW." There are scientists that will dispute AGW. But a 95% ratio means that there is a consensus.

Why would you take an physicist, and how would any scientist recreate a weather system? If scientists believed in the notion that because something is really hard to understand, we should just throw our hands up, then we'd all be in quite a mess. We do know things about climatology: the five salient factors in warming and cooling are ozone, sulfates (aerosols), volcanoes, solar energy, and greenhouse gasses. You say that the earth warms and cools "naturally." That doesn't actually mean anything. We know what is warming and cooling the earth, and we know what role we have in those factors. You mentioned the changing ice caps. (Ew, right click and view image this graph, doesn't work so well on our forum) http://i26.tinypic.com/1zv69t0.gif They have been freezing and melting over the past fifty years, but with an aggregate reduction in total ice volume. Greenland was named by Erik the Red, an exile who wanted to attract people to a new colony. The ice cap that is on Greenland is hundreds of thousands of years old, and covers sheet rock. Turns out that the vikings there refused to adapt to a polar lifestyle, still trying to life as Europeans - they didn't fish, they raised livestock in barns. Oh, and they mostly died. But on a larger scale, let's say that Greenland was once a lush verdant land. Greenland is not the world. I mean, right now Antarctic ice caps are growing. But you have to take aggregate change. If one room in my 30 room mansion is cooling, while the rest are warming, we can make a pretty fair statement that there is global mansion warming. We may be in a global warming cycle, although evidence from the past 120,000 years through ice cores suggest we should be cooling. But if we are in a warming cycle, we are warming at 10 times the rate ever calculated for a global warming cycle. No one debates that there is a climate change cycle to the world (barring perhaps young earth creationists?), but the key word is cycle. Climatologists have identified the cycle, and we are going way out of bounds of the cycle. And that's the problem!

So it's been said that Global Warming is a myth or a hoax. So I thought we could have a little chat about it. First off, here is a list of scientific organizations that agree with the anthropogenic global warming model: * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): * National Academy of Sciences (NAS): * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - * American Geophysical Union (AGU): * American Meteorological Society (AMS): * American Institute of Physics (AIP): * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): * American Meteorological Society (AMS): * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) * Royal Society of Canada * Chinese Academy of Sciences * Academie des Sciences (France) * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) * Indian National Science Academy * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) * Science Council of Japan * Russian Academy of Sciences * Royal Society (United Kingdom) * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) * Australian Academy of Sciences * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts * Caribbean Academy of Sciences * Indonesian Academy of Sciences * Royal Irish Academy * Academy of Sciences Malaysia * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Second off, some graphs!: http://i32.tinypic.com/35jihl0.gif One of the oft argued points is that earth is constantly heating and cooling, which is correct. Two problems: one is that we should be in a global cooling stage right now, and second is that CO2 is used in every climatological model to predict temperature, so if you want to argue that human based global warming is a hoax, you'd have to explain why we are warming right now without using CO2 as a factor. Also, those giant upticks in the global temperature? Global temperature is rising at ten times that rate right now. http://i26.tinypic.com/2i1m795.gif As you can see, there is a definite linear regression of global increase here. But soma, wasn't there a broad scientific consensus about global COOLING just a few decades ago? No, there wasn't. Were there some concerns? Yes, though most were of the press and not the scientific community. The only peer-reviewed journals of the time concluded that they could not predict the future climate with their current models and data, and there were some hypotheses that gross elevation of aerosol particulates would decrease global cooling. And finally my favorite:

Last wrestling event ever, we're all too old too tired to keep going. The match is between me and my best friend and best wrestling partner, Buddy Wolfhope as the Human Juggernaut. We were always leaning towards the hardcore weapons use. In a previous match, a wooden guitar was used but not broken so we asked to use it for our match. Buddy slammed the thing on my head at full force. What we didn't know was that there was a bolt that held the bottom part of the strings onto the guitar. The bolt burrowed a 3-4 inch into my scalp, which proceeded to bleed like a waterfall.

http://b7.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00550/79/02/550802097_l.jpg

/sigh

Every so often while driving on the highway up here, there will be these giant dark red stains on the highway that last a hundred or so feet. My friend was coming down from near the border, and came across a pulled over semi and some flashing blues. Before she knew it, she was running over moose entrails and bones on the highway.

LISA NEEDS BRACES

Christ is back and he's pissed.

YOU.DUMB.BASTARD.

... does she also like men? Because that would be super.

Steak. Ew. And shouldn't that ass comb his damn hair before he makes a video?