"Manfred Noland" ...
> WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
> Crock o' shit !

Well it's been in the mid 50's in Seattle, which is wierd for Feb....but
rainy and really windy too.
Hope my roof stays put! Downdown Seattle had some 30-40 mph wind gusts
that took out some windows in a highrise bldg today. More wind
coming...time to get my broooooooom out...wanna Ticket To Ride??
Kyla
>

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:31:17 -0800, "Kyla" <kyla.waterman@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Manfred Noland" ...
>> WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
>> Crock o' shit !

Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning of time. There was an ice
age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the North East USA this winter
until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone chilling cold. And it is
over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind chill).

No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.

Tony

In alt.music.pink-floyd Some Other Guy <trusso11783@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:31:17 -0800, "Kyla" <kyla.waterman@comcast.net> wrote:

> >
> >"Manfred Noland" ...
> >> WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
> >> Crock o' shit !

> Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning of time. There was an ice
> age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the North East USA this winter
> until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone chilling cold. And it is
> over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind chill).

> No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.

> Tony


OMG, the IPCC should have DEFINITELY consulted you guys first before it released its
most recent report!!

Then again, maybe they just weren't interested in the dickhead view.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Some Other Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:31:17 -0800, "Kyla" <kyla.waterman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Manfred Noland" ...
>>
>>>WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
>>>Crock o' shit !
>>
>
> Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning of time. There was an ice
> age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the North East USA this winter
> until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone chilling cold. And it is
> over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind chill).
>
> No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.
>
> Tony

How many times does a rather simple fact have to be repeated before even
the densest person can get it?

Global warming does NOT mean that it will always be warmer in any one
locale. It simply means that the average temperature of the atmosphere
has risen. This is a testable fact. Global warming - in and of itself
and apart from any considerations of cause - is very real. There is no
one with a brain who disputes this. And even the relatively brainless
can get it: Bush admits that global warming exists even.

The fact that there has been warming before (and it is strange you admit
there have been cyclical temperature variations before but also say that
there is no global warming now despite the measurable evidence) and
without human input is wildly irrelevant. No body is claiming that
climate variations are ONLY caused by humans, only that the latest rise
in tempatures is being exacerbated by human activity. And while it is
true that global warming occured before there were humans, the
geological records reveals that the amount of warming that previously
took millenia have now come to pass within decades. That is significant.
Not convenient for certain political and corporate interests, but
significant.

The results of the latest climat changes are beginning to be evident:
the ice caps are thawing, glaciers are disappearing, and many animal
species are being impacted.

Scientists are people too - they do make mistakes (although the
scientific method and the peer review system addresses these errors
constantly), but when almost every scientist in the world (except for
industry compensated "experts") agrees on something, there is every
reason to listen closely, and to try and overcome one's political and
cultural prejudices.

dmh

"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:45D5D777.2050602@skypoint.com...
>
> Scientists are people too - they do make mistakes (although the scientific
> method and the peer review system addresses these errors constantly), but
> when almost every scientist in the world (except for industry compensated
> "experts") agrees on something, there is every reason to listen closely,
> and to try and overcome one's political and cultural prejudices.
>
And religious prejudices.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> In alt.music.pink-floyd Some Other Guy <trusso11783@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:31:17 -0800, "Kyla" <kyla.waterman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>"Manfred Noland" ...
>>>
>>>>WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
>>>>Crock o' shit !
>>>
>
>>Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning of time. There was an ice
>>age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the North East USA this winter
>>until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone chilling cold. And it is
>>over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind chill).
>
>
>>No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.
>
>
>>Tony
>
>
>
> OMG, the IPCC should have DEFINITELY consulted you guys first before it released its
> most recent report!!
>
> Then again, maybe they just weren't interested in the dickhead view.
>
>

They weren't. But luckily for dickheads, they have an advocate in the
White House.

dmh

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:er4jap$ot4$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.music.pink-floyd Some Other Guy <trusso11783@yahoo.com > wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:31:17 -0800, "Kyla" <kyla.waterman@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >"Manfred Noland" ...
>> >> WHERE THE %^$# IS THE GLOBAL WARMING NOW ????????????
>> >> Crock o' shit !
>
>> Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning
>> of time. There was an ice
>> age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the
>> North East USA this winter
>> until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone
>> chilling cold. And it is
>> over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind
>> chill).
>
>> No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.
>
>> Tony
>
>
> OMG, the IPCC should have DEFINITELY consulted you guys first before it
> released its
> most recent report!!
>
> Then again, maybe they just weren't interested in the dickhead view.
>
>
>
> ___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Seems they are more interested in the political view and not at all about
the environment.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...5-06-09/nz.htm

Jimbace wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:45D5D777.2050602@skypoint.com...
>> Scientists are people too - they do make mistakes (although the scientific
>> method and the peer review system addresses these errors constantly), but
>> when almost every scientist in the world (except for industry compensated
>> "experts") agrees on something, there is every reason to listen closely,
>> and to try and overcome one's political and cultural prejudices.
>>
> And religious prejudices.

A few posts back I mentioned that even faith based constituencies are
lining up behind the science which is 'blaming' humans for damaging the
planet.
I've been pleasantly surprised that the most fundamentalist and
apocalyptic flocks accept the responsibility we have for the care and
maintenance of Earth.
Yeah, when pressed, they may not fully endorse the 'method' (a
difference without distinction?). But on this particular issue the most
rabid anti-science and dogmatic people are willing to admit we must
alter our behavior - - Or else.


Michael

"Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
news:LGlBh.64416$2m6.6794@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jimbace wrote:

> A few posts back I mentioned that even faith based constituencies are
> lining up behind the science which is 'blaming' humans for damaging the
> planet.
> I've been pleasantly surprised that the most fundamentalist and
> apocalyptic flocks accept the responsibility we have for the care and
> maintenance of Earth.

Sure we're supposed to care for the earth, but I and many believe that this
earth will soon pass away - whether there's global warming or not.

abby now wrote:
> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LGlBh.64416$2m6.6794@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Jimbace wrote:
>
>> A few posts back I mentioned that even faith based constituencies are
>> lining up behind the science which is 'blaming' humans for damaging the
>> planet.
>> I've been pleasantly surprised that the most fundamentalist and
>> apocalyptic flocks accept the responsibility we have for the care and
>> maintenance of Earth.
>
> Sure we're supposed to care for the earth, but I and many believe that this
> earth will soon pass away - whether there's global warming or not.

Soon?
Yikes!
I looked it up and 'soon' is faster than the ice-caps meltin' away.

soon:
"shortly, presently, in a little while, in a minute, in a moment, in an
instant, in a bit, in the twinkling of an eye, in no time, before you
know it, any minute (now), any day (now),"

I may want to get in on that action, though.
Where can I lay some money down on "not too soon"?


Michael

On Feb 16, 11:10 am, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> How many times does a rather simple fact have to be repeated before even
> the densest person can get it?
>
> Global warming does NOT mean that it will always be warmer in any one
> locale. It simply means that the average temperature of the atmosphere
> has risen. This is a testable fact. Global warming - in and of itself
> and apart from any considerations of cause - is very real. There is no
> one with a brain who disputes this. And even the relatively brainless
> can get it: Bush admits that global warming exists even.


Some supporting stats:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2576.htm

abby now wrote:
> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LGlBh.64416$2m6.6794@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> Jimbace wrote:
>
>
>> A few posts back I mentioned that even faith based constituencies
>> are lining up behind the science which is 'blaming' humans for
>> damaging the planet. I've been pleasantly surprised that the most
>> fundamentalist and apocalyptic flocks accept the responsibility we
>> have for the care and maintenance of Earth.
>
>
> Sure we're supposed to care for the earth, but I and many believe
> that this earth will soon pass away - whether there's global warming
> or not.
>
>
Soon? What do you mean by "soon"? And - for that matter "pass away." I
suspect humans will be here long enough to die of boredom, and I am,
pretty sure earth will be sticking around for a lot longer than that. It
may not be pretty for the humans at some point, but there are really
only a few scenarios that would justify saying "the earth will soon pass
away": a direct hit from an unbelievably large mass, the death of Sol
(which is unlikely to occur any time soon), and the return of Jesus. But
even the Bible doesn't claim that the planet itself will cease to exist.

dmh

Some Other Guy wrote:

> Of course it is. Temperature is cyclic and has been since the beginning of time. There was an ice
> age that was not caused by humans. And as warm as it has been in the North East USA this winter
> until last week, it is bone chilling cold now. Absolutely freezing bone chilling cold. And it is
> over a week already with temperatures around 10 degrees (below with wind chill).

> No global warming. If any, so minute that it makes little difference.

The number of scientific inaccuracies and misunderstandings in your post
is quite possibly larger than the number of *words* in it.

--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Good morning, Dr Cuddy! Love that outfit. Says, "I'm professional, but
I'm still a woman." Actually, it sorta yells the second part.' --Dr
Gregory House

abby now wrote:

> Sure we're supposed to care for the earth, but I and many believe that this
> earth will soon pass away - whether there's global warming or not.

I disagree on both points. First, Earth is not 'ours' to 'care for' --
what we must do is live on it sustainably without fucking it up too
badly, and it will take care of itself, as it has done for the last four
and a half billion years. If anything, we need to allow *it* to take
care of *us*, by showing us how to live in harmony with the biosphere
instead of in conflict with it.

And it is not likely that the planet will 'pass away' until the Sun
becomes a red giant billions of years from now. We might fuck it up
really badly. We might destroy most of the life on it. We might destroy
*ourselves* and all we have built. But the planet will go on. It was
here a hell of a long time before we were, and it will still be here a
hell of a long time after we go.

--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Good morning, Dr Cuddy! Love that outfit. Says, "I'm professional, but
I'm still a woman." Actually, it sorta yells the second part.' --Dr
Gregory House

"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:45D5FB77.3070806@skypoint.com...
>
>
> abby now wrote:

> > Sure we're supposed to care for the earth, but I and many believe
> > that this earth will soon pass away - whether there's global warming
> > or not.

> Soon? What do you mean by "soon"? And - for that matter "pass away." I
> suspect humans will be here long enough to die of boredom, and I am,
> pretty sure earth will be sticking around for a lot longer than that. It
> may not be pretty for the humans at some point, but there are really only
> a few scenarios that would justify saying "the earth will soon pass away":
> a direct hit from an unbelievably large mass, the death of Sol (which is
> unlikely to occur any time soon), and the return of Jesus. But even the
> Bible doesn't claim that the planet itself will cease to exist.

Your Bible must've had some pages missing:

Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say
to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one ot or one tittle will by no
means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 (NKJV) "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by
no means pass away.

Isaiah 65:17 (NKJV) "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And
the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.