namelesstavern.net

Ginzburgh wrote:That's great but I don't live in hartford.

And Mindia, are you going to answer my question? Or do you not bother answering questions like these?

Most temperatures for Connecticut are roughly the same. And no, I can't speak for the republicans, since I'm a conservative-leaning traditionalist.


http://countrystudies.us/united-states/ ... nnecticut/

Most temperatures for Connecticut are roughly the same

Really?

And some of those numbers are record breaking.

And if you had a brain in your head, you would realize that I wasn't using the CT example as a way to prove global warming, I was countering Lyion's statement in regards to his cold winter by saying we've had a warm winter (in the northeast).

You still havent answered my question. If you want, I'll repeat it.

Are you less inclined to believe in man made global warming based on statistical data or because Al Gore is the spokesman? Seems to me like the statistical data is there? I mean...climate scientists agree that global warming is here and there is a 90% certainty that it is caused by man.

First, I support facts. I believe in the facts that have been presented. That does not mean I subscribe to a lot of the theories out there.

Second, I could care less about Al Gore. I like the man. Do you think his flying around on a private jet telling everyone to sell their cars and stop using energy is not hypocritical?

Third, are you looking into selling your car, buying a green house, and getting rid of your electronic appliances that are part of the problem. Do you support the Kyoto bill. The bill requires the US to literally cut our power consumption by 1/4.

I believe we need to be more green. I also believe we are foolish if we try to work with hypocritical groups who preach but do not practice what they say, like the Kyoto members and Al Gore.

You know for a fact that Al Gore consumes more waste than other people in his position?

First, I support facts. I believe in the facts that have been presented. That does not mean I subscribe to a lot of the theories out there.

Second, I could care less about Al Gore. I like the man. Do you think his flying around on a private jet telling everyone to sell their cars and stop using energy is not hypocritical?

Third, are you looking into selling your car, buying a green house, and getting rid of your electronic appliances that are part of the problem. Do you support the Kyoto bill. The bill requires the US to literally cut our power consumption by 1/4.

I believe we need to be more green. I also believe we are foolish if we try to work with hypocritical groups who preach but do not practice what they say, like the Kyoto members and Al Gore.

I really don't care about al gore, what he has said and I've never seen his movie.

The only question I am asking is yes or no, do you believe that global warming is made worse by man and will it get worse if we dont stop.

Quid Pro Quo, Clarice. You didn't answer my questions.

Probably not, Zan. However, if he wants the world to be green, don't ya think he should start with himself?

Lyion speaks against hypocrisy but spews completely false crap to support his position at the same time, like "The US would have to cut power generation by 25% to follow Kyoto". That's absolutely and completly untrue and baseless. The irony of knowingly using such false information while at the same time decryign hypocrisy is truly staggering, and highly amusing to witness.

-Arlos

global warming isn't about extremely hot and extremely cold temperatures ONLY.

it's way more than that...educate yourself. law says that if it's cold, we have to have a hot. just like there is dark, there is light.

there is so much more to global warming than high/low temperatures.

Ok so, the conservatives answered my question. You don't believe in man made global warming because Al Gore is the spokesman. Thanks, I just wanted to understand why you guys are refuting scientific evidence.

lyion wrote:Probably not, Zan. However, if he wants the world to be green, don't ya think he should start with himself?

How would you like him to get around? Zeppelin?

Hot air balloon!

Ginzburgh wrote:Hot air balloon!

no pun intended I'm sure

Zanchief wrote:

Ginzburgh wrote:Hot air balloon!

no pun intended I'm sure

you underestimate ginz's ability to be a smartass!!!

Ever been to an airport? Notice the big planes full of people all commuting together, and not riding in their private jets?

It's too tough to suffer in first class, though, and that extra carbon released into the air is ok, because it's for big Al.

lyion wrote:Ever been to an airport? Notice the big planes full of people all commuting together, and not riding in their private jets?

It's too tough to suffer in first class, though, and that extra carbon released into the air is ok, because it's for big Al.

I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a link that supports your claim.

If you don't I'll assume you're just regurgitating something you heard on Glenn Beck.

Someone please help this Canadian believe in Airports! He needs a little faith!

C'mon, they have to have a few airdocks even in Eskimoland up there.

We usually just skate everywhere we need to go. If it's really far we take the snowmobile.

lyion wrote: Eskimoland

cheap shot. furthermore...I think there is something fundamentally wrong with glenn beck.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations White House officials for years have micromanaged the government's climate programs and have closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer. They expounded -- and at times tried to outdo each other -- on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat.

Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media. (Watch what a major new report concludes )

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

'Science and politics are intermixed'
Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.

"I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized."

"The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis.

Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes.

Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science.

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."

At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, had his own view of the science.

There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time."

"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.

(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said.

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the climate. (Watch what happens to our planet when manmade emissions get trapped in the atmosphere )

The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.

The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco )

"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated.

The group will meet again in April to discuss the socioeconomic impact of climate change.

Defining 'likely'
The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.

The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web site.

The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers, scientists and other climate change experts.

Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.

The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."

The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.

Renewed concern in U.S.
Friday's report comes amid renewed debate in the United States.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for the use of more environmentally friendly technologies to "confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

It was the first time he has discussed the issue in a State of the Union address.

The White House has said Bush's proposals would stop the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles within 10 years.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate held hearings on climate change this week.

lets look at the great Kyoto bill. Why isnt China on there? Oh wait...cause the chinse dont matter.

China should leave tibet alone.

speaking of lettuce. what is the price of tea in china Araby?

kaharthemad wrote:speaking of lettuce. what is the price of tea in china Araby?

hehe, sorry.