(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Resilience science helps cope with climate change
.
Discussions on adapting to a changing climate are increasingly peppered with the “need to build resilience” of people, infrastructure and governments in the face of shocks such as soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, severe storms and flooding.
(Please read it before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change brings alien species to Canada: Study
.
A newly published study says alien plants and animals are already invading Canada through doors opened by climate change -- and research and policy are lagging far behind.
How climate change, urbanization are changing disaster aid
Picture this: tremendous snow melt forces you to abandon your meager plot of flooded farmland, so you migrate to a city where the jobs are, only to end up living in a slum regularly submerged by floods from massive winters. It really happened! The extreme hard winter last year caused massive record flooding.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser troll he is)..
.
How climate change, urbanization are changing disaster aid
.
Picture this: a terrible drought forces you to abandon your meager plot of farmland, so you migrate to a city where the jobs are, only to end up living in a slum regularly submerged by floods.
TRUE that the LIA was mostly a northern hemisphere event and mostly in Europe. And also true at the time was? The northern hemispohere is predominently from where ALL the global temps records originated for that time period. ALL the rest of the data has been reconstructs from everywhere else.
So once more I say?
THANK GOD for global warming or we would still be in the Little Ice Age. And freezing our little noogies off.
What truly amazes me is? For someone who wrote so proficiently in 1998-9 about the Little Ice Age and the year without a summer? He and his friends seem to quite clearly try to diminish those facts, and their effects and pertinence, in their later models and hocky stick graphs? HE SAID! The coldest periods of the LIA were AT LEAST 0.8c LOWER than the late 20th century. THAT of course means BEFORE all the temp rises he shows AFTER 2000?
warmer temperatures during the 18th century were likely
to have been related to a concomitant increase in solar
output by the Sun by approximately 0.25% following the
Maunder Minimum of the 17th century (Lean et al., 1995;
Mann et al., 1998)
So in this treatise MAN himself has used BOTH volcanic eruptions AND the sun to explain. The TWO subjects most often scofed at right here by so many alarmists?
Notice the reference to the year without a summer? Hmmm?
HOW is that explained by Man? Well? VOLCANOES!
Yes indeed? The very thing so often put forth here and so voiciferously denied by the AGW alarmists as patently and foollishly erroneous? MANN used to explain the "year without a summer."
And then we have another thought completely independent of all of this varied BS???
IF we did NOT have climate change and global warming? We would still be in the Little Ice Age?? Of course that might be nice for the people who like to ice skate more often? As I'm sure some of the English enjoyed when the Thames used to freeze solid in the 1700's and on into the early 1800's?? And they could even Ice fish then?
Interestingly enough? Michael Mann even wrote a article on this in 1999.
Makes you really start to think a bunch more about all those UNINTENDED consequences I have referred to here so many time already. Catalytic Converters that actually made MORE Co2. But WHO was thinking CO2 back in 1970? NOW it's allegedly ALL ABOUT CO2, as far as I can glean from Nighty's comments. UNLESS of course you buy into Nighty's comment where it was reasoned that it isn't CO2 at all? It's ALL about buffalo and cow farts,methane, in India.
AQnd then there's the $25 million loan guarantee USDA approved last week for an Iowa project “expected” to create 38 jobs. As if we shouldn't have already learned our lessons with Ethanol? WHY? Because Ethanol attacks the rubber seals in all fuel systems in any engine or car NOT marked as FLEXFUEL. Although it DOES absorb water in any gas during the winter seasons mixes. And of course what happened to the price for corn, as a food product, as it was used for Ethanol?
“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced his second bio-fuels loan guarantee in a week, revealing that the Agriculture Department (USDA) is slated to loan an Oregon biorefinery $232.5 million for a project expected to create 65 jobs and support 38 others,” The Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke writes.
Hmmm? 232.5 million to create 103 new jobs? WOW? Good deal? COST? 2.325 million per job?? Hmmm?
“Beacon Power, which manufactures flywheel energy storage technology, received a $43 million loan guarantee from the same stimulus program that funded Solyndra."
"Despite having used $3 million marked for loan repayment to continue funding its daily operations, Beacon filed for Chapter 11 in November.”
And as if this didn’t seem bad enough, on the very same day Ener1 files for Chapter 11, the Obama administration announces more “clean energy” loan guarantee.
And then of course? IF you are looking for yet another masterful Biden Blooper? In his speech about this company, Ener1, he refered to them as? ENRON ONE? What? Maybe it was just a freudian slip? But Ener1, or Enron1 if you prefer? Is not the only such green company to fail just recently.
SO? With hindsight being what it is? WHY have dozens of such loans been made, AND alternate energy companies have received all of that money, and STILL gone bankrupt? One might be led to think that just supporting such endevours was the really important thing. And NOT that they would ever become viable to begin with. And then one might be led to think that OUR INVESTMENT specialists are having a really bad decade so far?
Hmmm? "racked by problems"? I seem to remember not so long ago when I first brought up SOLYNDRA? SOMEONE used that same defense? That SOLYNDRA had inherent problems even before getting 535 million dollars from the DOE? NOW? I might just be a simple person? BUt? Should it not have been apparent to the DOE that SOLYNDRA had inherent problems BEFORE loaning it half a billion bucks? Otherwise WHY would ANYONE even be trying to use that as an excuse??? AFTER it went bankrupt?
Today, Ener1 announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Despite the generous federal support Ener1 received (Vice President Biden even visited Ener1, January 26, 2011, the day after the President pledged in his State of the Union address to put “one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015” with the help of taxpayer funding), and like several other now-bankrupt energy companies, Ener1 was “racked by problems.”
THE HEADLINE? As Another Gov’t-Funded Energy Co. Goes Under, Obama Admin Announces More Loans.
“The company, Ener1, received a $118 million grant from DOE [Department of Energy] in 2010 as part of the president’s stimulus package,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay. “The money, which went to Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel, aimed to promote renewable energy storage battery technology for electrical grid use.”
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
New map for what to plant reflects global warming
.
Global warming is hitting not just home, but garden. The color-coded map of planting zones often seen on the back of seed packets is being updated by the government, illustrating a hotter 21st century.
The way i see it is we are preparing for global warming,Carbon tax,income tax ,tax tax tax.But heres where your chat dies! We pay for it but we are not privileged to the benefits that come from it.Deep under ground bases that have been prepared for the select few.Less than 1 billion of us in fact!
Which means 6 billion PEOPLE will suffer from the results of global warming,global financial collapse,global starvation,global disease.Why would i or anyone else support your idea when we will be the victims of your idea? Even if none of this happens we are still stuck with declining oil, Coal and a population thats growing exponentially!
Please read the following article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts, which routinely removes my comments, shouts it down like the loser troll he is
@Nightversionn Oh sweety. You are so cute when you get mad. BUT? Since no one BUT YOU can actually REMOVE any comments YOU MAKE? You remind me a little bit of "chicken little and the sky is falling". WOW? The same reason a lot of people have stopped listening to those weather forcasters. WHAT a coincidence? Huh? And IF, as you put it? Anyone can actually shout you down? To me that would say you really haven't said a whole lot to really listen to. Hmmm? DUH.
After tornadoes, floods, droughts and tropical systems last year caused hundreds of deaths, the disconnect between forecasters and the public has become a major issue, particularly in light climate change, top officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday.
@Nightperversionn You're such a fraud! The subject of the article was about people ignoring warnings, it wasn't about climate change! The writer, obviously a mind numbed card carrying AGW cult member attempted to inject AGW fear mongering into the article, but the fact that you AGW worshippers are trying to suggest that severe weather that resulted from a sever cold winter was caused by warmer weather is just a crazy and ridiculous as it sounds.
@Nightversionn So warming makes it colder is what you're telling us?
So when your AGW gods told us 10 years ago that snow would become a rare event, what they really meant was there would be so much snow that we would have extreme flooding. That winters would last so long and be so intense it would set off tornados where late winter storms meet spring weather?
DUH?
Yep! I'd put a question mark after your Duh, because you're clueless!
@Nightversionn AQnother VERY good article nighty. I liked it. The operative words in that article though were? LIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE and the DISCONNECT between forcasters and the public. So? In short? A lot of people just don't listen to or don't believe most weather forcasters. Now WHY would that be?. Maybe because they are WRONG more often than right? And people are getting fed up with being scared shitless over what just doesn't happen most of the time. ME TOO!
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
As the climate dries, Mexico's milk region faces arsenic threat
.
Mexico’s Laguna Region is famed as the country’s largest milk-producing area. But overexploitation of groundwater resources combined with the effects of climate change have contaminated remaining water supplies with arsenic, and related cancer rates are high.
@Nightversionn GOD article nighty. HOWEVER? I find it interesting that you cited REUTERS as the source. Which of course it was NOT. It was ALERTNET, a climate alarmist site, owned by a MAN named Thomas Reuter. NOT Reuters News Service. And the article was actually writen by Ana Belluscio. Who is an Argentine journalist who covers environmental and science issues. This story is part of a series supported by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network. Slick work Nighty?
SO? OK? Then IF the land is going UP and the sea levels are going DOWN because of it? Won't that just continue unless MORE ICE again forms? In other words? One counterbalances the other with either a net gain of nothing or even a net lower sea level? And if the ice grows back/ Won't that lower sea levels too? This sounds like we are getting mixed messages from someone? And either way it blows the crap out of any AL GORE sea level projections. Or anyone elses?
And HOW did the NASA group try to explain the drop in the ocean levels? THEY SAID! The land must be going UP??? People who can measure a 2-3mm rise in ocean water can't measure if the land is going UP? Of course they can. But they never said they DID??? THEY just said that IT MUST be that the melting ice took weight off the land so it rose up??? Hmmm?
And then of course we have NASA reporting in 2011 that the average ocean levels went DOWN a half an inch. These alarmists want us to freak out over a 2 mm increase in a year. But fail to even mention a half inch DROP in one year? That's kinda strange? A HALF INCH drop in one year? Where did all that water go when they say we are experiencing hotter years that should make the oceans expand and rise? IF ICE is melting so quickly? HOW did the oceans go DOWN? OH? I know? MORE water vapor in the air?
YET? These are the same models THEY are using to PROJECT a cataclysmic future of ocean rises of tens of feet in the next 40 years? Temps so high mankind may not be able to exist? BUT? They can't even explain TWO THINGS that actually did happen and are recorded in history? IF you can't make your models conform to historical FACTS? To the point that you have to try to say those points never happened? Your models are screwed up. And NO projections they make can be considered valid.
YET? The CO2 levels were a constant during that time? SO? SOMETHING else changed and forced the temps to decrease. THIS is WHY BOTH the LIA and the MWP have been so denied by all the alarmists. Those two periods make junk of all their models and can't be explained. The CO2 was LOWER during the MWP(medieval Warm Period), and the same during the LIA(Little Ice Age)? Yet? The entire northern climate changed for hundreds of years. THEY can't explain that? The models just don't work good enough?
UNLESS, of course, something else was the main driving forcing during these anomolies that the computer models just can't, and aren't, explaining? Now of course during the LIA? SOMETHING was a lot different beside just the rivers in London freezing solid. SNOW and ICE come from water vapor. And we already KNOW that water vapor is a far stronger forcing agent on the atmo than the CO2 components? You can't have snow and ice unless the temps first FALL below the freezing points.
Yet? By 1980 the CO2 had gone UP by 180ppm? With ONLY the WWII peak temps bairly going above the average??? So? CO2 started to increase by a huge percentage from 1860 on? BUT? The temps didn't start going much higher until 1990, or slightly therafter? That means that THIS TIME? CO2 had little to no effects on temp for over 150 years?? And the CO2 levels stayed basically constant even though the temps DROPPED during the same period of the LIA? SOMETHING ISN'T making sense?
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Bill prepares for one-foot sea level rise by 2050
.
Rep. Cynthia Thielen has introduced a bill to require the state and counties to take into account a predicted sea level rise of one foot by 2050 when reviewing applications for development and future county plans.
The modern industrial revolution started in 1860 and just continued on. Ice core records from FSU edu show that CO2 stayed almost constant at around 280ppm from 1740 to 1850. And then started an almost linear rise to the current levels. BUT The temp records for that same time are confusing IF CO2 was the driving factor. The little ice age lasted until 1860 and temps stayed BELOW the averages set by todays studies until 1980.
Now as animal life expanded almost exponemtially? Two thinks happened? The CO2 levels decreased even with more animals breathing and that life experated increased levels of water vapor. Yet the temp records stay almost flatlined for the last 2000 years? With temp variations over long timespans ranging from -0.4C to +0.4 C. ONLY the Little Ice Age had lower temps than that. The Industrial Revolution was between 1790 and 1860. The very heart of the LIA.
Almosr every CO2 study shows that the levels of CO2 have NEVER been as low as they have been in the last two millenium. In fact? The only time it even got close was 300 millin years ago. Befor that? It was as high as 7000ppm. From NOW going back to 200 million years ago? It was as high as 2000ppm. From around 200 million years ago til 550 million years ago. CO2 rose from around 1000ppm to 7000ppm. YET? Life and biodiversity expanded beyond your wildest dreams.
The time span of the Phanerozoic includes the rapid emergence of a number of animal phyla; the evolution of these phyla into diverse forms; the emergence of terrestrial plants; the development of complex plants; the evolution of fish; the emergence of terrestrial animals; and the development of modern faunas.
The Phanerozoic (Brit. Phanærozoic) Eon is the current eon in the geologic timescale, and the one during which abundant animal life has existed. It covers roughly 542 million years and goes back to the time when diverse hard-shelled animals first appeared.
So the deserts alone show us just what importance water vapor is in the atmo. And the effects of Cosmic rays shows us that it does indeed effect the formation of clouds in the atmo. The formation of clouds is dependent on water vapor. The formation of clouds control BOTH incoming and outgoing solar radiation, as well as Cosmic rays. While the CO2 stays constant under all of these changes? And the history of CO2 over the last 50 million years has been tracked as well?
YET? Millions upon millions of dollars are now being spent at CERN and CLOUD on exactly this same one subject forcing? And with KIRBY saying it will take as long as a decade for him to reach an accurate conclusion, which he himself says he is not sure of? WHY this recent push by the AGW alherents? They don't want to wait for the results of one of their own scientists? That does NOT make any sense.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Obama pledges new efforts on clean energy
.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged new government incentives to boost clean energy, warning that the United States risked being left behind in the new industry by China and Germany.
Now an insight what the IPCC would have us believe?
A role of cosmic rays directly or via solar-induced modulations in climate change was suggested by E.P.Ney in 1959 and by Robert Dickinson in 1975. In recent years, the idea has been revived most notably by Henrik Svensmark; the most recent IPCC study disputed the mechanism, while the most comprehensive review of the topic to date states: "evidence for the cosmic ray forcing is increasing as is the understanding of its physical principles."
Hmmm? So there are higher concentrations of Cosmic rays at the top of our atmo that at the botton. TWO other things protect is as well. The Earths own magnetic fields and the SUN's as well. Cosmic rays don't just come from our own sun. The rest come in at us from every direction you can think of. The UNIVERSE speaking to us. That's WHY it's not just sun cycles that are important. The sun, SOL, may generate the solar winds. But the entire cosmos generates much more.
Risk: Cosmic rays are high energy particles fired at nearly the speed of light by the Sun, supermassive black holes and supernovae. They have the ability to blast right through your body, damaging DNA as they go. Long term exposure to cosmic rays increases your chances of getting cancer. Fortunately, we have our atmosphere to protect us. As cosmic rays crash into the atmosphere, they collide with the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air.
Another little known and less talked about fact from the original CLOUD experiments. When they radiated the CLOUD Chamber with protons from the CERN accelerator. Particulates of only 1nm were produced. BUT? When they turned the protons off and just let the normal background levels of the cosmic rays penetrate the CLOUD Chamber. Particulates of from 2.5-3nm were created with NO OTHER INPUT? And that was buried underground in the caverns at CERN. WHAT protects US from these cosmic rays?
And although the climate alarmists have tried to play down the importance of CERN and CLOUD? It should be obvious to almost everyone WHY. Water vapor and what Cosmic rays do to create condensates for clouds to form around is of the utmost importance. Water vapor in the air is the PRIME controler of how much solar radiation we get, and how much is re-radiated back into space at night. And the real kicker is? CERN's CLOUD experiments are being run by an AGW proponent.
On a clear day compared o a cloudy one. MORE solar radiation can reach the ground and warm the air. On a cloudy day LESS radiation can get to the ground and the lower atmo. Water vapor is the prime driver of this result. And the same goes for night. At night with low humidity and no cloud cover MORE solar radiation can be re-radiated back into space. On a cloudy night LESS will be re-radiated back into space. THIS is the basic driver. Just like in the deserts of the world.
Humidity is defined as the amount of moisture content or water vapor occupying the air at any one time. High humidity occurs in areas where the high moisture content evaporates into the atmosphere. Air expands as it gets warmer, so it can hold much more humidity than cold or frigid air.
Now consider? In any given area at any given time? Which night is more warm? A night with a clear sky? Or a night with an overlaying cloud layer? It's all about solar radiation.
Deserts cover 20 percent of the earth's surface yet are the driest regions in the world. Their lack of humidity is particularly striking because hot areas can hold so much moisture. Rainforests, for instance, combine warm air and high precipitation to produce some of the highest areas of humidity in the world. Deserts, on the other hand, are very dry, so they're antithetical to most life.
NEXT new thought on the matter. WATER VAPOR. The very heart of the CERN CLOUD experiments. Now WHy is water vapor so important? Simple. Go to any large desert area. What is the temp diference between day and night in the same 24hour period? 30? 40C? Yes. WHY? Obviously the CO2 does not change that quickly overnight? So CO2 can NOT be the driving force. Water vapor is. It's a simple rule. Take for instance the way eHow explains it?
(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Home, home ... on less range
.
A climate forecast from a group led by researchers at Duke University predicts cattle ranching will suffer as California's ecology and rainfall patterns change in the coming decades.
@Nightversionn Hmmm? 15 hours up and no one has tried to shout you down or cover you up? Interesting. That just might make some people think your a liar for even suggesting such a thing?And with me even almost begging you to continue your posts? One might think your paranoia is somewhat sublimating your very life? Now as for the cattle ranching maybe having to move to a diferent area? Well? Hasn't it always since the first cattle ranchers rounded up the herds and drove them? Hmmm?
But I really don't need to. OBUMA has done a much better job on screwing himself than anyone else ever could. Just a shame he's taking all the rest of us on his trip. One thing for sure? He certainly ain't no JFK or Reagan? And his legacy will live in the anals of history for a very long time indeed. HIS legacy is? Once bitten? Twice shy.He'll go down in history as the President that tried to sell this country out.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Weaker sun will not delay global warming
.
A weaker sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said Monday.
Some of Nighties friends say we MUST get rid of the useless eaters. That are just essentially a virus anyway? WHICH ONES? HITLER said everyone but the aryans. The Islamists say everyone but the Muslims. The veggytarians say all the meat eaters. Which ones do you choose to get rid of NIGHTY? OR? Do we just kill off all the animals except man? AND the birds and fish. They breathe too? I wonder how PETA feels about that?
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Obama State of Union address to call for new era of energy
.
President Barack Obama will use his annual State of the Union address to call for a “new era of American energy,” according to advance materials being circulated in Washington.
@Nightversionn Yah NIGHTY? Have you ever heard the saying that you can never overcome the effects of a first impression?
OBUMAS first impression to America really hasn't gone over all that well sweety? The debacle of Van Jones. His involvement in the Chicago Climate Exchange? Him making himself one of those FAT CAT millionaires he so loves to demean in the media to the OWS kiddies? Almost doubling our national debt in 3 years? His loosing bets on solar? I could go on?
SO? IS the climate changing and the temps rising? Most likely. As it has always either been going UP or DOWN all thru our entire history. Is it ALL human caused? Get over yourself. Man hasn't even existed a wlink in the eye of geological time and the Earth has seen thousands of changes like this before we even existed. Is mankind contributing? WELL? If one of Nighties comments said Buffaloes are. Then Humans must be as well. As we are ALL animals and breathe and exhale the same.
It took us 50 years to make computers cheap enough to be bought by most people? And we still have millions upon millions that still can't afford them. It took 40 years to develope just the cell phone infrastructure. And even longer to spread electric around the country to most homes. It took almost as long to make the 200,000 plus miles of gas lines across the country just to supply the natural gas. And all of that tech was readily available and economically feasable.
And they all say? WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! However? Ask any two groups and see if you get the same answer as to WHAT? Carbon tradeing and taxing doesn't decrease CO2 in the least. It just makes CERTAIN PEOPLE richer? As in REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH. And the UN says all the richer countries MUST GIVE all the less wealthy that wealth? OTHERS say we MUST subsidize alternate fuels and cars like the VOLT more? WHO is going to be able to afford to buy them? OR? Do we just GIVE them away?
SOME of the AGW crowd are veggytarians. THEY SAY the whole thing is man's fault because we eat meat? Buffaloes and Cows are doing it all? But OTHERS say it's all because we FARM? Farming causes ALL of our problems? While still others say it's all because we catch FISH. And NO TWO of any of the groups much agree on anything except that it's all man's fault? Then WHY was there as much CO2 as 7000ppm BEFORE man even existed? They say volcanoes CAN'T cause it? BUT? Wood fires do.
In anotyer post they say If the summers are hotter? It's ALL AGW. If they are colder? It's just an anomoly? If the winters are hotter with less snow? It's all AGW. And when we get blizzards? That's AGW too? in 2011 the temps were cooler and the oceans receeded. THEY SAY? That doesn't count. Hell? They don't even want to admit to the last warm period we had where the temps were about the same as today and humans prospered greatly. NOTHING matters except what THEY SAY causes AGW.
No matter what the source of any CO2? IF the Earth and animal life has existed thru periods that had CO2 well in excess of any current levels or even projections BY ANYONE! WHY would the same EARTH NOT BE ABLE to handle it now? In one post NIGHTY and it's friends say it's ALL AGW? In the next NIGHTY says it's the buffalo in INDIA? What next? In one post they say higher temps will cause draught. Then they say it will cuase FLOODS?
The Earth has always had built in feedback mechanisms to counter one or the other to bring the globe back to the livable range for man for the last several hundreds of thousands of years. Plant life runs wild in higher CO2 periods. Animal life profits from lower CO2 and higher O2. Life and the carbon cycle has always sequestered CO2 when required. The oceans have always provided an adeqate heat sink for extra heat. So I have to ask another simple question.
So let's make some REAL distinctions. Removing ANY of the alleged causes. Temps have fluctuated UP and DOWN for given lengths of time ever since the globe has cooled off enough for ANY life to exist on it to begin with. During that time CO2 has ranged from 200ppm to 7000ppm. And some kind of animal and plant life has existed thru all of those periods. Interglacial periods are always higher than the average and glacial periods always colder. Just common sense.
The first results of this research explain a lot of the failures of the AGW models, which relied on CO2 as a trigger for temperature increases with no correlation ever proven and no AGW climate model ever producing an accurate prediction. Let’s stick to actual science rather than blind devotion to faith, which is all that AGW advocates have now to keep going.
In fact? Every time anyone starts to even talk about CLOUD and CERN. They are almost immediately attacked by the AGW alarmists. WHY? When one of their own scientists is running that CERN CLOUD experiment to begin with?
And it’s not just the CERN research creating a problem for them. They also need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch in 2011 compared to 2010.
But his actual first results actually produced sizes in excess of 2.5nm. Getting much closer to the condensate range.
British newspapers like the Register and the Telegraph have reported on the results from CERN, but it’s not received much attention from the American media. Investors Business Daily wonders why all of those who proclaimed the supposedly “settled science” are now so quiet:
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.
So like all first steps. It ended up asking more new questions than it answered. SOME would have you believe that the ONLY results were particlea round 1nm in diameter. MUCH too small to condense clouds
SO? "SOMEONE" effectively cancelled the CLOUD experiments at CERN for more than a decade. Now WHY would anyone want to see especially THAT experiment killed? Or more importantly? WHY the big new recent push on the AGW scene again NOW? COULD IT BE? That "SOMEONE: is extremely worried about what the results just may show?
Now the first of Kirby's experiments was done with protons from the collider and produced results that seemed pertinernt.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
WOOPSI! NOT something the AGW alarmist crowds wanted to hear.
Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made a tactical error, by not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
Hmmm? And exactly WHAT candid information did he share?
And NOW would seem to be a good time to ask something else here? But first a little background.
Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended a 1996 conference on the effects of Cosmic Rays on the atmoshere. Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Obama State of Union address to call for new era of energy
.
President Barack Obama will use his annual State of the Union address to call for a “new era of American energy,” according to advance materials being circulated in Washington.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Livestock identified as having biggest impact on global warming - even more than carbon monoxide.
.
Forget the toxic fume-spouting industries. Livestock - mainly cows and buffaloes - has been identified as one of the primary contributors of greenhouse gases in India by Brighter Green, a US-based public policy action tank.
@Nightversionn Well what do you know? Even NIGHTY has admitted it now. SO AGW is no longer the prime cause of climate change? NOW it's ANIMALS OTHER than human? YET? I seem to remember something about huge herds of millions upon millions of buffalo roaming the west in America in the 1700s and 1800s? No one has ever blaimed them for AGW. Of course not. THEY would have to be blaimed for BGW. Buffalowpomorphic Global Warming? WHAT? That is no more stupid than AGW?
You forget that in where Global Warming is real and we do something about it, there will still be an economic depression because whether we wasted the money or not, it was spent. Also, anything good that the US does is being outdone tenfold by the pollution that China is putting out which makes your point invalid besides that Global Warming has been proven false already and that any change is due to the amount of water vapor that is in the air keeping heat in and out.
@Nightversionn WRONG NIGHTY! China has surpassed us already. And their contribution is mainly coal based, which even by your own rules are many times worse that oil. And although you ar right that we can not compare our freedoms and rights to china. AGAIN! BY YOUR OWN RULES! China is now the MOST responsable of all. And percapita? BOTH China and India far oustrip America and are the worse polluters of all. IF you don't hold them responsable even MORE. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
Let's assume that the deniers are right,that milions of tons of carbon,soot,methane produced annualy have no impact on the atmosphere whatsoever.How does increased solar activity change chemistry of the oceans,killing plankton(makes about half the oxygen in atmosphere) in the process?How about the great pacific garbage patch?The Amazonian rainforest(40% of oxygen in atmosphere)?That being said the carbon trading scheme(I believe)is an attempt of the elite to squeze blood from the stone.
I love Pascal's Wager... I'm off to convert to christianity based on that argument, because the risks of gods existance far outweight time spent praying. I'm not saying don't believe in global warming (or god ), but please don't teach arguments surrounded in fallacy.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock accounts censors it)..
.
Urgent action needed to prevent England's rivers drying up
.
Unless emergency measures are adopted, some of our finest waterways could be reduced to trickles over the next few decades. This is the stark warning of an Environment Agency study into the predicted impact of climate change on the flow of rivers in England and Wales by 2050.
@Nightversionn Oh another FANFUCKINGTASTIC observation. As though rivers have never changed their course or even dried up or new ones created. NEWS FLASH! What do you think created the Great Salten Sea? A NEW riverbed that established itself from the Colorado to the California desert. That had to be artificially damned up to stop it. RIVERS CHANGE YOU NUMB NUTS! MORE wonderful projections and GUESSES from the AGW peanuts gallery.
Then I WATCH the PRO OBUMA news media on Cable news. ALL I hear lately is about how Gingrich and Romney made their money? Does anyone doubt that every polito going has made MORE money than you have? BUT? Do we hear anything about how much money the OBUMAS have made just since being elected President? No. IF it's so important to KNOW THIS about the Repub candidates? Why NOT OBUMA? NOW think AGW. If it's so important to know the PRO side? WHY do they keep trying to hide the NEGATIVE side?
It kinda reminds me of the PRO OBUMA media blitzes. HE talks about his jobs bill and every media source writes a hundred stories on him and it. BUT? HE nixes the Keyhole which ultimately kills new jobs and almost NO BODY even hears about it. And if they do somehow? It's blaimed on the Republican Party or racial prejudices. OR the TEA PARTY of course? Now I'm no outright saying there is a hidden bias by the media. BUT? One must start to wonder after it happens long enough?
NOW? I COULD BE like Nighty and just consistently post entries from climate alarmist blogs. Where it get's most if not all of it's info for AGW. Only in my case that would be blog articles on anti AGW marterials. But as you can see? I don't. Which not so surprisingly leads me to ask a simple question. WHY do CERTAIN media sources always seem to find the PRO AGW articles. But almost none ever run the ANTI AGW? Even though roughly half the people in America don't believe in AGW??
Your very smart, just one thing, by your chart on the coloum under "Yes" wouldn't there also be a depression if man made global climate change was true? cause we would be spending the same money.
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (>90% likelihood) that we are all being totally screwed
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
World not quite as hot in 2011; ranks 11th warmest
.
The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures. 2011 marks the 35th straight year that global temperatures were warmer than normal. .
@Nightversionn I would appreciate it. If you find it interesting, please do spread the word to others. The climate post should be down about 6 post on the blog but I post several other different, interesting topics for discussion. Thanks for checking it out.
@Nightversionn Yah. That's kinda what my last posts wer all about nighty. YOU SAID:
"2011 marks the 35th straight year that global temperatures were warmer than normal."
Or at least you said they said anyway? But it's that "NORMAL" that I was talking about. Was that the "NORMAL" for an interglacial period? Or were the temps higher because we are now in a current interglacial period? Because "NORMAL" seems to be on a floating scale?
it's higher than the average of glacials and interglacials combined, that is the average from now back to the earliest time in our planets history we can measure (so far).
@therealsan SO? LET me get this straight? Todays temps are greater than the averages of all glacial and interglacial periods combined? So if you take a glacial average of, oh say, -10c and an interglacial period of, oh say? +2c. ALL as compared to the currentn baselines established between 1960 to 1990. That makes te average of them -6c. SO? I would have to agree. OR? if you wanted to say the glacials were -0.2 and the interglacials +.02? Again? I have to agree.
@therealsan Have you understood yet just how stupid that comment was? How do you even compare an integlacial period of 20-40k years to a glacial period of 100-150k? Never mind saying today is higher than the averages of the two. IT HAS TO BE YOU FOOL! We're in the middle of an interglacial. It HAS to be higher than any average of a glacial and integlacial.
@Nightversionn And ALL the temps in the last 2,000 yearshave hung just above or just below this misterious "NORMAL" By around 0.2 to 0.6C. So we have a pretty long period of fairly consistent temps? While on the other hand? YOU are only talking about a 20-30 year period? Now since that "NORMAL" you speak of was established by a baseline average from 1960-5 to 1990-5. Half the years BEFORE were LOWER and half were HIGHER. BUT? In 1935-45 it was almost as high as today??? Hmmm?
@101orson101 Yes Orson, but what about the MWP? The temps from that have mysteriously disappeared from their averages. It is well documented that it was substantially warmer then for several hundred years. If you put them back in the equation, then temps are just about normal for the last 2000 years.
But let's not confuse Nightperversionn with facts.
@Nightversionn Have you ever wondered WHY when they cite these figueres that it's usually from 1960-65 to today? Because then they can completlely ignore that 1935-45 range of temps. Wheras if they included that time period. The temps today are still only around 0.1 to 0.2C higher. And if you go back to the Medieval Warm Period? There is no difference to speak of.
@Nightversionn NOW? IF you also consider that the ocean heat sink effects lag atmo temp changes by as little as 10years, to as long as 20? Air temps are 10 to 20 times more volatile than the oceans waters. And the oceans are 70% by volume the entire surface of the globe. Which simply means there is almost 2 and a half times more ocean areas to convert the land temps. And land temps are restricted to the first 20-30 feet of depth. After that? They remain quite constant.
@Nightversionn WHY? Because the land depends strictly on conductivity to move heat around. Where the Oceans use BOTh conductivity and convection to more evenly distribute ocean temps. Hense the ocean currents that drive the climates. Which in the end gives the oceans a tremendous advantage over the air to act as a heat sink. And the laws of thermodynamics controls it all. HEAT always flows from areas of MORE to areas of LESS. Just like differences in air pressure creates wind.
I guess i should correct that slightly as there was another temp rise about 6K ago. That was refered to as the Medieval warm period. The average interglacial period as around 10K. So all the way from around 125K years ago until 5-6 K years ago? ALL global temps were well below the average baselines chosen in todays models. In fact? They were almost TEN C colder most of that time. NOT 0.1 or even 0.5 or 0.6. We are talking orders of magnitudes lower.
I find that 1944 to 1960 DROP interesting since the world was in full swing rebuilding mode. HUGE industrial outputs and home building and even Hiway construction. That when the Eisenhower interstate hyway construction was building the roads we enjoy now. It took from 1960 to 1980 to work back UP to the average baseline.
And then if you look at the global reconstructed temp data (petit et al) The last time we had temps above our current baseline was around the last integlacial period 125K ago.
Opposition to the hydraulic fracturing of deep shales to release natural gas rose last year over worries that the large volumes of chemical-laden water used in the operations could contaminate drinking water.
Now add methane emissions to the growing list of environmental risks posed by fracking.
So in reality? We have been working OUT of that Little Ice Age for the last 175 years. If this is not a long term cyclical effect? There never was one. So from 1944 or so until 1965 the average temps DROPPED 0.6C. And in 1600 that average temp was 0.8C BELOW the current averages used for the model data. The temps peaking from 1935 to 1945 is understandable because of all the heat caused by WWII. BUT? Immediately AFTER WWII? Until 1960? The average temps DROPPED 0.4C.
Then in 1880 there was a peak above that baseline. Then it went back down to 0.6C LOWER by 1910. Then by WWII in 1942-4 it peaked back UP again to just above the current baselines. In fact? The last time the average global temp was even equal to that baseline was in 1000. From 1000 to theearly 1900's, ALL average temps were well below the current baselines. WHY would that be? Because from 1000 to 1850 we slipped into the Little Ice Age that froze the rivers in England solid.
There's a funny anomoly about graphs. Just look at all the different models and you will find vast differences between them. WHY? Because they are models and certain base line info is assumed. Like for instance the base line itself. HOW do you determine which baseline you will use? For instance? If you took the baseline from say 1850 to 1860? Admittedly only a ten year period. You would find that average temp was 0.6C lower than the baselines selected by all modern models.
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
ok new currents. LOL we see that all the time on small scales. GLOBAL WARMING IS FROM THE OCEAN WARMING. SEA LIFES MAKE MOST CO2 ON THIS PLANET. ONCE IT STARTS LEANING ONE WAY YOU ARE FUCKED. IT WILL KEEP ON WARMING AS SEA LIFE(FUGI and Bacteria) SPREAD MAKING EVEN MORE CO2. THEN WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEPOPULATION COMING AND YOU ARE STILL MAKING WAVES. SO WHAT IS THE DEAL? SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT AS AN INVESTMENT (MONEY). YOU NEED THAT INVESTMENT (Clean energy). I WATCH C-SPAN.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser his is)..
.
2011 was ninth-warmest year since 1880: NASA
.
The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.
"The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline."
OMG!!! 0.5 C higher in 70 years? Half of one degree C?? Kinda blows that old hocky stick graph all to hell now? Doesn't it?
Hey guys. I finally made a blog for politics and news (yes, there are post about global warming). Often I do not get to fully respond to all post on youtube, so I made a blog where I could go to often and be able to post more thorough comments and actually have a discussion. If you want to check it out, anyone can comment : bite-sizereality*blogspot*com ...if you are a gmail or blogger user, follow the blog once I get the button up for that. Hope to see your names on the blog soon!
Climate news (read it before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is):
.
Sea rise predictions lead Florida researchers to consider adaptation
.
A Florida Institute of Technology professor and his students will take part in a $1.5 million study to predict sea-level rise in Cape Canaveral and several other regions on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and then spell out ways communities can adapt.
@Nightversionn RIGHT NIGHTY. And you said MONEY had nothing to do with it? 1.5 million dollars for a professor and some students to measure sea levels sounds like money to me?
And NIGHTY's best defense is? Calling everyone an OILTROLL? Like I have said before?
Nighty is as original as the thousandth copy of a mimeograph on an out house wall saying PLEASE WASH YOUR HANDS AFTER SHITTING.
In reality NIGHTY? No one needs a puppet account to call you out. Nor do they have to be an OIL TROLL? They just have to be a thinking and reasoning human being without delusions of grandure. ie. A person who understands the realities of climate alarmists.
FINALLY! Something they thought they could draw the entire world into supporting. Right up until too many people began to see through that agenda. When the carbon trading system, and almost everyone involved in it, was exposed as the fraud it was. When Cap and Trade was exposed as a money making scheme that actually didn't do anything to limit or reduce CO2? When energy costs started to go thru the roof and more and more people just couldn't afford it anymore.
Through this reasoning we should spend trillions on a deathstar-style laser beam to defend against alien motherships. The cost would be offset by the fact we wouldn't be enslaved/killed in the eventuality that aliens invade. herp derp.
OH? You can dress that pig up with pretty words like SUSTAINABLE. But even with pretty lipstick? It's still just a pig. IT has one simple agenda. Create a world wide power structure to make all countries adhere to it's demands, and the international police force to enforce it. And they knew to become a world wide political enforcement agency. They would have to base it on a world wide cause. They tried WAR and failed misserably. ie. EVERY UN peace mission ever conceived. THEN came MAURICE/KYOTO
IF SO NIGHTY? THANK YOU. I've always found it interesting that condescention is prevelent in those who think they are always right and everyone else is wrong. For instance? Your complete dependance on calling anyone who opposes you an OIL TROLL, or a sock puppet? When in reality? We could just as easily call you an AL GORE CLIMATE ALARMIST ZEALOT? Or a puppet of THE UNITED NATIONS? After all? YOU are supporting the UN positions fervently, as a good puppet obviously would. ie. Agenda 21?
A blog (a blend of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject.
In this case? ONE PERSONS personal views on climate alarmism.
Or is it that you think, nighty, that your BLOGS are inherently more trustworthy or factual than anyone elses? Demonstating of course that you think YOU and YOURS are always right and everyone else is wrong?
@Nightversionn Once again nighty? VERY interesting and I thank you again. WHY? Simple. The qualifications listed in your report cited. For instance? The term, "For many parts of Pennsylvania." NOT all of Pennsylvania. NOT all of the USA? Hmmm? Wasn't it YOU and some of your friends who have said that you can't take purely localized events or conditions as evidence of ANYTHING? That you can't even take a decade of temp records to prove any long term events?
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
@Nightversionn Then of course we also have THE SOURCE of that very last story you cited NIGHTY? ShanB's BLOG? Just what the argument needs? Another BLOG to draw your information from. Or don't you remember saying? All the deniers get all their information from BLOGS and thus can not be trusted?
Turn about is fair play. OR? All is fair in love and war? And of course? Morality depends on who you speak to. For instance/ SOME people here say all rich people are inherently evil. And then they say how it's only moral, for THEM, to steal that money back? Or give it all to other people who never earned a dime in their entire lives? Strange how perspective dominates our beliefs. OR? Our beliefs dominate our perspectives. People is the craziest animals.
OR? Maybe we should just lobotomize all the people who say they want to kill all the meat eaters. As a meat eater? I think that is definately Better safe than sorry.
Another cute quip is? You better watch out what you wish for. You just might get it? For instance? WE could TAX all the Alarmists to pay for all the economic loses they would cause the rest of the world. That seems only fair to me? THEY cause it. THEY pay for it? That's what they say about us oil burners? RIGHT?
Cute little quips that are supposed to prove something?
The last one could even justify bombing the shit out of IRAN. Because it would be better to make sure they didn't have the bomb rather than trust them that they aren't going to use it against everyone when they do get it?
Better to be safe than sorry?? OR? Better to arrest all the alarmists and put them in jail before they can do anything even more stupid than they already have?
what a load of ballocks
Weihrauch88 13 minutes ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Resilience science helps cope with climate change
.
Discussions on adapting to a changing climate are increasingly peppered with the “need to build resilience” of people, infrastructure and governments in the face of shocks such as soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, severe storms and flooding.
.
Punjab Newsline, India
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence/impacts of climate change series...
(Please read it before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change brings alien species to Canada: Study
.
A newly published study says alien plants and animals are already invading Canada through doors opened by climate change -- and research and policy are lagging far behind.
.
Canadian Press
20 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate Fraud series..
How climate change, urbanization are changing disaster aid
Picture this: tremendous snow melt forces you to abandon your meager plot of flooded farmland, so you migrate to a city where the jobs are, only to end up living in a slum regularly submerged by floods from massive winters. It really happened! The extreme hard winter last year caused massive record flooding.
GloBull Warming is a fraud!
Reality
Spring 2011
TAMPADOC64 6 hours ago
Photosynthesis has converted any additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth
JonThm 10 hours ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser troll he is)..
.
How climate change, urbanization are changing disaster aid
.
Picture this: a terrible drought forces you to abandon your meager plot of farmland, so you migrate to a city where the jobs are, only to end up living in a slum regularly submerged by floods.
.
Reuters
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 16 hours ago
TRUE that the LIA was mostly a northern hemisphere event and mostly in Europe. And also true at the time was? The northern hemispohere is predominently from where ALL the global temps records originated for that time period. ALL the rest of the data has been reconstructs from everywhere else.
So once more I say?
THANK GOD for global warming or we would still be in the Little Ice Age. And freezing our little noogies off.
101orson101 17 hours ago
What truly amazes me is? For someone who wrote so proficiently in 1998-9 about the Little Ice Age and the year without a summer? He and his friends seem to quite clearly try to diminish those facts, and their effects and pertinence, in their later models and hocky stick graphs? HE SAID! The coldest periods of the LIA were AT LEAST 0.8c LOWER than the late 20th century. THAT of course means BEFORE all the temp rises he shows AFTER 2000?
101orson101 17 hours ago
For the Northern Hemisphere on the whole (both annual
mean and extratropical summer – see Figure 2, panel a),
the period 1400–1900 appears to have been moderately
cooler (approximately 0.3 °C) than the earlier period AD
1000–1400 (which was already 0.3C colder than the average of todays models)and about 0.8 °C colder than the late 20th
century. Following the cold late 15th century, the 17th and
19th centuries appear as the coldest centuries within this
period
101orson101 17 hours ago
While the peak maximum cooling occurred at quite
different times throughout the Northern Hemisphere, an
overall pattern does emerge when one composites regional
variations into an estimate of large-scale mean temperature
changes (see Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Jones et al., 1998).
101orson101 17 hours ago
The longer-term variations, and in particular
cooler temperatures during the 17th century and
warmer temperatures during the 18th century were likely
to have been related to a concomitant increase in solar
output by the Sun by approximately 0.25% following the
Maunder Minimum of the 17th century (Lean et al., 1995;
Mann et al., 1998)
So in this treatise MAN himself has used BOTH volcanic eruptions AND the sun to explain. The TWO subjects most often scofed at right here by so many alarmists?
101orson101 17 hours ago
A prominent example is the 1815 eruption of Tambora
in Indonesia that is typically blamed for the year without
a summer. While parts of eastern North America and
Europe experienced notable cooling, the observation that
other regions, including the western US and the Middle
East, appear, in fact, to have been warmer than usual is
consistent with a hypothesized relationship between volcanic
forcing of climate and the response of the North
Atlantic Oscillation.
101orson101 17 hours ago
The explanation for the Little Ice Age must thus lie
in other natural causes, whether associated with external
forces, or internal noise in the climate system. The injection of sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols by explosive
volcanic eruptions, for example, may be responsible
for some of the cooling of the early and mid 19th century,
in particular (see Lean et al., 1995; Mann et al., 1998).
101orson101 17 hours ago
This unusual period in climate history occurred before the
likely influence of human activity (e.g,. the burning of fossil
fuels associated with the industrial revolution). Though
some of the long-term cooling of the climate prior to the
20th century might have been associated with astronomical
factors, such factors cannot explain the pronounced
and relatively short-duration cooling observed in many
regions.
HE continued.
101orson101 17 hours ago
one of which resulted in her writing the novel
Frankenstein (see Le Roy Ladurie, 1971).
Notice the reference to the year without a summer? Hmmm?
HOW is that explained by Man? Well? VOLCANOES!
Yes indeed? The very thing so often put forth here and so voiciferously denied by the AGW alarmists as patently and foollishly erroneous? MANN used to explain the "year without a summer."
MAN wrote?
101orson101 17 hours ago
The colder climate, furthermore, appears to have
served as inspiration for writers of the time. The greater
frequency of cold, icy winters sentimentally framed author
Charles Dickens’ notion of the old-fashioned white Christmas.
The unusually cold summer of 1816 (the year without
a summer – see discussion herein) forced Mary Shelley to
spend her summer vacation at Lake Geneva indoors, where
she and her husband entertained each other with horror
stories,
101orson101 17 hours ago
This article is online at PSU edu. An except from said article:
There are widespread reports of famine, disease, and increased child mortality
in Europe during the 17th–19th century that are probably
related, at least in part, to colder temperatures and
altered weather conditions. Certainly, not all consequences
of the associated climate changes were deleterious for European
society. In London, the freezing of the Thames River,
commonplace during the era, was celebrated with a winter
carnival.
101orson101 17 hours ago
And then we have another thought completely independent of all of this varied BS???
IF we did NOT have climate change and global warming? We would still be in the Little Ice Age?? Of course that might be nice for the people who like to ice skate more often? As I'm sure some of the English enjoyed when the Thames used to freeze solid in the 1700's and on into the early 1800's?? And they could even Ice fish then?
Interestingly enough? Michael Mann even wrote a article on this in 1999.
101orson101 18 hours ago
Makes you really start to think a bunch more about all those UNINTENDED consequences I have referred to here so many time already. Catalytic Converters that actually made MORE Co2. But WHO was thinking CO2 back in 1970? NOW it's allegedly ALL ABOUT CO2, as far as I can glean from Nighty's comments. UNLESS of course you buy into Nighty's comment where it was reasoned that it isn't CO2 at all? It's ALL about buffalo and cow farts,methane, in India.
101orson101 18 hours ago
AQnd then there's the $25 million loan guarantee USDA approved last week for an Iowa project “expected” to create 38 jobs. As if we shouldn't have already learned our lessons with Ethanol? WHY? Because Ethanol attacks the rubber seals in all fuel systems in any engine or car NOT marked as FLEXFUEL. Although it DOES absorb water in any gas during the winter seasons mixes. And of course what happened to the price for corn, as a food product, as it was used for Ethanol?
101orson101 18 hours ago
“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced his second bio-fuels loan guarantee in a week, revealing that the Agriculture Department (USDA) is slated to loan an Oregon biorefinery $232.5 million for a project expected to create 65 jobs and support 38 others,” The Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke writes.
Hmmm? 232.5 million to create 103 new jobs? WOW? Good deal? COST? 2.325 million per job?? Hmmm?
101orson101 18 hours ago
“Beacon Power, which manufactures flywheel energy storage technology, received a $43 million loan guarantee from the same stimulus program that funded Solyndra."
"Despite having used $3 million marked for loan repayment to continue funding its daily operations, Beacon filed for Chapter 11 in November.”
And as if this didn’t seem bad enough, on the very same day Ener1 files for Chapter 11, the Obama administration announces more “clean energy” loan guarantee.
101orson101 18 hours ago
And then of course? IF you are looking for yet another masterful Biden Blooper? In his speech about this company, Ener1, he refered to them as? ENRON ONE? What? Maybe it was just a freudian slip? But Ener1, or Enron1 if you prefer? Is not the only such green company to fail just recently.
Beacon Power beat them to the punch.
101orson101 18 hours ago
SO? With hindsight being what it is? WHY have dozens of such loans been made, AND alternate energy companies have received all of that money, and STILL gone bankrupt? One might be led to think that just supporting such endevours was the really important thing. And NOT that they would ever become viable to begin with. And then one might be led to think that OUR INVESTMENT specialists are having a really bad decade so far?
101orson101 19 hours ago
Hmmm? "racked by problems"? I seem to remember not so long ago when I first brought up SOLYNDRA? SOMEONE used that same defense? That SOLYNDRA had inherent problems even before getting 535 million dollars from the DOE? NOW? I might just be a simple person? BUt? Should it not have been apparent to the DOE that SOLYNDRA had inherent problems BEFORE loaning it half a billion bucks? Otherwise WHY would ANYONE even be trying to use that as an excuse??? AFTER it went bankrupt?
101orson101 19 hours ago
Today, Ener1 announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Despite the generous federal support Ener1 received (Vice President Biden even visited Ener1, January 26, 2011, the day after the President pledged in his State of the Union address to put “one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015” with the help of taxpayer funding), and like several other now-bankrupt energy companies, Ener1 was “racked by problems.”
101orson101 19 hours ago
THE HEADLINE? As Another Gov’t-Funded Energy Co. Goes Under, Obama Admin Announces More Loans.
“The company, Ener1, received a $118 million grant from DOE [Department of Energy] in 2010 as part of the president’s stimulus package,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay. “The money, which went to Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel, aimed to promote renewable energy storage battery technology for electrical grid use.”
101orson101 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
New map for what to plant reflects global warming
.
Global warming is hitting not just home, but garden. The color-coded map of planting zones often seen on the back of seed packets is being updated by the government, illustrating a hotter 21st century.
.
Associated Press
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 19 hours ago
The way i see it is we are preparing for global warming,Carbon tax,income tax ,tax tax tax.But heres where your chat dies! We pay for it but we are not privileged to the benefits that come from it.Deep under ground bases that have been prepared for the select few.Less than 1 billion of us in fact!
MultiGazman 19 hours ago
Which means 6 billion PEOPLE will suffer from the results of global warming,global financial collapse,global starvation,global disease.Why would i or anyone else support your idea when we will be the victims of your idea? Even if none of this happens we are still stuck with declining oil, Coal and a population thats growing exponentially!
MultiGazman 19 hours ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 22 hours ago
Please read the following article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts, which routinely removes my comments, shouts it down like the loser troll he is
Nightversionn 23 hours ago
@Nightversionn Oh sweety. You are so cute when you get mad. BUT? Since no one BUT YOU can actually REMOVE any comments YOU MAKE? You remind me a little bit of "chicken little and the sky is falling". WOW? The same reason a lot of people have stopped listening to those weather forcasters. WHAT a coincidence? Huh? And IF, as you put it? Anyone can actually shout you down? To me that would say you really haven't said a whole lot to really listen to. Hmmm? DUH.
101orson101 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More climate news:
.
Feds ask: Can U.S. withstand extreme weather?
.
After tornadoes, floods, droughts and tropical systems last year caused hundreds of deaths, the disconnect between forecasters and the public has become a major issue, particularly in light climate change, top officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday.
.
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 23 hours ago
Comment removed
ashazaria 23 hours ago
4 words you talk to much
iamswagalitious 1 day ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 day ago
@Nightperversionn You're such a fraud! The subject of the article was about people ignoring warnings, it wasn't about climate change! The writer, obviously a mind numbed card carrying AGW cult member attempted to inject AGW fear mongering into the article, but the fact that you AGW worshippers are trying to suggest that severe weather that resulted from a sever cold winter was caused by warmer weather is just a crazy and ridiculous as it sounds.
TAMPADOC64 1 day ago
@TAMPADOC64 Man-made co2 emission are fueling global warming, which is fueling the extreme weather happening all over the globe
Duh???
Nightversionn 1 day ago
@Nightversionn So warming makes it colder is what you're telling us?
So when your AGW gods told us 10 years ago that snow would become a rare event, what they really meant was there would be so much snow that we would have extreme flooding. That winters would last so long and be so intense it would set off tornados where late winter storms meet spring weather?
DUH?
Yep! I'd put a question mark after your Duh, because you're clueless!
TAMPADOC64 1 day ago
@Nightversionn AQnother VERY good article nighty. I liked it. The operative words in that article though were? LIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE and the DISCONNECT between forcasters and the public. So? In short? A lot of people just don't listen to or don't believe most weather forcasters. Now WHY would that be?. Maybe because they are WRONG more often than right? And people are getting fed up with being scared shitless over what just doesn't happen most of the time. ME TOO!
101orson101 22 hours ago
Climate change news:
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
As the climate dries, Mexico's milk region faces arsenic threat
.
Mexico’s Laguna Region is famed as the country’s largest milk-producing area. But overexploitation of groundwater resources combined with the effects of climate change have contaminated remaining water supplies with arsenic, and related cancer rates are high.
.
Reuters
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
@Nightversionn GOD article nighty. HOWEVER? I find it interesting that you cited REUTERS as the source. Which of course it was NOT. It was ALERTNET, a climate alarmist site, owned by a MAN named Thomas Reuter. NOT Reuters News Service. And the article was actually writen by Ana Belluscio. Who is an Argentine journalist who covers environmental and science issues. This story is part of a series supported by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network. Slick work Nighty?
101orson101 23 hours ago
SO? OK? Then IF the land is going UP and the sea levels are going DOWN because of it? Won't that just continue unless MORE ICE again forms? In other words? One counterbalances the other with either a net gain of nothing or even a net lower sea level? And if the ice grows back/ Won't that lower sea levels too? This sounds like we are getting mixed messages from someone? And either way it blows the crap out of any AL GORE sea level projections. Or anyone elses?
101orson101 1 day ago
And HOW did the NASA group try to explain the drop in the ocean levels? THEY SAID! The land must be going UP??? People who can measure a 2-3mm rise in ocean water can't measure if the land is going UP? Of course they can. But they never said they DID??? THEY just said that IT MUST be that the melting ice took weight off the land so it rose up??? Hmmm?
101orson101 1 day ago
And then of course we have NASA reporting in 2011 that the average ocean levels went DOWN a half an inch. These alarmists want us to freak out over a 2 mm increase in a year. But fail to even mention a half inch DROP in one year? That's kinda strange? A HALF INCH drop in one year? Where did all that water go when they say we are experiencing hotter years that should make the oceans expand and rise? IF ICE is melting so quickly? HOW did the oceans go DOWN? OH? I know? MORE water vapor in the air?
101orson101 1 day ago
YET? These are the same models THEY are using to PROJECT a cataclysmic future of ocean rises of tens of feet in the next 40 years? Temps so high mankind may not be able to exist? BUT? They can't even explain TWO THINGS that actually did happen and are recorded in history? IF you can't make your models conform to historical FACTS? To the point that you have to try to say those points never happened? Your models are screwed up. And NO projections they make can be considered valid.
101orson101 1 day ago
YET? The CO2 levels were a constant during that time? SO? SOMETHING else changed and forced the temps to decrease. THIS is WHY BOTH the LIA and the MWP have been so denied by all the alarmists. Those two periods make junk of all their models and can't be explained. The CO2 was LOWER during the MWP(medieval Warm Period), and the same during the LIA(Little Ice Age)? Yet? The entire northern climate changed for hundreds of years. THEY can't explain that? The models just don't work good enough?
101orson101 1 day ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 day ago
UNLESS, of course, something else was the main driving forcing during these anomolies that the computer models just can't, and aren't, explaining? Now of course during the LIA? SOMETHING was a lot different beside just the rivers in London freezing solid. SNOW and ICE come from water vapor. And we already KNOW that water vapor is a far stronger forcing agent on the atmo than the CO2 components? You can't have snow and ice unless the temps first FALL below the freezing points.
101orson101 1 day ago
Yet? By 1980 the CO2 had gone UP by 180ppm? With ONLY the WWII peak temps bairly going above the average??? So? CO2 started to increase by a huge percentage from 1860 on? BUT? The temps didn't start going much higher until 1990, or slightly therafter? That means that THIS TIME? CO2 had little to no effects on temp for over 150 years?? And the CO2 levels stayed basically constant even though the temps DROPPED during the same period of the LIA? SOMETHING ISN'T making sense?
101orson101 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Bill prepares for one-foot sea level rise by 2050
.
Rep. Cynthia Thielen has introduced a bill to require the state and counties to take into account a predicted sea level rise of one foot by 2050 when reviewing applications for development and future county plans.
Honolulu KITV 4, Hawaii
25 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 day ago
The modern industrial revolution started in 1860 and just continued on. Ice core records from FSU edu show that CO2 stayed almost constant at around 280ppm from 1740 to 1850. And then started an almost linear rise to the current levels. BUT The temp records for that same time are confusing IF CO2 was the driving factor. The little ice age lasted until 1860 and temps stayed BELOW the averages set by todays studies until 1980.
101orson101 1 day ago
Now as animal life expanded almost exponemtially? Two thinks happened? The CO2 levels decreased even with more animals breathing and that life experated increased levels of water vapor. Yet the temp records stay almost flatlined for the last 2000 years? With temp variations over long timespans ranging from -0.4C to +0.4 C. ONLY the Little Ice Age had lower temps than that. The Industrial Revolution was between 1790 and 1860. The very heart of the LIA.
101orson101 1 day ago
Almosr every CO2 study shows that the levels of CO2 have NEVER been as low as they have been in the last two millenium. In fact? The only time it even got close was 300 millin years ago. Befor that? It was as high as 7000ppm. From NOW going back to 200 million years ago? It was as high as 2000ppm. From around 200 million years ago til 550 million years ago. CO2 rose from around 1000ppm to 7000ppm. YET? Life and biodiversity expanded beyond your wildest dreams.
101orson101 1 day ago
The time span of the Phanerozoic includes the rapid emergence of a number of animal phyla; the evolution of these phyla into diverse forms; the emergence of terrestrial plants; the development of complex plants; the evolution of fish; the emergence of terrestrial animals; and the development of modern faunas.
And what is the CO2 record for this timespan?
101orson101 1 day ago
The Phanerozoic (Brit. Phanærozoic) Eon is the current eon in the geologic timescale, and the one during which abundant animal life has existed. It covers roughly 542 million years and goes back to the time when diverse hard-shelled animals first appeared.
101orson101 1 day ago
So the deserts alone show us just what importance water vapor is in the atmo. And the effects of Cosmic rays shows us that it does indeed effect the formation of clouds in the atmo. The formation of clouds is dependent on water vapor. The formation of clouds control BOTH incoming and outgoing solar radiation, as well as Cosmic rays. While the CO2 stays constant under all of these changes? And the history of CO2 over the last 50 million years has been tracked as well?
101orson101 1 day ago
YET? Millions upon millions of dollars are now being spent at CERN and CLOUD on exactly this same one subject forcing? And with KIRBY saying it will take as long as a decade for him to reach an accurate conclusion, which he himself says he is not sure of? WHY this recent push by the AGW alherents? They don't want to wait for the results of one of their own scientists? That does NOT make any sense.
101orson101 1 day ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Obama pledges new efforts on clean energy
.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged new government incentives to boost clean energy, warning that the United States risked being left behind in the new industry by China and Germany.
.
Agence France-Presse
25 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
Now an insight what the IPCC would have us believe?
A role of cosmic rays directly or via solar-induced modulations in climate change was suggested by E.P.Ney in 1959 and by Robert Dickinson in 1975. In recent years, the idea has been revived most notably by Henrik Svensmark; the most recent IPCC study disputed the mechanism, while the most comprehensive review of the topic to date states: "evidence for the cosmic ray forcing is increasing as is the understanding of its physical principles."
101orson101 1 day ago
Hmmm? So there are higher concentrations of Cosmic rays at the top of our atmo that at the botton. TWO other things protect is as well. The Earths own magnetic fields and the SUN's as well. Cosmic rays don't just come from our own sun. The rest come in at us from every direction you can think of. The UNIVERSE speaking to us. That's WHY it's not just sun cycles that are important. The sun, SOL, may generate the solar winds. But the entire cosmos generates much more.
101orson101 1 day ago
Risk: Cosmic rays are high energy particles fired at nearly the speed of light by the Sun, supermassive black holes and supernovae. They have the ability to blast right through your body, damaging DNA as they go. Long term exposure to cosmic rays increases your chances of getting cancer. Fortunately, we have our atmosphere to protect us. As cosmic rays crash into the atmosphere, they collide with the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air.
101orson101 1 day ago
Another little known and less talked about fact from the original CLOUD experiments. When they radiated the CLOUD Chamber with protons from the CERN accelerator. Particulates of only 1nm were produced. BUT? When they turned the protons off and just let the normal background levels of the cosmic rays penetrate the CLOUD Chamber. Particulates of from 2.5-3nm were created with NO OTHER INPUT? And that was buried underground in the caverns at CERN. WHAT protects US from these cosmic rays?
101orson101 1 day ago
And although the climate alarmists have tried to play down the importance of CERN and CLOUD? It should be obvious to almost everyone WHY. Water vapor and what Cosmic rays do to create condensates for clouds to form around is of the utmost importance. Water vapor in the air is the PRIME controler of how much solar radiation we get, and how much is re-radiated back into space at night. And the real kicker is? CERN's CLOUD experiments are being run by an AGW proponent.
101orson101 1 day ago
On a clear day compared o a cloudy one. MORE solar radiation can reach the ground and warm the air. On a cloudy day LESS radiation can get to the ground and the lower atmo. Water vapor is the prime driver of this result. And the same goes for night. At night with low humidity and no cloud cover MORE solar radiation can be re-radiated back into space. On a cloudy night LESS will be re-radiated back into space. THIS is the basic driver. Just like in the deserts of the world.
101orson101 1 day ago
Humidity is defined as the amount of moisture content or water vapor occupying the air at any one time. High humidity occurs in areas where the high moisture content evaporates into the atmosphere. Air expands as it gets warmer, so it can hold much more humidity than cold or frigid air.
Now consider? In any given area at any given time? Which night is more warm? A night with a clear sky? Or a night with an overlaying cloud layer? It's all about solar radiation.
101orson101 1 day ago
Deserts cover 20 percent of the earth's surface yet are the driest regions in the world. Their lack of humidity is particularly striking because hot areas can hold so much moisture. Rainforests, for instance, combine warm air and high precipitation to produce some of the highest areas of humidity in the world. Deserts, on the other hand, are very dry, so they're antithetical to most life.
101orson101 1 day ago
NEXT new thought on the matter. WATER VAPOR. The very heart of the CERN CLOUD experiments. Now WHy is water vapor so important? Simple. Go to any large desert area. What is the temp diference between day and night in the same 24hour period? 30? 40C? Yes. WHY? Obviously the CO2 does not change that quickly overnight? So CO2 can NOT be the driving force. Water vapor is. It's a simple rule. Take for instance the way eHow explains it?
101orson101 1 day ago
A generic white guy with glasses talking to me about Global Warming? Very terrifying.
KingThracian 1 day ago
Climate news...
(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Home, home ... on less range
.
A climate forecast from a group led by researchers at Duke University predicts cattle ranching will suffer as California's ecology and rainfall patterns change in the coming decades.
.
New York Times
23 Jan 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn Hmmm? 15 hours up and no one has tried to shout you down or cover you up? Interesting. That just might make some people think your a liar for even suggesting such a thing?And with me even almost begging you to continue your posts? One might think your paranoia is somewhat sublimating your very life? Now as for the cattle ranching maybe having to move to a diferent area? Well? Hasn't it always since the first cattle ranchers rounded up the herds and drove them? Hmmm?
101orson101 1 day ago
It's Pascal's Wager with global warming.
radioactivestd 2 days ago
Drunk Tank
Vushigi 2 days ago
But I really don't need to. OBUMA has done a much better job on screwing himself than anyone else ever could. Just a shame he's taking all the rest of us on his trip. One thing for sure? He certainly ain't no JFK or Reagan? And his legacy will live in the anals of history for a very long time indeed. HIS legacy is? Once bitten? Twice shy.He'll go down in history as the President that tried to sell this country out.
101orson101 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Weaker sun will not delay global warming
.
A weaker sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said Monday.
.
Reuters
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
Some of Nighties friends say we MUST get rid of the useless eaters. That are just essentially a virus anyway? WHICH ONES? HITLER said everyone but the aryans. The Islamists say everyone but the Muslims. The veggytarians say all the meat eaters. Which ones do you choose to get rid of NIGHTY? OR? Do we just kill off all the animals except man? AND the birds and fish. They breathe too? I wonder how PETA feels about that?
101orson101 2 days ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Obama State of Union address to call for new era of energy
.
President Barack Obama will use his annual State of the Union address to call for a “new era of American energy,” according to advance materials being circulated in Washington.
.
Financial Post
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn Yah NIGHTY? Have you ever heard the saying that you can never overcome the effects of a first impression?
OBUMAS first impression to America really hasn't gone over all that well sweety? The debacle of Van Jones. His involvement in the Chicago Climate Exchange? Him making himself one of those FAT CAT millionaires he so loves to demean in the media to the OWS kiddies? Almost doubling our national debt in 3 years? His loosing bets on solar? I could go on?
101orson101 2 days ago
SO? IS the climate changing and the temps rising? Most likely. As it has always either been going UP or DOWN all thru our entire history. Is it ALL human caused? Get over yourself. Man hasn't even existed a wlink in the eye of geological time and the Earth has seen thousands of changes like this before we even existed. Is mankind contributing? WELL? If one of Nighties comments said Buffaloes are. Then Humans must be as well. As we are ALL animals and breathe and exhale the same.
101orson101 2 days ago
It took us 50 years to make computers cheap enough to be bought by most people? And we still have millions upon millions that still can't afford them. It took 40 years to develope just the cell phone infrastructure. And even longer to spread electric around the country to most homes. It took almost as long to make the 200,000 plus miles of gas lines across the country just to supply the natural gas. And all of that tech was readily available and economically feasable.
101orson101 2 days ago
And they all say? WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! However? Ask any two groups and see if you get the same answer as to WHAT? Carbon tradeing and taxing doesn't decrease CO2 in the least. It just makes CERTAIN PEOPLE richer? As in REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH. And the UN says all the richer countries MUST GIVE all the less wealthy that wealth? OTHERS say we MUST subsidize alternate fuels and cars like the VOLT more? WHO is going to be able to afford to buy them? OR? Do we just GIVE them away?
101orson101 2 days ago
SOME of the AGW crowd are veggytarians. THEY SAY the whole thing is man's fault because we eat meat? Buffaloes and Cows are doing it all? But OTHERS say it's all because we FARM? Farming causes ALL of our problems? While still others say it's all because we catch FISH. And NO TWO of any of the groups much agree on anything except that it's all man's fault? Then WHY was there as much CO2 as 7000ppm BEFORE man even existed? They say volcanoes CAN'T cause it? BUT? Wood fires do.
101orson101 2 days ago
In anotyer post they say If the summers are hotter? It's ALL AGW. If they are colder? It's just an anomoly? If the winters are hotter with less snow? It's all AGW. And when we get blizzards? That's AGW too? in 2011 the temps were cooler and the oceans receeded. THEY SAY? That doesn't count. Hell? They don't even want to admit to the last warm period we had where the temps were about the same as today and humans prospered greatly. NOTHING matters except what THEY SAY causes AGW.
101orson101 2 days ago
No matter what the source of any CO2? IF the Earth and animal life has existed thru periods that had CO2 well in excess of any current levels or even projections BY ANYONE! WHY would the same EARTH NOT BE ABLE to handle it now? In one post NIGHTY and it's friends say it's ALL AGW? In the next NIGHTY says it's the buffalo in INDIA? What next? In one post they say higher temps will cause draught. Then they say it will cuase FLOODS?
101orson101 2 days ago
The Earth has always had built in feedback mechanisms to counter one or the other to bring the globe back to the livable range for man for the last several hundreds of thousands of years. Plant life runs wild in higher CO2 periods. Animal life profits from lower CO2 and higher O2. Life and the carbon cycle has always sequestered CO2 when required. The oceans have always provided an adeqate heat sink for extra heat. So I have to ask another simple question.
101orson101 2 days ago
So let's make some REAL distinctions. Removing ANY of the alleged causes. Temps have fluctuated UP and DOWN for given lengths of time ever since the globe has cooled off enough for ANY life to exist on it to begin with. During that time CO2 has ranged from 200ppm to 7000ppm. And some kind of animal and plant life has existed thru all of those periods. Interglacial periods are always higher than the average and glacial periods always colder. Just common sense.
101orson101 2 days ago
The first results of this research explain a lot of the failures of the AGW models, which relied on CO2 as a trigger for temperature increases with no correlation ever proven and no AGW climate model ever producing an accurate prediction. Let’s stick to actual science rather than blind devotion to faith, which is all that AGW advocates have now to keep going.
Portions were taken from "NATURE" and "HOT AIR".
101orson101 2 days ago
In fact? Every time anyone starts to even talk about CLOUD and CERN. They are almost immediately attacked by the AGW alarmists. WHY? When one of their own scientists is running that CERN CLOUD experiment to begin with?
And it’s not just the CERN research creating a problem for them. They also need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch in 2011 compared to 2010.
Hmmm?
101orson101 2 days ago
But his actual first results actually produced sizes in excess of 2.5nm. Getting much closer to the condensate range.
British newspapers like the Register and the Telegraph have reported on the results from CERN, but it’s not received much attention from the American media. Investors Business Daily wonders why all of those who proclaimed the supposedly “settled science” are now so quiet:
101orson101 2 days ago
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.
So like all first steps. It ended up asking more new questions than it answered. SOME would have you believe that the ONLY results were particlea round 1nm in diameter. MUCH too small to condense clouds
101orson101 2 days ago
SO? "SOMEONE" effectively cancelled the CLOUD experiments at CERN for more than a decade. Now WHY would anyone want to see especially THAT experiment killed? Or more importantly? WHY the big new recent push on the AGW scene again NOW? COULD IT BE? That "SOMEONE: is extremely worried about what the results just may show?
Now the first of Kirby's experiments was done with protons from the collider and produced results that seemed pertinernt.
101orson101 2 days ago
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
101orson101 2 days ago
Doctor Kirby said:
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
WOOPSI! NOT something the AGW alarmist crowds wanted to hear.
Hmmm? So what happemed to CLOUD?
101orson101 2 days ago
Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made a tactical error, by not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
Hmmm? And exactly WHAT candid information did he share?
101orson101 2 days ago
And NOW would seem to be a good time to ask something else here? But first a little background.
Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended a 1996 conference on the effects of Cosmic Rays on the atmoshere. Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance.
101orson101 2 days ago
(read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts shouts it down)
Nightversionn 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Obama State of Union address to call for new era of energy
.
President Barack Obama will use his annual State of the Union address to call for a “new era of American energy,” according to advance materials being circulated in Washington.
.
Financial Post
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Livestock identified as having biggest impact on global warming - even more than carbon monoxide.
.
Forget the toxic fume-spouting industries. Livestock - mainly cows and buffaloes - has been identified as one of the primary contributors of greenhouse gases in India by Brighter Green, a US-based public policy action tank.
.
London Daily Mail
24 January 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn Well what do you know? Even NIGHTY has admitted it now. SO AGW is no longer the prime cause of climate change? NOW it's ANIMALS OTHER than human? YET? I seem to remember something about huge herds of millions upon millions of buffalo roaming the west in America in the 1700s and 1800s? No one has ever blaimed them for AGW. Of course not. THEY would have to be blaimed for BGW. Buffalowpomorphic Global Warming? WHAT? That is no more stupid than AGW?
101orson101 2 days ago
i like this guy. What he says is so true. I agree with him 100% we must act.
evtarver 2 days ago
I lasted 10 seconds!
graybus 2 days ago
You forget that in where Global Warming is real and we do something about it, there will still be an economic depression because whether we wasted the money or not, it was spent. Also, anything good that the US does is being outdone tenfold by the pollution that China is putting out which makes your point invalid besides that Global Warming has been proven false already and that any change is due to the amount of water vapor that is in the air keeping heat in and out.
jeffrewbob 2 days ago
@jeffrewbob China is only just catching up to the US in emissions. We don't compare our rights and responsibilities with China either.
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn WRONG NIGHTY! China has surpassed us already. And their contribution is mainly coal based, which even by your own rules are many times worse that oil. And although you ar right that we can not compare our freedoms and rights to china. AGAIN! BY YOUR OWN RULES! China is now the MOST responsable of all. And percapita? BOTH China and India far oustrip America and are the worse polluters of all. IF you don't hold them responsable even MORE. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
101orson101 2 days ago
Let's assume that the deniers are right,that milions of tons of carbon,soot,methane produced annualy have no impact on the atmosphere whatsoever.How does increased solar activity change chemistry of the oceans,killing plankton(makes about half the oxygen in atmosphere) in the process?How about the great pacific garbage patch?The Amazonian rainforest(40% of oxygen in atmosphere)?That being said the carbon trading scheme(I believe)is an attempt of the elite to squeze blood from the stone.
stlkngyomom 2 days ago
@stlkngyomom
stlkngyomom 2 days ago
I love Pascal's Wager... I'm off to convert to christianity based on that argument, because the risks of gods existance far outweight time spent praying. I'm not saying don't believe in global warming (or god ), but please don't teach arguments surrounded in fallacy.
krronoss11 2 days ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock accounts censors it)..
.
Urgent action needed to prevent England's rivers drying up
.
Unless emergency measures are adopted, some of our finest waterways could be reduced to trickles over the next few decades. This is the stark warning of an Environment Agency study into the predicted impact of climate change on the flow of rivers in England and Wales by 2050.
.
London Observer
22 Jan 2012
Nightversionn 2 days ago
@Nightversionn Oh another FANFUCKINGTASTIC observation. As though rivers have never changed their course or even dried up or new ones created. NEWS FLASH! What do you think created the Great Salten Sea? A NEW riverbed that established itself from the Colorado to the California desert. That had to be artificially damned up to stop it. RIVERS CHANGE YOU NUMB NUTS! MORE wonderful projections and GUESSES from the AGW peanuts gallery.
101orson101 2 days ago
Then I WATCH the PRO OBUMA news media on Cable news. ALL I hear lately is about how Gingrich and Romney made their money? Does anyone doubt that every polito going has made MORE money than you have? BUT? Do we hear anything about how much money the OBUMAS have made just since being elected President? No. IF it's so important to KNOW THIS about the Repub candidates? Why NOT OBUMA? NOW think AGW. If it's so important to know the PRO side? WHY do they keep trying to hide the NEGATIVE side?
101orson101 3 days ago
It kinda reminds me of the PRO OBUMA media blitzes. HE talks about his jobs bill and every media source writes a hundred stories on him and it. BUT? HE nixes the Keyhole which ultimately kills new jobs and almost NO BODY even hears about it. And if they do somehow? It's blaimed on the Republican Party or racial prejudices. OR the TEA PARTY of course? Now I'm no outright saying there is a hidden bias by the media. BUT? One must start to wonder after it happens long enough?
101orson101 3 days ago
NOW? I COULD BE like Nighty and just consistently post entries from climate alarmist blogs. Where it get's most if not all of it's info for AGW. Only in my case that would be blog articles on anti AGW marterials. But as you can see? I don't. Which not so surprisingly leads me to ask a simple question. WHY do CERTAIN media sources always seem to find the PRO AGW articles. But almost none ever run the ANTI AGW? Even though roughly half the people in America don't believe in AGW??
101orson101 3 days ago
This video is supriseingly less scary 5 years later. Humans cant control the climate , but they can control each other through propoganda.
Mk101T 3 days ago
Green plants news all available carbon dioxide for photosynthesis
JonThm 3 days ago
Your very smart, just one thing, by your chart on the coloum under "Yes" wouldn't there also be a depression if man made global climate change was true? cause we would be spending the same money.
TheNikko88 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (>90% likelihood) that we are all being totally screwed
1000frolly 3 days ago
Climate change news..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
World not quite as hot in 2011; ranks 11th warmest
.
The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures. 2011 marks the 35th straight year that global temperatures were warmer than normal. .
.
Associated Press
20 Jan 2012
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@Nightversionn I would appreciate it. If you find it interesting, please do spread the word to others. The climate post should be down about 6 post on the blog but I post several other different, interesting topics for discussion. Thanks for checking it out.
-buchedda
buchedda 3 days ago
@buchedda No problem. And thank you again as well.
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@Nightversionn Yah. That's kinda what my last posts wer all about nighty. YOU SAID:
"2011 marks the 35th straight year that global temperatures were warmer than normal."
Or at least you said they said anyway? But it's that "NORMAL" that I was talking about. Was that the "NORMAL" for an interglacial period? Or were the temps higher because we are now in a current interglacial period? Because "NORMAL" seems to be on a floating scale?
101orson101 3 days ago
@101orson101
it's higher than the average of glacials and interglacials combined, that is the average from now back to the earliest time in our planets history we can measure (so far).
therealsan 3 days ago
@therealsan SO? LET me get this straight? Todays temps are greater than the averages of all glacial and interglacial periods combined? So if you take a glacial average of, oh say, -10c and an interglacial period of, oh say? +2c. ALL as compared to the currentn baselines established between 1960 to 1990. That makes te average of them -6c. SO? I would have to agree. OR? if you wanted to say the glacials were -0.2 and the interglacials +.02? Again? I have to agree.
101orson101 2 days ago
@therealsan Have you understood yet just how stupid that comment was? How do you even compare an integlacial period of 20-40k years to a glacial period of 100-150k? Never mind saying today is higher than the averages of the two. IT HAS TO BE YOU FOOL! We're in the middle of an interglacial. It HAS to be higher than any average of a glacial and integlacial.
101orson101 2 days ago
@Nightversionn And ALL the temps in the last 2,000 yearshave hung just above or just below this misterious "NORMAL" By around 0.2 to 0.6C. So we have a pretty long period of fairly consistent temps? While on the other hand? YOU are only talking about a 20-30 year period? Now since that "NORMAL" you speak of was established by a baseline average from 1960-5 to 1990-5. Half the years BEFORE were LOWER and half were HIGHER. BUT? In 1935-45 it was almost as high as today??? Hmmm?
101orson101 3 days ago
@101orson101 Yes Orson, but what about the MWP? The temps from that have mysteriously disappeared from their averages. It is well documented that it was substantially warmer then for several hundred years. If you put them back in the equation, then temps are just about normal for the last 2000 years.
But let's not confuse Nightperversionn with facts.
TAMPADOC64 3 days ago
@Nightversionn Have you ever wondered WHY when they cite these figueres that it's usually from 1960-65 to today? Because then they can completlely ignore that 1935-45 range of temps. Wheras if they included that time period. The temps today are still only around 0.1 to 0.2C higher. And if you go back to the Medieval Warm Period? There is no difference to speak of.
101orson101 3 days ago
@Nightversionn NOW? IF you also consider that the ocean heat sink effects lag atmo temp changes by as little as 10years, to as long as 20? Air temps are 10 to 20 times more volatile than the oceans waters. And the oceans are 70% by volume the entire surface of the globe. Which simply means there is almost 2 and a half times more ocean areas to convert the land temps. And land temps are restricted to the first 20-30 feet of depth. After that? They remain quite constant.
101orson101 3 days ago
@Nightversionn WHY? Because the land depends strictly on conductivity to move heat around. Where the Oceans use BOTh conductivity and convection to more evenly distribute ocean temps. Hense the ocean currents that drive the climates. Which in the end gives the oceans a tremendous advantage over the air to act as a heat sink. And the laws of thermodynamics controls it all. HEAT always flows from areas of MORE to areas of LESS. Just like differences in air pressure creates wind.
101orson101 3 days ago
I guess i should correct that slightly as there was another temp rise about 6K ago. That was refered to as the Medieval warm period. The average interglacial period as around 10K. So all the way from around 125K years ago until 5-6 K years ago? ALL global temps were well below the average baselines chosen in todays models. In fact? They were almost TEN C colder most of that time. NOT 0.1 or even 0.5 or 0.6. We are talking orders of magnitudes lower.
101orson101 4 days ago
I find that 1944 to 1960 DROP interesting since the world was in full swing rebuilding mode. HUGE industrial outputs and home building and even Hiway construction. That when the Eisenhower interstate hyway construction was building the roads we enjoy now. It took from 1960 to 1980 to work back UP to the average baseline.
And then if you look at the global reconstructed temp data (petit et al) The last time we had temps above our current baseline was around the last integlacial period 125K ago.
101orson101 4 days ago
Climate news..
.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
.
Fracking would emit large quantities of greenhouse gases
Nightversionn 4 days ago
(continued)
.
Opposition to the hydraulic fracturing of deep shales to release natural gas rose last year over worries that the large volumes of chemical-laden water used in the operations could contaminate drinking water.
Now add methane emissions to the growing list of environmental risks posed by fracking.
.
Scientific American
21 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 days ago
So in reality? We have been working OUT of that Little Ice Age for the last 175 years. If this is not a long term cyclical effect? There never was one. So from 1944 or so until 1965 the average temps DROPPED 0.6C. And in 1600 that average temp was 0.8C BELOW the current averages used for the model data. The temps peaking from 1935 to 1945 is understandable because of all the heat caused by WWII. BUT? Immediately AFTER WWII? Until 1960? The average temps DROPPED 0.4C.
101orson101 4 days ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 4 days ago
Then in 1880 there was a peak above that baseline. Then it went back down to 0.6C LOWER by 1910. Then by WWII in 1942-4 it peaked back UP again to just above the current baselines. In fact? The last time the average global temp was even equal to that baseline was in 1000. From 1000 to theearly 1900's, ALL average temps were well below the current baselines. WHY would that be? Because from 1000 to 1850 we slipped into the Little Ice Age that froze the rivers in England solid.
101orson101 4 days ago
There's a funny anomoly about graphs. Just look at all the different models and you will find vast differences between them. WHY? Because they are models and certain base line info is assumed. Like for instance the base line itself. HOW do you determine which baseline you will use? For instance? If you took the baseline from say 1850 to 1860? Admittedly only a ten year period. You would find that average temp was 0.6C lower than the baselines selected by all modern models.
101orson101 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
CHIPSTERO7 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok new currents. LOL we see that all the time on small scales. GLOBAL WARMING IS FROM THE OCEAN WARMING. SEA LIFES MAKE MOST CO2 ON THIS PLANET. ONCE IT STARTS LEANING ONE WAY YOU ARE FUCKED. IT WILL KEEP ON WARMING AS SEA LIFE(FUGI and Bacteria) SPREAD MAKING EVEN MORE CO2. THEN WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEPOPULATION COMING AND YOU ARE STILL MAKING WAVES. SO WHAT IS THE DEAL? SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT AS AN INVESTMENT (MONEY). YOU NEED THAT INVESTMENT (Clean energy). I WATCH C-SPAN.
killerbee04x 4 days ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser his is)..
.
2011 was ninth-warmest year since 1880: NASA
.
The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.
.
Reuters
20 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@Nightversionn WOW!!! Same article.
"The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline."
OMG!!! 0.5 C higher in 70 years? Half of one degree C?? Kinda blows that old hocky stick graph all to hell now? Doesn't it?
101orson101 4 days ago
Hey guys. I finally made a blog for politics and news (yes, there are post about global warming). Often I do not get to fully respond to all post on youtube, so I made a blog where I could go to often and be able to post more thorough comments and actually have a discussion. If you want to check it out, anyone can comment : bite-sizereality*blogspot*com ...if you are a gmail or blogger user, follow the blog once I get the button up for that. Hope to see your names on the blog soon!
buchedda 4 days ago
@buchedda That's really great. I'll try to make time to read it, and thanks for raising awareness about climate change
Nightversionn 4 days ago
Climate news (read it before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it or shouts it down like the loser he is):
.
Sea rise predictions lead Florida researchers to consider adaptation
.
A Florida Institute of Technology professor and his students will take part in a $1.5 million study to predict sea-level rise in Cape Canaveral and several other regions on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and then spell out ways communities can adapt.
.
Melbourne Florida Today, Florida
19 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@Nightversionn RIGHT NIGHTY. And you said MONEY had nothing to do with it? 1.5 million dollars for a professor and some students to measure sea levels sounds like money to me?
101orson101 4 days ago
And NIGHTY's best defense is? Calling everyone an OILTROLL? Like I have said before?
Nighty is as original as the thousandth copy of a mimeograph on an out house wall saying PLEASE WASH YOUR HANDS AFTER SHITTING.
In reality NIGHTY? No one needs a puppet account to call you out. Nor do they have to be an OIL TROLL? They just have to be a thinking and reasoning human being without delusions of grandure. ie. A person who understands the realities of climate alarmists.
101orson101 5 days ago
FINALLY! Something they thought they could draw the entire world into supporting. Right up until too many people began to see through that agenda. When the carbon trading system, and almost everyone involved in it, was exposed as the fraud it was. When Cap and Trade was exposed as a money making scheme that actually didn't do anything to limit or reduce CO2? When energy costs started to go thru the roof and more and more people just couldn't afford it anymore.
101orson101 5 days ago
Through this reasoning we should spend trillions on a deathstar-style laser beam to defend against alien motherships. The cost would be offset by the fact we wouldn't be enslaved/killed in the eventuality that aliens invade. herp derp.
youcansuckmeofftube 5 days ago
Comment removed
forwwater 5 days ago
OH? You can dress that pig up with pretty words like SUSTAINABLE. But even with pretty lipstick? It's still just a pig. IT has one simple agenda. Create a world wide power structure to make all countries adhere to it's demands, and the international police force to enforce it. And they knew to become a world wide political enforcement agency. They would have to base it on a world wide cause. They tried WAR and failed misserably. ie. EVERY UN peace mission ever conceived. THEN came MAURICE/KYOTO
101orson101 5 days ago
IF SO NIGHTY? THANK YOU. I've always found it interesting that condescention is prevelent in those who think they are always right and everyone else is wrong. For instance? Your complete dependance on calling anyone who opposes you an OIL TROLL, or a sock puppet? When in reality? We could just as easily call you an AL GORE CLIMATE ALARMIST ZEALOT? Or a puppet of THE UNITED NATIONS? After all? YOU are supporting the UN positions fervently, as a good puppet obviously would. ie. Agenda 21?
101orson101 5 days ago
A blog (a blend of the term web log) is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject.
In this case? ONE PERSONS personal views on climate alarmism.
Or is it that you think, nighty, that your BLOGS are inherently more trustworthy or factual than anyone elses? Demonstating of course that you think YOU and YOURS are always right and everyone else is wrong?
101orson101 5 days ago
@Nightversionn Once again nighty? VERY interesting and I thank you again. WHY? Simple. The qualifications listed in your report cited. For instance? The term, "For many parts of Pennsylvania." NOT all of Pennsylvania. NOT all of the USA? Hmmm? Wasn't it YOU and some of your friends who have said that you can't take purely localized events or conditions as evidence of ANYTHING? That you can't even take a decade of temp records to prove any long term events?
101orson101 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 5 days ago
Photosynthesis prevents have gone up of carbon dioxide in the air-no matter how stupid you are! And how much money nuclear power pays you
JonThm 5 days ago
Evidence/impacts of climate change series...
.
(Please read it before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it, or shouts it down like the loser he is)..
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@Nightversionn Then of course we also have THE SOURCE of that very last story you cited NIGHTY? ShanB's BLOG? Just what the argument needs? Another BLOG to draw your information from. Or don't you remember saying? All the deniers get all their information from BLOGS and thus can not be trusted?
101orson101 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Simply the most shocking series you would ever see
Search For
"THE GREAT DISASTERS"
eliasmouawad 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk
SMDLightEvolution 5 days ago
In fact? One of my favorite cleche's is?
Turn about is fair play. OR? All is fair in love and war? And of course? Morality depends on who you speak to. For instance/ SOME people here say all rich people are inherently evil. And then they say how it's only moral, for THEM, to steal that money back? Or give it all to other people who never earned a dime in their entire lives? Strange how perspective dominates our beliefs. OR? Our beliefs dominate our perspectives. People is the craziest animals.
101orson101 5 days ago
@101orson101 Your comments are grammatically correct?
forwwater 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@101orson101 Your comments are grammatically correct?
forwwater 5 days ago
OR? Maybe we should just lobotomize all the people who say they want to kill all the meat eaters. As a meat eater? I think that is definately Better safe than sorry.
Another cute quip is? You better watch out what you wish for. You just might get it? For instance? WE could TAX all the Alarmists to pay for all the economic loses they would cause the rest of the world. That seems only fair to me? THEY cause it. THEY pay for it? That's what they say about us oil burners? RIGHT?
101orson101 5 days ago
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Cute little quips that are supposed to prove something?
The last one could even justify bombing the shit out of IRAN. Because it would be better to make sure they didn't have the bomb rather than trust them that they aren't going to use it against everyone when they do get it?
Better to be safe than sorry?? OR? Better to arrest all the alarmists and put them in jail before they can do anything even more stupid than they already have?
101orson101 5 days ago
Aren't cleche's an amazing thing? Better s