# The Global Warming thread



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp

*What is Global Warming?*

 		The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, attributable in great part to the effects of globalization and man. More carbon  		dioxide is now in the atmosphere than has been in the past 650,000 years. This carbon stays in the atmosphere, acts like a  		warm blanket, and holds in the heat ??? hence the name ???global warming.???
 		 		The reason we exist on this planet is because the earth naturally traps just enough heat in the atmosphere to keep the temperature within a very narrow range - this creates the conditions that give us breathable air, clean water, and the weather we depend on to survive. Human beings have begun to tip that balance. We've overloaded the atmosphere with heat-trapping gasses from our cars and factories and power plants. If we don't start fixing the problem now, we???re in for devastating changes to our environment. We will experience extreme temperatures, rises in sea levels, and storms of unimaginable destructive fury. Recently, alarming events that are consistent with scientific predictions about the effects of climate change have become more and more commonplace.



*Environmental Destruction*

 		The massive ice sheets in the Arctic are melting at alarming rates. This is causing the oceans to rise. That???s how big these ice sheets are! Most of the world???s population lives on or near the coasts. Rising ocean levels, an estimated six feet over the next 100 years or sooner, will cause massive devastation and economic catastrophe to population centers worldwide.
  		The United States, with only four percent of the world???s population, is responsible for 22% of the world???s greenhouse  		gas emissions. A rapid transition to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources will combat global warming, protect human  		health, create new jobs, protect habitat and wildlife, and ensure a secure, affordable energy future.



*Health Risks*

 		Malaria. Dengue Fever. Encephalitis. These names are not usually heard in emergency rooms and doctors???s offices in the United States. But if we don???st act to curb global warming, they will be. As temperatures rise, disease-carrying mosquitoes and rodents spread, infecting people in their wake. Doctors at the Harvard Medical School have linked recent U.S. outbreaks of dengue (???breakbone???s) fever, malaria, hantavirus and other diseases directly to climate change.



*Catastrophic Weather*

 		Super powerful hurricanes, fueled by warmer ocean temperatures are the ???smoking gun??? of global warming. Since 1970, the number of category 4 and 5 events has jumped sharply. Hurricane Katrina, in September 2005 almost became a category 6 event. Human activities are adding an alarming amount of pollution to the earth???s atmosphere causing catastrophic shifts in weather patterns. These shifts are causing severe heat, floods and worse.



*Five Things We Can All Do*


*Join StopGlobalWarming.org*. Together our voices will be heard!
Spread the world, share the learning.  Send this link to family, friends, and colleagues. Share why this is so important.
Change begins at home. (See the list home-related *Action Items*)
Put the heat on your elected officials.
The power of the pocketbook.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

*Around the World, Warmer Temperatures Mean More Infections *

*by*:  Joy Victory    25 April  2006 
 	 April 25, 2006 - - At first glance, an outbreak of diarrhea among passengers on board a cruise ship in Alaskan waters in the summer of 2004 seemed to be relatively harmless.

Health officials theorized it might be the Norwalk virus, a bug that often affects people living in close quarters, such as in nursing homes, hospitals and cruise ships. While certainly annoying, Norwalk usually doesn't cause
serious illness.

But then the lab reports started trickling in, and it showed that indeed a more serious problem was at hand -- many of the afflicted the passengers had eaten raw oysters raised in Alaska that were infected with a type of
cholera-like bacteria, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, that normally grows on shellfish harvested in much warmer waters.

The finding not only signaled a dangerous new risk to the Alaskan seafood industry, it also highlighted how surprisingly and directly global warming can affect human health, particularly in terms of infectious diseases, experts say.

"Depending on the warming trend that unfolds in the years ahead, we have to accept that habitats will change ... new bugs can be expected to settle in. Every organism will find a niche," said epidemiology professor Colin Soskolne, of the University of Alberta in Canada. "With the tampering of the environment, we really can't predict with much certainty exactly what those
changes will be."

Not Safe for Consumption

Global warming is caused by an increase in carbon dioxide and other industrial and auto emissions, which trap heat in the atmosphere and
increase air and water temperatures.

While he has personally noticed Alaska's shrinking glaciers and ice floes, global warming wasn't on the mind of Dr. Joseph McLaughlin as he
investigated the cruise ship disease outbreak.

He simply wanted to know why the oysters were suddenly at risk -- before this outbreak, no seafood in Alaska had ever tested positive for Vibrio because the ocean water was simply too cold for the bacteria to multiply.

But that was no longer true: An analysis showed that Alaskan water was no longer as chilly as it once was, giving Vibrio a new home up north.

"There's a sort of threshold level, above which concentrations of Vibrio in oysters become (accumulated) enough to cause illness in humans," said McLaughlin, a medical epidemiologist with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services in Anchorage. "That temperature is about 15 degrees Celsius. What we found was that 2004 was the first summer on record during which the temperature exceeded that."

Or as McLaughlin said in a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine last October: "Rising temperatures of ocean waters seem to have contributed to one of the largest known outbreaks of V. parahaemolyticus in the United States."

The warmer water is unlikely to go away. Buoys placed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in 1976 have detected a steady annual
increase of .4 degrees in the Gulf of Alaska, he said.

"We're not talking about a little bay in Prince William Sound," McLaughlin said.

Thankfully, the state health department got the word out about the outbreak and advised oyster farm owners to keep oysters deep enough where they would not be exposed to water any warmer than about 15 degrees C.

It is just one of the many ways that Alaskans have had to adapt to documented changes in the climate and environment, McLaughlin said. But it
serves as a strong warning signal.

"We thought this was probably the best example of the potential of global warming impacting human health, as far as available evidence goes,"
McLaughlin said.

Mosquitoes and Ticks Spreading

Across the world, another microscopic bug, malaria, has caused havoc in the lowlands of Africa. It is transmitted by mosquitoes, which thrive in hot, damp areas near stagnant bodies of water.

Until recently, the mile-high city of Nairobi, Kenya, was relatively free of the disease.

But now Nairobi, despite its elevation and climate, is in the midst of a malaria outbreak.

And like the Alaskan bacterial outbreak, warmer temperatures are to blame, say scientists with the University of Michigan, the University of Hawaii, the University of Barcelona in Spain and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

In their report, published in last month's Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, they determined that the mosquitoes were thriving in part because it was steadily getting warmer in East Africa's higher altitudes.

This comes as no to surprise to public health researcher Dr. Paul Epstein, the associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School and a medical doctor trained in tropical public health.

Along with mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, yellow fever and West Nile virus, tick-borne diseases also are an increasing problem, he said.

When winters are milder, more deer ticks produce year-round, transmitting infections such as Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease cases increased from 11,700 cases in 1995 to 21,304 cases in 2005. This year could be a bad one for diseases spread by warm weather-loving insects -- 2005 was the warmest year in the last 100 years, said NASA scientists.

This not only causes more biting bugs to flourish, it also indirectly impacts humans' health in other ways. For example, when trees are weakened by drought, such as what's happening in pine forests from Alaska to Arizona,
beetles eat the bark, weakening the trees even more and making them prone to wildfires, Epstein said.

And those wildfires not only release more harmful carbon dioxide and soot into the atmosphere, they trigger another major health effect of globalwarming: asthma.

Ragweed Loves Carbon Dioxide

For years, doctors have noted an increase in asthma and allergies.

While no one can link the increase directly to global warming, Epstein has strong evidence: When ragweed -- one of the most allergenic plants on the planet -- is grown in a carbon dioxide-rich environment, it grows 10 percent
faster than normal, but produces 60 percent more pollen.

While that's good for the plants, it's bad for people. Most people are allergic to something, and often it is plant pollen. In children especially, being exposed to an allergen can trigger a dangerous asthmatic response, or
inflammation of the lungs.

"As we see the seasons change and warmer weather has an earlier arrival in the spring, we're beginning to see shifts in asthma and allergies," Epstein said.

What's worse, he said, is that the tiny dust particles emitted from diesel fuel attach to plant pollens, and these diesel particles further irritate the lining of the lung.

Though there haven't been published studies showing that the rise in asthma cases is tied to global warming, Epstein said it is.

"We're seeing it and we're all experiencing it," he said.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 29, 2006)

_http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=47580_


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2006)

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1189734&postcount=27


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

global warming is a load of doodoo!


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showpost.php?p=1189734&postcount=27


Could it be that all those Massive Huricanes lately are sucking the warmth from the waters that would normally be flowing through this gulf stream. Maybe the Global Warming is warming and melting the Polar ice just enough to create a Swamp Cooler effect thus making the temps seem cooler in the summer. When these Swamp Cooler air currents meet up with the warmer tropical water tmeps we get these massive hurricanes. Have you noticed the rise in Humidity and rainfall lately?


----------



## Vieope (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> That thread is worthless and old.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Vieope said:
			
		

>


I deleted that post....Jodi might see it and ban me for another day


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Question #1) When did the current warming trend start?

Question #2) Is this the hottest the world has ever been?


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2006)

Due to the Swamp cooler effect critics of global warming think they have proof that there is no global warming, sad thing is that they don't look at the fact that glaciers around the world have shrunk in size drastically over the past century.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

In a geological timescale, we have been on earth such a short time that we can't even begin to blame "global warming" on green house gasses and such. Even if the earth is warming, it may just be a normal cycle that the earth goes through.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Due to the Swamp cooler effect critics of global warming think they have proof that there is no global warming, sad thing is that they don't look at the fact that glaciers around the world have shrunk in size drastically over the past century.



Care to answer my two questions?


----------



## Vieope (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I deleted that post....Jodi might see it and ban me for another day


_No it is fine. We are just debating. 
Damn what did you do to get banned? _


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 29, 2006)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _No it is fine. We are just debating. _
> _Damn what did you do to get banned? _


He was born.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]An Overwhelming Consensus[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]The most important fact to note when discussing the issue of global climate change is that, *for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.*[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Of course there is still a very small group of scientists who remain skeptical about whether climate change exists and whether humans have caused it, but their number and the strength of their arguments are so insignificant that they should not be interpreted as representing the forefront of their field. The plain fact is that there always is, and always ought to be, scientific dissent about every theory that has been devised. That's how science works - through open questioning and testing of hypotheses.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]    [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]We don't want to censor the tiny number of dissenting scientists, but we do think that it's very important to place their ideas in context. The immense majority of scientific experts have concluded that the claims of these skeptics are just plain incorrect, not fitting with the huge amount of data on global climate change that has been collected.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Scientific consensus is never a final determination of truth, and we must retain the freedom for scientists to disagree with the current consensus. However, when it comes to global climate change, the issue is what public policy-makers ought to do on a practical level. On a practical level, it's insane to wait for absolutely universal consensus before taking action. We need to work with the best information we've got, and the best information overwhelmingly points to serious, human-induced global climate change.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]As much as science works through dissent, it also works through peer review. That means that when one scientist comes up with certain findings, they need to be replicated by other scientists. The process of peer review is what enabled the scientific community to quickly debunk the popular craze about cold fusion energy technology, and it's what prevents scientists in general from simply making outlandish statements about what they believe to be true. Consistent evidence that fits with a hypothesis is necessary before that hypothesis is treated as true.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]For this reason, it is inappropriate to claim that one dissenting voice is capable of destroying a theory that has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. There are still people who claim that the Earth is really flat, but they can't back up their claims in a peer-reviewed process, and that's why they're not taken seriously. Creation "scientists" too, make plenty of claims, but those claims are not capable of withstanding review by other scientists, and so they are dismissed. When it comes to global climate change, there are dissenters, but they have not been able to come up with significant information that meets the standards of their peers. So, as earnest as these individuals are, we do not have any reason to trust that their ideas are reliable.[/FONT]


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _No it is fine. We are just debating.
> Damn what did you do to get banned? _


3x now


----------



## Pepper (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> Even if the earth is warming, it may just be a normal cycle that the earth goes through.


 
Word!


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Common Myths Related To Global Climate Change[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]The ideological opposition of Republican elites has led to the development of a series of myths about global climate change. These myths, perpetuated by Republican think tanks and pundits, are not well-founded in truth, but serve the purpose of creating the appearance of uncertainty in the minds of the voting public.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*Myth 1: Global climate change models predict warming at the poles, but this isn't taking place.*[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Observable effects of global climate change are taking place all over the globe, but are especially strong at the poles and at high altitudes. "Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime," says Daniel Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey Global Change Research Program. "It's like watching the Statue of Liberty melt."[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]In just the last 30 years, arctic sea ice has thinned by 10 percent. Greenland's ice sheet is rapidly shrinking. Freshwater ice breakup in the Northern Hemisphere occurs nine days earlier now than it did 150 years ago. In parts of Alaska, the thawing of what was once known as "permafrost" has caused the ground to subside more than 15 feet. Robert Pinkel a member of the Arctic Council's research team, states, _"What's happening in the Arctic isn't subtle. It's happening very fast, and... it's fairly convincing that on the scale of our lifetimes very dramatic things will be happening."_[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]In the Antarctic, there is less data than in the Arctic. This is for the simple reason that there are fewer researchers able to gain access to the environment there. However, the data that exists suggests serious climate change is striking Antarctica. The interior of the continent has remained cool, but the continental edges have warmed dramatically, causing major ice sheets to collapse and break away from the Antarctic land mass. Additionally, the ocean around Antarctica has been strongly affected. For example, as the result of a rise in the temperature of Antarctic waters, krill populations have dropped by 80 percent over the last 25 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*Myth 2: Sea levels can't possibly be caused by Antarctic ice shelves breaking away, because the ice shelves are already floating.*[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]This preposterous idea has gained a great deal of attention in Republican circles, where political operatives are eager to grab onto any possible means through which to minimize the threat of global climate change. The idea that Republicans promote is that ice shelves float around on the water whether they are attached to a land mass or not, so it doesn't matter that huge portions of the Antarctic ice shelves are breaking away.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Actually, recent research has shown that coastal ice shelves do impact sea level significantly. When the ice shelves remain intact and attached to a land mass, they inhibit the flow of continental glaciers into the ocean. When the ice shelves break off, the rate of glacial flow into the sea speeds up dramatically. Additionally, when ice shelves free themselves from attachment to land, they become more vulnerable to further breakup, so that the total mass, with an increased surface area, melts more quickly into the ocean. Also, free ice shelves are able to move into warmer waters, another factor that accelerates their disintegration, contributing to rising sea levels.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Whatever Republicans like to argue about ice shelves and sea levels, the fact is that rising sea levels are an objectively observed reality. Scientists have noted an increase in sea levels for years - a fact that is related to an increase of Arctic and Antarctic melt and an increase in water temperatures.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*Myth 3: The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.*[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Republicans are eager to cite what they call the "Medieval Warm Period" as proof that global climate change is a purely natural event, a nothing to worry about. They claim that global temperatures in medieval times exceeded the global temperatures of today, and were the result of purely natural causes. However, the scientific review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strongly rejected the validity of this claim, and found that warming trends today are more dramatic than at any time in the last thousand years.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]This myth is based on a number of false premises. First of all, the increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence for significant warming in Europe in medieval times is not completely clear. Republican analysts frequently confuse evidence of drought with evidence for temperature increase, and so make a leap of faith when they make their claims of a "Medieval Warm Period". The temperatures we record today are reliable figures collected directly without the need for such stretched supposition.[/FONT]


[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
[/FONT]


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Word!


 [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Later is Too Late[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Regarded as a whole, the Republican position on global climate change seems like nothing more than a retreat into a pre-scientific mode of intolerant persecution of ideas that dare to stray from the orthodoxy of the system in power. The arguments used to deny global climate change are embarrassingly similar to the arguments used to deny biological evolution or to insist that the Earth really is flat.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]

*In the face of scientific data, Republican anti-scientific propaganda falls apart*. Global climate change is happening, and it is adversely affecting human lives now. Economies are already suffering. Food supplies are in jeopardy. Animal and plant populations are shifting, and with them, diseases are being introduced into new areas of human habitation. Deadly and expensive extreme weather events are on the increase.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]What scientists predicted 20 years ago is beginning to happen now. Research must continue, and dissent should persist as well, to ensure that the research that is conducted is competently done. However, the time when inaction could be excused by the need for more research is over.[/FONT]
  [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*The threat is clear and present. Purposeful disinformation campaigns by Republicans are endangering human lives.* Those who choose to do nothing about global climate change are risking the stability of civilization itself for the sake of their personal luxury.[/FONT]
[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Our generation is being called upon to act with responsibility. We will be judged harshly by future generations if we fail to address global climate change, the greatest challenge of our time.[/FONT]


----------



## Little Wing (Apr 29, 2006)

argghhh i'll all read this as soon as i get rid of this damn headache.... good stuff.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Later is Too Late[/FONT]
> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Regarded as a whole, the Republican position on global climate change seems like nothing more than a retreat into a pre-scientific mode of intolerant persecution of ideas that dare to stray from the orthodoxy of the system in power. The arguments used to deny global climate change are embarrassingly similar to the arguments used to deny biological evolution or to insist that the Earth really is flat.[/FONT]
> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]
> [/FONT]
> ...


 
Yeah, you are right both macro-evolution and global warming have been PROVEN by science. 

Research SHOULD continue. Maybe the earth is warming. I just think you have to consider that there are cycles of weather that far exceed the time we have been able to observe and measure changes.

On an unrelated note, the gas prices that the democrats are bitching about and blaming the Republicans for are exactly the gas prices they have wanted all along - except via a higher gas tax. Now the free-market does the same thing and the sky is falling.

That is OT, but I had to get it off my chest.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 29, 2006)

Couldn't the fact that the earth's tilt rotates every 26,000 years make it difficult to assume that any current trend is indicative of changes made by human behavior?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> *Yeah, you are right both macro-evolution and global warming have been PROVEN by science*.
> 
> Research SHOULD continue. Maybe the earth is warming. I just think you have to consider that there are cycles of weather that far exceed the time we have been able to observe and measure changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pepper (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


 
That is one hell of an arguement there. You should have been an attorney. Clever graphics always help convince people.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> That is one hell of an arguement there. You should have been an attorney. Clever graphics always help convince people.


 *A picture is worth a thousand words *


----------



## Pepper (Apr 29, 2006)

Well, the ones in your "should foreman stay" thread are worth 1,000 words.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Well, the ones in your "should foreman stay" thread are worth 1,000 words.


#15


----------



## Super Hulk (Apr 29, 2006)

my globes are warm right now ! both of em


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> That is one hell of an arguement there. You should have been an attorney. Clever graphics always help convince people.





Simply put, the current warming trend started 200,000 years ago (just a bit before the Industrial age) and this is not the warmest the planet has ever been.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Simply put, the current warming trend started 200,000 years ago (just a bit before the Industrial age) and this is not the warmest the planet has ever been.


 [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.


*No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2006)

Whether pollution causes global warming I could care less about.  Whether Every time I go to LA and see that nasty brown haze.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

I love how conservatives can never admit to global warming.  They always have to say "MIGHT" be warming.  Please, look at the ferocity of weather and climate change.  People living in some northern russian towns have to move because there town is on a ice sheet, and it's melting.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I love how conservatives can never admit to global warming.  They always have to say "MIGHT" be warming.  Please, look at the ferocity of weather and climate change.  People living in some northern russian towns have to move because there town is on a ice sheet, and it's melting.



Global Warming is real.  It's just that I've never seen a report (or even heard of one) that indicates what amount of heating is natural and what amount is caused by humans.

The current warming trend started 200,000 years ago.  What, was that mankind's fault?  The Earth has gone through, and will go through more, warming and cooling phases.  It's a fact of life here on Earth.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Global Warming is real.  It's just that I've never seen a report (or even heard of one) that indicates what amount of heating is natural and what amount is caused by humans.
> 
> The current warming trend started 200,000 years ago.  What, was that mankind's fault?  The Earth has gone through, and will go through more, warming and cooling phases.  It's a fact of life here on Earth.



[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.


*No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.
> 
> 
> *No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]



What "scientific community"?  When it comes to causes, the "scientific community" are usually the scientists that agree with your idea.  You linked to a site called _Stop Global Warming Now_, not _Let's Determine If Global Warming Exists _or _There Are Better Reasons To Stop Pollution_.  Just because you found a site that share's your beliefs doesn't make them a fact.

Sure, scientists agree that the planet is warming up.  Now, read this carefully: The Earth in in a warming phase. Just one of many over 4.5 billion years.  

Man may have a hand in it, but to what degree?  This is something I've _*NEVER *_seen mentioned in any report.  Go ahead, try to find one.  You won't because it doesn't exist.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.
> 
> 
> *No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]


Hey Dumb Shit, if you had waited you wouldn't have needed to post your cut-and-paste shit twice.  Get some fucking patience and stop pretending that you're learning (on your third degree!, Ha!) and actually learn and stop regurgitating shit that you _*think *_is true.

Fucking moron.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

True Story, I'm gonna have to go with the scientific community on this one.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Hey Dumb Shit, if you had waited you wouldn't have needed to post your cut-and-paste shit twice.  Get some fucking patience and stop pretending that you're learning (on your third degree!, Ha!) and actually learn and stop regurgitating shit that you _*think *_is true.
> 
> Fucking moron.


You need to read it more than twice Einstein.....simple fact is...
_[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.


*No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]_


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.
> 
> 
> *No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]



Wow, if I haven't seen such a load of utter bullshit in my life. That isn't the professional scientific community's consensus, it is whoever wrote that article's consensus.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> Wow, if I haven't seen such a load of utter bullshit in my life. That isn't the professional scientific community's consensus, it is whoever wrote that article's consensus.




lawl, what do you find BS about it?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> Wow, if I haven't seen such a load of utter bullshit in my life. That isn't the professional scientific community's consensus, it is whoever wrote that article's consensus.


Just click on the links and you will see.........son


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> lawl, what do you find BS about it?



There were studies done in Antarctica where geologists dug very far into the ice and found that the CO2 deposits(from 100's of years ago) in it were much higher than those found currently. CO2 is also the most "popular" green house gas emitted and people blame the abundance of this gas to cause global warming. Explain that. I repeat, on a geological timescale we can't being to make assumptions(and even "facts" for that matter) about global warming caused by human technologies.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> There were studies done in Antarctica where geologists dug very far into the ice and found that the CO2 deposits(from 100's of years ago) in it were much higher than those found currently. CO2 is also the most "popular" green house gas emitted and people blame the abundance of this gas to cause global warming. Explain that. I repeat, on a geological timescale we can't being to make assumptions(and even "facts" for that matter) about global warming caused by human technologies.


Give it up.  Your using logic to appeal to him and it won't work.  See, he read it on a website (and maybe heard a sound bite) so that makes it a *fact*.

Here's hoping that he finds ILikeToTakeItInTheAssFromHorses.com.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Give it up.  Your using logic to appeal to him and it won't work.  See, he read it on a website (and maybe heard a sound bite) so that makes it a fact.
> 
> Here's hoping that he finds ILikeToTakeItInTheAssFromHorses.com.



_[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.


*No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]_


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> There were studies done in Antarctica where geologists dug very far into the ice and found that the CO2 deposits(from 100's of years ago) in it were much higher than those found currently. CO2 is also the most "popular" green house gas emitted and people blame the abundance of this gas to cause global warming. Explain that. I repeat, on a geological timescale we can't being to make assumptions(and even "facts" for that matter) about global warming caused by human technologies.




True Story, it's a combination of both.  There is no doubt humans have exacerbated the situation.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Give it up.  Your using logic to appeal to him and it won't work.  See, he read it on a website (and maybe heard a sound bite) so that makes it a *fact*.
> 
> Here's hoping that he finds ILikeToTakeItInTheAssFromHorses.com.



 



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> _[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.
> 
> 
> *No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]_


----------



## Trouble (Apr 29, 2006)

Interesting thread.

Most of what's pointed out here is probably close to the truth, although there may be superimposed natural trends and other factors (land-use changes, aerosols and ozone depleting pollutants, regional effects from urban thermal effects) that are also contributing to the observed climate change patterns.

Note to Fufu and DOMS.  I'm an environmental professional. me and passle of enivronmental scientists are pretty sure that this isn't a wholly natural condition.  For purposes of debate, back up your skepticism with fact, eh?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

>


*Global Warming Fast Facts*

                                        Brian Handwerk
for *National Geographic News*

                                        December 6, 2004

 ??? The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average *temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average*. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.  
 The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.





 ??? Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.


* But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past*???and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe???yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. 




??? Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million???and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s.



Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide also contain heat and help keep Earth's temperate climate balanced in the cold void of space. Human activities, burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up. The gases linger in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even a complete halt in emissions would not immediately stop the warming trend they promote.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Global Warming Fast Facts*
> 
> Brian Handwerk
> for *National Geographic News*
> ...



I see you know how to copy and paste.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

Trouble said:
			
		

> Interesting thread.
> 
> Most of what's pointed out here is probably close to the truth, although there may be superimposed natural trends and other factors (land-use changes, aerosols and ozone depleting pollutants, regional effects from urban thermal effects) that are also contributing to the observed climate change patterns.
> 
> Note to Fufu and DOMS.  I'm an environmental professional. me and passle of enivronmental scientists are pretty sure that this isn't a wholly natural condition.  For purposes of debate, back up your skepticism with fact, eh?



neg


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I see you know how to copy and paste.


And how to do research....you should try it son.

You keep posting unsupported opinions and I will post facts.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)




----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And how to do research....you should try it son.
> 
> You keep posting unsupported opinions and I will post facts.



neg


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> neg


Prove it son.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Prove it son.



I don't have a link but let's just say I got that information from a very reliable source. You're gonna have to trust me on this one cutie.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I don't have a link but let's just say I got that information from a very reliable source. You're gonna have to trust me on this one cutie.


Case and point, most Republican wingnuts   use the bible as their only facts


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Case and point, most Republican wingnuts   use the bible as their only facts



Mmmm I could go for some fried wingnuts right now. num nums


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> Mmmm I could go for some fried wingnuts right now. num nums


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>



neg! It is funny seeing a white Jesus.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> It is funny seeing a white Jesus.


*#15*


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> _*And how to do research*_....you should try it son.
> 
> You keep posting unsupported opinions and I will post facts.



Absolute bullshit.  Other people give you your opinions.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Trouble said:
			
		

> Note to Fufu and DOMS.  I'm an environmental professional. me and passle of enivronmental scientists are pretty sure that this isn't a wholly natural condition.  For purposes of debate, back up your skepticism with fact, eh?



Let me guess, then next time we talk about population growth, you'll be a professional of that...

So, the last ice age didn't end 200,000 years ago this is not the warmest the world has ever been aren't facts?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Absolute bullshit.  Other people give you your opinions.


Opinions are formed by: other people you converse with, books, teachers, study, life experiences...ect.  I guess you are too good to admit you have learned anything from another person in your life  Pathetic and still 0 facts to back up your silly opinions.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Opinions are formed by: other people you converse with, books, teachers, study, life experiences...ect.  I guess you are too good to admit you have learned anything from another person in your life  Pathetic and still 0 facts to back up your silly opinions.


There's a difference between learning and having all of your facts (and outlook on life) given to you.


I've given two very important facts on global warming.  It just doesn't fit into your world view so you've ignored them.  That mental shortcoming is your problem, not mine.


----------



## Trouble (Apr 29, 2006)

*squint*

Since municipal services require population estimates for planning purposes, I guess you could say I know something about population trends. 

Sure, CO2 concentrations were higher in the past.  Its been known they fluctuate with various natural processes.   Its the *rate* of change is that is causing concern.

Need to do some reading on your ice age periods:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> There's a difference between learning and having all of your facts (and outlook on life) given to you.
> 
> 
> I've given two very important facts on global warming.  It just doesn't fit into your world view so you've ignored them.  That's mental shortcoming is your problem, not mine.




True Story, man is the most beneficial creature to ever inhabit the earth.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> There's a difference between learning and having all of your facts (and outlook on life) given to you.
> 
> 
> I've given two very important facts on global warming.  It just doesn't fit into your world view so you've ignored them.  That's mental shortcoming is your problem, not mine.


*You have given a few unsupported opinions.
*
 I have given opinions, posted facts and links...try to keep up wingnut.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Trouble said:
			
		

> *squint*
> 
> Since municipal services require population estimates for planning purposes, I guess you could say I know something about population trends.
> 
> Sure, CO2 concentrations were higher in the past.  Its been known they fluctuate with various natural processes.   Its the *rate* of change is that is causing concern.



True, but while we know the historic CO2 content, we do not know the rate of change (the data isn't that good). What if this is normal?  Is may not be, but we don't know and their are far too many people running around proclaiming "facts" that just aren't so.

The simple idea some of the warming (if not all of it) may be caused naturally gets ignored by the chicken little crowd.  

I believe that most people jump on the global warming bandwagon because they want a cleaner environment (I want that too), but spreading lies isn't the way to get it done.


----------



## Trouble (Apr 29, 2006)

I can argue just as well that bacteria are the most beneficial organisms on Earth.  Don't see much collective benefit from humans, econologically speaking.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *You have given a few unsupported opinions.
> *
> I have given opinions, posted facts and links...try to keep up wingnut.



Answer these two questions (I've already provided the facts):


Is this the warmest the world has even been?
When did the current warming trend start?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

*Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration*
Devastating loss of coral in the Caribbean - March, 2006
In March, 2006 researchers discovered devastating loss of coral in the Caribbean off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. "It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 official monitoring stations in the Virgin Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."...............Miller noted that some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only grows the width of one dime each year.

If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a University of Puerto Rico biology researcher. While investigating the widespread loss of Caribbean coral, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral ??? more than 13 feet high ??? that had just died in the waters off Puerto Rico.........."We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have never seen before."

"We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before," said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch.

Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance says that compared to coral areas in the Indian and Pacific ocean, where warming waters have brought about a 90% mortality rate, the Caribbean is healthier.

The Caribbean is actually better off than areas of the Indian and Pacific ocean where mortality rates ??? mostly from warming waters ??? have been in the 90 percent range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an underwater holocaust."

"The prognosis is not good," said biochemistry professor M. James Crabbe of the University of Luton near London. "If you want to see a coral reef, go now, because they just won't survive in their current state."

Read more in AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein's article in the San Francisco Chronicle


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Trouble said:
			
		

> I can argue just as well that bacteria are the most beneficial organisms on Earth.  Don't see much collective benefit from humans, econologically speaking.



For humans, the point of the Earth are humans.

One day, the human race may end, but the Earth will go on.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Answer these two questions (I've already provided the facts):
> 
> Is this the warmest the world has even been?
> When did the current warming trend start?


Asking us to teach you is not providing any facts son 


Read the posts and links


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration*



More "hard work" from the Cut-and-Paste bitch.

Sure, the world is getting warmer and some creatures will lost out while others flourish, but you still lack 100% hard proof that humans are the sole cause (or even a contributing factor).


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

Can I get anybody a beverage?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Asking us to teach you is not providing any facts son
> 
> 
> Read the posts and links



Like I said, it doesn't fit into your chicken little world view so you ignore it.

Go drink some Drano and make the world a better place.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> More "hard work" from the Cut-and-Paste bitch.
> 
> Sure, the world is getting warmer and some creatures will lost out while others flourish, but you still lack 100% hard proof that humans are the sole cause (or even a contributing factor).


Try to read and not to just use hate and fear as your only facts.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> Can I get anybody a beverage?



Foreman would like you to rub a drink out for him.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Try to read and not to just use hate and fear as your only facts.



You still haven't answered the questions.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Like I said, it doesn't fit into your chicken little world view so you ignore it.
> 
> Go drink some Drano and make the world a better place.


Sorry wingnut but the questions you asked have been answered....try reading more and posting less.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You still haven't answered the questions.


I have a dozen times or more......you are just to lazy to read.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have a dozen times or more......you are just to lazy to read.


Here we go bitch.

"The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, attributable in great part to the effects of globalization and man. More carbon          dioxide is now in the atmosphere than has been in the past 650,000 years."

The Earth is far old than than 650,000 years.  If you went past that, you'd find much higher levels of CO2.

----------------------------------------------------------

"The reason we exist on this planet is because the earth naturally traps just enough heat in the atmosphere to keep the          temperature within a very narrow range"

Only over the short-term (decades), but over the millenia the temperatures are far ranging (by human standards).

----------------------------------------------------------

"The massive ice sheets in the Arctic are melting at alarming rates."

The Arctic ice sheets used to extent into what is now the US.  If only would could have stopped global warming 400,000 years ago!!!  Won't someone think of the children!!!


And so on...


They pick and choose which facts they wish to use.  This isn't science, if fear mongering. If cleaning up the environment is the goal, there are better ways of doing it than lying.


----------



## Trouble (Apr 29, 2006)

In the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4944058.stm


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

Has anyone tried that new version of Tide? It makes my whites look brand new!


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Color safe or true bleach?


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Color safe or true bleach?



Color safe of course, one can never be too careful.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Trouble said:
			
		

> In the news:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4944058.stm



"Scientists say knowledge gaps in such areas severely hamper their ability to forecast future climate change."


Yet, here we are with people making 100% sure statements about where the climate is heading.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Here we go bitch.
> 
> "The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, attributable in great part to the effects of globalization and man. More carbon          dioxide is now in the atmosphere than has been in the past 650,000 years."
> 
> ...



I agree with that.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> Color safe of course, one can never be too careful.



Then it's not really bleach.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Then it's not really bleach.



I never said it was..........but it is good stuff.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I agree with that.



I stick to the facts, _*all of the facts*_.  Who knows, one day it may come out that humans really do play a large part of modern global warming, but that day isn't today.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I never said it was..........but it is good stuff.



Well, the whites may stay white, but will it fade my darks?


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I stick to the facts, _*all of the facts*_.  Who knows, one day it may come out that humans really do play a large part of modern global warming, but that day isn't today.



Yes, it def. is not today. lawl


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Well, the whites may stay white, but will it fade my darks?



NO, you'll be fine.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Thanks, I'll give it a shot (not that kind of shot!).


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/

A book that people might be interested in reading. I myself have not read it but I plan on it.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/
> 
> A book that people might be interested in reading. I myself have not read it but I plan on it.



I have that and it is a good  read.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/
> 
> A book that people might be interested in reading. I myself have not read it but I plan on it.



It's a pretty good story.  Certainly not one of his better works.

He does delve deeply into the global warming argument, which doesn't paint a good picture for the pro group. He does provides a bibliography in his book.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Here we go bitch.
> 
> "The Earth as an ecosystem is changing, attributable in great part to the effects of globalization and man. More carbon          dioxide is now in the atmosphere than has been in the past 650,000 years."
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with this post at all son, if you bothered to read all my posts and not just the title of the thread you would have realized that  Read before you flame kid.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with this post at all son, if you bothered to read all my posts and not just the title of the thread you would have realized that  Read before you flame kid.



Can one flame while reading? Are they mutually exclusive?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> Can one flame while reading? Are they mutually exclusive?


Only if drinking copious amounts of beer


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with this post at all son, if you bothered to read all my posts and not just the title of the thread you would have realized that  Read before you flame kid.



I went to your shitty little website and tore it a new ass.   

Here's another piece of shit you posted.

[FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.


*[/FONT]"Medieval times?" "Medieval times?!"  The Earth has been around a lot fucking longer than a few hundred years.


Good Lord, the world it ending.  Global warming is happening way too fast!  Why just a mere month ago it was only 30F and now it's 75F!!!  At this rate the world will be at 165F in just two months!!!  Oh, the humanity!!!

...

Moron.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Oh shit, it's even worse than that!!!

This morning it was only 60F and now it's 75F.  At this rate it'll be 285F in a single week!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I went to your shitty little website and tore it a new ass.
> 
> Here's another piece of shit you posted.
> 
> ...


You twist a simple fact and make no sence.....where does it say the world has only existed since Medieval times??   wow you have no clue...pathetic as usual


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

*True Story,*

*Humans have ABSOLUTELY ZERO impact on the current warming trend of the earths climate*


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> *True Story,*
> 
> *Humans have ABSOLUTELY ZERO impact on the current warming trend of the earths climate*



DOMS just busted a nut reading that #15


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You twist a simple fact and make no sence.....where does it say the world has only existed since Medieval times??   wow you have no clue...pathetic as usual



Are you really that stupid?  Really, do you suffer from a birth defect or were tragically hit in the head?

Your shitty website refutes this argument. Which you quoted.



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Common Myths Related To Global Climate Change[/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*
> 
> Myth 3: The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]Republicans are eager to cite what they call the "Medieval Warm Period" as proof that global climate change is a purely natural event, a nothing to worry about. They claim that global temperatures in medieval times exceeded the global temperatures of today, and were the result of purely natural causes. However, the scientific review of the I*ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strongly rejected the validity of this claim, and found that warming trends today are more dramatic than at any time in the last thousand years.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]This myth is based on a number of false premises. First of all, the increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence for significant warming in Europe in medieval times is not completely clear. Republican analysts frequently confuse evidence of drought with evidence for temperature increase, and so make a leap of faith when they make their claims of a "Medieval Warm Period". The temperatures we record today are reliable figures collected directly without the need for such stretched supposition.[/FONT]



They're trying to limit the scope of the argument to a thousand years.  A thousand years is nothing in the life of this planet.  Over the last 400 million years the Earth's temperature has varied widely from what it is today.

You, and your website, are full of shit.  You'll focus on the last thousand years, but ignore the last million.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Are you really that stupid?  Really, do you suffer from a birth defect or were tragically hit in the head?
> 
> Your shitty website refutes this argument. Which you quoted.
> 
> ...


Talking about the last 1000 years is not limiting anything Einstein


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

what does everyone drive here?

F-150 4x4 2005-I get about 12mpg.



I write this b/c I know tons of people who always talk about the environment and how GWB is fucking it up...

These same hippie friends drive explorers and cherokees


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Talking about the last 1000 years is not limiting anything Einstein



_*What?!*_

At this point, not only am I convinced that you're lying about working on your third degree, but I'm also convinced that you dropped out of elementary.

It's called 'scope' you dumb fuck.  If I limit my data about the ambient temperature to the last month that would indicate that global warming is happening at a rate of 35F per month.  To make any predictions about the Earth's climate you need to look at the Earth's entire existence and not just a tiny fraction of it.

You really, truly, are a dumb fuck.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> what does everyone drive here?
> 
> F-150 4x4 2005-I get about 12mpg.
> 
> ...


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> _*What?!*_
> 
> At this point, not only am I convinced that you're lying about working on your third degree, but I'm also convinced that you dropped out of elementary.
> 
> ...


It is so funny, all you have is hate and anger. You pick one tiny sentence out of thousands and then try to twist it into something else...You are truely pathetic and have your head deep in the sand. I hope that you find something in life to bring you joy and erace all the pain and hate you hold in your heart.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *It is so funny, all you have is hate and anger.* You pick one tiny sentence out of thousands and then try to twist it into something else...You are truely pathetic and have your head deep in the sand. I hope that you find something in life to bring you joy and erace all the pain and hate you hold in your heart.




True Story, DOMS is mad at the world.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It is so funny, all you have is hate and anger. You pick one tiny sentence out of thousands and then try to twist it into something else...You are truely pathetic and have your head deep in the sand. I hope that you find something in life to bring you joy and erace all the pain and hate you hold in your heart.


I ripped the shit out of the site you posted, the quotes you posted, and you.

If you feel that there wasn't a debate, it's because the moment that it started you hit the ground and cried like a bitch.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

#41.  Please seek help for the sake of yourself and your family.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I riped the shit out of the site you posted, the quotes you posted, and you.
> 
> If you feel that there wasn't a debate, it's because the moment that it started you hit the ground and cried like a bitch.



You did nothing but make yourself look like a fool again....I really hope you learn to do some research before you put yourself in this negative position again.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, DOMS is mad at the world.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> I ripped the shit out of the site you posted, the quotes you posted, and you.
> 
> If you feel that there wasn't a debate, it's because the moment that it started you hit the ground and cried like a bitch.





			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

> #41.*  Please seek help for the sake of yourself and your family*.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You did nothing but make yourself look like a fool again....I really hope you learn to do some research before you put yourself in this negative position again.



Why don't you actually say something other than "how wrong I am."  All you do is cut-and-paste and proclaim the truth of it.

Since your reading comprehension is equal to that of a used tampon, I'll succinctly repeat my point: That website, and global warming crackpots, ignore the facts that they don't like and accentuate the facts that they like.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

So, you've resorted to images yet again.  Pathetic.

Oh, and I'd be the white guy.  



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

>


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, you've resorted to images yet again.  Pathetic.
> 
> Oh, and I'd be the white guy.


I have posted facts, cited sources. links and picked apart your childish arguments......no need to debate with you anymore here...you lost big time...

Now go read this and learn something son

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?p=1332249#post1332249


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So, you've resorted to images yet again.  Pathetic.
> 
> Oh, and I'd be the white guy.


Where do you see a "white guy" in that pick son?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have posted facts, cited sources. links and picked apart your childish arguments......no need to debate with you anymore here...you lost big time...
> 
> Now go read this and learn something son
> 
> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?p=1332249#post1332249



You're delusional.  Here's a sampling of your insightful rebuttals:

(Posted three times, a cut-and-past with *one *sentence of your own)



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> [FONT=new york, palatino, arial]*for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.
> 
> 
> *No offence but I will take the opinion of the [/FONT][FONT=new york, palatino, arial]scientific community over your uneducated opinion. [/FONT]






			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Just click on the links and you will see.........son



(A cut-and-paste)


			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Brian Handwerk
> for *National Geographic News*
> 
> December 6, 2004
> ...






			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And how to do research....you should try it son.
> 
> You keep posting unsupported opinions and I will post facts.





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Case and point, most Republican wingnuts   use the bible as their only facts






			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> <an image>





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Opinions are formed by: other people you converse with, books, teachers, study, life experiences...ect.  I guess you are too good to admit you have learned anything from another person in your life  Pathetic and still 0 facts to back up your silly opinions.





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *You have given a few unsupported opinions.
> *
> I have given opinions, posted facts and links...try to keep up wingnut.



(A cut-and-paste)


			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration*
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more in AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein's article in the San Francisco Chronicle





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Asking us to teach you is not providing any facts son
> 
> 
> Read the posts and links





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Try to read and not to just use hate and fear as your only facts.





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sorry wingnut but the questions you asked have been answered....try reading more and posting less.



And so on...

Truly, a withering barrage of insightful words, poignant facts with an amazing grasp of verbal strategy.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Where do you see a "white guy" in that pick son?



You make retarded people feel better about themselves.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You're delusional.  Here's a sampling of your insightful rebuttals:
> 
> (Posted three times, a cut-and-past with *one *sentence of your own)
> 
> ...


You really need a girlfriend son


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You make retarded people feel better about themselves.


Your hate is taking your life away....please get help.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You really need a girlfriend son



You need to stop pretending that you know anything of value.


You just got owned.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You need to stop pretending that you know anything of value.
> 
> 
> You just got owned.


Sorry son but I only posted articles and links, never said what I believe in detail....you owned yourself  again


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sorry son but I only posted articles and links, never said what I believe in detail....you owned yourself  again



It's never too late in life to commit suicide.  Go ahead and give it a try.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> It's never too late in life to commit suicide.  Go ahead and give it a try.


Bump


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

This thread turned out nicely then, eh!


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> This thread turned out nicely then, eh!


Thank Ford for uneducated wingnuts


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

True Story, DOMS is a hateful, and probably short man...


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Thank Ford for uneducated wingnuts



mmmm wingnuts!!!


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, DOMS is a hateful, and probably short man...



Dyl, if Foreman told you to suck your own dick, cut off your testicles, eat them, then jump off a building, would you do it?

It seems to me that you agree with him on everything. Why don't you form your own views and opinions about life rather than follow this guy around and wait for an "owned" moment so you can post pictures and say true story all the time.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

maybe big dyl is foreman


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Dyl, if Foreman told you to suck your own dick, cut off your testicles, eat them, then jump off a building, would you do it?
> 
> It seems to me that you agree with him on everything. Why don't you form your own views and opinions about life rather than follow this guy around and wait for an "owned" moment so you can post pictures and say true story all the time.



BigAnal and Foreskin are exactly the same.  The only difference is that Foreskin uses more words.

Think about it, foreman does one of two things, he either posts a link to a web page and spends the rest of the thread say the equivalent of "True Story." or he rides the coat tails of another poster saying the equivalent of "True Story."

And BigDyl, well...the vast majority of his posts are "True Story."

If they're not the same person, they're at least sharing the same bed.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> This thread turned out nicely then, eh!



Yes, the pro-global warming group could barely form a coherent sentence, much less an argument.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, DOMS is a hateful, and probably short man...


In more ways than one....just a guess by the hate and anger he exudes.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Dyl, if Foreman told you to suck your own dick, cut off your testicles, eat them, then jump off a building, would you do it?




True Story, I'm not going to fuel you're sexual fantasies about DOMS, by letting you live vicariously through me and foremans friendship   

The answer to your question:

No, you don't have any friends. 



			
				shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you agree with him on everything



True Story, and it seems to me you agree with DOMS on everything, but I don't follow you two around and psycho-analyze everything you post either.   



			
				shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Why don't you form your own views and opinions about life rather than follow this guy around and wait for an "owned" moment so you can post pictures and say true story all the time.



Why don't you go study for your community college exam on Monday, kiddie, before you lose your 4.0.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> Dyl, if Foreman told you to suck your own dick, cut off your testicles, eat them, then jump off a building, would you do it?
> 
> It seems to me that you agree with him on everything. Why don't you form your own views and opinions about life rather than follow this guy around and wait for an "owned" moment so you can post pictures and say true story all the time.


This post is very gay but I don't want to get into that with you, that is your life and you can do what you want. Other than that what is wrong with people sharing the same opinions????? Do you not share any of the same opinions with any of your family or friends?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> BigAnal and Foreskin are exactly the same.  The only difference is that Foreskin uses more words.
> 
> Think about it, foreman does one of two things, he either posts a link to a web page and spends the rest of the thread say the equivalent of "True Story." or he rides the coat tails of another poster saying the equivalent of "True Story."
> 
> ...


Don't get mad because you were owned here.....you should be use to that by now son.


----------



## fufu (Apr 29, 2006)

I could go for a meat spin right about now.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I could go for a meat spin right about now.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Don't get mad because you were owned here.....you should be use to that by now son.



Have fun living in that fantasy world and in BigDyl.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 30, 2006)




----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 30, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> This post is very gay but I don't want to get into that with you, that is your life and you can do what you want. Other than that what is wrong with people sharing the same opinions????? Do you not share any of the same opinions with any of your family or friends?



There is nothing wrong with people sharing the same opinions. In this case, BigDyl does not "share" the same opinions as you do. He simply copies you and will agree with practically everything you say .. even some of the things you say that is complete utter bullshit with no facts to back up your claim (no offense). 

All i am seeing is that whenever i see a good debate going on .. which means people are actually talking about the topic at hand, BigDyl jumps in and starts ruining them with his ridiculous pictures and he uses the same phrases over and over.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 30, 2006)

not even worth my time ..


----------



## MyK (Apr 30, 2006)

thers alot of hostility in that boy!


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 30, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> thers alot of hostility in that boy!



In bigdyl?

I agree!


----------



## MyK (Apr 30, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> In bigdyl?
> 
> I agree!



I was talkin about chunk from the goonies!


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with people sharing the same opinions. In this case, BigDyl does not "share" the same opinions as you do. He simply copies you and will agree with practically everything you say .. even some of the things you say that is complete utter bullshit with no facts to back up your claim (no offense).
> 
> All i am seeing is that whenever i see a good debate going on .. which means people are actually talking about the topic at hand, BigDyl jumps in and starts ruining them with his ridiculous pictures and he uses the same phrases over and over.


I see three groups of people who have the same opinions for the most part and stick together on topics all the time...no big deal, I don't see anything wrong with it and don't get why you do.....oh now I get it, when it is not your opinion you have a problem with it.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 30, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> not even worth my time ..




And yet you keep spending time on it...


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> And yet you keep spending time on it...



true story


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

>




I love it  I sent this pic to my GF....she loves penguins.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> what does everyone drive here?
> 
> F-150 4x4 2005-I get about 12mpg.
> 
> ...



My car gets 20-25MPG.  Not amazing, but decent.  I picked this car because I wanted a car that was really fast, but not so bad on gas.  That's pretty good for a car with a little over 300 horsies.  I also walk anywhere that is within a mile or so and take the subway quite a lot, including to work almost every day.


Okay, so it's not definitive whether or not global warming exists as a result of human activities.  

What is true, and well known, is that we contribute to the level of aerosols and smog in the atmosphere.  So, there it is reasonable to believe this has some effect on the Earth's climate trends.  I think it's highly possible, if nothing else.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Apr 30, 2006)

There seems to be two sides here.  Doms' camp promotes that there is no data supporting how much impact mankind has had on GW.  Foreman's camp provides this data but Doms doesn't like the source so he disqualifies it very expressively.

No real data yet from the Doms camp.  Minor statements of opinion by nothing sourced.

I'm of course interested in this debate and look forward to real hard data ... minus all the swearing and useless name calling.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

They admit that definitive answers can't be provided on how much of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the result of emission from man-made sources.  However, they also seem to hint that based on the evidence they do have, that it plays a significant role.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> There seems to be two sides here.  Doms' camp promotes that there is no data supporting how much impact mankind has had on GW.  Foreman's camp provides this data but Doms doesn't like the source so he disqualifies it very expressively.


Wrong.  The basic underlying logic show gaps and is under question.



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> No real data yet from the Doms camp.  Minor statements of opinion by nothing sourced.


I've posted two simple facts that aren't answered by the global warming group.  Care to give a try and work them into the global warming theory?


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> There seems to be two sides here.  Doms' camp promotes that there is no data supporting how much impact mankind has had on GW.  Foreman's camp provides this data but Doms doesn't like the source so he disqualifies it very expressively.
> 
> * No real data yet from the Doms camp.  Minor statements of opinion by nothing sourced.*
> 
> I'm of course interested in this debate and look forward to real hard data ... minus all the swearing and useless name calling.




So True


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
> 
> They admit that definitive answers can't be provided on how much of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the result of emission from man-made sources.  However, they also seem to hint that based on the evidence they do have, that it plays a significant role.


What's the goal here?  To stop the warming of the planet?  If that's the case, then they are going fail.  The Earth is in a natural warming cycle and no one really knows how warm it's going to get, but past data indicates that the Earth has been much warmer.

If the goal is to simply clean the environment, then I'm all for that, but there are better ways to get it done that lying.  When you do this and the lies come out, people will not follow you.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> So True


Aren't you late for your train?


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What's the goal here?  To stop the warming of the planet?  If that's the case, then they are going fail.  The Earth is in a natural warming cycle and no one really knows how warm it's going to get, but past data indicates that the Earth has been much warmer.



Well, if there is a significant contribution of greenhouse gases from human intervention, such that the warming of the planet is being accelerated, then it can be slowed down if nothing else.  Also, how do you know that the Earth is in a natural warmining cycle?  Maybe the increase is entirely attributed to human intervention?




> If the goal is to simply clean the environment, then I'm all for that, but there are better ways to get it done that lying.  When you do this and the lies come out, people will not follow you.



No one is lying.  That site conceded that there is not enough known yet, and probably won't be for decades.  The only thing they said was that the IPCC stated their opinion is that more recent evidence is indicative of human activities affecting the climate average over the last 50 years.  I think they are certainly entitled to make statements on what they think is happening, just as you are.  To call them liars is ridiculous though.


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, if there is a significant contribution of greenhouse gases from human intervention, such that the warming of the planet is being accelerated, then it can be slowed down if nothing else.  Also, how do you know that the Earth is in a natural warmining cycle?  Maybe the increase is entirely attributed to human intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




DOMS....owned again


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, if there is a significant contribution of greenhouse gases from human intervention, such that the warming of the planet is being accelerated, then it can be slowed down if nothing else. Also, how do you know that the Earth is in a natural warmining cycle? *Maybe the increase is entirely attributed to human intervention?
> 
> 
> *
> ...





It is natural (partly at least)...It has been ever since the creation of the planet.  Our planet has had these temp. fluctuations (recorded in ice cores) dating back hundreds of thousands of years ago.  

There are plenty of reason for temporary climatic changes that are not related to human activity:

volcanos
methane eruptions on the oceanfloor
metreorites
Solar flares

The difference with the most recent climatic change is the rate at which it is taking place.  I do feel that human activity is increasing the rate of global warming, but its not soley mankind.  It much more complex than that.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

When you do things like attempt to minimise or totally ignore scientific data produced by a world community,


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Wrong.  The basic underlying logic show gaps and is under question.


 _
or
_discredit empirical data with rudeness and redirection, 


			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Yes, the pro-global warming group could barely form a coherent sentence, much less an argument.


  you create the appearance of being incapable of participating in serious debate.

 Throwing out questions you yourself proclaim no person can answer as some kind of statement vs GW and THEN requiring everyone else to respond as you insult them for not doing so does not offer anything in the way of a sound  debate on the topic of this thread.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)




----------



## fufu (May 1, 2006)

So once something is put on a website it becomes a valid source...hmmmm


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, if there is a significant contribution of greenhouse gases from human intervention, such that the warming of the planet is being accelerated, then it can be slowed down if nothing else.  Also, how do you know that the Earth is in a natural warmining cycle?  Maybe the increase is entirely attributed to human intervention?


Oh, for the Love of God!  It's natural because it *started over 200,000 years ago and happened several times before!!!  *Am I the only person who's ever read a science book?






			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> No one is lying.  That site conceded that there is not enough known yet, and probably won't be for decades.  The only thing they said was that the IPCC stated their opinion is that more recent evidence is indicative of human activities affecting the climate average over the last 50 years.  I think they are certainly entitled to make statements on what they think is happening, just as you are.  To call them liars is ridiculous though.


They walk around saying that humans are causing 100% of the rise in the Earth's temperature.  Which is a lie.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

Fufu you are trying to participate in this debate right?  So promote your concepts and theories with data and and insight instead of "Hmmmmm ..... ".  This could be an interesting debate where we all learn something.

Pepper?  Where you at man?  You're normally more intolek2all than this.  I know you got a little burnt out on the political comentary we all ran with last year but this is raw scientific debate here bro kick it up a notch.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> It is natural (partly at least)...It has been ever since the creation of the planet.  Our planet has had these temp. fluctuations (recorded in ice cores) dating back hundreds of thousands of years ago.
> 
> There are plenty of reason for temporary climatic changes that are not related to human activity:
> 
> ...



Finally! Someone who gets it.  And it's fine that you _feel _that humans are contributing to the rise in global temperature, but it's not a fact.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 1, 2006)

No Doms you can step away from that 100% number since most of what I've read states that we as a species have increased (dramatically) a warming trend.  Previously it was swamps and bovine flatulence that caused the ice age to cometh, but we have added a weeeee bit more than cow farts to the increased speed of this problem.


----------



## fufu (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Fufu you are trying to participate in this debate right?  So promote your concepts and theories with data and and insight instead of "Hmmmmm ..... ".  This could be an interesting debate where we all learn something.
> 
> Pepper?  Where you at man?  You're normally more intolek2all than this.  I know you got a little burnt out on the political comentary we all ran with last year but this is raw scientific debate here bro kick it up a notch.



I'm sorry that I'm not participating "right". 

I already said how I feel on the subject.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> When you do things like attempt to minimise or totally ignore scientific data produced by a world community,


     Who's trying to minimize?  I'm trying to make sure some very basic facts are included. 

Actually, the ones trying to "minimize" the facts are the global warming group by ignoring the facts they don't like.


			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> _ or
> _discredit empirical data with rudeness and redirection,
> 
> you create the appearance of being incapable of participating in serious debate.
> ...



All they do is write the equivalent of "owned" or "true story."  Foreman and BigDyl don't deserve anything like respect.

I have given the answer to my question before, all you had to do was read it. I'll post it here again for your benefit:

1) The current warming trend started at *the end of the last ice age*, over 200,000 years ago.  That wasn't the first ice age and it likely wont be the last.

2) There is plenty of scientific data to indicated that this is not the warmest the Earth has ever been.  There are have been plenty of other periods where the Earth was much warmer.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> So once something is put on a website it becomes a valid source...hmmmm



For some people, that's all it takes.  Oh, and it helps to ignore the stuff that doesn't jive with your world view, either.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> No Doms you can step away from that 100% number since most of what I've read states that we as a species have increased (dramatically) a warming trend.  Previously it was swamps and bovine flatulence that caused the ice age to cometh, but we have added a weeeee bit more than cow farts to the increased speed of this problem.



Since we don't know how fast the Earth's temperature is supposed to rise normally, how can you claim to know with a 100% certainty that humans have sped it up?

Personally, some of what I've read (stuff that had nothing to do directly with global warming) leads me to believe that human may have an affect of the Earth's temperature, but my belief (nor yours) constitutes a fact.


----------



## fufu (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> For some people, that's all it takes.  Oh, and it helps to ignore the stuff that doesn't jive with your world view, either.


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Oh, for the Love of God!  It's natural because it *started over 200,000 years ago and happened several times before!!!  *Am I the only person who's ever read a science book?



I understand that there are natural temparature cycles.  I'm also not suggesting that the temparature increase is entirely attributable to man.  These are rhetorical questions, because they are possbilities.  It is possible that a majority of the temparature increase in the last 50 years is the result of man.  I'm not saying it is so, but it is a possibility, just as the converse is a possibility.  That's all I'm saying.  Don't flatly deny one end of the spectrum.




> They walk around saying that humans are causing 100% of the rise in the Earth's temperature.  Which is a lie.



That's not what they said at all.  They said they don't know what percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the result of man.  They said that it's likely the temparature change isn't purely natural (A quote from the other organization), but never claimed numbers.  They admitted ignorance there.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

>




traitor


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I understand that there are natural temparature cycles.  I'm also not suggesting that the temparature increase is entirely attributable to man.  These are rhetorical questions, because they are possbilities.  It is *possible *that a majority of the temparature increase in the last 50 years is the result of man.  I'm not saying it is so, but it is a *possibility*, just as the converse is a possibility.  That's all I'm saying.  Don't flatly deny one end of the spectrum.



_*This is what I've been saying!*_  It is possible, but it isn't a fact yet, it's only speculation.  I'm not saying that it isn't true, just that it




			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> That's not what they said at all.  They said they don't know what percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the result of man.  They said that it's likely the temparature change isn't purely natural (A quote from the other organization), but never claimed numbers.  They admitted ignorance there.



Many global warming proponents, who have read read a real scientific book since high school, like to talk about how global warming is all man-made.  I grant you that it's not all, but it is the majority.  Checkout Foreskin's web site.  It's a anti-global warming website.  I've checked it over and no where does it try to differentiate between natural warming and man-made warming.  They paint a picture of global warming being mankind's fault alone.


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> _*This is what I've been saying!*_  It is possible, but it isn't a fact yet, it's only speculation.  I'm not saying that it isn't true, just that it



Right.  Both ends are speculation though.




> Many global warming proponents, who have read read a real scientific book since high school, like to talk about how global warming is all man-made.  I grant you that it's not all, but it is the majority.  Checkout Foreskin's web site.  It's a anti-global warming website.  I've checked it over and no where does it try to differentiate between natural warming and man-made warming.  They paint a picture of global warming being mankind's fault alone.



I was referring to the site I linked up, not the one's Foreman posted.  There was a link in my post...


----------



## fufu (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> traitor



neg!


----------



## Pepper (May 1, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Pepper? Where you at man? You're normally more intolek2all than this. I know you got a little burnt out on the political comentary we all ran with last year but this is raw scientific debate here bro kick it up a notch.


 
I am really not sure what you mean here. I was basically questioning whether we can conclude that the the earth is warming as a resulf our our actions. Then I looked around at who was in the thread and went home and never thought about it again.

You can't debate anything here anyrmore it seems. Too much noise.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I am really not sure what you mean here. I was basically questioning whether we can conclude that the the earth is warming as a resulf our our actions. Then I looked around at who was in the thread and went home and never thought about it again.
> 
> You can't debate anything here anyrmore it seems. Too much noise.




Translation:  Noise means disagreement.  Not everyone agrees with Pepper anymore, so he won't argue it.


----------



## Pepper (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Translation: Noise means disagreement. Not everyone agrees with Pepper anymore, so he won't argue it.


 
What...no "pwned" graphic?

I was clearly owned by your response.


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What...no "pwned" graphic?
> 
> I was clearly owned by your response.




I will not dignify that question with a response.  I figured you would at least be mature in regard for peoples feelings on this site.  You have violated one of the sites cardinal rules with your beguilment.  This is a travesty!


----------



## Pepper (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I will not dignify that question with a response. I figured you would at least be mature in regard for peoples feelings on this site. You have violated one of the sites cardinal rules with your beguilment. This is a travesty!


 
Whose feelings did I hurt?


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Whose feelings did I hurt?




You implied that an owned pic was the only way for me to proceed in a converation.


----------



## Pepper (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You implied that an owned pic was the only way for me to proceed in a converation.


 
Well, you can get me back and I just posted a pwned pic in the Rush thread.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Since we don't know how fast the Earth's temperature is supposed to rise normally, how can you claim to know with a 100% certainty that humans have sped it up?.


  Inversely to your attempts to disregard it and from the same question.  We do not know the speed at which we would normally see the global temp increase at, but we DO know that the very same gases that cause that increased global temp have now been exponentially increased artificially by mankind.  Hopefully you won't keep trying to say that since we have no baseline there is not an increased impetus.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Inversely to your attempts to disregard it and from the same question.  We do not know the speed at which we would normally see the global temp increase at, but we DO know that the very same gases that cause that increased global temp have now been exponentially increased artificially by mankind.  Hopefully you won't keep trying to say that since we have no baseline there is not an increased impetus.



What you have made is an _assumption_ and has no place in science.


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What you have made is an _assumption_ and has no place in science.


Please try to do better than this Doms because  assumptions are indeed part of scientific theory.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Please try to do better than this Doms because  assumptions are indeed part of scientific theory.



Science in the general sense, perhaps, but not when it's used to decide where large sums of the US (and other countries') budget will go.  It's bad enough how the government spends my money now, but they don't need to start throwing it around based on your assumptions.

It's crap like this that produces thoughless ideas like the Kyoto Protocol.  Even one of the world's foremost proponents of a clean environment said the end effect would be to take 1 tenth of 1 degree from the temperature in 2030.  He said that for all the money that the Kyoto Protocol would waste, you could give every man, woman, and child on the planet clean water.

There's no sense in wasting money on your assumptions.


----------



## lnvanry (May 2, 2006)

taking care of the environment is important.

THe Kyoto is garbage.  It has good ideals, but it was poorly drafter.


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Science in the general sense, perhaps, but not when it's used to decide where large sums of the US (and other countries') budget will go.  It's bad enough how the government spends my money now, but they don't need to start throwing it around based on your assumptions.
> 
> It's crap like this that produces thoughless ideas like the Kyoto Protocol.  Even one of the world's foremost proponents of a clean environment said the end effect would be to take 1 tenth of 1 degree from the temperature in 2030.  He said that for all the money that the Kyoto Protocol would waste, you could give every man, woman, and child on the planet clean water.
> 
> There's no sense in wasting money on your assumptions.


I agree, lets roll the dice....fuck it.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree, lets roll the dice....fuck it.



You misunderstand. I'm not saying to do nothing about the environment, I'm say that when an action is planed, that it is fully planned out in a scientific basis and not by how it makes people feel.

All the Kyoto accord would do is shift money around between nations with the buying and selling of "credits."


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You misunderstand. I'm not saying to do nothing about the environment, I'm say that when an action is planed, that it is fully planned out in a scientific basis and not by how it makes people feel.
> 
> All the Kyoto accord would do is shift money around between nations with the buying and selling of "credits."


What happens in the Earth stays in the Earth.....or Vegas

I get you "Kyoto" sucks balls.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> What happens in the Earth stays in the Earth.....or Vegas


----------



## GFR (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

>


Just a rip of that stupid TV add for Vegas


----------



## fufu (May 2, 2006)

If humans do cause global warming I'll just move to Canada!


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> If humans do cause global warming I'll just move to Canada!



No doubt.  If it did come out that humans are affecting global warming and I was Canadian, I cut the muffler off my car.  When it gets warm enough, the Yukon and the NW territories will be livable.


----------



## fufu (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> No doubt.  If it did come out that humans are affecting global warming and I was Canadian, I cut the muffler off my car.  When it gets warm enough, the Yukon and the NW territories will be livable.



kekeke


----------



## BoneCrusher (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Science in the general sense, perhaps, but not when it's used to decide where large sums of the US (and other countries') budget will go. It's bad enough how the government spends my money now, but they don't need to start throwing it around based on *your* assumptions.
> 
> It's crap like this that produces thoughless ideas like the Kyoto Protocol. Even one of the world's foremost proponents of a clean environment said the end effect would be to take 1 tenth of 1 degree from the temperature in 2030. He said that for all the money that the Kyoto Protocol would waste, you could give every man, woman, and child on the planet clean water.
> 
> There's no sense in wasting money on your assumptions.


 See this is where you tend to go when your arguments fail ... personal confrontation with minimal statements like "your assumptions" to the more deprecating disparagements you have hurled at me in the past.  Doms I _assume _nothing.  I _absorb _data from books and reports but do no work in the scientific community so I have no assumptions for you to attack.   

You CAN attack the scientific community for producing data but to what end?  These guys (several thousand scientists from all around the world living in every country and social-political environment) have come up with what they believe to be scientific evidence that we have hastened the global warming trend to the point of dramatic climactic change in less than a century *and* they propose a solution.  Scream at them for that if the price is to high or some report you have found has minimised the results of their collective proposed efforts to a level you don't like or see a value in. The cost if you and the rest of the non-convinced are wrong is extremely high ... an ice age level event ... and I would rather make the effort to support the attempts they have proposed and will elvolve these prosals to than accept for my grand children such a serious consequence for my failures in judgement.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> See this is where you tend to go..


Blah, blah, blah...

Here, I'll boil it down for your consumption: Making wide ranging fiscal and international policies to enforce plans that don't take real science (not assumptions) into account are a waste.

And this is where the global warming group is headed.


----------



## BigDyl (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> Here, I'll boil it down for your consumption: Making wide ranging fiscal and international policies to enforce plans that don't take real science (not assumptions) into account are a waste.
> 
> And this is where the global warming group is headed.


----------



## CowPimp (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> Here, I'll boil it down for your consumption: Making wide ranging fiscal and international policies to enforce plans that don't take real science (not assumptions) into account are a waste.
> 
> And this is where the global warming group is headed.



I'm with you here.  I do think we have to get our priorities straight.  We need to balance our damned budget and pay off the national debt before we start funding operations such as the ones being implied.  However, I don't think the problem should be ingored.  We should devote something to it, at least in the form of more studies confirming that human intervention truly is the problem, or is contributing significantly to it anyway.


----------



## DOMS (May 2, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I'm with you here.  I do think we have to get our priorities straight.  We need to balance our damned budget and pay off the national debt before we start funding operations such as the ones being implied.  However, I don't think the problem should be ingored.  We should devote something to it, at least in the form of more studies confirming that human intervention truly is the problem, or is contributing significantly to it anyway.



I'm not advocating ignoring it, I'm saying that I'd rather work at a realistic goal of a cleaner environment rather than the unrealistic (and unatainable goal) that the global warming fear mongers want.


----------



## CowPimp (May 2, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating ignoring it, I'm saying that I'd rather work at a realistic goal of a cleaner environment rather than the unrealistic (and unatainable goal) that the global warming fear mongers want.



Fair enough.  Nonetheless, these go hand in hand to some degree.  Reducing the emissions of aerosols and such into the atmosphere is definitely part of creating a cleaner environment.


----------



## GFR (Jun 10, 2006)

*Climate Change: The View From the Patio *

*by*:  Henry Fountain    4 June  2006 


 SCIENTISTS had some sobering news last week about the potential impact of climate change, and it didn't come from the foot of a shrinking glacier in Alaska or the shores of a tropical resort where the rising ocean is threatening the beachfront bar.

It came from a North Carolina forest, at an experimental plot where scientists can precisely control the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. Duke researchers discovered that when exposed to higher levels of CO2, the greenhouse gas released in ever-increasing quantities from human activity, poison ivy goes haywire.

The researchers found that the weedlike plant grew much faster under CO2 conditions similar to those projected for the middle of the century. The plant also produced a more noxious form of its rash-causing chemical: a more poisonous poison ivy.

"We were surprised to find it," said William H. Schlesinger, a Duke professor who took part in the study.

While much of the discussion of climate change focuses on the big picture of rising sea levels and increasing global air and ocean temperatures, the Duke finding helps explain the smaller picture. Climate change may be a real nuisance in the backyard.

Poison ivy is only the latest entry on a growing list of pests, both plant and animal, that may be nurtured. Japanese beetles, a voracious eater of turf and trees, live longer under higher levels of carbon dioxide. The ranges of other invasive insects, like fire ants, are expected to increase as the planet warms. Disease-carrying ticks have already been shown to have moved northward in Sweden. Mosquitoes could fly farther, too.

Poplars and birch trees are flowering earlier in New England, and some global warming forecasts predict that the region's sugar maples will eventually disappear. Elevated carbon dioxide has been shown to cause ragweed and certain pine trees to produce more pollen. "It's not a pretty picture," said Paul R. Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

While there is still disagreement over the extent of global warming and its potential to reshape the environment, Dr. Epstein noted that many of the changes that he and other scientists are tracking fall outside that debate. "They're just a result of carbon dioxide stimulation, something that no one disputes is rising," he said.

Poison ivy isn't the only plant whose growth is encouraged by additional carbon dioxide. In the Duke experiments, Dr. Schlesinger said, the trees themselves show an increase in growth under carbon dioxide concentrations roughly 50 percent higher than current conditions. "If you're a timber products company, you look at that favorably," he said.

Dr. Epstein, who has studied ragweed growth under increased carbon dioxide, said, "There are some side effects for public health as well as ecology." More cases of hay fever are likely to result from the additional pollen from ragweed and pine cones; a study at the same Duke forest showed that both plants produced more pollen under higher levels of CO2.

Increases in asthma have already been detected, Dr. Epstein said, as pollen and other airborne allergens combine with particles from truck and bus exhaust to reach deep into the lungs.

Jonathan Patz, of the Nelson Institute and the department of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, summed up the situation. "The bottom line is that there are many major health outcomes that are highly sensitive to climate change," he said.

But climate change, Dr. Patz said, involves more than just temperature. Extreme weather ??? harsher droughts on one end, and heavier rainfalls on the other ??? is expected to become more common.

That could lead to more outbreaks of disease. Dr. Patz led a study of episodes of waterborne disease in the United States in the second half of the 20th century and found that most of them followed periods of very heavy rainfall. One of the worst cases was an outbreak of parasitic infections in 1993 that sickened 400,000 people in Milwaukee. This was preceded by the heaviest rainfall month in the city in 50 years.

More intense rainfall "is something that water managers are going to have to take seriously," Dr. Patz said.

Extreme dry conditions can lead to disease as well. Dr. Epstein said that the 1999 outbreak in New York of West Nile virus coincided with a severe drought. The mosquito that transmits the virus between animals and humans finds partly evaporated, filthy pools of water more suitable for breeding.

Other insects flourish in the seesawing between extreme wet and extreme dry conditions, Dr. Epstein said. "That's exactly what the bugs love," he said. "They like it dried out, and then rain that floods an area" and creates pools of standing water for breeding. "In the Northeast, that's what gives you outbreaks of equine encephalitis," he said, referring to another mosquito-borne disease.

Mosquitoes are pests, of course, as are Japanese beetles, ticks and poison ivy, for that matter. "It's not at all surprising that pests get pestier" because of changing environmental conditions, said May R. Berenbaum, head of the department of entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who was involved in the Japanese beetle studies. "They have this opportunistic life history."

Thomas E. Lovejoy, president of the Heinz Center, a Washington research group on environmental policy, said: "When you're sending ripples through the ecosystem, I think what you do is tilt the balance a bit in favor of the pests. It begins to sound sort of biblical."

Mr. Lovejoy said that the increase in nuisance species, and the potential disappearance of other, much-prized species, may help raise awareness of climate change.

"The really strong reaction in the New England states about the prospect of losing the sugar maple is a great example of that," he said.

"Part of that is that it is a fall tourist magnet, and it gives us a little bit of syrup in the spring. But the reaction also is, 'Hey, this is part of where I live, and it won't be there.' " 
Have you seen the truth? 'An Inconvenient Truth' - watch the trailer here! The film eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore's personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global warming.


----------



## fufu (Jun 10, 2006)

lawl I was thinking it was a good article until I saw that link at the bottom.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 10, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> lawl I was thinking it was a good article until I saw that link at the bottom.



True Story, that completely negates any information found in the article 10,000%.


----------



## GFR (Jun 10, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, that completely negates any information found in the article 10,000%.


True Story


----------



## fufu (Jun 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, that completely negates any information found in the article 10,000%.


----------



## faller (Jun 11, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> If humans do cause global warming I'll just move to Canada!



What the hell makes you think we'd want you up here??


----------



## fufu (Jun 11, 2006)

faller said:
			
		

> What the hell makes you think we'd want you up here??



I never said anyone wanted me there.  

...but anyways...I don't give a fuck!


----------



## GFR (Jun 15, 2006)

*Study: Polar bears may turn to cannibalism *

*by*:  Dan Joling    13 June  2006 
 	 ANCHORAGE ??? Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea may be turning to cannibalism because longer seasons without ice keep them from getting to their natural food, a new study by American and Canadian scientists has found.

The study reviewed three examples of polar bears preying on each other from January to April 2004 north of Alaska and western Canada, including the first-ever reported killing of a female in a den shortly after it gave birth.

Polar bears feed primarily on ringed seals and use sea ice for feeding, mating and giving birth.

Polar bears kill each other for population regulation, dominance, and reproductive advantage, the study said. Killing for food seems to be less common, said the study's principal author, Steven Amstrup of the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center.

"During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears," the scientists said.

Environmentalists contend shrinking polar ice due to global warming may lead to the disappearance of polar bears before the end of the century.

The Center for Biological Diversity of Joshua Tree, Calif., in February 2005 petitioned the federal government to list polar bears as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Cannibalism demonstrates the effect on bears, said Kassie Siegal, lead author of the petition.

"It's very important new information," she said. "It shows in a really graphic way how severe the problem of global warming is for polar bears."

Deborah Williams of Alaska Conservation Solutions, a group aimed at pursuing solutions for climate change, said the study represents the "bloody fingerprints" of global warming.

"This is not a Coca-Cola commercial," she said, referring to animated polar bears used in advertising for the soft drink giant. "This represents the brutal downside of global warming."

The predation study was published in an online version of the journal Polar Biology on April 27. Amstrup said print publication will follow.

Researchers in spring 2004 found more bears in the eastern portion of the Alaska Beaufort Sea to be in poorer condition than bears in areas to the west and north.

Researchers discovered the first kill in January 2004. A male bear had pounced on a den, killed a female and dragged it 245 feet away, where it ate part of the carcass. Females are about half the size of males.

"In the face of the den's outer wall were deep impressions of where the predatory bear had pounded its forepaws to collapse the den roof, just as polar bears collapse the snow over ringed seal lairs," the paper said.

"From the tracks, it appeared that the predatory bear broke through the roof of the den, held the female in place while inflicting multiple bites to the head and neck. When the den collapsed, two cubs were buried, and suffocated, in the snow rubble."

In April 2004, while following bear footprints on sea ice near Herschel Island, Yukon Territory, scientists discovered the partially eaten carcass of an adult female. Footprints indicated it had been with a cub.

The male did not follow the cub, indicating it had killed for food instead of breeding.

A few days later, Canadian researchers found the remains of a yearling that had been stalked and killed by a predatory bear, the scientists said.


----------



## topolo (Jun 15, 2006)

I turned to cannabalism a long time ago.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 16, 2006)




----------

