BuffettNews.com

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:
Also as Ragtop said, the Earth will destroy us before we destroy it.

Well if the earth is out to destroy us, let's keep up the global warming, call it self defense and everyone sleeps sound tonight.

TOTALLY! Let's get her first before she gets us!!!!!


Aerosol hairspray anyone?

Cheez Whiz and Whipped Cream!

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

captenuta wrote: That statement is not true ask the Inuit hunters in Canada. Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

yea, I , um , well , I'm lost.

me too.

Sorry for the confusion, let me 'splain what I meant...

I was referring to a shortened season (because of less polar ice) during which the polar bears can hunt for food. Because of how they hunt (on ice) and the fact their habitat is deteriorating, it's much harder for them to get well-fed. As a result, their "condition" is on average, deteriorating (lower percent body fat, weaker immune system, increased susceptibility to disease, lower energy to hunt/feed efficiently, etc.), which projects a significant decline in numbers. Basically, it appears they're starving to death.

Quiet and Shy wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

yea, I , um , well , I'm lost.

me too.

Sorry for the confusion, let me 'splain what I meant...

I was referring to a shortened season (because of less polar ice) during which the polar bears can hunt for food. Because of how they hunt (on ice) and the fact their habitat is deteriorating, it's much harder for them to get well-fed. As a result, their "condition" is on average, deteriorating (lower percent body fat, weaker immune system, increased susceptibility to disease, lower energy to hunt/feed efficiently, etc.), which projects a significant decline in numbers. Basically, it appears they're starving to death.

Weren't they put on the Endangered Species List or nominated for it?

Quiet and Shy wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

captenuta wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: I don't know what "GN" is. I can't immediately quote sources but I've seen some credible reports on how the numbers appear to be in decline and the condition/health of polar bears overall has deteriorated significantly. The research points to a shortened hunting season (due to less polar ice) as the most probable cause. And, data could certainly vary by locale vs. overall...kind of like the rediculous argument people are making that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside today.

Um...wouldn't the hunting season add to the decline in numbers?

A shortened hunting season, as she mentioned, would support an increase in the polar bear population, keeping more of them alive to die due to habitat loss because of the melting ice shelves which results in an overall, long-term decrease in the polar bear population.

yea, I , um , well , I'm lost.

me too.

Sorry for the confusion, let me 'splain what I meant...

I was referring to a shortened season (because of less polar ice) during which the polar bears can hunt for food. Because of how they hunt (on ice) and the fact their habitat is deteriorating, it's much harder for them to get well-fed. As a result, their "condition" is on average, deteriorating (lower percent body fat, weaker immune system, increased susceptibility to disease, lower energy to hunt/feed efficiently, etc.), which projects a significant decline in numbers. Basically, it appears they're starving to death.

Well...that sounds like good news for the seals they hunt down and eat.

More Global Warming!!

6 degrees is not warm enough!

At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

Boy can I kill a thread or what ...

Beneath the joviality, I think I detect a mood of quiet despair.

flyboy55 wrote:Beneath the joviality, I think I detect a mood of quiet despair.

Well...tequila effects everyone differently.

Well said redwinemaker.

redwinemaker wrote:At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

???

flyboy55 wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

???

Not sure I understand the question but ... the essence is that whether or not the earth is getting warmer and if so what is causing it are two separate and distinct questions. The media and the politicians dont seem to understand this. The arrogance is that IF something is happening THEN we must have caused it. It just isnt so.

redwinemaker wrote:The arrogance is that IF something is happening THEN we must have caused it. It just isnt so.

Clearly your scientific knowledge exceeds that of the scientists who are actually studying and researching the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

Feel fee to Google "Urban Heat Island" Start with this link-

http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/

Here's a brief description. They ARE MAN MADE.

An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centres grow in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding increase in average temperature, which is more often welcome in winter months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot summer days, urban air can be 2-10°F [2-6°C] hotter than the surrounding countryside.

There are several causes of a UHI, as outlined in Oke (1982). The principal reason for the night-time warming is (comparatively warm) buildings blocking the view to the (relatively cold) night sky. (See Thermal radiation) Two other reasons that UHIs occur are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This initiates a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often causing it to reach higher temperatures (measured both on the surface and in the air) than its surroundings. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation and standing water in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration.


Waaaaaayyyyyy back in the early 70's Joni Mitchel wrote a song that has become prophetic to our times. The song is Big Yellow Taxi, most of us know it as "Pave Paradise and Put up a Parling Lot."

I really don't think too many people are ready to argue that black asphalt roads, parking lots and roof tops are somehow cooler than the what was there before development as trees, plants and grasses.

Remember-

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot


Just for kicks and giggles- I hope this makes everyonne think

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot SPOT
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to seem 'em
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Hey farmer, farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But LEAVE me the birds and the bees
Please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Late last night
I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi
Took away my old man
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

I said
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

redwinemaker wrote:At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

While, I don't agree with it, it is well-thought out and not like some of the letters to the editor that I've seen myopically saying Global Warming is a GOOD thing because it saves money on heating.

alphabits wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:The arrogance is that IF something is happening THEN we must have caused it. It just isnt so.

Clearly your scientific knowledge exceeds that of the scientists who are actually studying and researching the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

That was rude, but I will respond anyway since your rudeness is likely caused by your not reading my treatise thoroughly. Please note, that I have no facts to support that hypothesis, therefore it is merely supposition.

The Great Ice Age was not caused by humans. The facts indicate that it was caused by a collision of a meteorite with the Earth. Indeed, we are but a tiny blip on the time track of this planet. To state unequivocally that global warming IS caused by humans when no evidence exists to support that statement violates the principles of science. To say that global warming MAY be caused by humans is a valid point, based on supposition. In science, that is simply not good enough. Go back and re-read my treatise. I never said their supposition is factually wrong, I said that there are no facts in evidence to state that it is factually right. Then read any and all scientific literature about global warming. The facts state that the Earth IS warming, they show that we ARE burning fossil fuels, they show that we are producing CO2 at a greater rate then ever before etc. There is NO evidence that any of our output is actually causing global warming. There are scientific models that state it might be, even is "very likely" to be, according to the IPCC. There are also scientific models that state that out output is insignificant towards global warming. If you do an honest search you will find both. Don't forget that the panel of scientists who made todays declaration were put there by politicians. What they have stated today regarding the human causes are their collective opinion, not a scientific conclusion

It is my lay OPINION that natural causes are more likely to be at the root of global warming, since it has happened so many times before without any form of human contribution. It is my scientific observation that no facts exist to support human causes of global warming, while there are historical scientific facts regarding the natural causes of global warmings of past millenia.

redwinemaker wrote:

. . . there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

. . . Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

With all due respect, the vast majority of climate scientists, here in the U.S. and around the world, DO support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, contrary to the statements made above.

But science isn't done by majority rule, so the mere fact that, say , 995 out of 1000 climate scientists believe humans are responsible for global warming, doesn't mean that they are correct. However, it should definitely make folks sit up and take notice.

There are, to be sure, people playing politics with the climate change issue, but I think most of them are in the global warming is junk science camp along with our president. Oh wait a minute, even he has changed his tune and now thinks it is a serious issue which demands attention.

flyboy55 wrote:But science isn't done by majority rule, so the mere fact that, say , 995 out of 1000 climate scientists believe humans are responsible for global warming, doesn't mean that they are correct. However, it should definitely make folks sit up and take notice.

I may sit up & take notice just as soon as the wind chill gets above -30 below here.
In the meantime, they can take the Kyoto Treaty and throw it into my fireplace.
I'm almost out of firewood.

Must be time to go chop down a few more trees.

redwinemaker wrote:

alphabits wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:The arrogance is that IF something is happening THEN we must have caused it. It just isnt so.

Clearly your scientific knowledge exceeds that of the scientists who are actually studying and researching the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

That was rude, but I will respond anyway since your rudeness is likely caused by your not reading my treatise thoroughly. Please note, that I have no facts to support that hypothesis, therefore it is merely supposition.

Rude? How so? You made the statement "It just isn't so". The article cited contradicts that. For your statement to be true, you must know more than those that have studied the issue. If you took that as rudeness, I apologize ..... to me, it was just pointing out a logical supposition. And for the record, I read your treatise thoroughly.