jbg Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) In 1967, the famous "Ice Bowl", or the N.F.L. championship game between the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys, the game time temperature was -13F or -24C. Today's gametime temperature was -18C or -1F, proving the insidious role of man-made global warming, and Bush/Harper's plundering of the environment. Excerpts below, link here: The temperature at Sunday’s kickoff was minus-1, and a 12-mile-an-hour breeze from the west created a wind-chill factor of minus-23. It was the coldest game in the recorded history of the Giants, and the second-coldest recorded game in Packers history. The temperature for 1967’s Ice Bowl, the N.F.L. championship game against the Cowboys, was minus-13. Some form of decisive, even panicky action is in order.1 1And the good news is that the Giants won in overtime, 23-20. On to beat New England!!! Arriba!!! Edited January 21, 2008 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Panicky action is needed because there's a difference between the temperature in 1967 to 2008? And this change in temperature is different from other changes in temperature, how? It went from -2C this morning to -18C this afternoon. WE'RE HEADING FOR AN ICE AGE! DECISIVE EVEN PANICKY ACTION IS NEEDED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliAgno Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Prove to me why I should care? It is not going to affect me or my kids or my kids kids or my kids kids kids so much that I should even think about it. So who cares? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Prove to me why I should care? It is not going to affect me or my kids or my kids kids or my kids kids kids so much that I should even think about it. So who cares? Seriously? The polution we produce is like compound interest. It seems too late already. At this rate yours and my great grand kids wont even see the light of day. So what are we going to do about it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Prove to me why I should care? It is not going to affect me or my kids or my kids kids or my kids kids kids so much that I should even think about it. So who cares? Seriously? When I was growing up Cancer was a rare thing, now it is pendamic expecially among young people. We have had two cases of Acute Leukemia in our family, one fatal with 4 more suspect. My 35 year old daughter in law died of Skin cancer. As did the daughter in law of a friend. Among the older people ever third person seems to have some type of cancer. Of course people such as yourself won't care until you have to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 When I was growing up Cancer was a rare thing, now it is pendamic expecially among young people. We have had two cases of Acute Leukemia in our family, one fatal with 4 more suspect. My 35 year old daughter in law died of Skin cancer. As did the daughter in law of a friend.Among the older people ever third person seems to have some type of cancer. Of course people such as yourself won't care until you have to deal with it. Global Warming doesn't cause cancer. Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have absolutely nothing to do with that. If it did, then breathing on someone would give them cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 The polution we produce is like compound interest. It seems too late already.At this rate yours and my great grand kids wont even see the light of day. So what are we going to do about it?! Pollution is a different issue from carbon dioxide emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) And the good news is that the Giants won in overtime, 23-20. On to beat New England!!! Arriba!!! LET'S GO PATRIOTS!! Edited January 21, 2008 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 'It's cold today in Wagga Wagga' Posted by Coby Beck at 8:48 AM on 03 Nov 2006 (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was way colder than normal today in Wagga Wagga, proof that there is no global warming. Does this even deserve an answer? If we must ... Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.If an unusual warming event happens (i.e. heat waves or hurricaines) the AGW alarmists are screaming in the media about how it is a 'sign' that global warming is happening at an alarming rate. Yet these same alarmists immediately dismiss any unusual cooling events as statistical blips. This kind of hypocrisy is common among AGW alarmists and one of the reasons why I am extremely suspicious of their arguments. Edited January 21, 2008 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 If an unusual warming event happens (i.e. heat waves or hurricaines) the AGW alarmists are screaming in the media about how it is a 'sign' that global warming is happening at an alarming rate. Yet these same alarmists immediately dismiss any unusual cooling events as statistical blips. This kind of hypocrisy is common among AGW alarmists and one of the reasons why I am extremely suspicious of their arguments. Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) Answer: The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.I will take you more seriously if I see you using that argument the next time someone tries to claim that abnormally warm weather events are evidence of global warming. Edited January 21, 2008 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Pollution is a different issue from carbon dioxide emissions. Isn't carbon dioxide emission pollution? Carbon emmision, green house gasses, disposable diapers, I mean all pollution. pollution is pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Isn't carbon dioxide emission pollution?CO2 is plant food. Greenhouse farmers keep the CO2 concentration level at 3 times the levels in the atmosphere. Numerous studies show that, on average, plants grow more and require less water when the CO2 levels are high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 CO2 is plant food. Greenhouse farmers keep the CO2 concentration level at 3 times the levels in the atmosphere. Numerous studies show that, on average, plants grow more and require less water when the CO2 levels are high. So in this regard we are speeding or changing the earth's natural cycle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Pollution is something that poisons the environment. Carbon dioxide doesn't poison the environment, it makes it greener and better for sustaining plant life (read: food). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Pollution is something that poisons the environment. Carbon dioxide doesn't poison the environment, it makes it greener and better for sustaining plant life (read: food). How can you write that when all i see in the world is the opposite? Too much C02 is unnatural. www.google.ca http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/env...balwarming.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6164...-pollution.html http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm http://www.lenntech.com/Air-purification/A...bon-dioxide.htm and on and on..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 How can you write that when all i see in the world is the opposite?Too much C02 is unnatural. Try this link:http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...es/image277.gif Most life on the planet evolved when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. CO2 is not pollution anymore than oxygen is pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) Try this link:http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...es/image277.gif Most life on the planet evolved when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. CO2 is not pollution anymore than oxygen is pollution. Its just my opinion but still, just a chart. I cant deny it when i see it in my own backyard. I dont have to be a scientist to see theres a problem. I dont have a car because it polutes, they're a death trap, traffic is ridiculous and they cost and arm and a leg to buy and maintain. And then theres "La guerre du petrol", the Americas war. We have unbelievable technology but we focus it on the wrong things. What im also trying to do is to change my kids' mentality towards the earth and nature. Keepin it simple u know? peace Edited January 22, 2008 by VIV3LAR3VOLUTION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 How can you write that when all i see in the world is the opposite?Too much C02 is unnatural. www.google.ca http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/env...balwarming.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6164...-pollution.html http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm http://www.lenntech.com/Air-purification/A...bon-dioxide.htm and on and on..... Try this one, for starters Or if you don't like that one, this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Pollution is something that poisons the environment. Carbon dioxide doesn't poison the environment, it makes it greener and better for sustaining plant life (read: food). There are three important modifiers that hurt your argument. 1. the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone in the Arctic, exposing warming temperatures to the north. As well as temperatures rise, we see increase weather effect in high evaporation and ocean-born storms. 2. forests once covered much of the earth (including many deserts) and could absorb tons of CO2. However, there is an upper limit to the amount of CO2 vegetation can absorb and we are presently producing more CO2 than the existing forests can absorb. 3. the amount of CO2 is increasing. If all we did was work to decrease CO2, it is not likely that things would change in the near future. However, CO2 is just a marker for other chemical pollutants we dump into the atmosphere and is not necessary the entire problem. (Scientists use CO2 because it can be identified geologically and gives us a much better idea of the trends of the past.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 3. the amount of CO2 is increasing. If all we did was work to decrease CO2, it is not likely that things would change in the near future. However, CO2 is just a marker for other chemical pollutants we dump into the atmosphere and is not necessary necessarily the entire problem. (Scientists use CO2 because it can be identified geologically and gives us a much better idea of the trends of the past.)So you're admitting, in other words, that policies aimed directly at CO2 might not have any impact at all since it's a marker?Great way to base a policy that would likely cripple the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 1. the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone in the Arctic, exposing warming temperatures to the north. As well as temperatures rise, we see increase weather effect in high evaporation and ocean-born storms. CO2 is damaging the ozone? lol First I have heard of that! Care to link that to s scientific study? You DO know what Ozone is and what really damaged it? hint: see cfc's. A Canadian you no doubt hate, was instrumental in getting this problem resolved and an effective international protocal signed to end the damage and it all had ZERO to do with CO2. When the alarmists have to link CO2 to being a pollutant and damaging the ozone, logical people have to wonder about the 'science' that is coming from that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 1. the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone2. we are presently producing more CO2 than the existing forests can absorb. 3. If all we did was work to decrease CO2, it is not likely that things would change I'm going to need you to cite your references for those first two. And I don't even know what to say about your last point as it is being framed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 1. the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone in the Arctic, exposing warming temperatures to the north. As well as temperatures rise, we see increase weather effect in high evaporation and ocean-born storms. WTH??? That is most likely the most ridiculous statement I have ever read wrt GW! Thanks for the laugh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.