By-Tor.com

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:45 pm**

It is kinda ironic that we'd begin a Warming with a FREEZING January/February.
It reminds me of clicking the 'Start' button to 'End' and shut down your PC

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:01 pm**

I have burried a turd in the sand before.....................I'm ARMY trained!!!!

Now that was funny huh????

And I am neither Scientific, nor Religious.

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:31 pm**

zepboy wrote:I don't think the earth is a her. I haven't seen the vagina, and trust me, I know how to find them.

Big Blue Owl wrote:

Okay now, is it just me or does anyone else see the connection between these two posts?

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:53 pm**

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I'm sure if there is something to find, that's the guy who's finding it!

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:01 pm**

I've been single for too long...

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:43 pm**

Big Blue Owl wrote:HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I'm sure if there is something to find, that's the guy who's finding it!

Hey OWL.............the dude head banging in yer sig line is in time to "Time Stand Still."

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:03 pm**

You guys do crack me up from time to time. Zep I thought it was Me with my ass smiling at the sky. Nevertheless personally, I think it is optimistic at best to think human activity in the last couple of centuries have not contributed to some shift in the global weather situation. Since the industrial revolution, the human species has dramatically increased the amount of waste dumped into the environment. And this exceedingly large amount of waste, in my mind, cannot by any stretch of equations or imaginations have been totally negated or neutered in its consequence by the "it's a big world" philosophy. On further study about the upper atmosphere, cooling is indeed a fact. Along with many, many other hypothesis... USSR exploding a 50 mega ton nuke under the artic ice back in the 60s

whos to say what effect that might of had, surely not none, I just wouldn't eat the ice. I am not any expert that is a fact but I have notice a dramtic change and think it is excellerating in my opinion. I read in the newspaper today that by 2100 there will be a million deaths related to global warming. I must really have had my head in the sand with all the desertification causing famine, which has already caused the death of millions. My head was certainly in the sand thinking I could implement getting 4 days off sticking it to the man while helping the planet

Nevertheless here is a web page about the freezing of the upper atmosphere....

http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/greenhouse.html

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:55 pm**

Me wrote: I read in the newspaper today that by 2100 there will be a million deaths related to global warming.

How could anyone possibly know such a thing? How accurately could anyone have guessed in 1910 how conditions would be in the year 2000?

Granted, doomsday predictions like that have been going on for a very long time. In 1825, when the earth's population reached one billion, Thomas Malthus wrote that "the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man" had reached its limit, and "that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race". Oops.

I'd like to quote Alan Niezabitowski.

To be called science, things must stand up under a process called ?The Scientific Method.? Three steps are involved: One, observe a phenomenon. Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth. Every global warming item I have read stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ?It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.? This is a common fallacy in logic known as ?Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc? (After it, therefore caused by it) which is utterly invalid as far as the scientific method goes. Flat earth theories were not abandoned because of a shift in consensus. They were disproven by step 3 of the scientific method, and our current globe earth science stands up to the method. Most pro-global warming people think the hypothesis must be true so it is true. Even when a disproving step 3 happens (there will be more violent and numerous hurricanes this year because of global warming).

Do you guys remember that? Just last summer the media had their cameras out there on the beaches of Florida and in New Orleans waiting for the next Katrina to come along and wipe us all out... their predicted apocalypse. We were being told that because of global warming it's going to get worse and worse each year. And yet, we had no hurricanes to speak of in the United States last year.

He goes on...

When Einstein?s theory of relativity was thought to be insane, Einstein provided a step 3 method of testing it involving an eclipse and how light would behave. Things happened like he said they would, and we now accept the theory of relativity as science. The point is, if global warming theories were scientific fact, no scientist would be able to dispute it

But there are plenty of scientists who do dispute the current popular man-made global warming theories. There's still plenty to debate about, plenty to learn.

What saddens me is that it has become an issue of politics. If you want to mess something up, get the government involved. If you want to mess it up even worse, get the UN involved.

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:47 pm**

Bravo Elfie!!! You put rational sounding reason to the fire in my heart (I am experiencing heart warming!).

Unfortunately, there are many in this world (often those who grap the media spotlight) who accept their emotions as valid scientific proof: "I wouldn't feel this way without reason" rationale. And the media, of course, glom onto it because it sells. People are afraid of life in general. They need a reason to validate their fears. Blaming others allows them to avoid the possibility that they themselves are the cause of the fear. Have you ever noticed that most people seem to think that their negative circumstances MUST be someone else's fault?

Global warming hype (forget any valid reasoning) gives these folks just another reason to rail against people they hate anyway!

All I want to see is the valid science, stripped of any personal prejudice. Cold hard fact. That's all. Until then, I really wish the hype vendors would find something to do that would help mankind, not divide mankind.

Kev, I can tell you are not one of the hype meisters. You do sound rational. To me, you sound like a person who has a valid concern without flipping out. You care! I'm simply concerned that you would be sure of the facts (as I would want for anyone). Too many people follow the human tendency to adopt chicken little syndrome. Perhaps the sky may fall someday, but lets wait to see some cracks before gedding the hardhats. (Actually, I think the sky will roll up like a scroll.)

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:58 pm**

And after that sentence my next sentence was, common sense folks common sense.

I read in the newspaper today that by 2100 there will be a million deaths related to global warming.

I must really have had my head in the sand with all the desertification causing famine, which has already caused the death of millions.

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:04 pm**

Me wrote:
I must really have had my head in the sand with all the desertification causing famine, which has already caused the death of millions.

Not sure where the millions figure comes from, but that's a different issue anyway. Man can easily change a relatively local climate with things like deforestation. But what the UN folks are on about is the idea that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has raised the average global temperature (even though it hasn't changed in 9 years).

Posted: **Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:08 pm**

There is something I have been wondering about with regards to the start of global warming. I have not heard about what caused the warming that melted the ice bridge between North America and Asia. The industrial age started quite a time after the ice bridge melted, so it wasn't that. It had to be a bit of global warming that melted it, right?

Posted: **Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:26 am**

Atomobiles and deforestation are the major cause but plankton also contributes to the effect. Along with that there could of been huge fires, volcano's surely is was a natural event T meteorite perhaps but I really don't know and can only theorize. I have been wondering about Zep denying global warming being married to a native american, I would of thought he'd be very passionate about nature. If this white man has another vision quest I'll let you know, hugs darlin Dawn.

It feels like Fargo out here today, extremely cold below freezing with the wind. Just looking outside you can tell or I can anyway, just how cold it is.
Kind of neat really the atmospheric effect of extreme weather.

Posted: **Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:47 am**

Me wrote: I have been wondering about Zep denying global warming being married to a native american, I would of thought he'd be very passionate about nature.

STEREOTYPE! PROFILING! I never held to the belief that all Native Americans eat dirt and hug trees. I believe that they, as well as all persons, have the God given ability to believe according to their own heart. I don't see where there is a genetic tendency toward a particular belief. If I were to use that logic, I would consider the case that t should believe in unjustly conquering the world, oppressing natives and forcing them to change their way of life because she maried and Italian! LOL Well, actually, she DOES love the za! more LOL

Posted: **Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:10 am**

The native americans assimilation to the white mans ways was a failed cultural castration at any rate it did do great harm.. It's a madman and a fool refusing to encompass a world of reason and logic. Nevertheless I am trying to find infomation on the tale of U-Tit-Ne an native america tale of the most profound human questions, of why we are here etc.....

By-Tor.com

GLOBAL WARMING PROPOSAL