quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Kido reminds me of exactly why I don't miss my home town of Seattle. The Northwest is full of liberal self righteous blowhards.

Amen. No, wait............

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Kido reminds me of exactly why I don't miss my home town of Seattle. The Northwest is full of liberal self righteous blowhards.

[sarcasm]You guys better be careful. With all this name-calling you are starting to let your intelligence show through[/sarcasm]

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Kido reminds me of exactly why I don't miss my home town of Seattle. The Northwest is full of liberal self righteous blowhards.

Yeah. He acts like a f***ing child. I have no use for his crap.

And plain ole run of the mill blowhards like me.

The ice cap does look further away than I remember it being but that was a long time ago.



It's now just a cold war relic, a modern day ghost town.

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 07-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: And plain ole run of the mill blowhards like me.

But we LIKE you, red.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Yeah. He acts like a f***ing child. I have no use for his crap.

Who was calling who names?

I guess you don't realize that having an opinion doesn't automatically make you right.

LOL, Blacktree!

Oh, but don't forget they actually tried to suggest that the big snowstorms and REALLY cold weather recently was caused by global WARMING.

My graph should be given about as much credence as the infamous "hockey stick" graph. But it is good for a chuckle.

You've got to be kidding me. KidO did nothing more or less than some of the posters in this thread have done countless times. Attacking him with name-calling is just ridiculous.

not sure why the disbelief in global warming. most of those who argue against it use arguements which support the fact that global warming happens. its cyclical. which means it happens. even in this thread. greenland has cyclular melt offs. no actual record of how much. but - it happens. there has been a steady & measurable decline in the volume of ice worldwide for the last 10 years. thats not a winter/summer thing. this is over 10 years. it IS happening.

and I welcome it. I love my mild winters. Michigan could use the warming. but - the real fun will be the ice age which quickly follows every warming. its happened before. it'll happen again. and looking thru the cycles which have already happened, we are right on track.

yes, I to do not trust the "greenhouse" theory stuff - but global warming is real, and it is happening right now.

these cycles are part of what makes life on earth possible. steady states create stagnation. dynamic systems promote evolution.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: You've got to be kidding me. KidO did nothing more or less than some of the posters in this thread have done countless times. Attacking him with name-calling is just ridiculous.

He was given an explanation, then proceeded to repeat "fierobear...wikipedia...nyah nyah". THAT'S the issue. I supported my argument. He went bratty little kid with it.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: not sure why the disbelief in global warming. most of those who argue against it use arguements which support the fact that global warming happens. its cyclical. which means it happens.

I don't know of anyone who disputes that there's "global warming" as part of the natural heating and cooling cycles of the earth. The only disputes I've seen are about anthropogenic global warming. Most people just say global warming, but they're typically referring to AGW.

We know for a fact the earth has been much cooler than it is today.
It has been much hotter than it is today.
It has had much less CO₂ in the atmosphere than it does today.
It has had much more CO₂ in the atmosphere than it does today.

But we're supposed to agree with a group that sticks a pin in the chart and says "that's normal - everything else is damaging climate change due to man's influence."

The Sahara used to be lush. Should we change the climat to get back to that? (assuming we have the ability)
Greenland used to be warmer. Should we welcome or fear it's return to it's climate before there were SUVs?

It ain't MY fault this time. It was raining here July 8-12, so I was NOT burning anything.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I don't know of anyone who disputes that there's "global warming" as part of the natural heating and cooling cycles of the earth. The only disputes I've seen are about anthropogenic global warming. Most people just say global warming, but they're typically referring to AGW. We know for a fact the earth has been much cooler than it is today. It has been much hotter than it is today. It has had much less CO2 in the atmosphere than it does today. It has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere than it does today. But we're supposed to agree with a group that sticks a pin in the chart and says "that's normal - everything else is damaging climate change due to man's influence." The Sahara used to be lush. Should we change the climat to get back to that? (assuming we have the ability) Greenland used to be warmer. Should we welcome or fear it's return to it's climate before there were SUVs?

Why not look at what the scientists are saying? The timeline and duration of these changes is key.

quote Originally posted by newf: Why not look at what the scientists are saying? The timeline and duration of these changes is key.

quote "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

It sure is.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: You've got to be kidding me. KidO did nothing more or less than some of the posters in this thread have done countless times. Attacking him with name-calling is just ridiculous.

It's not really a surprise. The people here that resort to that tactic do so frequently. If you don't support their position, you must be a moron, idiot, blowhard, etc. They feel they have the high-road, labeling anyone who disagrees with their point of view a liberal, like it's some sort of curse or plague. It would be easy to stoop to their level and sling names back, but I've seen it here before and I'm sure I'll see it again. You'll One of the "liberals" here on PFF finally break down and call one of the "convervatives" a name. The rest of their posse will chime in and state "that's what liberals do when they can't win the argument." It's all really quite ironic and hypocritical.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: He was given an explanation, then proceeded to repeat "fierobear...wikipedia...nyah nyah". THAT'S the issue. I supported my argument. He went bratty little kid with it.

As far as fierobear goes, he has shown his true colors time and time again. His opinion is not one of fact, but one of political servitude. My entrance into this thread was in response to Arn85GT, who stated that Greenland was named because of the good farmland the Vikings found there. That didn't jive with my memories of Viking history from many years ago, so I did a bit of double-checking on that statement. All of the sources that I found seemed to theorize that "good marketing", not fertile soil was the reason behind the name. fierobear's response to my post with a Wiki article truly made me laugh out loud!!! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything at the time. A Wiki quote from a man who has time and time again posted that Wiki articles are not viable because they can be edited by liberals! I could not resist making the comment I did.

I am in no way a global warming or climate change alarmist, but I do believe that if we, as human beings, are doing things that negatively affect our environment (this includes the climate) we should make changes. I have enjoyed many things in my lifetime around the globe and I hope my children and my children's children have the same oppurtunity. Unfortunately, I have seen things in my lifetime already "go away", as a result of mankind, that I was able to enjoy in my younger years. I am an avid outdoorsman, and I work hard to instill values in my kids that I hope will help them understand that our environment is not an unlimited commodity, but something that we need to take care of if we want to continue to enjoy it.

All that being said, fierobear sees my entrance in a thread involving "climate" as an attack on his political opinion. I am a liberal and must be the enemy. It is people like him, people with narrow-minded, hateful views of others that will be the downfall of our society. It's truly sad that there are so many people like that in the world.

The whole point is that anthropological influence does not change the weather.

If the IPCC believed it's own data it would see that Iceland's temperatures have been far higher even since 1940.

The land temperature indeed fluctuates regularly.

If one follows research done on the old Viking settlements, it is evident that they planted crops and raised livestock in areas where today it is not possible.

Look at the IPCC's own chart.

I don't think there is any need to call anyone names, and I perhaps am guilty of this from time to time depending on one's interpretation of what a "name" is. But lets keep one thing clear. Pointing out that someone is being ignorant to presented facts or perhaps arrogant is NOT name calling. All too often I hear people act as if this is an insult. Guess what, were all ignorant to something and at times perhaps arrogant. If I refuse to acknowledge presented facts and continue to beat a drum over and over despite clear evidence of the contrary, that is in fact ignorant and arrogant. Reminds me of the anti-gun crowd. Their arrogant in their resolve and yet so ignorant when it comes to information about weapons. Even Bill Orielly doesn't know the difference between "heavy" weaponry and small arms. He said anyone can go to a gun show and buy a machine gun or bazooka! lol....he also said you can go buy a Howitzer and a mortar...lol what a joke.

If someone says you're an idiot, moron, dumb-ass, etc, that IS name calling. It may be true, but that's beside the point.

As far as Liberal Progressivism.....that is a plague and it's slowly eating away the foundation of this nation like a terminal cancer.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 07-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It sure is.

Moving the goal posts again?

If one reads the article you might see things like this "The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager in Washington. "Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system."

But hey when has context ever mattered?

quote Originally posted by KidO: I am in no way a global warming or climate change alarmist, but I do believe that if we, as human beings, are doing things that negatively affect our environment (this includes the climate) we should make changes. I have enjoyed many things in my lifetime around the globe and I hope my children and my children's children have the same oppurtunity. Unfortunately, I have seen things in my lifetime already "go away", as a result of mankind, that I was able to enjoy in my younger years. I am an avid outdoorsman, and I work hard to instill values in my kids that I hope will help them understand that our environment is not an unlimited commodity, but something that we need to take care of if we want to continue to enjoy it.

Agreed, the thought that we can live in a bubble (the earth) and indiscriminately do what we please without an affect on it still amazes me. Smog days, pollution, acid rain....but no we can't effect our environment.

quote Originally posted by newf: Agreed, the thought that we can live in a bubble (the earth) and indiscriminately do what we please without an affect on it still amazes me. Smog days, pollution, acid rain....but no we can't effect our environment.

of course we can effect our environment. Do we effect it to the point where the whole world is warming? that's a strecth

nasa.gov purports this ? What a surprise ! Nobama cut space flights and charged NASA, funded NASA, with a global warming research mission.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: of course we can effect our environment. Do we effect it to the point where the whole world is warming? that's a strecth

For some, yes.

I still have trouble keeping the argument straight from the deniers though, there is nothing happening, it's cyclical, or man has nothing to do with it?

quote Originally posted by KidO: As far as fierobear goes, he has shown his true colors time and time again. His opinion is not one of fact, but one of political servitude. My entrance into this thread was in response to Arn85GT, who stated that Greenland was named because of the good farmland the Vikings found there. That didn't jive with my memories of Viking history from many years ago, so I did a bit of double-checking on that statement. All of the sources that I found seemed to theorize that "good marketing", not fertile soil was the reason behind the name. fierobear's response to my post with a Wiki article truly made me laugh out loud!!! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything at the time. A Wiki quote from a man who has time and time again posted that Wiki articles are not viable because they can be edited by liberals! I could not resist making the comment I did.

WRONG, kido. My issue with you on this subject is that I provided proof that goes BEYOND the wiki article, including a link to a Smithsonian Institute book on the history of the Vikings. You are obfuscating the issue with all sorts of irrelevancies and getting stuck on the Wiki article. You've been given the evidence and the sources. There are more, but I won't waste my time posting them if all you can do is repeat your Wiki LOL rant.

As far as the political angle, it IS political. The IPCC is NOT a scientific body as much as it is a POLITICAL body. They have a political agenda that involves world wide taxation and redistribution. If these taxes are implemented, YOU will pay more for EVERYTHING. Gas, food, heating your home, Fiero parts...everything. And you will gain NOTHING from it but a more empty walled. THAT is why I am fighting this. It would be a complete useless expense, and the money would go overseas to the corrupt UN, dictators and third world countries. It would NOT help the poor.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG, kido. My issue with you on this subject is that I provided proof that goes BEYOND the wiki article, including a link to a Smithsonian Institute book on the history of the Vikings. You are obfuscating the issue with all sorts of irrelevancies and getting stuck on the Wiki article. You've been given the evidence and the sources. There are more, but I won't waste my time posting them if all you can do is repeat your Wiki LOL rant. As far as the political angle, it IS political. The IPCC is NOT a scientific body as much as it is a POLITICAL body. They have a political agenda that involves world wide taxation and redistribution. If these taxes are implemented, YOU will pay more for EVERYTHING. Gas, food, heating your home, Fiero parts...everything. And you will gain NOTHING from it but a more empty walled. THAT is why I am fighting this. It would be a complete useless expense, and the money would go overseas to the corrupt UN, dictators and third world countries. It would NOT help the poor.

Did you bother to read the Wiki article you posted? I posted an article and commented on how Greenland got its name. From your Wiki article:

quote The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name." Although there is no special reason to doubt the accuracy of this information, it should always be borne in mind that the sagas embody the literary preoccupations of writers and audiences in medieval Iceland, and they cannot always be treated as reliable sources for the history of Norse Greenland

I don't doubt that there was a period in history where it was warmer in Greenland. It's a PIA to grow crops in the snow.

The point is, the comment you made on my post was of no relevance to my post. Geez, go kill a tree or something if it will make you feel better.

quote Originally posted by KidO: I don't doubt that there was a period in history where it was warmer in Greenland. It's a PIA to grow crops in the snow. The point is, the comment you made on my post was of no relevance to my post. Geez, go kill a tree or something if it will make you feel better.

The article mentions that it was a lot warmer than the long term average when the settled there. The settlement ended when the little ice age started. Hardly irrelevant.

quote Originally posted by newf: For some, yes. I still have trouble keeping the argument straight from the deniers though, there is nothing happening, it's cyclical, or man has nothing to do with it?

It's cyclical.....how can we claim its not. Ice core samples, geologist, and history all document colder and warmer periods. We have seasons, ..winter, summer, etc. Is that hard to believe the earth it's self has "seasons" cyclically?

quote Originally posted by newf: For some, yes. I still have trouble keeping the argument straight from the deniers though, there is nothing happening, it's cyclical, or man has nothing to do with it?

The deniers, . "Or" ? How 'bout "and".

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-27-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: For some, yes. I still have trouble keeping the argument straight from the deniers though, there is nothing happening, it's cyclical, or man has nothing to do with it?

It's cyclical, and man has a negligible impact on the timing. Global climate change is true.

Can we harm areas? Yeah, of course. It just doesn't change the broad scope of things.

That's my opinion at least. I believe there is enough data to support any stance, so without conclusivity tax dollars shouldn't be wasted.

Maybe humans in 500 years will think I'm an idiot, but I can't justify tax dollars with "what-ifs".

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: It's cyclical.....how can we claim its not. Ice core samples, geologist, and history all document colder and warmer periods. We have seasons, ..winter, summer, etc. Is that hard to believe the earth it's self has "seasons" cyclically?

Sure many things are cyclical but if you look at the scientific consensus they are saying there is a cause and effect to this non-cyclical change, at least that's what I have read.