Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
plantguy





Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 452
Reputation: 96.8Reputation: 96.8
votes: 1
Location: Lower Economy, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first person I heard use the cow theory was Ronald Regan, Guess he's the looney left.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
The first person I heard use the cow theory was Ronald Regan, Guess he's the looney left.

I don't recall Reagan describing the cow/methane connection. I remember him blaming pollution on the trees (and he wasn't 100% wrong)...

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
I am old enough to remember the legion of industry "experts" who worked very hard to prove that smoking, DDT, cfc's, second hand smoke,asbestos and lead in gasoline were perfectly safe and that any claims to the contrary were being spread by the looney left and biased media looking for a story where no existed.


So because of this we should assume that all warnings are destined to be true. Please explain your logic. There are just as many examples of dire warnings that never came to fruition.
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's snowing so bad right now in Toronto (2nd of Dec, 07)
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
I am old enough to remember the legion of industry "experts" who worked very hard to prove that smoking, DDT, cfc's, second hand smoke,asbestos and lead in gasoline were perfectly safe and that any claims to the contrary were being spread by the looney left and biased media looking for a story where no existed.


What about the 80's when we were told there's a huge hole in the ozone layer expanding everyday and were all gonna be fried by the sun unless we take drastic action.

What drastic action means to these nut jobs, is them rewriting social and fiscal policy while the rest of us sit around and don't question a single thing they do!
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
Guys, just for the record, the phrase "global warming" is a misnomer.The correct phrase is "climate change"


Yes it's amazing how that has changed over the last few years as the theory has not proven to follow the experts predicted path.


Quote:
The theory is that we will experience extremes in weather, both highs and lows in temperatures as well as an increase in hurricanes,


Ever since Katrina the predicted hurricane season has been a dismal disappointment for the sky is falling corner of the debate.

Climate change is a catch all phrase to cover up their incompetence.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Average annual deaths from weather-related events in the period 1990-2006 considered by scientists to be when global warming has been most intense were down by 87% on the 1900-89 average. The mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by 93%.

The report by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, a grouping of 41 mainly free-market bodies, comes on the eve of an international meeting on climate change in Bali.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....983816.ece
http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....07547.html
plantguy





Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 452
Reputation: 96.8Reputation: 96.8
votes: 1
Location: Lower Economy, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." Ronald Reagan

My apologies Mac, you were correct.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." Ronald Reagan

My apologies Mac, you were correct.

No apology necessary. Even a broken clock is right once a day... sometimes twice!

-Mac
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This cold winter would coincide with the predicted end (trough) of solar cycle 23. Solar cycle 24 is then predicted to start in 2008 and peak in approx 2011. Solar peaks are where there tends to be more storms and heat. Solar cycle 24 may be quite an intense cycle if trends continue. This link is one of many that talks about solar cycles and sun spot activity and its effects on Earth.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/wat.....r_c_1.html
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How are these solar cycles numbered? Surely, there has to be more than 24 cycles in the entire history of the earth? Unless it is some kind of repetitive pattern of course. I guess I should read the article.
Bill_in_Calgary





Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the latest prediction on the next sunspot cycle:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa......dict_l.gif

It looks like it may be a shorter duration than the last one even though more intense.

Here's the NASA page on sunspot cycles:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa......ycle.shtml

If you're curios to see what the sun is doing on any particular day check here:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

I was under the impression that the length of a cycle also had an effect on the temperatures.
Bill_in_Calgary





Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How are these solar cycles numbered? Surely, there has to be more than 24 cycles in the entire history of the earth? Unless it is some kind of repetitive pattern of course. I guess I should read the article.


I believe that 23 is the number of 11 year cycles there have been since official records have been kept using the same method as we use now. 23 X 11 = 253 years ago.
IcemanA





Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Reputation: 10.7

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The theory is that we will experience extremes in weather, both highs and lows in temperatures as well as an increase in hurricanes


Not that I'm naive enough to believe that a cold winter or fewer hurricanes disproves AGW any more than warmer winters or more hurricanes proves it, but it is interesting enough to note that only 3 years in at least the last 50 had less hurricane activity than 2007.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2471


And that's even ignoring the fact that before planes and/or satellites, only those hurricanes that sailors encountered or that made landfall were reported, and now we include every organized storm, even if no human ever sees it.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bear in mind too that the farther you go back in time, the less accurate the hurricane count will become. Eventually you reach a point where if someone did not see it, and write it down, and those records survived, and the researcher actually finds them, then it just did not happen. Today, we have the ability to record every single storm on the face of the planet, whether a human saw it or not, whether it makes landfall or not.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Coldest winter in years.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB