In 1974, they tried to lie to you about a coming ice age. They're at it again.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

obviously we do have different points - i was trying to get an answer to a question and you used my question as a way to further your agenda against another poster. bravo!

and i'm still wondering who's house that is.

My "agenda" is against ignorance & misinformation... it just so happens the poster in question is one of the VJ Champions of ignorance & misinformation.

so your agenda should therefore include confirming or denying if al gore owns that house or not.

I have been pretty consistent in denouncing or ignoring these type of issues, which are politically motivated personal attacks IMO. That includes the numerous threads about politicians from the right (e.g. Palin). They are nothing more than red herrings & thus not relevant.

translation - you don't know if that's al gore's house or not.

Translation- It's a red herring concerning the original topic & thus is

Lay off the Danno juice... it's numbing your mind!

i'm just looking for a simple answer - yes it is, no it's not. sorry if that's too difficult for you to provide.

www.google.com

[nowhereman 1]

obviously we do have different points - i was trying to get an answer to a question and you used my question as a way to further your agenda against another poster. bravo!

and i'm still wondering who's house that is.

My "agenda" is against ignorance & misinformation... it just so happens the poster in question is one of the VJ Champions of ignorance & misinformation.

so your agenda should therefore include confirming or denying if al gore owns that house or not.

I have been pretty consistent in denouncing or ignoring these type of issues, which are politically motivated personal attacks IMO. That includes the numerous threads about politicians from the right (e.g. Palin). They are nothing more than red herrings & thus not relevant.

translation - you don't know if that's al gore's house or not.

Translation- It's a red herring concerning the original topic & thus is

Lay off the Danno juice... it's numbing your mind!

i'm just looking for a simple answer - yes it is, no it's not. sorry if that's too difficult for you to provide.

www.google.com

Didn't cross reference this article so I don't know if it's accurate, but it's believable:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental...7062202?src=rss

Now feast on your red herring & make sure you save some for Danno!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

so your agenda should therefore include confirming or denying if al gore owns that house or not.

I have been pretty consistent in denouncing or ignoring these type of issues, which are politically motivated personal attacks IMO. That includes the numerous threads about politicians from the right (e.g. Palin). They are nothing more than red herrings & thus not relevant.

translation - you don't know if that's al gore's house or not.

Translation- It's a red herring concerning the original topic & thus is

Lay off the Danno juice... it's numbing your mind!

i'm just looking for a simple answer - yes it is, no it's not. sorry if that's too difficult for you to provide.

www.google.com

Didn't cross reference this article so I don't know if it's accurate, but it's believable:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental...7062202?src=rss

Now feast on your red herring & make sure you save some for Danno!

verdict - no, it's not al gore's house. which brings us back to

Oh Al Gore's house! The Gore Hard-On has entered the thread.

At every provable point HAL is wrong.

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[HAL 9000 96]

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

The insatiable quest for a gotcha against me is hilarious huh Chuck?

Yeah I do think I said something about not caring whether it was Friedman's house or not. Lets see if you can overcome that drive at an incongruous tangent from the topic at hand (science).

PS: I do believe I was wrong in post #38. To which you had to jump in in post #51. Then in post #52 I referrenced how Dannologic (in this case, an incongruous tangent that does not affect the validity of the science, but only to someone that equates what others do as an excuse to not improve themselves) wouldn't help your case. Finally, in post #62 I type it in plain English that that was the Friedman estate.

PPS: Get over it and argue based on context.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

The insatiable quest for a gotcha against me is hilarious huh Chuck?

Yeah I do think I said something about not caring whether it was Friedman's house or not. Lets see if you can overcome that drive at an incongruous tangent from the topic at hand (science).

PS: I do believe I was wrong in post #38. To which you had to jump in in post #51. Then in post #52 I referrenced how Dannologic (in this case, an incongruous tangent that does not affect the validity of the science, but only to someone that equates what others do as an excuse to not improve themselves) wouldn't help your case. Finally, in post #62 I type it in plain English that that was the Friedman estate.

PPS: Get over it and argue based on context.

who's friedman?

[HAL 9000 96]

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

The insatiable quest for a gotcha against me is hilarious huh Chuck?

Yeah I do think I said something about not caring whether it was Friedman's house or not. Lets see if you can overcome that drive at an incongruous tangent from the topic at hand (science).

PS: I do believe I was wrong in post #38. To which you had to jump in in post #51. Then in post #52 I referrenced how Dannologic (in this case, an incongruous tangent that does not affect the validity of the science, but only to someone that equates what others do as an excuse to not improve themselves) wouldn't help your case. Finally, in post #62 I type it in plain English that that was the Friedman estate.

PPS: Get over it and argue based on context.

who's friedman?

Yeah Charles... you might want to read back in the topic.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

The insatiable quest for a gotcha against me is hilarious huh Chuck?

Yeah I do think I said something about not caring whether it was Friedman's house or not. Lets see if you can overcome that drive at an incongruous tangent from the topic at hand (science).

PS: I do believe I was wrong in post #38. To which you had to jump in in post #51. Then in post #52 I referrenced how Dannologic (in this case, an incongruous tangent that does not affect the validity of the science, but only to someone that equates what others do as an excuse to not improve themselves) wouldn't help your case. Finally, in post #62 I type it in plain English that that was the Friedman estate.

PPS: Get over it and argue based on context.

who's friedman?

Yeah Charles... you might want to read back in the topic.

oh i noticed something interesting....first 3 posts to mention al gore was aj, aj, and then you...

so once again, we can blame aj for this.

[Peikko 1,575]

Galileo used as a credible argument as to why scientists would accept funding for the sake of the funding, rather than to advance science?

Galileo's not the argument.

Actually, he is. The guy is basically saying the scientists bow to outside pressure and change their beliefs according to that pressure thus having no basic integrity and that's why we should lend no credence to their theories on global warming. A pretty silly line altogether but then as the naysayers have not come up with their own explanation of the available evidence (and there is a lot of it about) but simply like to attack the scientists or more popularly those politicians who promote the science and most importantly strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes, I guess that's inevitable.

[mawilson 2,133]

strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes

I haven't seen any.

All I've seen so far are ridiculous proposals and futile attempts to "stop" global warming.

No politician has said, "let's accept global warming and learn to adapt".

[Peikko 1,575]

strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes

I haven't seen any.

All I've seen so far are ridiculous proposals and futile attempts to "stop" global warming.

No politician has said, "let's accept global warming and learn to adapt".

Not really true, at a local level people are having to implement strategies to deal with changing local conditions. Look at the recent flooding in Cumbria for example and how this was tied in with demands for water in the surrounding large urban conurbations. These are not very 'sexy' so you don't get to read about them in the tabloids, but the reality is that on the ground, local authorities are having to make provision for these changes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes

I haven't seen any.

All I've seen so far are ridiculous proposals and futile attempts to "stop" global warming.

No politician has said, "let's accept global warming and learn to adapt".

The proper distinction may not be made as often as it should, but the plan is to reduce greenhouse gases from primarily fossil fuels in order to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere which would thereby slow down the acceleration of Climate Change. A normal Global Warming period lasts something like 20,000 years (I'm not certain on the number). The current warming trends show that we've significantly accelerated it to within a century. Humans won't be able to survive without plants and animals that can adapt and any basic understanding of adaptation would cause alarm to think of how much of any life can adapt at such an accelerated rate of change.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, and there is another layer of debate, those who think humans have an inalienable right to do as they please on planet earth, simply because they can (and because of this so called 'special relationship between man and god that the 'beasts' simply do not enjoy - one of my pet hates about the main religions, very homocentric) at the expense of any other living creature inhabiting the planet with us, or those who believe that a mutual co-habitation with as wide a variety of species is necessary for a mutually beneficial continuation of such co-habitation.

[HAL 9000 96]

and hal remains wrong about who's house it is.

The insatiable quest for a gotcha against me is hilarious huh Chuck?

Yeah I do think I said something about not caring whether it was Friedman's house or not. Lets see if you can overcome that drive at an incongruous tangent from the topic at hand (science).

PS: I do believe I was wrong in post #38. To which you had to jump in in post #51. Then in post #52 I referrenced how Dannologic (in this case, an incongruous tangent that does not affect the validity of the science, but only to someone that equates what others do as an excuse to not improve themselves) wouldn't help your case. Finally, in post #62 I type it in plain English that that was the Friedman estate.

PPS: Get over it and argue based on context.

who's friedman?

Yeah Charles... you might want to read back in the topic.

oh i noticed something interesting....first 3 posts to mention al gore was aj, aj, and then you...

so once again, we can blame aj for this.

Galileo used as a credible argument as to why scientists would accept funding for the sake of the funding, rather than to advance science?

Galileo's not the argument.

Actually, he is. The guy is basically saying the scientists bow to outside pressure and change their beliefs according to that pressure thus having no basic integrity and that's why we should lend no credence to their theories on global warming. A pretty silly line altogether but then as the naysayers have not come up with their own explanation of the available evidence (and there is a lot of it about) but simply like to attack the scientists or more popularly those politicians who promote the science and most importantly strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes, I guess that's inevitable.

It is inevitable. Every argument has its ignorami, sadly.

strategies for human's to adapt to the climatic changes

I haven't seen any.

All I've seen so far are ridiculous proposals and futile attempts to "stop" global warming.

No politician has said, "let's accept global warming and learn to adapt".

Because we are still at a place where governments can save $$ by dealing with the root causes instead of trying to do planetary engineering that is a whole other can of worms with results that may even make the problem worse.

[HAL 9000 96]

The proper distinction may not be made as often as it should, but the plan is to reduce greenhouse gases from primarily fossil fuels in order to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere which would thereby slow down the acceleration of Climate Change. A normal Global Warming period lasts something like 20,000 years (I'm not certain on the number). The current warming trends show that we've significantly accelerated it to within a century. Humans won't be able to survive without plants and animals that can adapt and any basic understanding of adaptation would cause alarm to think of how much of any life can adapt at such an accelerated rate of change.

And THAT is where weather patterns can be used to relate the science along a more 'human scale.' The weather is the end effect, among other effects too painfully obvious to mention again and again.