Record-Setting Heat Wave in U.S. Settles in as "Silent Killer"

[BishopM 114]

HOW DRY IS IT IN TEXAS?

It's so dry in Texas that the Baptists are starting to baptize by sprinkling,

the Methodists are using wet-wipes,

the Presbyterians are giving out rain-checks,

and the Catholics are praying for the wine to turn back into water.

[Zero Sum 305]

It was super hot here last week. We rolled with the punches. Is it caused by human activity? Maybe it is. Denying it so only leads to question one's intelligence. When its super cold here, we deal with it too. Does this mean we have to be retards in blaming it all on one thing? I think if we pay attention to the science, fair is fair in hypothesizing. Fair is not being a denialist with little care for fact.

[웃 910]

HOW DRY IS IT IN TEXAS?

It's so dry in Texas that the Baptists are starting to baptize by sprinkling,

the Methodists are using wet-wipes,

the Presbyterians are giving out rain-checks,

and the Catholics are praying for the wine to turn back into water.

And the Jehovah Witnesses decided to do cold calls instead of going door to door!

[BishopM 114]

And the Jehovah Witnesses decided to do cold calls instead of going door to door!

Excellent addition!

[SMOKE 1,426]

It was super hot here last week. We rolled with the punches. Is it caused by human activity? Maybe it is. Denying it so only leads to question one's intelligence. When its super cold here, we deal with it too. Does this mean we have to be retards in blaming it all on one thing? I think if we pay attention to the science, fair is fair in hypothesizing. Fair is not being a denialist with little care for fact.

something that continually gets overlooked in the GW debate is financial repercussions. no matter what scientist someone 'believes' to be correct. the fact that emerging economies..'china, india,etc.' have already stated they will not attempt to curb emissions. if we do the 'right thing' on our own, our already fragile economy is DONE.

Edited July 25, 2011 by SMOKE

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It was super hot here last week. We rolled with the punches. Is it caused by human activity? Maybe it is. Denying it so only leads to question one's intelligence. When its super cold here, we deal with it too. Does this mean we have to be retards in blaming it all on one thing? I think if we pay attention to the science, fair is fair in hypothesizing. Fair is not being a denialist with little care for fact.

Scientific fact is something that can be proven.

You cannot prove large scale influence on 'climate' in regards to human activity.

You can guess, you can hypothosize and theorize, but that's about it.

Based on the limited data we have on earth's climate, overall weather/temperature for the last century, there can be no conclusive evidence.

The thing that bothers me the most about the AGW freaks, isn't what they are trying to prove, it's the fact they don't take into account other factors when trying to prove that 'man' is doing everything. They ignore solar activity, they ignore slight shift in the earth's tilt on its axis. Changes the in earth's magnetism, etc.

I honestly wish more climatologists and astronomers would work together, because they might actually accomplish something more.

We're willing to blame 1mm of extra water in the ocean for everything, yet we ignore the earth's axis shifting and how that might effect weather in certain regions? It's beyond ridiculous and only goes to show that many out there only have political motives and not scientific ones.

When I get mad at the AGW crowd for blaming everything on "mankind," I'm not mad at their for their theories, I'm mad at them for creating something out of thin air when they haven't even begun to skim the surface of what really effects the earth's climate.

[Zero Sum 305]

something that continually gets overlooked in the GW debate is financial repercussions. no matter what scientist someone 'believes' to be correct. the fact that emerging economies..'china, india,etc.' have already stated they will not attempt to curb emissions. if we do the 'right thing' on our own, our already fragile economy is DONE.

It is an interesting argument, to say the least. These emerging economies will also, in my honest opinion, is that once the more 'green' technologies become more profitable in the long run, compared with the cost loss of dealing with polluting repercussions, they will first curb emissions and then apply said technologies. It is understandable that people will do what is cheap first as a way of expanding their own market share.

By doing the 'right thing' we are in effect becoming leaders in the emerging energy market that will in effect, lead us to be able to dictate more of how that market is profitable in the future.

Our economy will be fine as long as we innovate. Its part of existing in a changing world. As its always been. Clinging to ignorance never helped many people in the past- and that will be a major problem to overcome this time around with our homegrown variety, as well as convincing those 'new' economies to see the long-term value of doing things right once we have led the way. We are not alone either, on doing things better than before- although some nutcases would seem to suggest so sometimes.

[slim 1,525]

Our economy will be fine as long as we

keep burning fossil fuels. Full steam ahead!

[Zero Sum 305]

Scientific fact is something that can be proven.

You cannot prove large scale influence on 'climate' in regards to human activity.

You can guess, you can hypothosize and theorize, but that's about it.

Based on the limited data we have on earth's climate, overall weather/temperature for the last century, there can be no conclusive evidence.

The thing that bothers me the most about the AGW freaks, isn't what they are trying to prove, it's the fact they don't take into account other factors when trying to prove that 'man' is doing everything. They ignore solar activity, they ignore slight shift in the earth's tilt on its axis. Changes the in earth's magnetism, etc.

I honestly wish more climatologists and astronomers would work together, because they might actually accomplish something more.

We're willing to blame 1mm of extra water in the ocean for everything, yet we ignore the earth's axis shifting and how that might effect weather in certain regions? It's beyond ridiculous and only goes to show that many out there only have political motives and not scientific ones.

When I get mad at the AGW crowd for blaming everything on "mankind," I'm not mad at their for their theories, I'm mad at them for creating something out of thin air when they haven't even begun to skim the surface of what really effects the earth's climate.

I don't think you're characterizing things very accurately here, and its not surprising. If you were familiar with the variables input into the models, the testable theories and hypotheses, taking into account the list of things you say they ignore, you probably wouldn't be making such an invalid characterization. Please pay closer attention to those you criticize before assuming expertise. And please... spare us the expert scientific methodology from your armchair until you actually get some training in science.

keep burning fossil fuels. Full steam ahead!

At some point, that steam will not come from polluting fuels. In the meantime we have virtually no choice to 'maintain' the current 'lead'- if that's what we want.

[SMOKE 1,426]

At some point, that steam will not come from polluting fuels. In the meantime we have virtually no choice to 'maintain' the current 'lead'- if that's what we want.

sometimes you speak over my head. are you saying we need to sacrifice our position now to regain it or even a more dominate one later. or are you saying we need to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate & move towards cleaner fuels more aggressively?

[Zero Sum 305]

sometimes you speak over my head. are you saying we need to sacrifice our position now to regain it or even a more dominate one later. or are you saying we need to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate & move towards cleaner fuels more aggressively?

I'm more in line with the second part of your question. We can keep our position or lose it. If we invest ourselves into a nation that leads later on in more modern fuels, we'll have the lead as well- either by transference from current consumption levels of non-clean fuels or by regaining the leadership position from having been forced into innovation by others that simply take over our market share of current usage.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'm more in line with the second part of your question. We can keep our position or lose it. If we invest ourselves into a nation that leads later on in more modern fuels, we'll have the lead as well- either by transference from current consumption levels of non-clean fuels or by regaining the leadership position from having been forced into innovation by others that simply take over our market share of current usage.

ok you did it again.

A: take the hit now & regain later.

B: pick up the pace towards cleaner energy.

[Zero Sum 305]

ok you did it again.

A: take the hit now & regain later.

B: pick up the pace towards cleaner energy.

Its not like anyone's going to have much of a choice later on with petroleum.

Why some idiots like to speed towards a red light with cars blocking the intersection is indicative of their state of mind.

[SMOKE 1,426]

k ty

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't think you're characterizing things very accurately here, and its not surprising. If you were familiar with the variables input into the models, the testable theories and hypotheses, taking into account the list of things you say they ignore, you probably wouldn't be making such an invalid characterization. Please pay closer attention to those you criticize before assuming expertise. And please... spare us the expert scientific methodology from your armchair until you actually get some training in science.

How little you know and pay attention around here.