Well how bad is it gonna be???

Global warming is real. Yes, weather is cyclitic. The two big questions are: is man somehow responsible, and can man actually do anything about it. I have read stuff from both sides. The funny thing, a lot of the studies that show GW is a hoax were funded by oil or other big corporations. Gee, you think they might have had an agenda? Same deal from the far left ones.

Something to ponder. The end of the last age occurred in as little as a 10 year period or as much as a 40 year period. Yes, ice age conditions to modern conditions in that short a time frame. We have had several warming-cooling cycles since that time, though none as severe as the last ice age.

Andrew

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;354749]
And I'd love to do some fishing with ya sometime at KY...........sounds like I could learn a few things from ya............but NO POLITICS :) We'll save that for the OT board.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]

I am all for it. Yes I will teach you how to pick out a birdsnest effeciently - I haven't been on the water in a while, so I am sure I will get my practice.

[QUOTE=Col Forbin;354751]I just remember the hole in the ozone - there were arguments to say it was a naturally occuring fluctuation in atmosphere - however, when the global effort to reduce cfc's, that hole quickly deminished.[/QUOTE]

The ozone hole was a FAKE........again, it is all about money, and I CAN GUARANTEE you THAT.

My father in law is a HUGE distributor of heating and air equipment in Indianapolis.......one of the LARGEST in the midwest.

THE changeover from R-12 to R-34 and the newer stuff create a HUGE market for an industry that NEEDED a boost.....The changeover over the 15 years it took generated about 1 TRILLION dollars in revenue.

Nice ARTIFICAL boost if you ask me.

Now if you REALLY want to fix our economy...........Declare WAR on IRAN.

The revenues generated during war years are ALWAYS better than off war years. I'm not saying the war on TERRORISM is a farce......FAR FROM IT, but the jobs that would be created by a new WAR would be significant. I'm only HALF kidding here...........but I know when we were actively bombing IRAQ and Afghanistan, my stock in Lockheed went THROUGH the ROOF.

Jan 2000 Lockheed was at 40 bucks...........Today, it is at 80......Peak WAR, meaning 2008, it was at 100........
[url]http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D5=0&D4=1&ViewType=0&Symbol=LMT&&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CP=0&PT=8&CE=0&D3=0&PeriodType=8&C9=2&DisplayForm=1[/url]

Well back to why I actually posted this thread. We just had the main line pass us and it was quite intense. Rainfall was so heavy we couldn't see across the street and lasted about 4 min's at that intensity. Winds probably in excess of 50 miles per hour at least. I'm at work and we did not loose power, yet, lol. Home I have no idea about yet but that was a real storm for sure, I'm glad it was a quick hitter.

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!

[QUOTE=Tyme2fish;354795]The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!![/QUOTE]

Now Tyme it's jsut something to talk about other than politics all the time, lol.

Well, the front just passed by my place. A little wind from Mother Nature and a whole lot of wind from the newscasters.

I repeat: The Sky Is Falling!!!!

Those guys have to hold stock in Kroger's!!

[QUOTE=Tyme2fish;354811]
Those guys have to hold stock in Kroger's!![/QUOTE]

I've never thought of that, but it makes sense. I think we all went into the wrong profession - who else but a weather man can make close to six figures to be wrong half of the time. That is the perfect job for me, I am wrong at least that much, or at least most of you and especially my wife seem to think so!!LOL!!!

However, it is pretty windy here. A few poles have snapped, and we were without power for the last third of the day at the high school here in town. We still have quite a few damaged trees and power poles that this wind is trying to do a number on - hopefully it won't do much else.

Once upon a time, people were convinced the world was flat and sailors who didn't return from a voyage might of sailed off the edge of the earth. It took years before enough scientists could convince the masses of the truth.

People, by nature, are resistant to new ideas or scientifically-derived explanations of reality especially if this novel concept is linked somehow to other aspects of their personal belief systems. Many Christians don't believe in evolution, for example, although there is a gigantic body of scientific evidence that supports it. Other religious fundamentalists don't believe in modern medicine, but believe only in the power of prayer.

I believe in science. I also hunt, fish, believe in personal responsibility and my right to bear arms. However, I also believe in an open mind and to see things for what they are. For almost 18 years I made my living assessing human health risk from exposure to chemical contaminants. I have read hundereds of toxicological studies about the effects of chemical exposure on living organisms (primarily rats) and have learned to respect science. If you remember, the pesticide DDT was once considered safe. It took years of research and evidence for the government to ban the sale of DDT in the USA and in the meantime our nations treasured Bald Eagle was almost eliminated because DDT causes egg-shell thinning and the eggs would break before they would hatch (many scientific studies proved this, although there was a smaller group of others that refuted it). Well, the Bald Eagle is back... because enough scientists conducted enough studies and the lawmakers finally acted.

At this point in the argument, even the oil companies are accepting argument that global warming is real [URL]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/15/debate_over_global_warming_is_shifting/[/URL]. And despite GeoFisher's claims, the consensus (which is a majority) among scientists involved in climate research is that global warming is real. Very real.

Here's a sample (the links won't work, but if you can check it all out on wikipedia: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/URL]

[B]Scientific consensus[/B]
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science"]American Association for the Advancement of Science[/URL]: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences"]US National Academy of Science[/URL]: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science_academies.E2.80.99_statement_2005"]Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005[/URL]: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science_academies.E2.80.99_statement_2001"]Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001[/URL]: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society"]American Meteorological Society[/URL]: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_of_African_Science_Academies"]Network of African Science Academies[/URL]: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_for_Quaternary_Research"]International Union for Quaternary Research[/URL]: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

[URL="http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/"]Australian Coral Reef Society[/URL]: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases....There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....

I just hope we haven't lost our chance to do something meaningful to prevent the potential long-term effects. The intense storms are just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.

Here's a video for those with a mind open enough to watch it:

[URL]http://video.nytimes.com/video/2005/11/29/science/1194816481964/the-big-melt-the-arctic-ice-cap.html[/URL]

Tight lines,

JWP

Man...this site sure does provide me with an education on a lot of different things, from politics to global warming to ??? I believe global warming is real...just ask the Canadians.

Came home to find a neighbors trampoline had smashed into my deck and took out a section of railing. I guess it was pretty windy. Not sure who's insurance takes care of it, though.

Just now came in from seeing the damage from a Pine Tree that fell between my house and my neighbor. Man I am lucky on this one! No damage just have to chop chop this weekend.