brenthutch 444 #1 January 19, 2011 NYT moves global warming from news to opinion! "In Dot Earth, which recently moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 January 19, 2011 Right, because once people start writing opinion pieces on subjects, the topic is clearly invalidated. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 January 19, 2011 I like Revkin's blog. Part of the reason I like it is that Revkin manages to piss off both sides. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #4 January 19, 2011 I don't see what we need an artificial balance for. Let the good ol' natural selection do the trick. The ones who can grab the most resources are the ones that survive. And those who can't, well they're fucked.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #5 January 20, 2011 Then again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 January 20, 2011 QuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #7 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world. Funny, only last week you were implying that the USA is the world, and one winter in the USA is global climate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world. Funny, only last week you were implying that the USA is the world, and one winter in the USA is global climate. Seems you're making assumptions again. What I did say that was that there was snow cover in 49 states and that there was also record cold in Europe and Australia.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #9 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world. Funny, only last week you were implying that the USA is the world, and one winter in the USA is global climate. Seems you're making assumptions again. What I did say that was that there was snow cover in 49 states and that there was also record cold in Europe and Australia. FAIL. It was in a thread about global climate change. Or are you now admitting to introducing red herrings?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 January 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Then again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world. Funny, only last week you were implying that the USA is the world, and one winter in the USA is global climate. Seems you're making assumptions again. What I did say that was that there was snow cover in 49 states and that there was also record cold in Europe and Australia. FAIL. It was in a thread about global climate change. Or are you now admitting to introducing red herrings? I swear those things must be available in 55 gallon drums over there in Kosovo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 January 20, 2011 QuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html Yeah. Makes sense that snow and ice cover are decreasing. 20,000 years ago, New York City was under a mile of ice. Mastodon bones have been found under Broadway. 10k years ago, climate change moved so quickly that it's generally believed that New York's forests switched from spruce-dominated to pine***-dominated within a century! 6,000 years ago, NYC was under sea water. My lady took me to Central Park last April. The geology there is quite impressive! And formed by glaciers. The albedo has been decreasing for over 20k years. We are much better at detecting it since 1979, and are unable to create 10-year means with the data to support long-term trends. (I still don't think a 30-year trend is "long-term" climactically). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 January 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen again: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1062.html NH isn't the world. Funny, only last week you were implying that the USA is the world, and one winter in the USA is global climate. Seems you're making assumptions again. What I did say that was that there was snow cover in 49 states and that there was also record cold in Europe and Australia. FAIL. It was in a thread about global climate change. It illustrated cold temps globally. So, yes...you FAIL. QuoteOr are you now admitting to introducing red herrings? No more a red herring than you mentioning the Arctic ice cap (NOT global), or mentioning NH (NOT global) weather.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 January 21, 2011 Quote Quote Or are you now admitting to introducing red herrings? I swear those things must be available in 55 gallon drums over there in Kosovo Special rush shipments from WA state and IL...they've got truckloads of them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #14 January 21, 2011 Another tired red herring, no-one disputes that climate has changed over the centuries and millennia due to natural causes. Doesn't in ANY way invalidate data that humans are driving it right now and are driving it fast, nor does it mean that the consequences will be unimportant for us. The planet doesn't care, but humanity will.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #15 January 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Or are you now admitting to introducing red herrings? I swear those things must be available in 55 gallon drums over there in Kosovo Special rush shipments from WA state and IL...they've got truckloads of them. Hey you are the silly man who is buying them... and then tossin them out by the gallonand by the way... you show a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to places where a herring can be caught. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #16 January 22, 2011 "Doesn't in ANY way invalidate data that humans are driving it right now and are driving it fast" So what is the solution? How do we save humanity? Curly light bulbs and plug in hybrids? How does the PHD from the land of Lincoln save humanity? I am waiting with baited breath, how do you save humanity, Superman? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #17 January 22, 2011 Sorry, that was presumptuous of me to call you Superman. You might be Captain Amazing or perhaps Awesome X. At any rate how are you going to save humanity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
