Global Itching Alert
 

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:14:17 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:41:16 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:41:11 -0400, BAR wrote:


Can you explain why Mars is getting warmer at the same rate Earth is
getting warmer?
Oh please, no one knows the rate that Mars is warming. Hell, we have
over a hundred years of weather station data here on Earth, tree ring
data, ice cores, etc. and science still isn't sure of our climate
mechanisms. If from the limited data we have on Mars, you think you
have a handle on it's climate, you are fooling yourself.
Start here.

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/feb02/NN_MarsCC.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ts_040421.html

Come on, Tom. " Jupiter is undergoing major climate change and could lose many of its large spots over
the next seven years, only to make way for the creation of fresh spots in a decades-long cycle, according
to a new explanation of old mysteries."

That seems about right, seeing that it's orbit takes 4332.71 days to complete. Saturn's orbit takes 29
years, and Uranus 84 years. Now if you want to put any changes in their "climates" to changes in the
sun's output, and not variations in their normal "seasons", fine. Hell, Uranus was discovered in 1781.
That means we've been "viewing" it for less than 3 Uranus' years, hardly enough time to study it's
climate variations.

Mars, on the other hand, has been studied, and there are indications that it is warming. However, I
would suggest from the indications we have, that it would be difficult to state the rate at which it is
warming, and impossible to state that the rate is the same as Earth's, as BAR did.




http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/science/saturn/

http://tinyurl.com/3cmwqb

Work your way from there. :)


Ninety per cent of the "opposition" to the prevalent theories of global
warming are based upon nothing more than traditional conservative (it's
going to hurt the corporations) bull****. The cons are afraid that if we
have to take steps to curtail our contributions to warming, it will hurt
their stocks. That's really all there is there. It's the same kind of
pigheaded thinking that has so many conservatives speaking up for
anti-science concepts that oppose evolution and the unrestricted use of
stem cells, and all the rest of the happy horse****. To even engage the
cons on these issues is to give them credence they don't deserve.

Global Itching Alert
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:53:33 -0400, HK wrote:


Ninety per cent of the "opposition" to the prevalent theories of global
warming are based upon nothing more than traditional conservative (it's
going to hurt the corporations) bull****. The cons are afraid that if we
have to take steps to curtail our contributions to warming, it will hurt
their stocks. That's really all there is there. It's the same kind of
pigheaded thinking that has so many conservatives speaking up for
anti-science concepts that oppose evolution and the unrestricted use of
stem cells, and all the rest of the happy horse****. To even engage the
cons on these issues is to give them credence they don't deserve.

I wouldn't lump Tom in there. I think he just has a contrarian nature. ;-) Hey, I believe skepticism is a
good trait, but it is interesting that some will deny all the years of data and study on this most
extensively studied planetary body, but accept a couple of pictures from the Global Surveyor as proof
the sun is causing all of this global warming. All the while, ignoring the Sun is the second most studied
planetary body. It does take some mental gymnastics.

Global Itching Alert
 

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:53:33 -0400, HK wrote:


Ninety per cent of the "opposition" to the prevalent theories of global
warming are based upon nothing more than traditional conservative (it's
going to hurt the corporations) bull****. The cons are afraid that if we
have to take steps to curtail our contributions to warming, it will hurt
their stocks. That's really all there is there. It's the same kind of
pigheaded thinking that has so many conservatives speaking up for
anti-science concepts that oppose evolution and the unrestricted use of
stem cells, and all the rest of the happy horse****. To even engage the
cons on these issues is to give them credence they don't deserve.

I wouldn't lump Tom in there. I think he just has a contrarian nature. ;-) Hey, I believe skepticism is a
good trait, but it is interesting that some will deny all the years of data and study on this most
extensively studied planetary body, but accept a couple of pictures from the Global Surveyor as proof
the sun is causing all of this global warming. All the while, ignoring the Sun is the second most studied
planetary body. It does take some mental gymnastics.


I don't lump Tom in anywhere. He's a special, cantankerous type, sort of
like me.

Global Itching Alert
 

On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 26, 12:42 pm, HK wrote:

So? What's the point? And what has this to do with poison ivy?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the HC is suggesting that Global Warming is causing changes
in Poison Ivy, I meerely suggest that folks get a second opinon before
stating it as fact. That was my point, you want to fight, go ahead.
Again, I am out of this pee pee contest, I know what I know.

You don't know what you don't know. Everyone agrees that the planet's
getting warmer. The debate is about whether human activity in one of the
causes.

Can you explain why Mars is getting warmer at the same rate Earth is
getting warmer?

Do your own home work.

No I can't explain it. But, I'd like you to tell me how it relates to the
article about poison ivy and carbon dioxide.

Thank you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I just saw a report on the super ivy. The reporter asked if the
expert (guy with car painted like ivy, website,marketing... ) if
global warming caused the super ivy. He said yes, that, er, um, ahhh,
milder winters, were causing the super ivy growth, as well as a
(assume genetic) change in the ivy to produce more potent oil too! So
here I am some 60 miles from the shore, looking at the new "super ivy"
in my back yard, caused by the new milder winters (what is warming,
one degree?) and wondering why I did not have super ivy on the
shoreline for the last 20 years as it is usually about 10 degrees
warmer at my other house, most of the time... Hummmmm...

Global Itching Alert
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 26, 12:42 pm, HK wrote:

So? What's the point? And what has this to do with poison ivy?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the HC is suggesting that Global Warming is causing changes
in Poison Ivy, I meerely suggest that folks get a second opinon
before
stating it as fact. That was my point, you want to fight, go ahead.
Again, I am out of this pee pee contest, I know what I know.

You don't know what you don't know. Everyone agrees that the planet's
getting warmer. The debate is about whether human activity in one of
the
causes.

Can you explain why Mars is getting warmer at the same rate Earth is
getting warmer?

Do your own home work.

No I can't explain it. But, I'd like you to tell me how it relates to the
article about poison ivy and carbon dioxide.

Thank you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I just saw a report on the super ivy. The reporter asked if the
expert (guy with car painted like ivy, website,marketing... ) if
global warming caused the super ivy. He said yes, that, er, um, ahhh,
milder winters, were causing the super ivy growth, as well as a
(assume genetic) change in the ivy to produce more potent oil too! So
here I am some 60 miles from the shore, looking at the new "super ivy"
in my back yard, caused by the new milder winters (what is warming,
one degree?) and wondering why I did not have super ivy on the
shoreline for the last 20 years as it is usually about 10 degrees
warmer at my other house, most of the time... Hummmmm...



Three questions, the answer to which may improve this discussion:

1) Are you a gardener? I don't mean you stuck a shrub in the ground two
years ago, and that's about it.
2) If you answer "yes" to #1, how long have you been a gardener?
3) How old are you?

Global Itching Alert
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:29:37 -0000, thunder
wrote:

Mars, on the other hand, has been studied, and there are indications that it is warming. However, I
would suggest from the indications we have, that it would be difficult to state the rate at which it is
warming, and impossible to state that the rate is the same as Earth's, as BAR did.

LOL!!

I'm just messin' with you. :)

Although it would seem there is some basis in fact on this solar cycle
thing.

Lawrence Solomon of the National/Financial Post did one hell of a
series on this whole thing called "The Deniers" including articles in
support of the main subject. It's very even and extremely fair. He's
shares my opinion in fact - yes, man does contribute to Global Warming
and yes, Greenhouse Gases exist. It more a question of what it does
to the climate and how is affects climate change - I'm in the camp
that there are physical/solar explanations as well as
historical/climatological/geological explanations as well. Solomon
was in the Global Warming camp until he started out actually looking
into the science and scientists. Here's a sample.

http://tinyurl.com/262px5

The simple truth is this - man does change and affect his environment.
Has since the first time humanoids began to walk upright.

However what is missing with the Global Warming contingent is a sense
of history and, to tell the truth, basic knowledge of science. That's
what you get when you elect lawyers who only took "Science for Liberal
Arts" in college. I mean think about Nancy Pelosi who said after
visiting Greeland "I have seen Global Warming". Has she never heard
of the Vikings who discovered Tibet and colonized Mexico and
established a trading colony in Greenland (around 960 CE)?

And think about this - there are, as of now, six different solar
cycles of varying lengths. Each of them affects the climate of the
Earth differently - there is sound, scientific proof of these changes
- some drastic, some minor.

Do we need to do something about smog and green house gas? Yes.

Is it the sole cause of climate change? Not even close.

Global Itching Alert
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:53:33 -0400, HK wrote:

Ninety per cent of the "opposition" to the prevalent theories of global
warming are based upon nothing more than traditional conservative (it's
going to hurt the corporations) bull****.

You see, this is where you **** people off.

It's not bull**** Harry - it's science.

Real science - not made up science.

Read a little more and put some thought into it instead of parroting
the party line.

Global Itching Alert
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:40:38 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:53:33 -0400, HK wrote:


Ninety per cent of the "opposition" to the prevalent theories of global
warming are based upon nothing more than traditional conservative (it's
going to hurt the corporations) bull****. The cons are afraid that if we
have to take steps to curtail our contributions to warming, it will hurt
their stocks. That's really all there is there. It's the same kind of
pigheaded thinking that has so many conservatives speaking up for
anti-science concepts that oppose evolution and the unrestricted use of
stem cells, and all the rest of the happy horse****. To even engage the
cons on these issues is to give them credence they don't deserve.

I wouldn't lump Tom in there. I think he just has a contrarian nature. ;-)

Got that right. :)

I don't lump Tom in anywhere. He's a special, cantankerous type, sort of
like me.

I accept your apology and offer one in return. :)

Global Itching Alert
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:49:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 26, 12:42 pm, HK wrote:

So? What's the point? And what has this to do with poison ivy?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the HC is suggesting that Global Warming is causing changes
in Poison Ivy, I meerely suggest that folks get a second opinon
before
stating it as fact. That was my point, you want to fight, go ahead.
Again, I am out of this pee pee contest, I know what I know.

You don't know what you don't know. Everyone agrees that the planet's
getting warmer. The debate is about whether human activity in one of
the
causes.

Can you explain why Mars is getting warmer at the same rate Earth is
getting warmer?

Do your own home work.

No I can't explain it. But, I'd like you to tell me how it relates to the
article about poison ivy and carbon dioxide.

Thank you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I just saw a report on the super ivy. The reporter asked if the
expert (guy with car painted like ivy, website,marketing... ) if
global warming caused the super ivy. He said yes, that, er, um, ahhh,
milder winters, were causing the super ivy growth, as well as a
(assume genetic) change in the ivy to produce more potent oil too! So
here I am some 60 miles from the shore, looking at the new "super ivy"
in my back yard, caused by the new milder winters (what is warming,
one degree?) and wondering why I did not have super ivy on the
shoreline for the last 20 years as it is usually about 10 degrees
warmer at my other house, most of the time... Hummmmm...

Three questions, the answer to which may improve this discussion:

1) Are you a gardener? I don't mean you stuck a shrub in the ground two
years ago, and that's about it.

Hell no - I farm hay and trees. :)

2) If you answer "yes" to #1, how long have you been a gardener?

Pansy.

3) How old are you?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Global Itching Alert
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:49:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 26, 12:42 pm, HK wrote:

So? What's the point? And what has this to do with poison ivy?-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the HC is suggesting that Global Warming is causing
changes
in Poison Ivy, I meerely suggest that folks get a second opinon
before
stating it as fact. That was my point, you want to fight, go ahead.
Again, I am out of this pee pee contest, I know what I know.

You don't know what you don't know. Everyone agrees that the
planet's
getting warmer. The debate is about whether human activity in one of
the
causes.

Can you explain why Mars is getting warmer at the same rate Earth is
getting warmer?

Do your own home work.

No I can't explain it. But, I'd like you to tell me how it relates to
the
article about poison ivy and carbon dioxide.

Thank you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I just saw a report on the super ivy. The reporter asked if the
expert (guy with car painted like ivy, website,marketing... ) if
global warming caused the super ivy. He said yes, that, er, um, ahhh,
milder winters, were causing the super ivy growth, as well as a
(assume genetic) change in the ivy to produce more potent oil too! So
here I am some 60 miles from the shore, looking at the new "super ivy"
in my back yard, caused by the new milder winters (what is warming,
one degree?) and wondering why I did not have super ivy on the
shoreline for the last 20 years as it is usually about 10 degrees
warmer at my other house, most of the time... Hummmmm...

Three questions, the answer to which may improve this discussion:

1) Are you a gardener? I don't mean you stuck a shrub in the ground two
years ago, and that's about it.

Hell no - I farm hay and trees. :)

2) If you answer "yes" to #1, how long have you been a gardener?

Pansy.

3) How old are you?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I'm not asking you.