"Global Warming" causing N. Dakota floods

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Did someone hack his teleprompter, or is he really this dense?

 

 

President Obama says potentially historic flood levels in North Dakota are a clear example of why steps need to be taken to stop global warming. Heavy rain and blizzards have caused eight rivers in the state to swell to flood levels and emergency management officials are warily watching the Red River, which could surpass record levels late this week.

 

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

[IAMWood 6]

Once again no link.

 

In your quote:

 

 

If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

 

There is no mention of Obama saying anything about global warming, just a mention of the temperature rising could make it more serious, like more meltoff?. It looks like you are reaching once again. Putting words into his mouth. Show me a link that he is blaming global warming for the flooding.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Read the first line. He was addressing GW and threw the ND floods in the mix.

 

Sorry if that's too complicated for ya.

[IAMWood 6]

Read the first line. He was addressing GW and threw the ND floods in the mix.

 

Sorry if that's too complicated for ya.

 

Read the first line of my post.

 

Still working on that link?

 

Not too complicated to see right through you loser.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Let's try this one more time. Global Warming refers to the overall temperature of the planet rising (which it is). An additional component to that is that there are greater fluctuations in temperature that are occurring and more weather that deviates from the norm.

 

I don't know if the deviations that we are seeing are statistically significant over the long haul, but the numbers from independent folks sure point in that direction. However, I guess I should not be surprised by your blatant disregard for the possibility that this is man-made and that we might want to do something about it.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

Did someone hack his teleprompter, or is he really this dense?

 

 

 

LINK PLEASE

[GettnHuge 1]

Let's try this one more time. Global Warming refers to the overall temperature of the planet rising (which it is). An additional component to that is that there are greater fluctuations in temperature that are occurring and more weather that deviates from the norm.

 

I don't know if the deviations that we are seeing are statistically significant over the long haul, but the numbers from independent folks sure point in that direction. However, I guess I should not be surprised by your blatant disregard for the possibility that this is man-made and that we might want to do something about it.

 

it's all about the solar activity

we've been cooling off the last few years and global warming idiots have had a problemo explaining why, well

there is why. does man have an influence? sure, but it's minimal at best. the earth's weather for millions of

years has been all over the place, the stability we are enjoying now is actually NOT the norm. It was only

300 years ago that europe and north america was suffering through the little ice age...will that be blamed on

the industrial rvolution and cars which didn't exist? there would be huge fluctuations of many degrees every

year and we're worrying about warming 1 degree over 50+ years. it's ridiculous

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

it's all about the solar activity

we've been cooling off the last few years and global warming idiots have had a problemo explaining why, well

there is why. does man have an influence? sure, but it's minimal at best. the earth's weather for millions of

years has been all over the place, the stability we are enjoying now is actually NOT the norm. It was only

300 years ago that europe and north america was suffering through the little ice age...will that be blamed on

the industrial rvolution and cars which didn't exist? there would be huge fluctuations of many degrees every

year and we're worrying about warming 1 degree over 50+ years. it's ridiculous

 

From your link:

 

The small changes in solar irradiance that occur during the solar cycle exert a small influence on Earth’s climate, with periods of intense magnetic activity (the solar maximum) producing slightly higher temperatures, and solar minimum periods such as that seen in 2008 and early 2009 likely to have the opposite effect. Periods of intense magnetic activity on the Sun can spawn severe space weather that damages infrastructure in our high-tech society.

 

The solar activity that you are talking about has an 11 year cycle, so how would that be responsible for changes that occur over larger periods of time? I am not interested in getting into a debate about this if you are convinced that man has nothing to do with changes in the Earth's climate. It is not worth it.

[GettnHuge 1]

if you are convinced that man has nothing to do with changes in the Earth's climate.

 

"does man have an influence? sure, but it's minimal at best."

 

yet another F for reading comprehension

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

"does man have an influence? sure, but it's minimal at best."

 

yet another F for reading comprehension

"minimal at best". Gotcha professor.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

"minimal at best". Gotcha professor.

 

 

So I have a brother who is a meteorologist with the national weather service, he along with his colleagues all agree that the warming that is taking place is not the cause of man. Just a natural cycle of nature. He told me that there will be several studies released in the next few months that will show exactly that.

 

 

Sorry Al Gore fans, it was all a rouse

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So I have a brother who is a meteorologist with the national weather service, he along with his colleagues all agree that the warming that is taking place is not the cause of man. Just a natural cycle of nature. He told me that there will be several studies released in the next few months that will show exactly that.

Sorry Al Gore fans, it was all a rouse

Oh. Well that clears it up for me. Thanks!

[GettnHuge 1]

So I have a brother who is a meteorologist with the national weather service, he along with his colleagues all agree that the warming that is taking place is not the cause of man. Just a natural cycle of nature. He told me that there will be several studies released in the next few months that will show exactly that.

Sorry Al Gore fans, it was all a rouse

 

the earth observatory website is pretty greta for pictures but they do have a bit o an agenda. once in a while they'll

post a pic of a glacier or whatnot and plainly blame it on global warming. when they have a pic or study that reveals

the opposite, it's usually minimized or buried in the story. like the pic above. when the sun was very active we got

a good deal warmer, much of this decade solar activity is on the decline as is the temp...that should be the pic headline

but it's not.

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510

one eruption and we cooled for two years. volcano >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us

 

have you ever heard of the year without a summer?

http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/...t_a_summer_1816

One big eruption and it's fargin snowing in June and your avg temps are down by double digits. and I'm sposed to worry

about 1 degree over fitty years? feh.

[lickin_starfish 1,500]

People who buy into the "Global Warming is caused by humans" crap are just plain retarded.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The solar activity that you are talking about has an 11 year cycle, so how would that be responsible for changes that occur over larger periods of time?

 

How is man responsible for the current warming trend (the one that has been interrupted for the last 11 years by a cooling trend) when ice ages and warming trends that brough us out of ice ages have been going on for centuries before man invented the SUV and hair spray?

 

[IAMWood 6]

Still trying to manufacture a link?

 

Too complicated for ya?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How is man responsible for the current warming trend (the one that has been interrupted for the last 11 years by a cooling trend) when ice ages and warming trends that brough us out of ice ages have been going on for centuries before man invented the SUV and hair spray?

 

 

Cancer has been around since the dawn of man as well, but are you saying that we are not responsible for certain carcinogens? We are not responsible for the fact that there is climate change, but it is naive to think that we do not impact the AMOUNT of change that has occurred.

[SUXBNME 1,348]

It's not "Global Warming" anymore, you focksticks...It's "Climate Change" now.

[tikigods 76]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Recliner Pilot.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore Recliner Pilot

 

[SUXBNME 1,348]

You have chosen to ignore all posts, but not emoticons from: tikigods.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore tikigods

 

[tikigods 76]

You have chosen to ignore all posts, but not emoticons from: tikigods.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore tikigods

 

You have chosen to ignore all posts, but not emoticons from: SUXBNME.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore SUXBNME

 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

· Un-ignore SUXBNME

 

 

Why is this even an option?

[Strike 4,049]

Great article in the NY Times last week where they profiled a great scientist named Freeman Dyson, who is a skeptic. Beyond his skepticism he is concerned about the costs associated with addressing our potential effect on GW. He thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, especially with regard to how it will affect poor and developing nations. I agree with him. The article is here:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine...nted=1&_r=1

[SUXBNME 1,348]

Why is this even an option?

 

I can end you from here...Tread lightly, sir

[NorthernVike 2,080]

 

I can end you from here...Tread lightly, sir

 

 

I'm ascared :tremble:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Cancer has been around since the dawn of man as well, but are you saying that we are not responsible for certain carcinogens?

 

So you are saying since some human activities cause cancer that proves man is causing GW??

 

I won't agrue with you on that........................I think the reason I won't is self evident.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So you are saying since some human activities cause cancer that proves man is causing GW??

 

I won't agrue with you on that........................I think the reason I won't is self evident.

You won't argue because I proved that your point was (like pretty much everything else you post) useless. Keep up the good work!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You won't argue because I proved that your point was (like pretty much everything else you post) useless. Keep up the good work!

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Cancer has been around since the dawn of man as well

 

Link?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Link?

 

 

I will supply a link for this as soon as you provide one for your original post.

[wiffleball 4,660]

Did someone hack his teleprompter, or is he really this dense?

 

Do you have a link for your first post RP, maybe something to support your thread title? I'd be interested to see that. Thanks.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I will supply a link for this as soon as you provide one for your original post.

 

OK Fatboy, here is one. It's from one of your GW nutjob sites, just so you don't think this came from Fox.

 

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/we...x?linkid=122519

 

Your turn.

[wiffleball 4,660]

Once again no link.

 

In your quote:

There is no mention of Obama saying anything about global warming, just a mention of the temperature rising could make it more serious, like more meltoff?. It looks like you are reaching once again. Putting words into his mouth. Show me a link that he is blaming global warming for the flooding.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

OK Fatboy, here is one. It's from one of your GW nutjob sites, just so you don't think this came from Fox.

 

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/we...x?linkid=122519

 

Your turn.

 

Here you go for a couple of very easy ones on cancer being around, probably since the beginning of life on the planet:

 

http://www.com.msu.edu/communique/2005_sum...DeansColumn.pdf

Cancer. It has probably been around as long as there has been mutinous DNA, and it certainly fills the history of the human race. Its earliest known written reference goes back to Egyptian papyri more than 5,000 years old, in which symptoms consistent with cancer are described.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...25192550AAmJIat

How long has cancer been around?

 

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The oldest description of human cancer was found in an Egyptian papyri written between 3000-1500 BC. It referred to tumors of the breast. The oldest specimen of a human cancer was found in the remains of a female skull dating back to the Bronze Age (1900-1600 BC).The mummified skeletal remains of Peruvian Incas, dating back 2400 years ago, contained lesions suggestive of malignant melanoma. And cancer was found in fossilized bones and manuscripts of ancient Egypt. Cancer is not a disease of our modern industrialized age, as some may have believed at one time.

 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Yale-School-Med...1664/Cancer.htm

Question

How long has cancer been around? When was it first diagnosed or "named" cancer? I was just wondering. Thanks!

 

Answer

Dear Jill,

Sorry, I don't have good answers. I think cancer has been around as long as life. Plants have cancers, and most animals. Cancers have been found in Egyptian mummies 5000 years old. Hippocrates used the word. He was born in 480 B.C. Dinosaur bones sometimes have cancer.

But the development of the microscope in the early 1800's was required to begin to understand it.

If you're really fascinated, go to a medical library and get textbooks on the history of medicine.

David Richardson

 

I won't even comment on the link that you provided. I will let the others chime in.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

From the link:

 

 

Read more about Midwest floods, the relationship between global warming and winter storms and why climate change may lead to more natural disasters.

 

No, Obama doesn't want the ignorant masses (that would be you clowns) to believe GW is causing these extreme storms, and that GW will make them worse. No, no way. I mean, where would he get that from? Hint: Your hero Owlgore.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Here you go for a couple of very easy ones on cancer being around, probably since the beginning of life on the planet:

 

Great links. Thanks.

 

I noticed none of them extrapolated the cancer being around since man into "man is causing GW". Got any of those?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Great links. Thanks.

 

I noticed none of them extrapolated the cancer being around since man into "man is causing GW". Got any of those?

Normally, this is where I ask if you are really this dense or just playing stupid. However, that is getting old.

 

You stated that there have been changes in the Earth's climate since before man started with SUV's and hairspray (ignoring the amount of speed of the current changes), so how could man possibly be responsible. I indicated that, based on that flawed logic, how could man possibly be responsible for carcinogens since cancer was around long before we started with cigarettes, lead, and mercury (amongst others)?

 

I know that you can probably only understand purely causal relationships and you have a hard time with contributory factors, but if you thought that I was showing cancer has been around for a very long time is "man is causing GW", then you are dumber than I thought.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Normally, this is where I ask if you are really this dense or just playing stupid. However, that is getting old.

 

You stated that there have been changes in the Earth's climate since before man started with SUV's and hairspray (ignoring the amount of speed of the current changes), so how could man possibly be responsible. I indicated that, based on that flawed logic, how could man possibly be responsible for carcinogens since cancer was around long before we started with cigarettes, lead, and mercury (amongst others)?

 

I know that you can probably only understand purely causal relationships and you have a hard time with contributory factors, but if you thought that I was showing cancer has been around for a very long time is "man is causing GW", then you are dumber than I thought.

 

Like I said, I have no interest in debating your assinine position. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. You cancer illustration does nothiing to help your claim man is causing GW.