The Watering Hole

Hookbender — Mar 08, 2014 Your waist deep in Stratmanism.   

Stratmanism!  Love it!  ;D

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Sorry, I guess I didn't understand that there were RULES to this forum.  I didn't realize that if I asked a question I was starting a debate that I was forced to immediately take a side on.  I didn't know that if I asked this question in the morning, I was obligated to stop working and read every post as rapidly as it's posted.  I didn't realize people would go all commando, post all day long, slam me for not reading every post, call my religion, intelligence, and everything else into question WHILE I'M AT WORK because I'm not responding in the manner you require.  

Clearly, I am at fault for not understanding my obligations to sit all day at the computer with this window open and answer every reply immediately.  Now that I understand, I realize I can't participate in these threads because I never really just sit and wait for responses so I can give my obligatory, immediate answers.  What actually IS foolish, is that I thought after last week things would be different here.  I thought that if I asked a question you might actually wait til I was actually back in the discussion, wait to see what I thought and THEN blast away.  I didn't think it would go off the rails when I was at work trying to make a living.  

Not sure why I expected to discuss anything here.  Tried, convicted, and hung before anyone even confirmed that I did the crime. Thank you Mr Kreskin!  (IF I spelled that incorrectly, I don't care. LOL)    ;D  If I can post a question, and then be convicted by a jury who claims to read my mind, I guess it's not safe to be in this town.    
But, I PROMISE you, point taken.  And I promise you that I won't ever post in P or R again.  ;)  (Quote me, save, make this your signature line, whatever).  I had a couple other things I wanted to discuss about this. I read every post and every link and I had a few links for you guys to, and I wanted to "discuss" them.  Not lib vs. conservative stuff. Just questions I have and answers I've read.  But, nah.  

Since this is the last one I can edit, I'll address above and below.  

Your acting like a woman. We ask a question and you start getting all emotional and shit. Back to the drama. Participate in the discussion that you started by telling us what side your own, thats all we ask.  
.

I WAS TRYING to ask questions.  What became of the thread after that was FAR out of my control

Your disrespecting the participants in this discussion by not fully participating in the discussion you started. You don't like like it when you don't get respect, neither do i.  

How is it that I/we are so evil when it's you who have been ask to state your side, read the links that answer you questions.... which apparently you still haven't read because you still have questions.... but i/we are evil and mean and your not posting here anymore because we pointed that out? If you have the time to post at work, shouldn't you have the time to read 2 articles from work? And from my point of view, I don't care if your at church when your posting, you still posted and I still would like to know your side. You could be posting from Stratmans house or on the roof from your own house, doesn't matter to me. Who cares?

Instead of going deep into your illness, which may be Mrs Stratmanism by the way, you could simply state your side so we don't have to assume. I can't believe your implying that we are mean or whatever because we ask you to clarify something in your thread. Thats just like a woman.  Grin "I want to talk about global warming and ask questions, and I expect you to answer those questions like I want them answered.... but don't you ask me questions or I won't talk to you at all."

Not even going to comment.   :)

You've gone as far as saying Al Gore invented global warming--as if a person invents scientific phenomena all on his own.  You've still not yet (apparently) stated your actual beliefs.  Yet there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you--so that's not really something you can blame on the forum.

Noted, but come on.  You can't take what YOU KNOW was posted as a joke and pull it in here and use it against me.  Craig and I call each other gay all the time.  Do you think either of us believes it's true?

And again, I never did intend to put it in this forum, should have been in general discussion.  I will admit,  I should have known better.  I am an idiot for even starting this thread.    

Edit 3/10/14 3:44 PM  I googled the volcano thing at lunch.  The first 10 things I read all say they now disagree with what I stated.  Apparently what I read (and had heard before) has since been changed.  (interesting, at that time, scientists agreed, and since science is "settled" it can't change, right?    ;)  Now that I've gotten that in there, I humbly apologize.  In the midst of the questions, the one thing I did STATE seems to be wrong.  So, re: the volcano thing, you're right, and I'm wrong.   :-[ Unless of course, science changes it's mind again.   ;)  

It always goes down like this, right?  Discussion part never happens...

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 09, 2014LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Sorry, I guess I didn't understand that there were RULES to this forum.  I didn't realize that if I asked a question I was starting a debate that I was forced to immediately take a side on.  I didn't know that if I asked this question in the morning, I was obligated to stop working and read every post as rapidly as it's posted.  I didn't realize people would go all commando, post all day long, slam me for not reading every post, call my religion, intelligence, and everything else into question WHILE I'M AT WORK because I'm not responding in the manner you require.  

Clearly, I am at fault for not understanding my obligations to sit all day at the computer with this window open and answer every reply immediately.  Now that I understand, I realize I can't participate in these threads because I never really just sit and wait for responses so I can give my obligatory, immediate answers.  What actually IS foolish, is that I thought after last week things would be different here.  I thought that if I asked a question you might actually wait til I was actually back in the discussion, wait to see what I thought and THEN blast away.  I didn't think it would go off the rails when I was at work trying to make a living.  

Not sure why I expected to discuss anything here.  Tried, convicted, and hung before anyone even confirmed that I did the crime. Thank you Mr Kreskin!  (IF I spelled that incorrectly, I don't care. LOL)    ;D  If I can post a question, and then be convicted by a jury who claims to read my mind, I guess it's not safe to be in this town.    
But, I PROMISE you, point taken.  And I promise you that I won't ever post in P or R again.  ;)  (Quote me, save, make this your signature line, whatever).  I had a couple other things I wanted to discuss about this. I read every post and every link and I had a few links for you guys to, and I wanted to "discuss" them.  Not lib vs. conservative stuff. Just questions I have and answers I've read.  But, nah.  

Blah Blah Blah. So, again, for the second time, what side are you on? Your not being convicted of anything. Your being ask to state your side. If you don't, we have to guess what side your own by what you say in your post. That's all. Your asking questions, so I ask one of you.

Your acting like a woman. We ask a question and you start getting all emotional and shit. Back to the drama. Participate in the discussion that you started by telling us what side your own, thats all we ask.

Your disrespecting the participants in this discussion by not fully participating in the discussion you started. You don't like like it when you don't get respect, neither do i.

How is it that I/we are so evil when it's you who have been ask to state your side, read the links that answer you questions.... which apparently you still haven't read because you still have questions.... but i/we are evil and mean and your not posting here anymore because we pointed that out? If you have the time to post at work, shouldn't you have the time to read 2 articles from work? And from my point of view, I don't care if your at church when your posting, you still posted and I still would like to know your side. You could be posting from Stratmans house or on the roof from your own house, doesn't matter to me. Who cares?

Instead of going deep into your illness, which may be Mrs Stratmanism by the way, you could simply state your side so we don't have to assume. I can't believe your implying that we are mean or whatever because we ask you to clarify something in your thread. Thats just like a woman.  ;D "I want to talk about global warming and ask questions, and I expect you to answer those questions like I want them answered.... but don't you ask me questions or I won't talk to you at all."

I'm so scared to post a comment to you because you may leave and never come back. That would hurt me deeply. Please DTR, don't go. ;D ;D

I for one, don't want to see your links anyway. ;D ;D I'm afraid they'll be garbage and we'll have to point that out and you'll get mad and leave.

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 09, 2014LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Sorry, I guess I didn't understand that there were RULES to this forum.  I didn't realize that if I asked a question I was starting a debate that I was forced to immediately take a side on.  I didn't know that if I asked this question in the morning, I was obligated to stop working and read every post as rapidly as it's posted.  I didn't realize people would go all commando, post all day long, slam me for not reading every post, call my religion, intelligence, and everything else into question WHILE I'M AT WORK because I'm not responding in the manner you require.  

Clearly, I am at fault for not understanding my obligations to sit all day at the computer with this window open and answer every reply immediately.  Now that I understand, I realize I can't participate in these threads because I never really just sit and wait for responses so I can give my obligatory, immediate answers.  What actually IS foolish, is that I thought after last week things would be different here.  I thought that if I asked a question you might actually wait til I was actually back in the discussion, wait to see what I thought and THEN blast away.  I didn't think it would go off the rails when I was at work trying to make a living.  

Not sure why I expected to discuss anything here.  Tried, convicted, and hung before anyone even confirmed that I did the crime. Thank you Mr Kreskin!  (IF I spelled that incorrectly, I don't care. LOL)    ;D  If I can post a question, and then be convicted by a jury who claims to read my mind, I guess it's not safe to be in this town.    
But, I PROMISE you, point taken.  And I promise you that I won't ever post in P or R again.  ;)  (Quote me, save, make this your signature line, whatever).  I had a couple other things I wanted to discuss about this. I read every post and every link and I had a few links for you guys to, and I wanted to "discuss" them.  Not lib vs. conservative stuff. Just questions I have and answers I've read.  But, nah.  

Okay, I'm not expecting that at all from you.  But I do find this ironic since you completely got on my case for not posting all of last weekend--when I almost NEVER post on weekends.  I don't think you are responsible at all for posting immediately.  Personally I don't care when you reply.  But when you DO reply, take the time to read through the arguments.  If you don't believe the article you are posting, make that clear.  If you do, make that clear.  It's pretty easy to understand if you look at the forum WHY we would assume you AGREE with the article you posted.  You still haven't posted a single word that would make us feel otherwise.  You've gone as far as saying Al Gore invented global warming--as if a person invents scientific phenomena all on his own.  You've still not yet (apparently) stated your actual beliefs.  Yet there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you--so that's not really something you can blame on the forum.

Again, take all the time you want. But it would be handy to be informed.  You can't argue with the equivalent of hearsay (I saw a program once that said something like "volcanoes are bad").  We're all dealing in far more specifics than that.

I seriously don't get why now you can't discuss this, just because we asked you to read some stuff and then get back to us.  No one is slamming you--I'm not seeing that.  We're fucking asking for enough respect to read the stuff we post.  We read your post.  I read the article you posted.  I even read the last part of it three times, trying to understand wtf Krauthammer was saying with all his out-of-place biblical quotes.  

And no, this shouldn't be in General Discussion.  This is a politics post--though religion fits because of Krauthammer's weird rant there.

BINGEWOOD — Mar 09, 2014It always goes down like this, right?  Discussion part never happens...

+1

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 07, 2014Ok, the train is going off the track here.  My posts about pollution were off topic.  But now we're going all Bert Cave with the comments.   Google this for yourself.  You'll find plenty of information and not all of it agrees with other.  My question was simple.  Do you write off even a professor, scientist, etc. who doesn't completely agree with you, as a republican conservative "idiot?"  

Comments like - You can read it.  It is super annoying that you won't -- but will just keep saying "it was staggering" or "I've read LOTS"

.   You guys are both capable of using google and you both ALREADY KNOW that if you do, you will find information that's all over the charts.  



All right.  I googled the search term "volcanoes more pollution than humans"

Surprisingly (not) the first result was from the exact same site to which I previously directed you. Since I know you won't do this yourself, here's what it says.

...some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year...
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Another interesting one--
Remember when that unpronouncable Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajoekull erupted?
It was emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tons of CO2 a day.  Every day, European air flights put out around 350,000 tons of CO2.  So that's about the equivalent of the high end of a massive volcanic eruption.  But it happens every single day.  And that's just air traffic. In Europe.  (Coincidentally, about 60% of flights around Europe were cancelled, so about 200,000 tons of CO2 were removed from the air side of the equation, so we probably came out fairly close to even).  

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 07, 2014 Do you write off even a professor, scientist, etc. who doesn't completely agree with you, as a republican conservative "idiot?"  


So, in this article, scientific models are noted, scientists are quoted, the UK's national weather service is quoted, fluid dynamics are discussed, but it's all just BS that's not even worth posting for discussion, right?    

Once again, QUESTIONS!   Not starting a debate.  NOT taking a side.  Just asking a question

You posted an opinion piece by a conservative opinion writer.  He is not a scientist, he gave up his career as a psych to work for gov and then became an opinion writer.  The main point of his article is "Obama is a liar."  He got paid for saying little, again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

http://www.newsnet5.com/weather/weather-news/united-kingdom-meteorology-office-declares-earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years

http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/ala-scientists-get-national-attention-calling-john-kerry-climate-change/

One interesting note I got from looking at this stuff last week, was that many cite climate increase since 2000 as their source of "fact" for their "findings" yet, if you look back 20 years or so, 2000 was the absolute bottom of that period for temperature average.  So... not being sarcastic in the least here, just sayin'...  the same study, but started in 97, 01 or 06, would have "proven" global cooling, wouldn't it?  This is why I tried to mention early in the thread, that many experts believe the cycles in this are far longer than a few years.  The of the links above, the England dudes and Alabama dudes are supposed to be THE authorities on this from what I read, (along with NASA) so I cited them.   ;)   But yeah, kinda convenient to have studies which "prove" global warming and you start your data on the lowest average temp year, in the last 20 years.  Helps you get the results you want, and that will get published, and get your article read....  

And now, I'm even WORSE than an idiot, because now I'm a liar as well, having posted here again.   :(

And, for Hook, since he wanted to emphasize the 97%/3% thing...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


Just wondering.  I read 10 different places, that NASA, UK Met, and University of Huntsville Alabama (your neighbors, Hook!) are THE three top authorities on the weather/climate.  I have provided links where at least members form 2 of the 3.  Is that "legit enough?"  More conservative crap?   :)

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 10, 2014http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

This one is interesting, and I had read about this.  What do you think it means? Do land global temperature averages tell the whole story?  You can read about that all over the web.  What does the average land temperature of the globe tell us?  How about the atmospheric temperature?  How about the ocean temperature?  

You can, of course, research this.  But the earth is not separated into simple, unrelated chunks... air temperature and land temperature and ocean temperature.  The majority of that temperature change is being absorbed currently in the oceans.  Which is why everything is melting.  This chart is probably a lot more alarming than the land temperature chart--as it should be:



https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

And though I disagree with the choice of the daily mail to focus on land temperature, even they admit that warming is happening:

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

ironsheep — Mar 07, 2014I guess Tripper was on to something with the quoting for clarity... hah!

That's why I do it sometimes. :)
Tripper

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 10, 2014And, for Hook, since he wanted to emphasize the 97%/3% thing...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


Just wondering.  I read 10 different places, that NASA, UK Met, and University of Huntsville Alabama (your neighbors, Hook!) are THE three top authorities on the weather/climate.  I have provided links where at least members form 2 of the 3.  Is that "legit enough?"  More conservative crap?   :)

Not legit at all. This is completely conservative crap. Roy Spencer is a quack who ignores data to maintain his points.

Your hint that this was bullshit should have been that it was from the Daily Caller (a conservative internet rag) and that they were quoting a blog of a man that has his own page on a science-based skepticism site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Tripper

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 10, 2014And, for Hook, since he wanted to emphasize the 97%/3% thing...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


Just wondering.  I read 10 different places, that NASA, UK Met, and University of Huntsville Alabama (your neighbors, Hook!) are THE three top authorities on the weather/climate.  I have provided links where at least members form 2 of the 3.  Is that "legit enough?"  More conservative crap?   :)

The Daily Caller? seriously?  That's your fallback?  Nice of them to squeeze this article in between a piece on "Obama is a communist" and a piece on abortion they title something about "child homicide".  Is this impartial stuff to you?

I like the part where they say "scientists are baffled about how to explain it"... Umm, no they aren't.  But right-wing websites certainly are puzzled as to how to explain it.

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 10, 2014And, for Hook, since he wanted to emphasize the 97%/3% thing...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


Just wondering.  I read 10 different places, that NASA, UK Met, and University of Huntsville Alabama (your neighbors, Hook!) are THE three top authorities on the weather/climate.  I have provided links where at least members form 2 of the 3.  Is that "legit enough?"  More conservative crap?   :)

Ditto to what Trip said. Your actually looking and reading trying to find info and prove your case...... after you've made a statement. So, now just reverse that process.

I just told you that you needed to read about the author of articles to determine if the article was lagit. Did you read that part? Then you do exactly nothing I suggested. And, you get caught with another conservative load of crap.

I'm trying to teach you and your just not being a very good student.  ;D ;D

Now, I feel safe in assuming that your completely against global warming and you think it's horseshit. And, you'd be wrong.

Remember me telling you I didn't want to see your links? And remember why?  ;D ;D I can predict the future.  ;D ;D

Tripper — Mar 10, 2014[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1394125373/50#61 date=1394483599]And, for Hook, since he wanted to emphasize the 97%/3% thing...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


Just wondering.  I read 10 different places, that NASA, UK Met, and University of Huntsville Alabama (your neighbors, Hook!) are THE three top authorities on the weather/climate.  I have provided links where at least members form 2 of the 3.  Is that "legit enough?"  More conservative crap?   :)

Not legit at all. This is completely conservative crap. Roy Spencer is a quack who ignores data to maintain his points.

Your hint that this was bullshit should have been that it was from the Daily Caller (a conservative internet rag) and that they were quoting a blog of a man that has his own page on a science-based skepticism site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Tripper

My favorite was when Roy Spencer said 10% of global warming greenhouse gases came from humans breathing out.  Fundamentally flawed understanding of the carbon cycle there...

I think farming should be stopped completely. All the farts and shit from farm animals are killing out planet. Just think what elephants do to the ozone layer.  ;D ;D

By the way, just want to point out that DTR did post three links that provided for useful discussion up there. Granted, two of them were about the same report from the UK Metro Weather service, but he did make a solid effort there.  Good work, my friend.  That's how a discussion works.  Now just tell us what you believe, back it up with some science.  Is the earth warming? Are we the cause?  Why is the winter so cold up there?  Why is sea level rising? Do you think we're in a natural cycle? Is there anything we can do? Is there anything we should do?

First, I pointed out that he did some research earlier, and second, the answer to your questions have been given  to him in my post just above yours. No reason to make it easy.  ;D ;D

Note to DTR... war tactic #1- post links to articles to divert our attention.

;D

Before you say it DTR, the fact this guy is a conservative doesn't mean your article is crap. It's everything about this individule outside this article in part, that makes it crap. A person can be conservative and factual. but that usually isn't the case.  ;D

charger — Mar 10, 2014
My favorite was when Roy Spencer said 10% of global warming greenhouse gases came from humans breathing out.  Fundamentally flawed understanding of the carbon cycle there...

I don't know about the percentage, but humans do breathe out greenhouse gasses. most notably, water vapor... but also CO2, closed loop argument notwithstanding.

curiously, this information no longer exists at the EPA where it used to... but in 2009:

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090611211332/http://epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html

note, not an argument that you're wrong here, just clarification that Dr. Spencer doesn't show himself to be a moron with his comment, but someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't mention the closed loop argument.

Exactly. Humans breathe out carbon--but that carbon is already accounted for--that carbon was sunk into plants, which in turn produced oxygen.  Which means humans breathing doesn't account for ANY net greenhouse gases.  That's the problem I had with his quote.  Yet, the strange part is this guy and his buddy at the University of Alabama are also well respected climatologists who do a lot of good work with climate satellites.  So it's weird but when you mix politics with science you get all sorts of wacky results.

politics really does tend to ruin everything... good thing this was posted in the religion section instead!  ;)

ironsheep — Mar 11, 2014politics really does tend to ruin everything...

heh heh, so true...

krauthammer in his realm of expertise... the science of selling the surveillance state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/10/krauthammer_on_snowden_i_dont_want_to_be_lectured_by_a_traitor.html

ironsheep — Mar 11, 2014his realm of expertise...

His realm of expertise is spouting.     But wtf is the Snowden story?  Some dude decides he's gunna get a job to expose information and he gets it and they give him the info?  Then he jets out and "exposes" the long ongoing practices of the NSA which no one had mentioned forevz?  The information is gathered by corps who sell that shit all around, but that scary gov is the only bad guy because they'll hold it?  People put their entire lives up on the net and are shock'd and awe'd that the info they signed over in a click of the checkbox gets analyzed and exploited...

but corps don't have swat teams... and NSA doesn't give me a checkbox...

totally with you on consequences for opting in to self-surveillance though.

Well, they don't need to have a checkbox when you have already given it away.  A gov system that has been corporatized to be able sell to you is still a gov system

there used to be (or, I believed there to be) restrictions on government though, because it has the monopoly on force. those are gone, admittedly, but I don't think it's wrong to lament that change... I guess that's where I'm at, anyways... nostalgia for the world that never was. :/

Cops pay a "snitch" to expose private information.

who is snowden serving then, in your estimation? I don't know... I'm just thoroughly unconvinced by the whole "traitor" shtick.

I mean, that the world is full of lies and bullshit isn't in dispute, I'm just not sure who's bullshit he's selling.

Religion wants your money until you expose them. Then that very nice respected person who's been giving money for 10 years becomes the devil..... why? Because he questioned......

Sorry. Don't quiet know where that came from. 8-)

;D ;D

ironsheep — Mar 11, 2014who is snowden serving then, in your estimation? I don't know... I'm just thoroughly unconvinced by the whole "traitor" shtick.

I mean, that the world is full of lies and bullshit isn't in dispute, I'm just not sure who's bullshit he's selling.

Who knows.  It's just one in a never ending series of WTF's, no real info available.  I usually try to just stick to the overt story, many of them kinda stink but who knows...

I know enough about cellular protocols to know that no one should expect any sort of privacy on one.  That said, I think the NSA is lame to sweep cell phone records.  A bottom-run drug dealer can buy a completely anonymous pay-as-you-go phone for a couple of bucks.  Why wouldn't terrorists?  Hell, if you were plotting something, you could buy 5 of them, and use one for each call, and just move around between states to make the calls.  The idea that people are plotting acts of terror on their iPhones is absurd.  The idea that they are doing anything but showing each other body parts on their webcams is also ludicrous.  The most astonishing revelation that Snowden made is just how clueless and how far behind our intelligence apparatus is.

Hookbender — Mar 12, 2014Sorry. Don't quiet know where that came from. 8-)

;D ;D

Left field, again...   ;D

Senate says CIA spies on them, why would anyone else get better treatment?

yeah, saw that tonight.  Cracked me up. Like "it's ok to spy on everyone else, but you can't spy on us!"    ::)

Well, the CIA fucking around with it's own oversight committee is pretty hot

Technically, the CIA is only supposed to spy on foreign subjects.  It's the FBI's responsibility to spy on domestic subjects.

Yeah, right.  ::)

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 12, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1394125373/75#84 date=1394582817]Sorry. Don't quiet know where that came from. 8-)

;D ;D

Left field, again...   ;D


Got me on that one, for sure.  ;D ;D

You don't even need credible article to prove that.  ;D ;D

Love ya Bro!

See how you are? Can't even come in these threads without bashing on religion, even when that's not the topic!   ;D

I'm just an asshole, reality, facts kinda guy, what can I say?  ;D

I think you get our point now though. You can't just hit search on google and get the answer your looking for. Same with religion. thats why you study and read the Bible, to hopefully "learn" the truth. Thats why you have people making careers talking about all the truths in the bible. If they were truths, you wouldn't need hundreds of years studying the same data with different results from different educated people about the same damn subject. Did it take hundreds of years to figure out the earth was round? Maybe so, i don't know. But it did come to a definitive conclusion.

I'm not slamming religion, I'm merely pointing out the same thought process you have with religion isn't very different than you have with global warming, with the exception you clearly point out you believe in God. You haven't stated your beliefs on Global warming in detail or whatever, but it's clear to me you don't believe it even though evidence says it's happening. Even your own articles against global warming confirm it's happening. You still have to think just a little my brother!

:)

I'm just an asshole, reality, facts kinda guy, what can I say?  Grin

You realize that's three different things, right?   ;D  You don't get extra credit for being all three and MANY people would actually prefer if you were only 2 out of 3.  I'll let you decide which two you think people would prefer!   ;D ;D ;D

That said, you're in left field again.  That's not the topic of this thread.  Don't be a cross-thread-polluter!  

Now, interesting that you bring up googling answers to questions.  (leaving out the part were you say I only did it AFTER the debate started, would help you get closer to that "preferred" 2/3 ratio).  HAHAHAHAHAHA      Seriously though, every place I looked for climate and weather information listed those three sources as the major "experts."  So, I then started looking for their opinions.  Interestingly enough, Charger and Tripper both dismissed one of the "sources" because it was a newspaper or whatever (the Daily).  When in fact that paper was quoting someone from one of those three main sources of expertise.  That's like saying "I don't believe you have a mesa mini rectifier because I read it at the XYZ newspaper and that is a conservative right wing paper." I'm the one in my music room every night, and I SEE it with my own eyes and even have a receipt for it.  So I DO have one.   Thing is, that paper quoted someone who knows far more about it than you and I, so weather (no pun intended)  or not he's right or wrong, I'm at least going to listen to what he says.  It seems the other side looks and finds "conservative" and immediately disregards.  Much as I disregard anything you say about God because there is nothing on that topic that we agree on.

The much more important correlation here though, is that you are not an "expert" on religion or God or any of that.  So, a more accurate comparison would be to ignore the direct testimony of say Matthew or Luke or John.  Those who were there and saw and experienced something at the highest level.  Then THEY come and tell you, all three of them, that Jesus is God and all these other things and then you say.  "oh wait, you're a Christian so I'm not going to listen to anything you say because I'm not."   Immediately disregarding someone because they are conservative or liberal for that matter, when that person was employed at one of the three main sources of expertise (not political agenda) on the topic...   You can if you want too.  LOL  I read others on the other side.  Not sure why people keep insisting I don't.  (honestly, that's just argumentative, not discussion).  I know there are others who completely are sold on the concept of global warming.  Which makes me wonder....

If you looked at my links, did you notice what I said about the one study who DID conclude that there was global warming and their survey started in 2000?  The coolest year in the last 20...   First of all, the increase since 2000 in that survey was .3 degree  1/3 of one degree.  Second, simply going back 3 years and starting that survey in 1997 would have nulled the result.  The answer would have been O change!  

So, you want to know what I think of it?  I'll tell you.  All the ALARMISM on global warming is a bunch of political BS!  ABSOLUTE BS.  The global increases over the last 100 or so years have been very small.  (yes, I just admitted that overall the earth is warming some, that IS fact, the alarmism is political BS!).  First, I think that it is happening so slowly that EVEN IF it's a continuing trend and not a cycle, science will come up with some way to slow or stop it before it ever becomes a major threat.  They are already working on more than one thing.  

And, what I DO think is a far bigger concern is the raising ocean temperatures.  They ARE happening at an alarming rate, per the chart Charger linked and the ones I saw.  So, why?  If the temperature is raising extremely slowly, why is the water temp rising so fast?  You're a fisherman.  What warms the water? Two things.  The air, and the SUN.  I HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THIS, SO DO NOT START ANOTHER BASHFEST...  my first thought is it might be back to the ozone layer.  The suns has the same rays it always had, but more of them are getting through to the water now.  This is actually the thing I was reading about when I made the volcano comment, because they claimed the one big blast a few years back did more harm to the ozone layer than 10s of years of human cause damage.  (I know you have switched to pump hair spray, so you're off the HOOK on this one, so to speak).  

Now, if my initial theory is correct, and again, it is not yet backed by anything, then once again the focus should shift to the ozone layer.   Warming oceans will mean eventually warming earth.  Could that even be THE REASON for the slight increase we've seen in overall temperatures?  Don't know, but at this point it makes sense to a fisherman. Example....

I go kayaking all the time.  There was a day last year, where it got up to 70 in march, and rained for a couple days.  Two days later, it was down to 50 but the lake was HIGH with all the run-in and that water was from the WARM rain we had.  That day I took my digital thermometer out on my kayak.  At the car, 50 degrees.  Out on the water 57 degrees.  Two weeks before that, we went out one day when for the first time it had warmed up to 60 degrees.  Beautiful sunny day 60 at the dock.  We weren't out for 5 minutes and Amy needed gloves and was already commenting on being cold.  Digital thermometer out in the middle of the lake said 50 degrees!  

I realize this is small scale.  Just making points.  Water temp that's far different from the "land temperature" will warm or cool the air over and around that body of water.  The oceans warming are cause for much more alarm, than are the air temperature changes we've seen in our lifetime, and MAYBE even the cause of it. If we want to alarm people about something, perhaps it should be that instead of the 1/3 of a degree overall temp increase!   Again, this is an OPINION.  

Your mileage may vary.  Consult your physician for erections lasting over 4 hours.  Or, as Mr. Z put it "Shut up and play yer guitar!"  

I'm sorry, DTR, but that's just not the correct interpretation of the facts.  You can't say "global temperature has remained the same for 20 years" and for that fact, rely only on the measurement of land temperature.  The fact is, it's rising incredibly fast--because it's sinking in the ocean.  Think of the ocean as a massive heatsink (which it technically is).  The hotter the air gets, the more water evaporates, the more it rains (except in CA, where we get an insane high pressure ridge that routes the water right around us).  But the heat doesn't disappear. It's not gone.  It goes into the heat sink.  The oceans are a very convenient place to store things, like carbon (which is why the ocean is acidifying) and heat (which is why the ocean is warming).  It would be nice if it was just the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica warming the entire earth, and all the earth's oceans.   Then we'd have something to focus on.  Instead, we have to focus on everything.  As for science coming up with a solution, the only solution is to create less greenhouse gases.  Many clever scientists have invented many clever things for this sole purpose.  A whole lot of them.  

But it seems to me you call that BS.  So there's your answer.

I called the political alarmism BS.  

But still you place your faith in science to "come up with something" to fix the problem.  

You said "science will come up with something to fix the problem."  I am merely pointing out that they have, many times over.  Reduce and replace fossil fuel sources.  

There is no way to account for that carbon.  A "carbon offset" is political, but not real... that carbon actually has to be offset by a whole lot of vegetative matter.  There is a move afoot to sink carbon into the ocean.  But that's not a reduction in the ongoing problem, only a way to deal with what we've already done--and then you acidify the ocean.

Alarmism is a relative term.  Large portions of humanity stand to undergo massive, horrific change.  Compared to the potential scope of the problem, I'd say we are extremely underalarmed.  I mean, look at the scale of the reaction to one diplomet dying in Benghazi--I'd venture to say many times the amount of news cycles focused on that then have focused on global warming and climate change in the past year or two.