Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[Happycamper]

More than a foot of snow has fallen in 12 states as blizzard conditions buried cars under snowdrifts as much as 15 feet deep.
Des Moines, Iowa, recorded its second highest December snowfall 12 to 15 inches since records began in 1888
Nebraska received more than 10 inches of snow, the most the state has seen in December for 50 years.
Hundreds of schools closed, thousands of homes lost power and flights have been cancelled across a wide area.

The Midwest is accustomed to bitterly cold winters but the strength of the storm, which also brought ice and 50mph winds, still took the region by surprise

Strange that...........but we are supposed to be warming.

 

[Frickr]

it was a weird year for weather in this part of the world happycamper. first summer i have been lived through where this area didnt break 100degrees. 70-80's were the average when the normal would be 90's and 100's. last years winter had record snowfall across the state of northdakota, the west side of the state had lots of flooding (the west never floods just the east side). and its been alot colder.

the weather happening here right now is how the farmers almanac predicted. a bad winter, fallowed by a cool wet summer, with a later summer then normal (up these last few weeks its been super nice for this time of the year) and now its suppose to be less snow then last year but colder temps. we just got the colder temps so lets wait and find out.

 

[Frickr]

a vary bias artical but it shows that congress is going to start investigating the hacked emails. there may be some hope for the truth. once gain this is a very one sided paper, but the message is still clear through it, even with the writters bias towards there still being 'climate change'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34369946/ns/us_news-environment

 

[Happycamper]

Hope there are no polars bears trapped on it.

My comment might have been misunderstood, British humour.

I was meaning to have polar bears riding on that iceberg was wrong in every sense, including where they come from, which was the joke having a dig at some of the inaccuracies that get reported in the press.

 

[Purple-Days]

No Polar Bears in Antarctica.

 

[reece]

Yeah, I know. I was having a lazy moment yesterday. But I got a good buzz goin' right not, so why not? My comments in bold.

Maybe you should have waited until your head was more clear.

(we do have a climate scientist commenting in this thread...nicelytoasted).

And how is that relevant to my statement? You could have 20 of them in this thread. It wouldn't change the fact that I am not.

(There is plenty of evidence out there. This isn't the first place for this discussion to take place even on this forum. Take some initiative; I did and found all kinds of stuff out there. I haven't looked at all the links provided in this thread, but I think some of them are documentaries on youtube.)

So the implication here is I am lazy? Your absolutely right. How stupid of me to expect a person making a claim to provide supporting evidence for said claim. I guess if I said you were into kiddie porn the burden of proof would be on those reading my statement. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

(Do you think the majority is always right? If so, you are in for a big surprise when you finally see what the government has been doing for almost a hundred years now...income tax, prohibition, war on drugs, federal reserve system, etc. There are a shit ton of things we have that have only been around less than 100 years, but we act like it has always been that way and that it is good. I'm done with that thinking.)

No, I don't think the majority is always right. For instance, it seems I disagree with the majority in this thread.

And what about the income tax? Are you one of those that doesn't believe the government has the right to tax income? If so you are wrong. If so, why have you not taken the initiative to find the truth. It is much, much less complicated than climate change. If you are wrong about information which is so easily disproved, what else are you wrong about? (hint: 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.)

(Come on, man, really?)

Yes, really. And I quote:

how egocentric are people to think that we are affecting the planet?

You see, stickstones, I was referring to this statement. I was talking to this person. But more on that in a minute.

(Your parents and grandparents fucked them up. jk!)

How about you explain how my 77 year old grandmother, who lived the first 30+ years of her life as a legally mandated second class citizen, had any part in the decisions taken which have decimated the Louisiana wetlands.

Just kidding? Well, you don't know me well enough to kid with me that way. It is truly classless for you to bring my family into this discussion in this manner.

In my experience, most parents do try their best when raising children. They teach them right from wrong, respect, etc. I'm sure your parents were no different. Yet, here you are behaving like an ass.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388527

(Thanks for that lengthy transcript of an ad. How about a link to the youtube page for that propaganda instead?)

And you're a liar. A bad one at that. Hint: Anyone can click the link and see it isn't an advertisement. And, didn't you just tell me to take the initiative and look at some youtube documentaries? Make up your mind.

(You read wrong. For the record...I am open to the possibility that the climate is changing for the warmer.

No, I didn't read wrong. And I quote:

how egocentric are people to think that we are affecting the planet?

You see, I wasn't talking to you. My post clearly named two people and you were neither. But, for some reason you have taken what I said very personally. So personally that you've drawn conclusions about me based on some assumptions you've made. So personally that you feel it necessary to attack my family. I'm not sure what your deal is, or what issues you have to deal with. I don't care. Just leave me out of it. This is the first time we've had any interaction. I'm fine with it being our last.

(Now you're here, too. Feel free to stroke yourself.)

No, I'm not stroking myself. I am engaging in a discussion.

Maybe this is the reason. You take some offense at my use of words. Once again, I was quite specific in who I was speaking to. You are not either of them. I was referring to the fact that there are multiple back-to-back posts, where they weren't replying to anyone, by each person. It seems they were stroking their own (and each other's) egos. Had I not omitted the word ego, would you have been less offended?

That was a fucked up post...I don't even know where to begin.

So you answer with a more fucked up post? Here's a thought, next time you don't know where to begin, take the hint and don't begin. And don't blame it on the herb. You're just a dick. (jk)

 

[Happycamper]

The Director of the International research centre in Alaska ( IARC the leading research institute) is Proff Syum Ichi Akasofu is publically saying that there is nothing unusual happening. The Ice has always expanded and retracted.(and it's expanded during this cool down from where it retracted in the 90's.) He does say that he is hounded by the media for stories. But he has nothing to tell them other than everything is normal.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/index.php

Another interesting thing that is good to know regarding the 1998 temp peak. It was at the time of El Nino effect (i'd almost forgotton) this had a direct effect on temperature at the time.

 

[reece]

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

And they provide links throughout as well as sources at the end as evidence to support their conclusions (GASP!). Why would they do that? (scratches head)

 

[stuartambient]

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

And they provide links throughout as well as sources at the end as evidence to support their conclusions (GASP!). Why would they do that? (scratches head)

LOL , so gullible fools will drink the kool aid.
It's an Annenberg Foundation site . Dig up some dirt on them , there is enough out there on them.
One lies for the other.

 

[Frickr]

"E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isnt talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings."

if there wasnt a decline they wouldnt have to hide it now would they? did all the trees get together, and decide that they were going to change how they have grown for thousands of years, just to fool some scientists? i think not.

"We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks."

and this dismisses them? so if your a jerk what you say doesnt matter? the emails clearly point to something, once again this is them trying to cover their ass. as ive said before, they arent going to admit to fraud, they will do all they can to try to get out of it. your just feeding out of their hand.

"Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as weve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise"

once again, their 'scientific' intruments are more accurate then nature? here ill even help you out because i know you will point this out right away.

"Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. "

so let me get this straight. they have known that the tree rings dont corolate with actual temps. but they are still using them?? :/ did i miss something here? i dont know about you, but when i know somethings wrong, then i dont try to use "tricks" to fix it. but im done reading that artical to many things that are just bs as far as im concerned. if this wasnt a big deal, why would congress be looking into this? why would there be other investigations? if it were true that they have been honest with us, then an investigation wouldnt be taking place. but their just is to many things that raise to many questions to let this be over looked.

 

[CrazyCracker]

No Polar Bears in Antarctica.

@ Stuart, come up with your own analogy please.

 

[stickstones]

Me in italics:

Yeah, I know. I was having a lazy moment yesterday. But I got a good buzz goin' right not, so why not? My comments in bold.

Maybe you should have waited until your head was more clear.

Agreed as I will show below!

(we do have a climate scientist commenting in this thread...nicelytoasted).

And how is that relevant to my statement? You could have 20 of them in this thread. It wouldn't change the fact that I am not.
I was trying to say that you don't have to go with the consensus because there is a climate scientist in this thread to give us informed opinions of raw data. I can see how you misread that.

(There is plenty of evidence out there. This isn't the first place for this discussion to take place even on this forum. Take some initiative; I did and found all kinds of stuff out there. I haven't looked at all the links provided in this thread, but I think some of them are documentaries on youtube.)

So the implication here is I am lazy? Your absolutely right. How stupid of me to expect a person making a claim to provide supporting evidence for said claim. I guess if I said you were into kiddie porn the burden of proof would be on those reading my statement. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Funny thing is, I was laughing at myself about the same thing when I wrote that.

And what about the income tax? Are you one of those that doesn't believe the government has the right to tax income? If so you are wrong. If so, why have you not taken the initiative to find the truth. It is much, much less complicated than climate change. If you are wrong about information which is so easily disproved, what else are you wrong about? (hint: 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.)
We'll have to agree to disagree here or start anohter thread.

(Your parents and grandparents fucked them up. jk!)

How about you explain how my 77 year old grandmother, who lived the first 30+ years of her life as a legally mandated second class citizen, had any part in the decisions taken which have decimated the Louisiana wetlands.

Just kidding? Well, you don't know me well enough to kid with me that way. It is truly classless for you to bring my family into this discussion in this manner.

In my experience, most parents do try their best when raising children. They teach them right from wrong, respect, etc. I'm sure your parents were no different. Yet, here you are behaving like an ass.

That was a joke, and apparently a bad one. My apologies. This is a shortcoming of mine that my wife can confirm.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388527

(Thanks for that lengthy transcript of an ad. How about a link to the youtube page for that propaganda instead?)

And you're a liar. A bad one at that. Hint: Anyone can click the link and see it isn't an advertisement. And, didn't you just tell me to take the initiative and look at some youtube documentaries? Make up your mind.

LOL. I went back and looked at that tonight and it is not an ad. In my stupor that night I continually saw "(Soundbite of ad)" and thought it was a transcript of an ad. Marijuana's a hell of a drug!

(You read wrong. For the record...I am open to the possibility that the climate is changing for the warmer.

No, I didn't read wrong. And I quote:

how egocentric are people to think that we are affecting the planet?

You see, I wasn't talking to you. My post clearly named two people and you were neither.
Agreed. You were not addressing me.

(Now you're here, too. Feel free to stroke yourself.)

No, I'm not stroking myself. I am engaging in a discussion.

Maybe this is the reason. You take some offense at my use of words. Once again, I was quite specific in who I was speaking to. You are not either of them. I was referring to the fact that there are multiple back-to-back posts, where they weren't replying to anyone, by each person. It seems they were stroking their own (and each other's) egos. Had I not omitted the word ego, would you have been less offended?
Yes.

That was a fucked up post...I don't even know where to begin.

So you answer with a more fucked up post? Here's a thought, next time you don't know where to begin, take the hint and don't begin. And don't blame it on the herb. You're just a dick. (jk)
Again...spot on. As you can see, I can't find much fault with your responses. So where apologies are in order, my apologies. If you had read all of my posts on this forum (and why would anyone do that?), you would see that on rare occassion I go into 'dick mode' and have to clean it up later. This appears to be one of those times and I hope you can see past it.

That being said, I have not seen anything yet in this thread to make me think differently about climate change.

 

[rayski]

so let me get this straight. they have known that the tree rings dont corolate with actual temps. but they are still using them??

No, They used the "trick" so as not to rely on the less reliable tree ring data.
This article addresses the tree ring decline: Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes

 

[Frickr]

why include them at all? if you have to use a trick, thats manipulation. i dont care if it is supposibly a scientific term. if its known and known to not be reliable, then any data that is based on these is also unreliable. only makes sence right? im no scientist and i can figure that much out.

 

[rayski]

It's an Annenberg Foundation site . Dig up some dirt on them , there is enough out there on them.
One lies for the other.

Couldn't dig up much dirt. Please inform me. Looks like a decent charitable foundation to me. Just who is lyng for whom.

 

[stuartambient]

No Polar Bears in Antarctica.

@ Stuart, come up with your own analogy please.

I didn't write that , it was Purple-Days. I am not even sure what he means by that remark.
Do I need to be concerned though ?

 

[Purple-Days]

Whoa... I was just orienting the globe... Australian icebergs while rare, come from the south polar region (of Earth) which has no native polar bears. This iceberg is calved from southern arctic shelves. Polar Bears are native to the Northern Arctic (of Earth).

I'm too old to give a damn about the climate, just want the earth right side up.

 

[stuartambient]

It's an Annenberg Foundation site . Dig up some dirt on them , there is enough out there on them.
One lies for the other.

Couldn't dig up much dirt. Please inform me. Looks like a decent charitable foundation to me. Just who is lyng for whom.

Charitable Foundations, there's an confusing term . The difference between a foundation and a business is that the foundation doesn't pay taxes. Some are okay sure , but some are agenda pushing fronts , fronting the proverbial photo-op as do-gooders and philanthropists. I feel like Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, the scene where he explains how things really get done in business.

 

[stuartambient]

Whoa... I was just orienting the globe... Australian icebergs while rare, come from the south polar region (of Earth) which has no native polar bears. This iceberg is calved from southern arctic shelves. Polar Bears are native to the Northern Arctic (of Earth).

I'm too old to give a damn about the climate, just want the earth right side up.

Like I said, maybe somewhere else, that iceberg was pushed mainland by Ban Kai Moon and Al Gore. And yes I'm sorry about the Polar Bears, I would have , liked too , one day, tried one on my plate.

 

[Purple-Days]

I'm not playing any sides. Just the facts, mam. Australian bergs have no polar bears. That's all I'm saying...

There is a long joke that ends, "it tastes a lot like Spotted Owl..." .

 

[rayski]

why include them at all? if you have to use a trick, thats manipulation. i dont care if it is supposibly a scientific term. if its known and known to not be reliable, then any data that is based on these is also unreliable. only makes sence right? im no scientist and i can figure that much out.

Yes, as you say, they incorporated the real measurements for the latter years because it makes sense. They figured it out to.

 

[Frickr]

why include them at all? if you have to use a trick, thats manipulation. i dont care if it is supposibly a scientific term. if its known and known to not be reliable, then any data that is based on these is also unreliable. only makes sence right? im no scientist and i can figure that much out.

Yes, as you say, they incorporated the real measurements for the latter years because it makes sense. They figured it out to.

can you post a link on how this is done? im curious on how they figured this out? to me it makes absolutly no sense why they would include data that has been proven to be unreliable and they admit to it being unreliable.

 

[reece]

Stickstones,

You are a funny dude. You had me laughing out loud about mid post. I completely understand. All is cool.

That being said, I have not seen anything yet in this thread to make me think differently about climate change.

Same here. Funny how that works.


And on income tax. Seriously, it is in the Constitution.

 

[Purple-Days]

Excuse me I came in with Polar Bears in the southern hemisphere...

This is interesting because I can't understand your meaning. " And on income tax. Seriously, it is in the Constitution"

I need clarity.

What do you mean by that? I am sure I am not up to date on this whole thread, but, I would like extrapolation on this point, though it's a bit off topic. Just a short side-step of the topic.

 

[CrazyCracker]

No Polar Bears in Antarctica.

@ Stuart, come up with your own analogy please.

I didn't write that , it was Purple-Days. I am not even sure what he means by that remark.
Do I need to be concerned though ?

I am aware purple days wrote that comment, and I dont think it was an analogy.

I am refering to your use of kool aid. The phrase I used twice on the last page of this thread. To soon man, to soon.