# Global Warming - Questions and other BS.



## webbie (Jan 24, 2007)

I admit it - I get bored by the idea of Global Warming. For that reason I don't keep up with it. I think the whole idea is a non-starter, because people have a tough time relating to such a massive issue.

My points are really as follows.....

I don't dispute Global Warming. I also don't confirm it. I think a lot of people feel the same way. For that reason alone, it seems like a bad cart to hitch ones horse up to. 

I'm told that if it does exist, it will take decades of reversal to change it. In other words, not during my lifetime. That automatically means it moves down my priority list.

Ok, so let's assume it does exist. Then a lot of other questions arise - like is it good or is it bad and does it even hold a candle to the normal heating and cooling cycles of the earth? As I have mentioned before, we are likely to address these issues for decades, and then one Volcano will erupt and change the earths climate more than we did! Longer summers will make for better crops in the north here. Ski areas will suffer. Which is more important in the total scheme of things?

Ok, so by now you are thinking I am a pessimist. No, the answer to that is that I am a Marketer. A sales person at heart.

As such, I think we can "sell" changes in behavior much easier by stressing the IMMEDIATE results of our actions. If we talk about Acid Rain, Water and Air Pollution, Traffic, National Security, Quality of Life and the many other issues that affect the SAME courses of action, I think Americans may come along for the ride. We can also add JOBS to that, because a new economy based on efficiency and renewables would add a number of skilled workers to the payroll.

In short, you will never hear me talk other than jokingly about Global Warming - not because I think it's not true, but because I think it is Pie in the Sky compared to many issues which can drive people to change.


----------



## Corey (Jan 26, 2007)

Well put, Bill Oreilly! 

I'm a bit skeptical, too.  For me, the numbers just don't add up...The big hoopla seems to be over carbon dioxide and usually followed by a quote about how many billion tons we humans put into the air.  Well, for us humans billion is a pretty big number and I think people cringe over that and start thinking the sky really is falling.  But, really, on a planetary scale, billion tons is pretty insignificant.  For example the whole atmosphere is estimated at 5,000 trillion tons.

The global concentration of CO2 is what...around 360ppm (parts per million) - that represents 0.036% of the total atmosphere

About 90 billion tons of CO2 come from the oceans every year, another 90 billion tons from biologic activity on land...6 billion tons (about 3%) from human activity.

Water vapor is a huge contributor to global warming.  (ever notice how desert areas tend to have hot days and cold nights while tropical areas are warm day and night...it's not CO2 keeping you warm it's water vapor - or lack there of)  Water vapor is conveniently left out of most charts, because there is not much money in regulating that  the oceans have us puny humans beat by about 1000 to 1 when it comes to water vapor emissions.  But  counting in the amount and potential warming of water vapor by some accounts can be as much as 95% of the global warming gases in the atmosphere.  It knocks CO2 to a paltry 3.6% of the warming gasses in the atmosphere and the human contribution is 3% of that 3.6%.

If the weather is changing, we would be much better off to spend money to adapt to the changes rather than try and stop them.

just my .02

Corey


----------



## DriftWood (Jan 26, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I'm told that if it does exist, it will take decades of reversal to change it. In other words, not during my lifetime. That automatically means it moves down my priority list.



I won't see it. I just tell my kids in your lifetime you may see.. Maybe they will remember these good old days. 



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> In short, you will never hear me talk other than jokingly about Global Warming - not because I think it's not true, but because I think it is Pie in the Sky compared to many issues which can drive people to change.



The time after... between wars was a time my children grew up in. They had no idea what war meant until 11/9/2001. Issues which can drive change happened that day.


----------



## jjbaer (Jan 26, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I admit it - I get bored by the idea of Global Warming. For that reason I don't keep up with it. I think the whole idea is a non-starter, because people have a tough time relating to such a massive issue.
> 
> My points are really as follows.....
> 
> ...



Well said, Web......carve this one in stone because I totally agree with what you said...too many variables to say if it's us or mother nature............being an engineer though, I know there are cleaner ways to produce power and run automobiles, etc., and for no other reason than that, we need to be continually searching for better (cleaner, cheaper, etc.) ways to do things...


----------



## Hogwildz (Jan 26, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just saw a show talking about this. They got into the Hydrogen fuel. Said one day each house could have a Hydrogen power generator looks the size of a central a/c unit. But I am thinking the electric companies would have that one squashed.


----------



## smirnov3 (Jan 26, 2007)

Global warming DOES exist. It is speeding up. And there is no stopping it.

What Scientists believed up until this year is that the man-produced CO2 was shifting the earths environment a little to the warmer, and that if we stopped producing so much CO2, the shift would slow & stop. But this year some scientists realized that this tiny amount of heating was melting the arctic perma-frost. Inside the perma-frost is a huge quantity of plant and animal matter that hasn't rotted for thousands of years, because it was frozen. When that stuff rots, it will produce even more CO2, melting more perma-frost, releasing more CO2. - it will feed back on itself, acclerating global warming.

And the idea that it will be only a few degrees over the next 100 years is a global AVERAGE. For instance, the Arctic has already seen a 4F increase in temp in the past 10 years.  It wams up earlier in the spring and cools later in the fall. This has allowed insects to flourish, especially a tree-boring beetle that is exterminating large swaths of forest.

Also, a 2-3 F increase in the temperature of the south Pacific could produce an effect similar to El-Nino (which is causing this years wierd weather): 10-20F change in local temperatures. It will also change rain patterns, causing water prices to spike in some places.


----------



## webbie (Jan 26, 2007)

OK, so if we cannot stop it, then I should probably should not pay too much attention to it - my point exactly!

Again, my take is that we should attack it from the pollution angle, and then the CO will be cut down as a result. For instance, a news story today:
"FRIDAY, Jan. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Children growing up alongside freeways risk having their lung development impaired, which can increase the likelihood of serious respiratory diseases later in life, researchers report.

Other studies have shown that children living next to highways are more likely to develop respiratory problems, such as asthma. But this is the first study to show that long exposure to car and truck exhaust actually affects the growth of the lungs, and hence their capacity."

OK, so ther are telling us something we already knew - but now it is proven more. And when you consider the number of roads in the country and how many people live near them....that's a lot. Consider also that - if people living alongside are affected X much, then people living 1/4 mile away are probably also affected, but only x much. In other words, we are killing ourselves and our children....choking ourselves to death!

CORRECTION - THE STUDY USED 1/4 MILE AS THE REFERENCE, SO FOLKS LIVING 1/4 MILE AWAY ARE HEAVILY AFFECTED!

That seems like something that we should be able to get through our thick heads - that driving a Hummer as the only occupant hurts 10 times more children than driving a Prius, etc.


----------



## jjbaer (Jan 26, 2007)

Hogwildz said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I remember years ago when a guy invented the automatic damper for furnaces..when the burner shut off, the damper closed and the fan kept going to extract all that latent heat out of the heat exchanger that if the damper remained open, would go up the stack.....the AGA (American Gas Association) fought this guy tooth and nail using every bogus argument they could to shut him and his idea down........they claimed it was dangerous because what if the damper shut while burner was still on, etc......the AGA got "stomped on" big time by the courts who saw it for what it was...the AGA trying to sell as much gas as possible and if people began using this damper it could cut down their gas usage by several percent and therefore gas suppliers revenue.......also the idea of "interlocks" to prevent one thing from happening before/after another task are not new.......what if an interlock that was there years BEFORE the damper idea came about, failed and the burner began flowing gas BEFORE the spark ignitor began sparking...... so, courts see monopolies for what they are and generally new technology prevails......


----------



## Burn-1 (Jan 26, 2007)

Anton Smirnov said:
			
		

> When that stuff rots, it will produce even more CO2, melting more perma-frost, releasing more CO2. - it will feed back on itself, acclerating global warming.



Actually, the danger from the melting permafrost is methane, lots of it and it's much more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Although there would certainly be some CO2 released as well. 

Siberian peat bogs thawing

So we might not eventually end up causing the worst of the warming but we certainly have started pushing the snowball down the hill.


----------



## begreen (Jan 26, 2007)

I don't pretend to know what the outcome will be, but it's clear we are already seeing the effects of global warming.  Just look to the mountains and the glacier retreat. It's pretty obvious in our region. Or look at the ancient and massive beds of permafrost in Siberia that are now thawing. There already are some island nations in the Pacific that have had to move. 

We will very likely see the effects of the rapid rise in greenhouse gases in our lifetime. True that nature has swing cycles, but CO2 is at it's highest level in 650,000 years and the current rapid rise tracks directly with the industrial age and increasing human population. The reason I say that it the problem is accelerating is that it gets compounded by several factores like the release of stored gases in the permafrost, especially methane. This is a release on a massive scale. The problem is also compounded and accelerated by the loss of the arctic ice sheet which acts as a heat reflector. The darker water and land underneath is much more absorbant. There are current predictions are that the northwest passage will be navigable and ice free within 13 years.


----------



## smirnov3 (Jan 26, 2007)

On that note - word to the wise - don't buy real estate in New Orleans (or any other place hiding from the ocean behind a wee little wall)


----------



## smirnov3 (Jan 26, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> OK, so if we cannot stop it, then I should probably should not pay too much attention to it - my point exactly!
> 
> Again, my take is that we should attack it from the pollution angle, and then the CO will be cut down as a result. For instance, a news story today:



Yup, pollution is a killer.

But while we can't stop global warming, we can slow it down a little.  Remember - most long lived plants & animal species need time to adapt to change. So the slower the change, the fewer of them will go extinct.


----------



## saichele (Jan 27, 2007)

No question that global warming is occurring.  There's some question how much responsibility humans have for it.  Funny part is that we're all talking about warming, but what we should be worried about is cooling.  All that melting up north will release gobs of fresh water, which will decrease the salinity of the North Atlantic.  When that happens, the salinity currents (of which the Gulf stream is part) shut down, meaning all that heat that's transferred from the tropics to the poles stops.  Just like if I shut down the circulator fans near the stove.  It's hot in the living room, but it's gonna get damn cold in the bedrooms.  And Europe, and NE, and just about everything north of DC.  

Not quite like that silly Dennis Quaid movie a couple yrs ago, but they had the general idea.

Steve


----------



## wg_bent (Jan 29, 2007)

Uhh... But what if the sun explodes?  That might cause global warming too. 

(Warren ducks)


----------



## DonCT (Jan 29, 2007)

Increased CO2 leads to increased plant life. More food, bigger trees, etc, etc. More plants produce more O2. It's a natural cycle and the impact of humans to the cycle is like an ant climbing Mt. Everest.

Global Warming is nothing but the next "Dooms Day" scenario. Yes, the earth is warming. But when the GCM's take into account the effect of water vapor, the temperature graphs fall right in line with historical averages. People scream "But our glaciers are melting so fast" or "Look at all the bad hurricanes". Once again, the recent (past 30-40 years) are average, or even slightly below average. Hell, most scientist still agree that we're still coming out of the last ice age!

And when the everyday joe hears of Global Warming, they think it's gonna be 190° out and all life will cease to exist. The most aggressive calculations put the temperature rise at or around 10° in the next 100-150 years. By then, the earth will begin to slide back towards cooling due to ocean current changes and decreased solar output.


----------



## smirnov3 (Jan 30, 2007)

You can't just worry about the pollution & let global waming take care of itself, because the real issue with global warming is not "how do we stop  /slow it" but what do do to cope when it DOES happen.

As a country, we need to put more thought into drought preparedness. We need to put money aside to fix more weather related damage. We need to ways to offset economic damage to farmers & fishermen. Stuff like that. It's not any one huge thing, but all this little stuff can break the bank if you aren't ready for it.


----------



## jjbaer (Jan 30, 2007)

Anton Smirnov said:
			
		

> You can't just worry about the pollution & let global waming take care of itself, because the real issue with global warming is not "how do we stop  /slow it" but what do do to cope when it DOES happen.
> 
> As a country, we need to put more thought into drought preparedness. We need to put money aside to fix more weather related damage. We need to ways to offset economic damage to farmers & fishermen. Stuff like that. It's not any one huge thing, but all this little stuff can break the bank if you aren't ready for it.



I vote for desalinization plants!


----------



## smirnov3 (Jan 30, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Anton Smirnov said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We need to find a new way of doing that - the current meathod makes water that cost something like $0.10 a gallon


----------



## jjbaer (Jan 30, 2007)

Anton Smirnov said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No problem.....they're able to sell "bottled water" to the uninformed at about $4/gallon...twice that of gasoline so 10 cents/gallon is pretty cheap...LOL  But I know what you mean, in large quantities, it needs to come down by about a factor of 10 to 1 cent or so per gallon.


----------



## begreen (Feb 2, 2007)

More on the effects of polarized pov's on this issue and a bit of what's fueling them:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html


----------



## detmurds (Feb 4, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I admit it - I get bored by the idea of Global Warming. For that reason I don't keep up with it. I think the whole idea is a non-starter, because people have a tough time relating to such a massive issue.
> 
> My points are really as follows.....
> 
> ...



I agree with you.  There was a scientist from some university in Oklahoma saying that yes, we may be going through some global warming, but it cannot be proved that man is doing it.  I say, "yes, we the human race needs to be responsible, but we cannot do a thing about how our solar system works, and what it and Mother Earth is doing.


----------



## Stan70 (Feb 4, 2007)

While I would agree that there is much data on this subject which needs to be organized in order to properly understand the situation and determine the extent to which global warming is a function of the human behavior, why would we not at least attempt to err on the side of caution?  Sure statistically, you can probably gather the data, compare it what we've been able to gather so far (which isn't a great time in the grand scheme of things) and come to the conclusion that either we are or aren't contributing to this phenomena (as opposed to it being some natural cycle of the earth).   But is it really that hard to think that 200 million American cars, in addition to the number, and relative inefficiency, of vehicles that India and China (among others) are putting on the road isn't going to have some detrimental effect on the earth's atmosphere?  And when taken in conjunction with the pollution generated through burning coal, which China burns in huge quantities, methane production due to cows, industry, etc., extensive use of CFCs, more rapid deforestation, etc. it seems reasonable to believe that the sum of these activities could have a detrimental effect on the environment.  And for a system which is potentially somewhat metastable, I'd rather not make the mistake of having given the snowball it's first push as one previous person commented.  A simple fact is that our world is not an infinite sink and it's ludicrous to think that when taken in aggregate, humans will never have any effect on the environment.  That having been said, it seems like a small price to pay to simply err on the side of caution in ways which could also benefit us economically.  For example purchasing cars that get slightly better gas mileage, increasing the energy efficiency of our homes, etc. all speak to the greater problem of our attitudes towards what many Americans have always assumed would be there, namely cheap, consequence free energy.  To me, it seems more reasonable to make this type of mistake than to merely dismiss the issue with a wave of my hand and say "It's not my problem, so what if my kid's kids have to deal with it, I'll be long dead and gone by then..."   Just my .02.


----------



## saichele (Feb 4, 2007)

That's essentially my position - human induced global warming is debatable, but for a variety of reasons we should be looking at efficient alternatives.  

The reason 'not to' is the potential economic damage of doing it suddenly.  If we could come up with something like a long term energy policy (I thought I was promised on of those 6 yrs ago) industry, consumers, and producers could adapt.

Steve


----------



## begreen (Feb 4, 2007)

Agreed Steve (What?? ) I'd prefer we weren't forced into harsh economic change due to procrastination and dithering. There are a lot of economic opportunities here as well. Someone is going to capitalize on them and I'd rather it was us. Many businesses that worried about going green have found that is wasn't as painful as they thought. They are now reaping nice economic benefits that put them ahead of their competitors. And face it, it's easier to be motivated by a national effort to reduce consumption with the goal of energy independence than to sustain an economy based on govt. funding of a war machine to sustain our addiction to fossil fuels.


----------



## saichele (Feb 5, 2007)

True.  I think we should be modifying our lifestyles with the goal of leaving a smaller footprint overall.  And do it in a logical and concerted manner, because it is actually the right thing to do.  But not under false pretenses, and not under the auspices of a fabricated (or at least speculative) crisis.  

This whole debate may well be moot if the "we're the problem" crowd are correct.  There's no way to maintain anything like our current standard of living without relaeasing more CO2 (and more methane) than we did predevelopment.  We can roll it back to 1990, or 1950, but we'll still be enriching the atmosphere.   We're not going to roll it back to 1750.

Steve


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2007)

There's no way (to maintain our current standard of living) given the current systems in place. But we can make a significant change in three critical areas: transportation, industrial output, heating and cooling. The technology is out there. We just need to act/design/execute smarter. Cooperation from the govt. would help. Recently 10 execs from GE, DuPont, Alcoa, etc.  sat Bush down and said - we need a policy!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201237.html


----------



## saichele (Feb 5, 2007)

Sure we can improve, and should.  I have yet to see anybody suggest we can reduce emissions to pre-industrial levels, however.  So if the theories are to be believed, maybe instead of doubling CO2 concentrations in 50yrs, we'll take 70 or 80.  But soon we'll be at double, and perhaps triple.  Avoiding that would require 1) sweating a lot more in the warmer parts of the country, and 2) mass relocations out of the cold parts of the country, and virtual abandonment of Canada.  Sure, some could live up here, burning biomass and whatnot, but we aren;t on the brink of a full-replacement heat source in the next several decades.  

As to the sham Alcoa et al are putting together, the fine print is that they want to convert their legacy of mass pollution into an asset.  They take their 2005 emissions levels, and turn them into tradable CO2 credits.  The credits idea is all well and good, but their issue is to have them assigned to existing industries initially, rather than openly traded as a commodity.  Obviously then they'd be leading the "green" parade, blocking creation of more credits so their pollution shares would be more valuable.

Steve


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 5, 2007)

Steve said:
			
		

> Sure we can improve, and should.  I have yet to see anybody suggest we can reduce emissions to pre-industrial levels, however.  So if the theories are to be believed, maybe instead of doubling CO2 concentrations in 50yrs, we'll take 70 or 80.  But soon we'll be at double, and perhaps triple.  Avoiding that would require 1) sweating a lot more in the warmer parts of the country, and 2) mass relocations out of the cold parts of the country, and virtual abandonment of Canada.  Sure, some could live up here, burning biomass and whatnot, but we aren;t on the brink of a full-replacement heat source in the next several decades.
> 
> As to the sham Alcoa et al are putting together, the fine print is that they want to convert their legacy of mass pollution into an asset.  They take their 2005 emissions levels, and turn them into tradable CO2 credits.  The credits idea is all well and good, but their issue is to have them assigned to existing industries initially, rather than openly traded as a commodity.  Obviously then they'd be leading the "green" parade, blocking creation of more credits so their pollution shares would be more valuable.
> 
> Steve



Yes...pretty soon these companies are going to become like many who sell on e-bay........companies will make their profits trading CO2 credits just like many on e-bay who make their biggest profits on shipping........


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 5, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> There's no way (to maintain our current standard of living) given the current systems in place. But we can make a significant change in three critical areas: transportation, industrial output, heating and cooling. The technology is out there. We just need to act/design/execute smarter. Cooperation from the govt. would help. Recently 10 execs from GE, DuPont, Alcoa, etc. sat Bush down and said - we need a policy!
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201237.html



BeGreen,

Many months ago I sent Bush and the Energy Dept letters stating that Bush needed to take a page out of the John Kennedy play-book (Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon in 10 years) and challenge the best and brightest minds in the country to get us off oil and onto some other form of cleaner, less political energy source......I got a letter from the Energy Dept saying virtually nothing and got that (nothing), not even a letter, from Bush. I told them both that the Energy Dept has, I think, a $22 Billion budget and we've got little to nothing to show for it........another example of our corrupt government in action and I say this with standing in the community........20 years in the military watching Billions outside of military programs going down the rat hole and into the cesspool..............


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2007)

Amen brother. I witnessed about a million (1970) dollars worth of govt. computer stations sitting idle, month after month. They took an entire floor of a large building. I am sure that by the time they were ready to use them, the computers were obsolete. The country is ready, but the "leadership" is not there.


----------



## smirnov3 (Feb 5, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Amen brother. I witnessed about a million (1970) dollars worth of govt. computer stations sitting idle, month after month. They took an entire floor of a large building. I am sure that by the time they were ready to use them, the computers were obsolete. The country is ready, but the "leadership" is not there.



In 1996, the company I work for sold a computer controlled instrument (with computer) to the DOE. In 1999 they shipped the computer that ran it back to us to be certified as Y2K comliant.

It was returned in the original packaging - the box had not been opened yet.


----------



## begreen (Feb 6, 2007)

Our tax dollars HARDLY at work!


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 6, 2007)

Anton Smirnov said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Buy a mac instead.....they were always Y2K compliant.........


----------



## colsmith (Feb 6, 2007)

Craig, I am surprised by your statement I’m told that if it does exist, it will take decades of reversal to change it. In other words, not during my lifetime. That automatically means it moves down my priority list.  There is really no debate among scientists that global warming exists and is happening right now.  There are front groups for big oil companies, mainly ExxonMobil, who try to make it look like the scientific community isn't sure about global warming.  They are sure, it is just that it is inconvenient for big oil, and for Bush and Cheney, to admit that global warming is a problem.  Notice that the Republican term for it is climate change, not global warming.  Although even the Shrub has admitted now that global warming is happening.  Anyway, here is some info that might inspire you to believe that global warming is quite real, and why people are mislead into thinking scientists aren't sure.

 ExxonMobil's been under intense pressure to stop funding front groups and think tanks that put out disinformation on global warming.  A new report released last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) documented how ExxonMobil employs the same tactics, and some of the same personnel, to deceive the public on global warming as the tobacco companies did with smoking.  The report ties about a dozen scientists whose views on global warming are discredited by the scientific community to scores of Exxon-funded front groups and think tanks, and shows how this tobacco-style technique insidiously spreads false doubt around global warming.

America's vocal disgust over oil has also played an instrumental role.  Recently Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) wrote ExxonMobil to urge the company to "come clean" about its funding of global warming denier groups and be a more responsible corporate actor.  The U.S. Senators' letter was not the first one ExxonMobil received.  The Royal Society, among the most respected scientific academies in the world, established in 1660, detailed its research showing ExxonMobil spent $2.9 million in 2005 funding some 39 groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence."  Research by Greenpeace shows that ExxonMobil has spent $19 million since 1998 funding more than 70 institutes and front groups that have worked to delay crucial action on global warming by injecting uncertainty into the scientific discussion and by falsely claiming that climate policies would result in economic ruin.

The Royal Society revealed that Exxon had said it would stop funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a U.S. group that claims carbon dioxide is good for you and that global warming isn’t a threat. CEI is one of Exxon's favorite front groups, receiving over $2,000,000 from the company since 1998. 

Due to public pressure. ExxonMobil claimed it stopped funding "five or six" of these groups, but there are thought to be dozens if not hundreds of other ones they still fund.  Isn't it a shame that instead of working on ways to slow down global warming, they would rather spend the money on PR efforts to make themselves not look so bad?!?


----------



## colsmith (Feb 6, 2007)

Just a short post from me for a change.  I wanted to share just one sentence from the latest National Resource Defense Council's quarterly publication _onearth_.  "Even conservative global warming models predict an astounding 60 percent reduction in soil moisutre on U.S. farmland in this century."  I would think we would all be anxious to try to stop?!?

My best friend was in the Peace Corps in Kiribati, a Pacific island nation which consists of coral based islands.  They are expected to be the first nation lost to global warming, as their islands are only a few feet above sea level.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 6, 2007)

If you're going to use the term, alteast use it correctly. What you are talking about is Advanced Global Warming. Sure, the planet is warming, but it's far from certain that humans are the direct cause.


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 6, 2007)

Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> There is really no debate among scientists that global warming exists and is happening right now.



You're wrong on that statement..... there are many reputable scientists who say that while we are going through a warming period, that it is natural and not man made. Just because you chose to ignore these people and their opinion, doesn't make them any less credible......


----------



## webbie (Feb 6, 2007)

I think this says a lot:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The American Enterprise Institute, which has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil, offered scientists up to $10,000 for a "policy critique" of the U.N. global warming report released on Friday."


----------



## webbie (Feb 6, 2007)

Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> Craig, I am surprised by your statement I’m told that if it does exist, it will take decades of reversal to change it. I
> America's vocal disgust over oil has also played an instrumental role.




You have to carefully read my post. 

First of all, the scientists all agree that the action=reaction time is decades long....are you claiming that something can be done about it and get results in less than 20-30 years?

My point is ONLY the Global Warming is a selling point for only a small percentage of the population, and is surely not a selling point for the corporations that we really need to spearhead the changes. People are inherently selfish, and IMHO will be much more likely to change when it affects either themselves or their children very directly. 

Look at how many years it is taking for the Kyoto protocols, etc. - so it will take 10-20 years to come to ANY agreement and then another 20-30 for the changes to be instituted and have an effect.

*"America's vocal disgust over oil "*

The only digust I can imagine this is referencing is the general disgust that we are not getting enough of it and we want it cheaper! 

Again, my point is "sales and marketing" related. Here are some examples....

Are people wearing less fur because they really care about the animals (while they go to a steakhouse and buy leather clothes?) Or are they responding to public pressure and the idea that instead of everyone looking UP at them, most people are looking DOWN.

It takes a certain type of person to drive the big HUMMER around. Most people, conscience aside, don't want everyone looking at them with scorn and giving them the finger!

So, again, my point on Global Warming is that it should be taken care of as only ONE of the many benefits of reducing pollution associated with the use of excesses of fossil fuels. When it becomes "cool" to have a smaller house or a more efficient heating system, that will do more to change things...for MOST people.  When it is more patriotic to save energy than to place flags and stickers on your SUV, then change will start.

I hope this clears up my opinion.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 6, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I think this says a lot:
> "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The American Enterprise Institute, which has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil, offered scientists up to $10,000 for a "policy critique" of the U.N. global warming report released on Friday."



Wow, that little spin's never been brought out before....

Is the Fraiser Institute paid off also?

http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...earchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=633895


----------



## colsmith (Feb 6, 2007)

Some Like It Hot - 06 February 2007 01:47 AM
There is really no debate among scientists that global warming exists and is happening right now. 

Castiron says in reply:
You’re wrong on that statement..... there are many reputable scientists who say that while we are going through a warming period, that it is natural and not man made. Just because you chose to ignore these people and their opinion, doesn’t make them any less credible...... 

My dear castiron, it must be months since we have argued, did you miss me? ;-)  The average temperatures around the globe are going up, the ice is melting, blah blah blah.  I don't know of anyone credible who refutes this.  Yes, a few say it is natural, and many think people and all their mess has a lot to do with it.  However, that does not negate the fact that global warming exists and is happening right now, regardless of what you think the cause or reason is.  The only ones I know of saying that the earth is NOT getting warmer or that giving off more carbon dioxide is a good thing are getting funds from ExxonMobil.  What credible climatologists do you know of that don't think the earth is getting warmer right now?  Give me a couple names and what groups they are affiliated with.  Preferably none that get their funding from oil companies or power plants.


----------



## colsmith (Feb 6, 2007)

Craig explains
First of all, the scientists all agree that the action=reaction time is decades long....are you claiming that something can be done about it and get results in less than 20-30 years? 

I thought you were saying it wasn't urgent to DO something about global warming now.  Yes, it takes a long time to see the results, both for it to have happened initially, and for it to slow down if we cut emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.  But, if we don't work on it real soon and accomplish some real cutbacks of emissions, it will be MUCH TOO LATE in 20-30 years to start actually doing something once the results are dreadful and the average joe starts to get nervous.  What I am saying is action is needed promptly, BECAUSE global warming is already in motion and will continue to be for some time, whether we change our ways or not.  There are considered to be certain points of no return, after which is won't really matter what we do, we are screwed.  I would prefer that not to happen.

Global warming leads glaciers to melt, exposing more dark soil and boulders, which absorb light and hence heat more than the shiny reflective ice did, which leads to more global warming, regardless of us putting out more carbon dioxide, etc.  Or the frozen tundra that is melting, same thing, permafrost melts, trapped methane is released, increasing the rate of global warming.  So basically global warming leads to more global warming, even if we all died tomorrow and stopped making pollution of every sort.

The problem is that ordinary people don't understand global warming or its consequences very well, not suprising considering how stupidly many people vote and shop and spend money and things like that.  So since it is cold today, they think global warming isn't happening.  They don't understand or even know about glaciers melting in the Himalayas and the resulting new lakes being created and building up and making huge flows of icy water that destroy villages, things that like.  And if they do, they think they are safe because they don't live by a glacier or the sea.

I used to spend a lot of time on a sailboat in the Caribbean, people there already notice the water getting warmer, coral and other species having a too rapid die-off, etc.  In WI it isn't very obvious, except that in recent years we have had some amazingly late first killing frosts, and we all think that is a nice thing. Well, it is nice for us gardeners.  But the problem is that global warming seems neither urgent nor applicable to most people, so they ignore it or say it isn't real.

As for the Kyoto protocols, we are one of the few big countries that has resisted going along with it for a long time, most countries we do business with are already on that boat.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 7, 2007)

Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> The average temperatures around the globe are going up, the ice is melting, blah blah blah.  I don't know of anyone credible who refutes this.  Yes, a few say it is natural, and many think people and all their mess has a lot to do with it.  However, that does not negate the fact that global warming exists and is happening right now, regardless of what you think the cause or reason is.  The only ones I know of saying that the earth is NOT getting warmer or that giving off more carbon dioxide is a good thing are getting funds from ExxonMobil.  What credible climatologists do you know of that don't think the earth is getting warmer right now?  Give me a couple names and what groups they are affiliated with.  Preferably none that get their funding from oil companies or power plants.



I don't think they're disputing that it's getting warmer, just the cause and the ultimate effect of the warming. What we and quite a few scientists are saying is that there is no cause for the "Panic" mentality. According to the science models, the temp rise in the next century is only 2-3°. This is GLOBAL. This means that some areas will warm, others will cool. After all, the global mean temp average baseline is 59°. Last year, the global average was 57.53°.

Nice try, trying to discredit a group of researchers just because their foundation recieved money from Exxon. As a total of their funding, it only equals about 5%. Not really an attempt to change results. Unlike the IPCC report. They put out a summary before the report is even finalized. They are working the final draft to match the SPM.




			
				Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> Global warming leads glaciers to melt, exposing more dark soil and boulders, which absorb light and hence heat more than the shiny reflective ice did, which leads to more global warming, regardless of us putting out more carbon dioxide, etc.  Or the frozen tundra that is melting, same thing, permafrost melts, trapped methane is released, increasing the rate of global warming.  So basically global warming leads to more global warming, even if we all died tomorrow and stopped making pollution of every sort.
> 
> The problem is that ordinary people don't understand global warming or its consequences very well, not suprising considering how stupidly many people vote and shop and spend money and things like that.  So since it is cold today, they think global warming isn't happening.  They don't understand or even know about glaciers melting in the Himalayas and the resulting new lakes being created and building up and making huge flows of icy water that destroy villages, things that like.  And if they do, they think they are safe because they don't live by a glacier or the sea.
> 
> ...



How do you explain the growth in total ice in the Antartic region? The Antartic ice will actually lead to a negative forcing on global sea levels. Fact.

It's been proven that Greenland was once.......oh my, GREEN. Meaning it wasn't always covered in ice. So there's precident for the glaciers to melt. And it obviously wan't catastrophic then, why should it be now??

As for Kyoto, there are alot of countries that are regreting signing. They are seeing their governements spend trillions of dollars and not getting any benifit. The science is not conclusive that CO2 will cause the massive problems that have been perpetuated by the MSM and environmental activists. In fact, they have proven that temps rise BEFORE CO2 levels. How do you explain that?? Just goes to show that not enough is known about the climate engine of Earth, so why cripple our economy trying to change something that isn't a factor anyways. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect"


http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Greenhouse_not_a_problem.html
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2007)

With all the rationalizations and refutes, one thing is clear and a standout fact in the data. That is the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Drill, dig, melt,and research as they may, this rapid 150 year spike is unprecedented so far. I'm not saying that some thing didn't occur as some point in the earth's geological history that might have resembled this. Maybe a meteor collision triggered such an event at the junctures of the cretaceous or triassic ages. But there is no other rational explanation for the --current-- spike other than the presense of man and the industrial age.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 7, 2007)

Other than the fact that they were melting PRIOR to the industrial age? You claim that the rate is unprecedented. I'm saying we have no research to suggest it is.

Another thing I would like to point out about the forcasts by the IPCC. They are based off of a global population growth that is completely unrealistic. They also used unreliable ground based temp measurements that don't match up with satellite observations.


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2007)

This research refers to atmospheric CO2 and methane levels, not melting of anything. There is a lot of research to support this. These are not corporate dummies, but some of the best researchers in the world, collecting and analyzing the data.  The samples from Greenland and the deep ice cores in the EPICA Dome in Antarctica show that the current increase is unprecedented in the last 650,000 years. 

While I agree that the speculation on the affect of this increase is up for debate, the research is sound.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 7, 2007)

Still not showing me any corelation between rising CO2 followed by rising temps causing out-of-norm glacial melting.

And I never disputed that CO2 levels are higher than they were. I stipulate that they're still not the highest seen on the planet and there is no reason to try and regulate levels that even if doubled would only lead to a temp increase that still falls withing natural climate changes. Also, CO2 has very limited capabilities to contribute to AGW. Feel free to peruse this page:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2007)

DonCT said:
			
		

> It's been proven that Greenland was once.......oh my, GREEN. Meaning it wasn't always covered in ice. So there's precident for the glaciers to melt. And it obviously wan't catastrophic then, why should it be now??



Don, are you suggestiing that Greenland is so named because it was green? Certainly they had warmer periods, but we learned in school that:
"The name "Greenland" comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in o*rder to attract more people to settle there*."

Conversely, we learned that Iceland was so named to stop others from discovering:
"The climate of Iceland is temperate. The warm North Atlantic Current ensures generally higher temperatures than in most places of similar latitude in the world. The winters are mild and windy while the summers are damp and cool."

Not to dispute your points, just making certain everyone knows that the name itself may have nothing to do with real green.


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2007)

BTW, just so we can get clear again about who agrees that Humans are responsible, here is a summary of the UN report....

-----------------
The International Panel on Climate Change released on Friday, Feb. 2, its most definitive report yet on climate change. The report, which says there is at least a 90 percent chance that humans are causing the earth to warm, is the most important assessment on the science of climate change in six years. 

The report, a consensus document put together by 600 scientists and agreed on by representatives of 113 countries, predicts a continued warming of 0.2 °C per decade for the coming few decades. It paints a bleak picture of climate change, and says that evidence of the negative human impact on the environment is “widespread.” Declaring that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the authors said in their “Summary for Policymakers” that even in the best-case scenario, temperatures are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level. 

A rise of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels would cause dramatic global effects -- such as massive species extinctions and the melting of ice sheets -- that could be irreversible within a human lifetime. Under the most conservative IPCC scenario, the planet will warm by 4.5 degrees by 2100. Heat waves are likely to be more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting, and tropical storms and hurricanes will probably be stronger.

The Arctic will likely be ice-free in the summer, and mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets will continue to melt, according to the draft of the report.  Similarly, the new report says that sea-levels will rise by between 28 centimetres and 43 cm by 2100, compared with the 2001 prediction of between 9 cm and 88 cm (2.54 cm = 1 inch). The report also warned of “positive” feedbacks, which could play a role in accelerating temperature increases—meaning that the melting of glaciers, for example, will keep speeding up.  The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

---------------------------------------

Again, I am not personally in the know - but 600 Scientists and 113 countries agree on this? AND, some of the language was toned down - for instance, most wanted it to be "virtually certain" , which indicates a 99% possibility of human causation - they settled for "very likely" at only 90%+

It's really a stretch to think of a few Exxon Mobile funded Junkscience sites having similar cred as this study. Obviously, there are many who will continue to hold other opinions - you can find hundreds of millions of people on the planet who think the entire earth is less than 10,000 years old. But it would be silly to debate such a point, as it gives credit to nonsense. It is like us discussing a point, and then when I am clearly wrong, I say "well, you can't even prove that I exist", which...of course you cannot.


----------



## webbie (Feb 7, 2007)

BTW, I was wrong on the earlier thread about how fast changes would take effect:
"The warming of Earth and the increases in sea levels “would continue for centuries … even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized,” according to a 20-page summary of the report that was leaked to wire services. The report also makes a strong link between increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change,"


So, it will be centuries after we change behavior! Not exactly the kind of time frame that will stop either Trump or Pelosi from flying in private jets.


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2007)

DonCT said:
			
		

> Still not showing me any corelation between rising CO2 followed by rising temps causing out-of-norm glacial melting.
> 
> And I never disputed that CO2 levels are higher than they were. I stipulate that they're still not the highest seen on the planet and there is no reason to try and regulate levels that even if doubled would only lead to a temp increase that still falls withing natural climate changes. Also, CO2 has very limited capabilities to contribute to AGW. Feel free to peruse this page:
> 
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html



 Ah yes, Steven Milloy... wasn't he the one that got funding start by the tobacco industry?

The *rate of increase* is the highest seen in 650,00 years and dramatically so. It is incredibly naive to think that this has little or no atmospheric influence. Scientists are by nature skeptical and should be. But as more data accumulates, more scientists are connecting the dots. It's good to question the data, to poke at it from all sides. That examination makes people think and gets us closer to the truth. However, Steven Milloy has not contributed much worthwhile to this dialog. The rapidity of increase of greenhouse gases overlaid and correltated with the corresponding rapid ice melt is a bit more than a geological coincidence. Denial isn't going to get us anywhere, but it will waste time in preparing for the economic and social consequences.  

A lot of what is being preported to be the final word just isn't. Junkscience.com is no authority and has plenty of errors. How about being skeptical there too? At http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Model_Request.htm they ask "if anyone has managed to recreate say, Earth's global mean temperature track for the period 1880-2000 (we'd accept 1880-1979 or some reasonable facsimile) as GCM output". Oh really? Well if interested, you can try reading the TAR. Figure 12.7c: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127 has a nice picture (it even goes back to 1860), for example, and refers you to the appropriate papers.

If one is going to be skeptical, one might start by asking - Who is funding junkscience.com? Read: http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm (among many other) discrediting the idiot at junkscience.com. Milloy's junkscience is aptly named. That's just what it is. There may be a few good facts mingled in there, but that doesn't make the bulk of his spew true.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 7, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Again, I am not personally in the know - but 600 Scientists and 113 countries agree on this?



Wow, a whole 600! AND 113 goverment officials!! IT MUST BE TRUE 

Seriously Craig, for all your distrust of gov't, it's pretty funny that you would fall for this......   :roll:


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

But hey, if you wanna trust those types, then how about this:

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Or are they paid off by Exxon too??? :zip:


----------



## begreen (Feb 8, 2007)

Tee hee. Starts out by quoting a French Socialist. Boy have we changed our tune when it's convenient. 

Considering that many scientists working for this dept. the epa, etc. have been gagged by this administration it's hard to give them credibility. Also considering the source of this ex-majority "newsbyte" I'd say there is a very good chance it was written directly by a lobbyist. Exxon, I don't know. But if the shoe fits....

fwiw - Marc Morano, ex reporter/producer for Rush Limpbag, is also known as Rush's man in Washington. Launched the swift boat attacks on Kerry. Not a very reputable source. He's a typical smear and run henchman.


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp


----------



## begreen (Feb 8, 2007)

CO2Science eh? Just cuz it has science in the url don't make it science. Oh, by the way .... site funded by Exxon/Mobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Also it's suspected the Western Fuels Association a previous employer of the author is donating to the spew. 

Time to turn off the AM hate radio....

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

http://www.climateaudit.org/


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

This ought to get a good response:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4870


----------



## begreen (Feb 8, 2007)

Pure Limbaughism Don. Sorry, this is just tripe. You seem to be unable to connect the dots or follow the money. All you're proving is how far Exxon et al have spread their influence with the mass profits they have made from us.  Stephen McIntyre and Tom DeWeese are pretty transparent. I'm signing off on this thread. It is not really going anywhere intelligent and only proving the point. 

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1158
http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

Good, point proven. Exxon has the duckets to influence everyone involved in opposing the IPCC conclusions.

Riiiiiiiight...... :-/


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

Here's some interesting information about the core samples taken:

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389#N0x84be8e8.0x85a08e8

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5422/1971?ijkey=5sjIHV9J7WAt2


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

And the magical "Oceanic Heatsink":

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87#more-87


----------



## DonCT (Feb 8, 2007)

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Just let me know when you find the sugar daddies....... Since no one in their right might would questions anthropogenic contributions.


----------



## Firewoodguy.com (Feb 26, 2007)

The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:


----------



## webbie (Feb 27, 2007)

DonCT said:
			
		

> http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html
> 
> Just let me know when you find the sugar daddies....... Since no one in their right might would questions anthropogenic contributions.



"The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies"

Hmmm......5 billion a year for the entire planet - or, put another way, about 2 weeks of holing up in Iraq for the USA....and that is what the entire worldwide community of scientists spend on climate research? Sounds like a reasonable amount to me.

When an article starts out with an OPINION like this, especially one based just on the fact that most people can't count, it is tough to read much further. Sure, now it's the "global warming conspiracy" - just like all those nuts who said radiation might cause cancer! 

So, if the USA is spending 2 billion a year, that means I am spending.....$7 - SEVEN DOLLARS. Two lattes at Starbucks (small).

Well, Don, you can now rest. GW gave a speech today where he said HE is on the leading edge of fixing all of our environmental problems. He is proposing cutting back on our gasoline use by 20% by a certain date.....

Wonder why he picked out gasoline, when oil in other forms is used for trains, planes, trucks, ships, power plants and much more? Well, the answer is that he does not want to hurt business for his dad and friends. Also, he does not mean that we will cut use of liquid car fuel by 20% - he intends to replace that with ethanol and other inefficient fuels...which also have their problems!

In short, he thinks we are stupid and that the American people think a cut in gasoline use means something. As far as the stupid part, I must say he is probably right....people hear a sound bite like that and think "See, GW is an environmentalist". .....yeah, like Krupp was a pacifist.


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 27, 2007)

Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that "Mr Inconvienent truth" himslef, Al Gore, who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints, that his Tennessee home uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV's and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we do without and lessen OUR carbon footprint..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 27, 2007)

Firewoodguy.com said:
			
		

> The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:



Hey Firewoodguy,

maybe you didn't read what I wrote down below....let me address it directly to you......

Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that “Mr Inconvienent truth” himslef (Al Gore who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints), is a gross abuser of global warming and a leaves a MASSIVE carbon footprint himself ........seems that his Tennessee mansion uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies around in private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV’s and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we: 1) fly coach or don't fly at all, 2) that we dump OUR SUV's and 3) that we reduce our electrical consumption all to lessen OUR carbon footprint while HE increases his, dragging it around the globe like a huge oil slick while preaching to others what to do..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........ 

Any comment Firewood guy....thought not....


----------



## babalu87 (Feb 27, 2007)

Castiron, please, join us in the Ashcan for the Al Gore goodness


----------



## Firewoodguy.com (Feb 27, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Firewoodguy.com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 28, 2007)

Firewoodguy.com said:
			
		

> Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.




Firewood guy.......All I'm saying is please address the following for me: heating/cooling cycles of FAR GREATER MAGNITUDE have been occuring for tens of thousands of years and none of them were due to mankind....so....now that we see a 1 deg F or so rise, alarmists now say "the sky is falling" and that it's all due to mans activity when in fact, historically speaking, every previous temp fluctuation was due to mother nature.  So.........why do people like you refuse to acknowledge historical data? Please answer the question.


----------



## Firewoodguy.com (Feb 28, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Firewoodguy.com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True about "Natural" occurrences,  But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"


----------



## jjbaer (Feb 28, 2007)

[quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
True about "Natural" occurrences,  But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"[/quote]

Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"?  Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????


----------



## Firewoodguy.com (Feb 28, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> [quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
> True about "Natural" occurrences,  But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"



Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"?  Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????[/quote]

Yes, you are right too. Good Bye


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 1, 2007)

Firewoodguy.com said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you are right too. Good Bye[/quote]

Firewoodguy,

I was simply posing a question that begs to be asked.  Your answer of "yes you are right too" means you still think you're correct about GW being caused by man.  I disagree and think the historical data proves it.  100% of all previous temp rises were natural occurrances because they occurred before man industrialized...this is undisputable.  Also 100% of these temp rises occurred when CO2 levels were lower than they are now.  This is also indisputable.  Also, many of these previous temp rises were FAR GREATER than the 1 deg F we're now seeing.  All I'm saying is that with these massive CO2 levels they keep telling us that we now have, we've only seen a 1 deg F temp rise but it should be HUGE if CO2 is really the culprit..........so......all this points to the fact that CO2 is not as bad as they tell us and that the temp rise may well be natural....just like 100% of all previous temp rises......


----------



## begreen (Mar 1, 2007)

Cast, I am not doubting you, but can you provide some documentation for these statements? Indisputable 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 yr old evidence sounds like a tall claim, even for a scientist.


----------



## colsmith (Mar 1, 2007)

AP story The Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.  "We wanted to see if he was living by his own recommendations and walking the walk," said think tank president Drew Johnson.

Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.  The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.  But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: "Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."  Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said

Okay, castiron, a couple things.  First, if this TCPR group doesn't think global warming is a serious problem, then why would they care who used how much electricity, right?  They are just trying to change the subject.  Also, where in this whole thing is Al Gore lying?  You keep saying he is a lying hypocrite, could you be more specific about what he said that isn't true?   That is what LYING means.

FYI, his house is a home not only for himself and Tipper, but also to some offspring and grandchildren.  It also contains his office, and his wife's office, they do a lot of work from their home.  So this isn't just a single family home, it is a home for multiple families, plus the workplace of the very active former vice president of the United States.  At one point I imagine Secret Service stayed there also.  Do you really expect him to live in a small house?  He is attempting to offset his electrical usage, and I am sure he does use compact flourscents and the like.

I don't expect a former world leader to live in a small apt.  I am sure he is truly concerned about the environment.  I recall a book he wrote on said topic around 1990, hubby and I reviewed it for a small newsletter a friend put out, before he was even vice prez.  Give him some allowance for being a famous rich guy with a lot going on.  Is it realistic to expect him to ride a bicycle to travel around the continent to educate people about the environment?  He has an important message and he has to travel long distances, and that means planes.  He does travel commercially sometimes.  What he is saying is true, you don't like it, so you are attacking him personally.  If this is going to be so much ranting and raving, go to the Ash Can.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 1, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Cast, I am not doubting you, but can you provide some documentation for these statements? Indisputable 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 yr old evidence sounds like a tall claim, even for a scientist.



BeGreen,

Think about it......by definition 100% of all previous warming periods (most recent one was around 1550) cannot have been caused by man because 1) we weren't heavily industrialized then and in most of these cases that go back hundreds of thousands of years, we're talking cavemen who inhabited the earth and 2) CO2 levels were lower...had to be because climatologists are telling us the CO2 levels NOW are the highest they've been so, by definition, they had to have been lower previously.  Combine these with the fact that as recent as 1500 or so in England, there was a warming period where the temp rose about 6 deg F and it allowed them to grow grapes in England.  So.....in the past we had little-to-no activity by man, lower CO2 levels and yet we had LARGE temp rises....much higher than the 1 deg F we're seeing now even though we have higher CO2 levels AND a large amount of human activity.......so much for the GW being caused by human activity......because if it were, given our high CO2 levels and much greater human activity, we'd expect significantly larger temp rises and we're NOT seeing that..........


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 1, 2007)

Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> Okay, castiron, a couple things.  First, if this TCPR group doesn't think global warming is a serious problem, then why would they care who used how much electricity, right?  They are just trying to change the subject.  Also, where in this whole thing is Al Gore lying?  You keep saying he is a lying hypocrite, could you be more specific about what he said that isn't true?   That is what LYING means.



Ok...let's see.....

1)  He said he's the father of the internet......let's see.....LIE
2)  When he made those illegal campaign calls from his VP office, then got caught in a lie and told the press there was "no controlling legal interest"...lets see....LIE
3)  When he tells us in his book that "the internal combustion engine was the worst invention ever".....let's see....LIE
4)  When he tells us to consume less while he jets around in his private jet leaving dinosaur-sized carbon droppings...let's see....HYPOCRITE
5) when campaigning he told one group how tobacco killed or almost killed (I think) his sister, then he told the tobacco people "I howed it (tobacco), I reaped it, I sold it...."....let's see....HYPOCRITE

need me to go on and on and on....?  Thought not....

Also, the answer as to why the TCRP group picks on Gore even though they don't think GW is real is because it's GORE HIMSELF who puts Al Gore forth as an advocate for a cause (in this case GW) and tells us how to live our lives, then jet-sets around the globe leaving a carbon footprint 100 times what the average person leaves.......so, it's got nothing to do with GW but just the fact that he advocates something and then can't "walk the talk" himself.......in this case the "talk" just happens to be GW.....might just as well have been something else he advocates and then fails to practice what he preaches....


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No argument that there have been regional fluctuations of temperature at various time around the planet. El Nino cycles are an example. (Though 1550 was the beginning of the little ice age. It was actually warmer around 1000AD.) But regional examples are not the same as global temperature rises. It takes a lot to move the global mean temperature up a degree. Large scale global temperature changes are infrequent events. True there are natural causes found historically, but that does not mean that the current cause is not man-made. Compare the scale of the temps for the past 1000 years. 

As to whether man can influence planetary climate, that's been proven many times over. Man has started desertification in several areas by deforesting regions. Look at the Mediterranean, Egypt and the Saharan regions. As to recent examples, look at the ozone hole. This is a man made phenomenon caused it is thought by catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine. The catalyst is the accumulation of man-made gases in the upper atmosphere, primarily chlorofluorocarbon compounds.


----------



## coalkirk (Mar 2, 2007)

Ah, the ozone hole closed, without a lot of fan fare from the global warming, the sky is falling crowd. Solar activity and volcanoes have much more to do with global climate fluctuations than man will ever have. There has been a pattern of increasing solar turbulance for many years (also cyclical) that has lead to the current normal climate change. Should we endeavor to use energy more wisely and look for new technologies to replace oil and gas? Absolutley! But for the crowd who thinks the sky is falling because of man made activity, you drank the Al Gore kool aid.


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2007)

Wrong. Sounds like someone's overdozed on Limbaugher cheese. The ozone hole is not closed, but fluxuating in size. In August 2006 it covered approx. 28 million square kilometers. Check the size again next August before claiming it's closed. There has been slow progress, amazingly correlated with a global reduction in chlorofluorcarbon usage. Hmmm. 

Sure there have been lots of volcanic activity. The temp graph for the past 1000 years includes such notable eruptions as Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo, Krakatoa etc. None have created such a spike. You have to go way back in time to find that kind of volcanic influence. "By digging up and releasing this buried carbon and CO2 at the present rapid pace, mankind is undoing in perhaps two centuries what Mother Nature required literally geologic ages to accomplish.

So in the course of two centuries, the one just past and the one upon which we are all about to embark, mankind may well force the Earth's atmosphere to regress by about 30 million years from a post-Pleistocene (or "Holocene") state of about 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, to an Eocene state of nearly 1,000 ppm CO2. What will happen? Nobody knows, and that's the problem. Will CO2 buildup lead to global warming and severe climate changes? If we wait to find out, we might learn to our eventual sorrow that mankind has triggered atmospheric alterations that are beyond the ability of anyone or any technology to control. Whoops."
http://www.energybulletin.net/21857.html


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 2, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Wrong. Sounds like someone's overdozed on Limbaugher cheese. The ozone hole is not closed, but fluxuating in size. In August 2006 it covered approx. 28 million square kilometers. Check the size again next August before claiming it's closed. There has been slow progress, amazingly correlated with a global reduction in chlorofluorcarbon usage. Hmmm.
> 
> Sure there have been lots of volcanic activity. The temp graph for the past 1000 years includes such notable eruptions as Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo, Krakatoa etc. None have created such a spike. You have to go way back in time to find that kind of volcanic influence. "By digging up and releasing this buried carbon and CO2 at the present rapid pace, mankind is undoing in perhaps two centuries what Mother Nature required literally geologic ages to accomplish.
> 
> ...



The Ozone problem is really a "distribution problem".....think about it ....too little in the upper atmosphere and way too much at or near ground level where is causes smog......there was an article years ago I think in Time magazine about novel ways to solve one or both of these two problems......one idea was to use high-flying U-2 aircraft to "seed" the upper layers with Ozone......


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 2, 2007)

Some Like It Hot said:
			
		

> AP story The Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem. "We wanted to see if he was living by his own recommendations and walking the walk," said think tank president Drew Johnson.
> 
> Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
> 
> ...



You miss the point about Gore...forget for a minute that we think he's wrong...let's say for arguments sake that he's correct...that GW is the problem......at a minimum he should be "walking the talk" (practicing what he preaches) but instead he comes off as a huge hypocrite which totally takes away from and destroys the very message he's trying to get across......I think what we're saying is this: if he really believes what he's spouting, why can't he be more like Ralph Nader who at least practices what he preaches and live the SAME LIFESTYLE that he's (Nader) asking the rest of us to live? That's all. 

So, for all you Al Gore libs out there, please tell us why Al Gore can't/won't also live the SAME lifestyle he asks the rest of us to live.....?  After all, Ralph Nader does it.............


----------



## DonCT (Mar 2, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Look at the Mediterranean, Egypt and the Saharan regions.



Not true. The Sahara is a result of Earths wobble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390097.stm

*Some 9,000 years ago the tilt of the Earth's axis was 24.14 degrees; today it is 23.45 degrees. Today, the Earth is closest to the Sun in January. Nine thousand years ago, our planet was closest to the Sun at the end of July. 

......

The climate model suggests that land use by man was not an important factor in the creation of the Sahara. 
*



> This is a man made phenomenon caused it is thought by catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine. The catalyst is the accumulation of man-made gases in the upper atmosphere, primarily chlorofluorocarbon compounds.



Nice wiki quote....... :roll:


So, to summarize (Just like the SPM  ), the Sahara was created by Earth's axis changing, thereby affecting GLOBAL climate. Who's to say it can't happen again, thereby affecting the climate today?


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2007)

Good point about the Sahara Don, China would have been a better example. It is accepted that man changed the Eastern Mediteranean climate due to deforestation which in turn caused the desication of the soil, loss of cooling and microclimate.

Twas a summary of the Wiki. There's a difference.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Mar 2, 2007)

I see no reason to defend Al Gore. To me, he's the guy who should have won by a landslide, but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Look at the mess we're in now as a result.

Sounds to me like maybe he should be focusing his efforts on building his own power plant.


----------



## Albert (Mar 12, 2007)

Anyone having any questions on the validity of global warming should check out Al Gore's film on the subject, "An Inconvienient Truth"  This film is not political ravings...its a clear, consise presentation of the issue.


----------



## coalkirk (Mar 14, 2007)

And I've got some ocean front property in kansas I'd like to sell you.


----------



## Albert (Mar 14, 2007)

Thanks, but I already have some ocean front property.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 14, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I see no reason to defend Al Gore. To me, he's the guy who should have won by a landslide, but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Look at the mess we're in now as a result.
> 
> Sounds to me like maybe he should be focusing his efforts on building his own power plant.



Eric,

He lost then because he did too much then of what he's doing now.....being a hypocrite.......... and he doesn't even realize it...........what else can we say about a guy who flunked out of divinity school and didn't finish Vanderbilt law School..... etc........here's Gores academic record according to this web site:

http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm

"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard)."

The press hounded Bush about his academic record but Bush had far better grades than Gore OR Kerry did.......


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 21, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BeGreen,

Your chart only shows temp.....NOT what's causing it.....how about a chart showing solar activity and closeness of earth to the sun....or might that chart validate the higher temperatures because earth is receiving more solar radiation?????


----------



## Glen (May 18, 2007)

It's about the carbon cycle. The earth was once much warmer and around 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period great quantities of carbon were stored underground in the form of coal (and other fossil fuels). Since it remained underground all that time since that period, it was not in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and thus the planet was able to cool to what the planet was before we started digging it up and burning it. In other words, we're taking it out of storage and putting it back really quickly. For those talking about stopping and actually reversing global warming, the only way to reverse it would be to find a way to put it back into storage. Good luck. And to stop it where it is today would mean 100% stopping all burning of fossil fuels today globally. Good luck doing that too. The sea levels will rise and yes ocean currents will get screwed up and yes mass extinction of species will occur. To think humans will escape these effects unscathed is not very realistic. Not to say we'll go extinct, too, but it won't be fun during the adaptation period and it's hard to imagine all 7 billion people of the planet surviving. Particularly 3rd world areas experiencing mass displacement will die because Red Cross, UN, USA, whoever, won't be dropping food or come to the rescue - don't forget, we're talking a billion+. Other nations will have their own problems. And if the Great Depression seems like a bit of an inconvenience, imagine the economic collapse following this. Hang on to that wood stove, it might come in handy.


----------



## jjbaer (May 18, 2007)

Glen said:
			
		

> It's about the carbon cycle. The earth was once much warmer and around 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period great quantities of carbon were stored underground in the form of coal (and other fossil fuels). Since it remained underground all that time since that period, it was not in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and thus the planet was able to cool to what the planet was before we started digging it up and burning it. In other words, we're taking it out of storage and putting it back really quickly. For those talking about stopping and actually reversing global warming, the only way to reverse it would be to find a way to put it back into storage. Good luck. And to stop it where it is today would mean 100% stopping all burning of fossil fuels today globally. Good luck doing that too. The sea levels will rise and yes ocean currents will get screwed up and yes mass extinction of species will occur. To think humans will escape these effects unscathed is not very realistic. Not to say we'll go extinct, too, but it won't be fun during the adaptation period and it's hard to imagine all 7 billion people of the planet surviving. Particularly 3rd world areas experiencing mass displacement will die because Red Cross, UN, USA, whoever, won't be dropping food or come to the rescue - don't forget, we're talking a billion+. Other nations will have their own problems. And if the Great Depression seems like a bit of an inconvenience, imagine the economic collapse following this. Hang on to that wood stove, it might come in handy.



Glen,

It's only partly about the carbon cycle because about 500 yrs ago or so there was a massive warming period in Europe that allowed even grapes to be grown in England....and last time I checked, we weren't burning massive amounts of fossil fuels in the 15th century and the total human population was virtually nil.........so warming and cooling has been going on for several billions of years on the earth during the entire life of the earth......and all this was BEFORE man and fossil fuels............ so, to be academically truthful about this, you must, as Paul Harvey says, tell "the rest of the story"......... how about factoring in such things as solar activity, earth proximity to this same changing solar activity (i.e., distance from the sun), volcanic activity, earths changing magnetic shield strength and direction, etc........


----------



## jpl1nh (May 22, 2007)

This is kind of in relation to not too much or maybe everything.  It has occurred to me that perhaps we humans are really nothing more than the ultimate biological decay organism.  You know, fungus and bacteria chew up wood, leaves; ants homogenize even more effectively, earth worms chew things up to a fine compost.  Typically these organisms use up their environment and then are forced to move on to another suitable place or perish.  When it comes to truly homogenizing on a grand scale, seems to me humans are king.  Use up a planet and move on or perish.  I mean we can take the insides of the earth, bring them to the surface, digest them, and spread them throughout the entire earth's surface.  We can convert one substance to another, man we can even launch it to another planet!  We do have the potential to take the entire world, chew it up and excrete it and be left with nothing but our own s...t!  Maybe its not CO2 that does us in, perhaps it's something else.  But pollute we do.  You cannot have 3 billion (talk about having a hard time grasping enormity, yes that's 3,000,000,000  (and we are not insubstantial organisms)) people and not have a ton of their excretement in whatever form it takes, organic or chemical, start to rear its substantial presence on our planet.  Seems to me the million dollar question is "are we smart enough to anticipate and mitiagate the impact our success has on the place we call home?"  Will we use it up and be forced to move on or can we find anoher way?  Iron, oil, aluminum, clean fresh water, arable land, whatever; they all are finite.  Our environment is a delicate balancing act.  Neither Venus or Mars are cutting it.  We have not found another place to go if we screw this one up.  3 billion...that's a lot to balance!  We are pretty friggin smart aren't we?  Or are we?  Take a graph of CO2 atmospheric concentrations over the last 100 years and impose it over a graph of global temeratures from the last 100 years and tell me you don't see an eerily similar correlation.  Ask the greatest human intelligence we have, our super computers, to predict what happens when we increase CO2 and see how it corresponds to what is actually happening.  I have to tell you, if we do not get this one right,  we are looking for a new home and I don't know of any other home to go to.  And damn it, if we get our head out of our asses, we can fix this!!  By the way, I should have prefaced all of this with IMHO :cheese:


----------



## jpl1nh (May 22, 2007)

For a completely different look at global temperature cycles thoughout the millenia check out a book titled "Ice Age, the theory that came in from the cold" by John and Mary Gribbin.  It is a relatively short and easy to read discussion of the origins and eventual scientific analysis and data that led to our current understanding of the coming and goings of ice ages.  Now this is something we don't have control over!  Last ice age had a mile of ice over my house.  And I think shoveling my drive is tough now!  No where have I heard a discussion of what happens when global warming meets the inevitable solar and planetary changes that are theorized to regularly cause ice ages.  Kind of like King Kong meets Godzilla!  If you have a chance to read this book, it sheds some light on the really big planetary climate changes.


----------



## Glen (May 22, 2007)

jpl1nh said:
			
		

> You cannot have 3 billion (talk about having a hard time grasping enormity, yes that's 3,000,000,000  (and we are not insubstantial organisms)) people and not have a ton of their excretement in whatever form it takes, organic or chemical, start to rear its substantial presence on our planet.



Good points, but as of 2007 the world population estimate is 6.7 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


----------



## jpl1nh (May 23, 2007)

Glen said:
			
		

> jpl1nh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gad zooks!! Guess I'm having a really hard time grasping the enormity...!  Thanks Glen :red:


----------

