jungle

Monica was a fine catch, good enough to make even Borat proud.

jungle

The Telegraph article is chock full of links. Glad you will be doing your own survey, and best of luck to you.

JMT21

Wow...smart and beautiful, kinda makes a guy wonder why they're still single.

Skygirl

Perhaps it's because some men are intimidated by smart, beautiful, successful women.

Makes it harder to ***** about them in the cockpit, eh?

JMT21

Perhaps, but doubtful. How do you explain all the smart, beautiful, successful women that are happily married or in long term relationships?

I haven't been near the cockpit for close to a year...it would be very difficult for me to ***** about them there.

jungle

From Neal Boortz...

WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

* The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

* Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

* Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

* The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

* It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

* It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

* How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
* Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

* The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

* The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

* Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

* Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

* What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

* Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

* Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

* In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

* There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

* Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

* Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

* Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

* Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

* During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

* Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

* Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

* On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."



Source
Just another voice in the wilderness.

duffrick

Mr Jungle wrote "17. Is mankind having an effect? Yes without a doubt, but how much. Using data from the Vostok ice core samples we can calculate gas levels from 2000 years ago, and compare them with atmospheric samples today."

Mr. J,

My question to you is; How bad does it have to get before we decide to do something about it here?

Seven of the last ten years on record have been the hottest in recorded history. You are saying yourself that mankind is having an effect on our climate, does it matter how much? Isn't it our responsibility as the guardians of this planet to try to limit our greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.

I also agree that India and China got a free pass in the Kyoto protocol. Does that relieve us in the US from the responsibility to do what is right? America has an opportunity to be an example for the developing nations around the globe of how to be successful financially and still be eco-friendly. We give the europeans a lot of crap on this forum about this and that, but they are already trying to do their part to reduce pollution. The US wouldn't be the only country out there trying to set a good example.

Energy, and its various sources, has always been key to the creation of economic wealth. When the Dutch figured out how to harness wind back in the 1600's they became the superpower of Europe. In the 1800's, the industrial revolution was lit when the Brits figured out the power of coal. The US became, and still is, the current superpower by its use of oil. Each one of these energy sources enabled the discovering country to become a superpower. The reign of the Dutch lasted 150 years, the Brits for roughly a hundred, and the US is coming up on a hundred here in a couple of years.

The US has an excellent opportunity to remain the economical power house it is today, if it can discover the next form of energy.

I realize that the planet has had its ups and downs as far as the global temperatures go. This, however, is the only time that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased in ppm without a verifiable disaster as the culprit.

You mentioned how small the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is, and how you couldn't understand what kind of an impact such a small percentage makes. Our atmosphere is balanced to the point that if the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was off by just a percent or two in either direction, life on the planet would not be what is today. It doesn't take a hell of a whole lot to upset the balance of the planet.

Lastly, history shows that the earth has an amazing ability to recover from various assaults on it. The only problem is that it takes a long time. If we can figure out a way to contain or retrieve these pollutants from the atmosphere, we can continue to burn up the coal and oil until it is all gone! There is some serious money to be made here.

FDXLAG

Should I read Cosmo?

jungle

Yes, man has an effect, but it is becoming more obvious that his effect is smaller than many believe.
We have to ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What can be done?
2. How effective will our actions be?
3. Will we sacrifice lives, jobs, and economic development for a tiny incremental change?
4. Will the development of alternate fuels, possibly fusion, over the next 100 years make this problem unimportant?
5. What if these are primarily natural cycles? Do you really think we can do anything to stop them?

As far as your presumption about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, well that has varied considerably more than the present number over time and we are still here. It is rather pointless to argue that a small change will destroy life on earth.
Lastly, unless you plan to dry your soy crop on an empty Interstate, I don't think there can be much that man can do. Of course he could do a lot of very costly things, like stop burning fossil fuels. Then a lot of people would start strarving and freezing to death.

Finally, the Document presented in Paris is grossly flawed. Can you recall a time in history in which the UN was considered a fount of scientific or political advice worth even considering as valid?

Skygirl

Moron County - in your dreams you wish you could afford to live amongst such beauty and grandeur. Hope you're happy in whatever hellhole you live in.
Guess what? I hear that not only are the liberal men better in bed, but also better outside the bedroom because they're almost ALWAYS WAY more educated, more interesting to talk to, and usually financially stable and successful...another damn inconvenient truth!