2013

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:07:17 AM UTC-6, pigo wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html

pigo wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:07:17 AM UTC-6, pigo wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html


So explain why the

USDA changed the growing zones & I can grow plants now that 20 years ago
would not survive in this area?


Fish normally found in southern waters are regularly found in northeast
waters?


Why there has been no ice fishing in Manhasset bay in 40 years? Or why I
have not skated on my local pond since I was a teenager?


The more complex question is why can no ski resort in Southern Vt
survive without massive snow making?


But I am sure you believe that it is all created by some evil political
party to fool the public.

downhill wrote:
pigo wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:07:17 AM UTC-6, pigo wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html

Or just look at the graph and see if this is really a change in the trend.

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/N.../N_08_plot.png

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...ng-conclusions

Right wingers sure are desperate to prove science wrong. They'll grab at
anything.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:07:17 AM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:01:57 PM UTC-6, comadrejo wrote:



I was just reading this..



http://www.hcn.org/wotr/ski-mountain...climate-change



I was just reading something about the arctic ice sheet growing quite a bit. I would think that warmons, if they believed in this **** would just not travel to ski mountains and create the gasses that they care so much about. I would also thing that they would not produce more children which also release CO2.



That's what I would do. Rather than complain about it and expect others to modify their behavior. I would modify mine first. Lucky for me though........

The arctic ice sheet grows every winter, and shrinks every summer. The usual date for the minimum ice coverage is right about now, in mid-September. This year, the ice coverage at the minimum is more than last year at the minimum. In the Canadian Western Arctic zone, which has the best long-term measurements, there hasn't been this much Arctic ice coverage at the minimum since 2009.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp

comadrejo wrote:
On 2013-09-11 14:23:12 +0000, pigo said:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:07:17 AM UTC-6, pigo wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/im.../#.UjC2lRYSjpi


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...o nsense.html


http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-delusions

Great articles! It's good to see some rational thought here. Lately, it seems
like usenet has been totally occupied by unthinking right wing wackos.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:26:59 AM UTC-6, Bob F wrote:

Right wingers sure are desperate to prove science wrong. They'll grab at
anything.

I don't care if you want to name call. I just posted a picture of more ice than last year. I don't give a ****. If you could tell me something personally I could do to warm the planet? I'd do it. I like it warmer. You don't? Then YOU don't drive. YOU don't have kids. YOU don't breathe. You could lower energy impacts by not using a computer. By going to the market everyday so that you didn't have to refrigerate food.

I don't care if you "believe" it or not. Or anyone else for that matter. Without "believing" I personally have done more to combat it than ANYONE that has children.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:23:35 AM UTC-6, downhill wrote:

So explain why the

Why. I only posted an article for you to consider.

Maybe the picture of so much more ice was doctored? No, that's what the warmons do. No matter what it will all take care of itself. If humans cause it it will result in mass reduction of the numbers of humans and right itself.. So what? Oh what's that you say? You have kids that will be driving cars, exhaling, using electricity? Too bad for them! :-)

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:49:36 PM UTC-6, Richard Henry wrote:

The arctic ice sheet grows every winter, and shrinks every summer.

Apparently it grew this summer. Could be a good winter for ice sheets. Bad for warmons.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:12:55 PM UTC-7, pigo wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:49:36 PM UTC-6, Richard Henry wrote:



The arctic ice sheet grows every winter, and shrinks every summer.



Apparently it grew this summer. Could be a good winter for ice sheets. Bad for warmons.
http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod20/page3.xhtml

In article 201309112037135530-comadrejoagua@maccom,
comadrejo wrote:

On 2013-09-11 14:07:17 +0000, pigo said:

I would think that warmons, if they believed in this **** would just
not travel to ski mountains and create the gasses that they care so
much about. I would also thing that they would not produce more
children which also release CO2.

It is not about beliefs as much as the science. If there was massive
amount of scientific studies and major scientific organization like
AAAS and the NAS stating that if there is warming on the planet, and it
is isn't Anthropogenic, but from Milankovitch Cycles or Pacific decadal
oscilliations of the oceans, then I would have to concur.

Instead, AGW has been backed up by huge amount of scientifc studies,
and concurrence from pretty much every major scientific organizations,
besides findings from one of the largest scientific conferences (IPCC)..

It is an OB Ski topic, because it is more than about temperatures
risings, but the change of climate, there will be certain ski areas
that are highly vulnerable, while others may get a huge hit
economically, both from seasonal visits, to the local real estate
market and property prices. June Mountain is a good example, ditto
for ski areas where climate change can make for little to no snow
winters.



" I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped
cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that
the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because
you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which
means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "


Michael Crichton

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."