Global warming?

[Diderot]

Sgrousky wrote "Idealogues who believe everything they hear and nothing of what they see."

Hello Pot,
Signed, Kettle.

 

[srogouski]

Sgrousky wrote "Idealogues who believe everything they hear and
nothing of what they see."

Hello Pot,
Signed, Kettle.

More on the Bush Administrations war on photojournalists.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/scahill

"Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American--it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries. It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism--precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting. "

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi There

I've been following this for 20 years around here - the point at which the woods look bare.

It's been the first ten days of November every year until this one - when it was early December, except for the Oak trees - which didn't lose their leaves until mid December.

Still, as I understand it, if global warming really is happening, then it's likely it will get colder here rather than warmer (bye bye gulf stream!).

And as for you poor Swedes? brrrrrrrr!

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Diderot]

Would some more intelligent liberals please reply to these posts? The responses we're getting right now are not worth the time to comment.

Anyway, some Aljazerouski wrote:

"Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American--it is independent.

I understand Al Jazeera is hiring. Why don't you go apply? Put your Nikon to real use documenting the outrages of the world's post 9-11 "war on terror."

Diderot

 

[srogouski]

I understand Al Jazeera is hiring. Why don't you go apply? Put your
Nikon to real use documenting the outrages of the world's post 9-11
"war on terror."

Diderot

I would first like to commend the Freeper for getting my name right this time. Indeed, it ends in an "ski" and not an "sky".

That is progress.

But alas, the Freeper seems to think I'd be insulted to be hired by Al Jazeera. Just the opposite. If I spoke Arabic and had experiencing in the region, I'd be on the first plane to their HR Department in Qatar.

But what the Freeper doesn't understand it this.

It invoked Mathew Brady and I bring up the nearest equivalent of Mathew Brady we have today, the cameramen of Al Jazeera who are documenting the war in Iraq and who are being attacked by the American military.

Neither Grant's troops nor Lee's fired on Mathew Brady.

How far we've fallen into barbarism.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/scahill

"On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

 

[Greg Zillgitt]

You are truly a clueless little person.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi

 

[flat five]

John,

i guess this thread turned into something other than your intent... no big deal and we need a political thread around here every now and then...(ok, so maybe we don't Need one but it is inevitable that there will be one)...

to close out the confusing thread, here's a couple of confused pictures from early december....
jeff

is it cold? is it hot?





--
http://jeff.emptyfortunecookie.com/folio

 

[Chato]

This year there were a lot of hurricanes to hit southeastern U.S..
Instantly, this was toted about as a result of global warming.
Actually NOAA noted there are not more large hurricanes in the last
decade than at other times.

In all of recorded weather history there have never been as many Hurricaines as this last season. I am not citing that as proof of anything other then the fact that it occured.

Global warming models have been around for a few years now and they predict that it will become normal to have more Hurricaines ON AVERAGE for the simple reason that Huricaines draw their energy from warm water. The number of such storms will always fluctuate - and be cyclical. Meaning that even with Global warming there will be years and decades with fewer storms - and years where there are more of them.

Someone here said snow comes when temperatures warm up. Someone
said Europe gets colder because of global warming.

Very little snow falls when the temperature is below minus 50 farenheit. Much below that and snow is a physical impossibility. As the Arctic and Antarctic warm, the temperatures will rise above these thresholds. No one disputes the idea that extreme cold prevents the fall of snow.

As for Europe - Take a look at a map and you will see that Rome is on the same parallel as New York. yet termperatures are much warmer. This is because nof warming currents of water which raise the termperature of Europe. Computer models predict that these currents will alter and thus lower the European temperature on average.

I could point tho this years freeze - But I DON'T. Winters fluctuate.

However what I CAN point to is that last year was the warmest in recorded history for the earth as a whole. The Arctic Ice cap IS shrinking, The ice in Antarctica is traveling to the sea at a greater speed then previous records. That the present earth's temperature (as a whole) is warmer then it's been in ten thousand years.

And with my own eyes I see birds that migrated South as a kid, staying in New York. That species of bird that never lived North of the Carolina's are now happily breeding in New York.

It looks to me like the global warming lobby say it is global
warming when it is warm, when it is cold, when it is dry, when it
is wet, when we have hurricanes, when we don't have hurricanes,
when it snows and when it doesn't snow etc. etc. etc.

Undoubtedly there are people with an axe to grind. I don't accuse ANY of these people of having a corrupt agenda. Although that is what they are accused of.

Just as those who wanted to clean up our air and water were accused of a corrupt agenda and "Junk Science." And today those who are trying to limit mercury in the environment are being accused of a corrupt agenda - and junk science on a topic that is in fact not controversial at all.

There are always people who see "evil" under every bush and shrub. But we are not talking about either them or their ideological opposites. The government itself now admits the reality of climate change - this is another fact that ideologists ignore.

Dave

Diderot

 

[Diderot]

SJazeeRuusky wrote:

"But alas, the Freeper seems to think I'd be insulted to be hired by Al Jazeera. Just the opposite. If I spoke Arabic and had experiencing in the region, I'd be on the first plane to their HR Department in Qatar."

No, I didn't think you'd be insulted. Good news you apparently haven't heard; Al Jazeera has started up a new English-speaking bureau. Now you don't have to be disappointed anymore.

English version of magazine
http://www.aljazeera.com/

Website with contact info about U.S. outlet:
http://www.aljazeera.us/

As for you, I'm now closing my responses to your replies. Frankly, I don't find them worthy of further comment.

Goodbye,
Diderot

 

[Chato]

I'm 58 years old and was an adult buying gas during the first Arab boycott.

There were a number of model cars that actually got only three or four miles per gallon. The owners were hysterically angry. Not because of the cost - but rather how often they had to tank up.

There weren't many of these. Some Cadilacs, some Lincohns, etc, etc. But few of the larger cars got more then ten miles to the gallon - some did.

My International Scout got 12. My fathers Chevy got ten.

Dave

You wrote what if we still only got 5 or 6 mile s to the gallon now
like we used to.

Now wait a minute... What gas guzzler ever got only 5 or 6 miles to
the gallon? What are you talking about?

A big gas guzzler like a 1968 4-4-2 with a 400-cubic inch engine
used to get 12-15 miles per gallon (when gas was 35 cents a
gallon). Even a 455 cubic inch engine used to get 12-15 miles per
gallon.

Diderot