NOAA Issues report on severe weather & global warming

[Charleston native]

Are you also going to predict that spring follows winter and then claim it as proof the Dublin is the capitol of France?

...I forecast more man-made global climate change hysteria with the onslaught of any hurricanes that are spawned this season.
Damn. I'm better than I thought!  Cheesy

Notice the locations of the two quoted co-chairs for this report. Boulder, CO and Asheville, NC. Talk about peas in a pod. Should we expect anything different from these people who have chosen to live in those cities? Could these co-chairs be agenda-driven? Ooohhh, of course not.

You know Stephen, it would help if you actually put your responses outside of the quote box...unless, of course, you were trying to hide your snide comment about my post.

If you do not see the point I tried to make in my post, let me explain it for you. Boulder is one of the supreme capitals of liberalism (Ward Churchill's favorite hangout), and Asheville is basically its Southeastern counterpart. These cities have become known for their incredibly inane political affiliations with not just the left, but the extreme liberal left. Their culture is drenched in radical leftism...so, we get co-chairs of a research report located in these two cities basically regurgitating the Goracle's tripe. Consider the source and their influences. That was my point.

Midway, I love how you try to make your remarks more personable with me and my prior job while you refuse to even answer River's or my questions about your profession or lot in life. Maybe I should be more careful about being more open with someone who refuses to do the same. BTW, I don't think I'd want to live in a nuclear hotzone. You realize if a massive launch ever occurred, that home site you referenced would be toast. By all means, why don't you move there? 

[Driven1]

seriously Dave?

Lets hover down closer to reality land.

did you ever stop & think that maybe there is a reason that he chose "Charleston native" as his screen name instead of using his real name?

[Doctor_K]

Stephan's signature-quote-thingie at the bottom of his forum entries mentions incredulity.  And boy, do I see a lot of it here!

The majority of the world, and the runaway majority of scientists would consider your point of view extremely radical and ideologically driven.

In this, you're absolutely correct.  A majority of the world and a majority of scientists agree on the points of global climate change, etc.  But not 'all.'  

Isn't the point of science and research to continually explore and expand the boundaries of the understanding of our surroundings?  Didn't scientific research once suggest that the planet and the 'cosmos' was only a few hundred thousand years old?  Haven't those theories been enhanced, refined, and updated over the course of a generation or three?

Didn't the scientific community once think that dinosaurs were scaly, lumbering, reptilian- and amphibian-related stupid beasts with limited to no intelligence, just waiting for that asteroid to kill them all off?  Don't they now conclude that a lot of the dinosaurs were probably feathered and more avian-related rather than their previous hypothesis?  Scientific research there updated and revised itself.

My point, and subsequent question, then, is this:  Is the scientific community just *done* with their research into global warming, overall climate change, and the effects of humankind's contribution to all of that?  It kind of looks like they're collectively saying,  "Ok, humankind caused global warming.  We're evil and selfish.  Next subject!"  They hopefully are not doing that, but that sure is the perception.  Research here does not seem to be updating or refining itself.  Nor do most people - scientists, advocates, and regular Joes - seem to be wanting it to do so.

The majority of scientists have said this, but not all.  Why are we not hearing more from them?  Are they wrong because they might not agree with the majority or have other evidence suggesting otherwise?  Isn't a function of the scientific method to continually prove or disprove previously-published theories?  Research of a subject goes like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.  Where's the anti-thesis?  Why are we not hearing about it?  Certainly there has to be an antithesis, because otherwise it's not so much a science as it is a dogma.  Why is it so wrong then, to try to disprove this subject?  

In fact, other than a few crackpots at some of the gas stations downtown, yourself, River, and a few others that post here, I never EVER hear from people who share your (and by 'your', I mean you, river and a few of gasbags from metjax) bizarre and totally self contained theories about climate change.

Crackpots, gasbags, dogmatists; bizarre and self-containted theories.  So, people with other ideas, be they educated or not, are wrong?  If someone doesn't share your opinion, they're crackpots?

Science isn't done with itself quite yet.  New evidence suggests that the upward, warming temperature trend stablized around 1998 and hasn't increased appreciably since.  The ozone layer over the Antarctic opens and closes regularly, in spite of a once-upon-a-time prediction that it would continually expand and eventually just go away altogether.  The 2006 and 2007 hurricane season wasn't anywhere on par with the devastating 2005 season, when *a majority* of climatologists, forecasters, and scientists were convinced that they would be.  Peak oil didn't cripple the world economy in the mid-1990's, like I was taught it would back in elementary and Junior High School.  The oceans haven't risen to destroy the major metropolises of the world before 2005, like we once thought they would.

My point here is not that I'm trying to debunk and disprove these points, but rather that the time-tables have been continually extended, redefined, and thought out again and again.  A lot more research was done.  Time was able to tell.  Doomsday might be inevitable, but then again it might not.  Let's be good stewards of the planet and recycle, re-use, find better ways to do things, be more responsible, etc.  But let's do it for the good of the planet and our continued existence - not some political movement thats en vogue today and forgotten 20 or 30 years from now.  Anyone heard of or remember the global cooling scare of the 60s-70s?

[RiversideGator]

seriously Dave?

Lets hover down closer to reality land.

did you ever stop & think that maybe there is a reason that he chose "Charleston native" as his screen name instead of using his real name?

A favorite tactic of Stephen when he cannot win an argument - unmask his opponent.  Havent you been warned about this, "Dare"?

[Charleston native]

Hey Driven, I did have my name as part of my signature on MetJax; maybe that was a mistake.

Stephen, rest assured that my post on radical liberal capitals was not a bulwark of an argument that rejects man-made global climate change. It was primarily an observation, and I thought it was a rather interesting one, despite your castigation. We've already debated ad nauseum about the supposed phenomenon, and I really didn't want to go into detail about it again.

Of course, you know as well as I that an entire city's population is not unified on a political spectrum, and to think so would be ludicrous. That was never my point. However, some city's are more defined by their political culture than others. While cities like New York, Chicago, Paris, Rome, and London contain extreme leftists in their culture, many conservatives and libertarians also live in those cities, providing some balance in terms of culture.

Boulder and Asheville are exceptions to this balance. Have you ever been to those cities? I have, numerous times. While there are balances to political culture in other parts of their respective states, these cities do not have balance within their populations. Knowing this, I made an observation that it was interesting to read about the co-chairs' statements and where they are located because their views and their places of residence correlate.

As far as "the fringe", I believe you would also qualify for this characterization, particularly with your views on war, the current president, the environment, and your wildly skewed interpretations of Scripture. If you consider yourself a Christian, you would undoubtedly be seen as in "the fringe". But that's besides the point.

I have read the data, the theories, and the charts...the ones not corrupted by political powers (ironically, you and I both agree that there is corruption in all political organizations, but you are unable to even acknowledge this with the hucksters of climate change), and I have come to a conclusion contrary to yours. More and more scientists are starting to come to the same conclusions as mine or similar ones, especially as more information is being discovered. Many polls still show that this nation is split 50/50 on man-made global climate change, despite the propaganda being spoon-fed to the masses. We will probably continue to disagree on this until our time on this world is up.

[RiversideGator]

The majority of the world, and the runaway majority of scientists would consider your point of view extremely radical and ideologically driven.

Actually no.  The majority of the British public for example has doubts as to the validity of the GW theory as do significant numbers of scientists.  Stop making things up, Stephen.  Here is the poll of Britons:

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

Like the fringe view that the world is flat based on scriptural interpretation.

1)  I have never heard anyone seriously make this argument.
2)  This is a long discredited straw man argument you have been making which fails to impress or persuade anyone.

Most people take the time to read and perform basic cognitive skills like comparing and contrasting period photos and look at raw data and see the simple problem.

So comparing photos of glaciers prove that GW is caused by man?  What then was the cause of previous periods of glacial recession?  What caused the glaciers to expand in the 19th century?  I somehow doubt I will receive an answer to these questions.

[Charleston native]

...And btw, I certainly don't want to hear any privacy concerns from River as he has no problem discussing my personal life on this forum and has repeatedly crossed that boundary whenever he disagrees with a poster.

Dave often signs his posts, and has no reason to be ashamed of his opinions or his name, which apparently some on this board should and do.

Besides, when did this ridiculous notion that blogging means anonymity set in?

Certainly there have been news articles about bloggers in Jax...

Actually, Stephen, I don't recall having signed a post with my name on this forum, but I did on MetJax.

[Charleston native]

I thought you had actually signed a couple, especially when you get all fired up...lol.

But you are right, primarily on metjax.

Like me though, you obviously arent ashamed of your opinions.

We can completely agree here. LOL.

[Driven1]

we should post criminal records of people on here.  that would be fun.  hold on...i'm going to look up a couple of peoples'.  i bet we might find some fun stuff there.  i'll post back in a moment.

[Jason]

Come on guys.  What does any of this have to do with the topic of the coversation?

Would you all just leave eachother the hell alone and stop the bickering?!

[Driven1]

Come on guys.  What does any of this have to do with the topic of the coversation?

Would you all just leave eachother the hell alone and stop the bickering?!

Jason  - it has NOTHING to do with the NOAA report, blah, blah, blah.  it has everything to do with narccistic vindictiveness.

[Driven1]

one sec...i just found some quite interesting stuff...turns out that we have a fugitive (or this person once was) here posting with us!! 

was wanted in another jurisdiction.  trying to find out on what charges.  I'm not sure if i will be able to find THAT info out at https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/searchCases.aspx.

and getting back to global warming - so...this NOAA warning - is it like the warning we got last year about "highly increased hurricane activity in Florida"??  didn't we have like 1 or 2 minor storms?

[Doctor_K]

In an attempt to add a little bit of levity to this thread, and in honor of one of my favorite comedian George Carlin's recent passing, I invite everyone to find and either buy, dig out, or download his album "Jammin' in New York," and listen to the last track on it entitled, "The Planet is Fine."  Humorous to be sure, and poignant - as was his style.

Regardless of your stance on this subject, it'll make you think; and it'll make you either angrier, happier, sadder, more riled up, or some of all of the above.

[Doctor_K]

Is that what that was?  My apologies then for the redundancy.  I can't get the videos and stuff here at the office - just a blank java box or what have you.  (Subsequently, y'alls "greatest videos" thread from a few weeks back was especially painful for me, since I couldn't see any of those!)

[Midway ®]

Midway, I love how you try to make your remarks more personable with me and my prior job while you refuse to even answer River's or my questions about your profession or lot in life. Maybe I should be more careful about being more open with someone who refuses to do the same. BTW, I don't think I'd want to live in a nuclear hotzone. You realize if a massive launch ever occurred, that home site you referenced would be toast. By all means, why don't you move there? 

Yeah, I'm a personable guy!

It's commonsensical!