Earth day

That's what you get when you have the swing vote in this country as the uneducated and ignorant population. They vote for an ignorant and unfit for the job man. Nothing this administration has don't has been in the interests of the people or the country. It's only been done in the interests of retaining the vote that will keep them in power.

Very unfortunate thing that's happening to this country.

A new look at NASA satellite data revealed that Earth set a new record for coldest temperature recorded. It happened in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees. Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: -135.3 degrees.

john b wrote: Just another December day in Minnesota.

Feels like it some days but I have experienced the 100 degree shift from +65 to -35 which goes from comfortable to bitterly nasty cold. I don't ever want to feel what another 100 degrees colder feels like thank you.

When I think of radical weather this always comes to mind.
Record temperature swing

JoeinNY wrote: OverMyHead wrote: A new look at NASA satellite data revealed that Earth set a new record for coldest temperature recorded. It happened in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees. Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: -135.3 degrees. Interesting factoid, out of place in a global warming denier thread though, as since that area hadn’t really been monitored in that way over any historical period it only shows that we are getting better at looking for super cold temperatures – it did make quite a few of the fake new sites in the last couple days though… I think because they were stretching to have a data point out there to balance the reality going on outside the door of many of us in places where there is a historical record. NYC had two record high days this week, Philly had one as well… I hate to feed the trolls but I had the weather on my mind this weekend as I saw the craziest swing of my short 37 years when we went from mid 30s to high 50s and back to mid 30s in well under an hour and had all the crazy wind shifts to go with it. december-record-highs-historic-rainfall

Joe,
It really muddles up the discussion when you interject empiricle evidence into one's perceived reality.
A man once said "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

I am not sure if this is really scientific or not, but, the gonads just froze off my brass monkey. Happens every year about this time.

Okay, back to trying to figure out why glaciers melted a million years ago....way before cars, coal fired power plants, and Al Gore. Probably Fred Flintstone "exhaust fumes" causing green house gases.    

I love this quote on the polar vortex from the whitehouse blog.

"We know that no single weather episode proves or disproves climate change. Climate refers to the patterns observed in the weather over time and space – in terms of averages, variations, and probabilities. But we also know that this week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution."

So one cold event cannot support that global warming is false, climate happens over time.........but this one event can support that global warming is true, despite the fact that climate happens over time. Talk about playing it both ways.

I am not ignoring science Joe. I fully understand that we have climate change. It is in fact the one thing that the climate has always done since the planet has had a climate. I dispute that it is significantly driven by carbon dioxide produce by man. that is a theory that has yet to be proven, only accepted by a consensus. We have not seen any significant temp rise in over 15 years despite man made C02 rising by a extremely significant percentage. Scientific proof is all about correlation.

The point was in the very same paragraph that they said one event cannot prove or disprove (in response to those saying that it helps disprove), then they went on to argue that it is more proof. I am saying if, AS THEY SAID the event can't be used to explain things one way or the other, then don't use it to explain, in the very same paragraph, that it has meaning one way.

I agree on the cost to help these people out being in general pretty crazy.. I would hope that type of thing is covered by the good people at lloyds when they are setting the insurance rates for a vessel heading into the arctic and that they would foot the bill for the expenses related to the rescue. But the reality is that anyone that goes out on the sea has a chance of meeting up with something they can't handle and needing rescue - you just go get the people - saving the vessel on the other hand is where insurance comes into play.

Dave you dont dispute that man causes climate change with carbon dioxide and other green house gases so much as reject it - dispute would indicate that you had taken into account the evidence and are arguing against the premise based on other evidence but I have not seen this to be the case. It is a huge data set, you cant feel your way through it, statisticall analysis is needed to study it in any way - and I am guessing you simply haven't done the work. Neither have I, but I am not out there trying to argue with those who have done, and have shown thier work and had it reviewed by thier peers. Paraphrasing JFK - you seek to enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought...

I am not out here to dispute the actual studies of the deniers (although the fact that they are to the man funded by fossil fuels somewhat discounts the weight I would give thier work)however thier peers have already corrected thier false assertions.

You, without doing any valid study of the data, are 100 percent certain that something the scientific community is 95% certain is true, is false. That there is what I find not soo much funny as incomprensible.

Global warming has been proven to be a hoax by my wife. She slipped on a patch of ice in the driveway where there wasn't any last year.

Yes David, it is common sense forward thinking and good in all of those arenas. It is important for science to study it so we can predict how our action or inaction will influence the future of our planet.

I understand your position. Yes, it would IMO. Without the environmental impact it would be driven purely by economic forces without the urgency that now drives it. I am also convinced that our ship has already sailed on the issue. My experience when talking to men of science on the subject is what i expressed before. Cheers, drink up, it's last call!

I somehow missed this on page one

GlassSeeker wrote:

There was a time when this was the consensus!

Along with the earth is the center of the universe, until it wasn't.

And leeches were used to suck the bad juju out of people was once sound medical treatment.

but that was a long time ago. How about 1973-74-75





This is what my 7th grade environmentalist science teacher was teaching as inevitable due to particulate pollution. The solution.... clean alternative energy, and conservation. Sound familiar?

I just bought a bunch in hopes of getting me through to when the price drops on the LEDs. While conserving is a great idea, I don't think I ought to be mandated by the government to buy them.

john b wrote: Riley wrote: Anyone stocking up on incandescent light bulbs? I have a huge box full of them. They are my former photon source before i began my ongoing switch to LEDs.

Perfect example of the government betting on the wrong horse. CFL were all the push, they are full of mercury, slow to start , don't work outside in the cold, and only marginally more efficient than the incandescent. LED with far less government support is taking market share because they makes financial sense.