Stars drive up in “green limos” at the Oscars

This would be great if Global Warming actually existed!! But it doesn't. Just one more money grab after another.

I am actually thinking about selling Global Warming kits to Celebrities!!

It will include the following:

1. An "I love the UN and want to give all of someone elses money to them" T-Shirt!
2. An "I heart Al Gore", bumper sticker.
3. 1 banana to shove up their exhaust pipe so they will stop polluting the earth.
4. 1 Wheatgrass Drink mix / because wheatgrass just sounds green and all environmently friendly.
5. And 1 more banana to shove up their own tailpipe because they are all so full of sh-- and are only doing this because they are getting paid too!!

The typical do I say not as I do mentality!!

Drive the car you want and don't worry about Global Warming because it is not casued by man and it is complete BS!!

IDIOT.

Even GW Bush has finally admitted that global (climate chnage) warming exists. So all of those with their head in the sand and still in denial need to wake up.

The “Ice Age” hoax of the late 1970s took advantage of the general population’s unfamiliarity with climate. A massive climatic change, like an ice age, normally taking centuries to develop, can be encapsulated in seconds by computers into a form that may be interpreted as short-term as weather. The marketing ploy is based on fear — not the type of fear generated by such incidents as 9/11 but a distant fear of “we’re all going to die.”

http://www.cecilwhig.com/articles/2007/02/22/ralph/61.txt

Did you know that livestock polutes more than cars. maybe we should start regulating cow sh--!!!

If anyone posts there ranting diatribe on how we are dilluted because we don't believe in this crap, I want your phone number because I am going to call you in 10 years and say I told you so!!!

Livestock is a huge polluter, that's not what is in question here. If you really care about global (climate change) warning, switching to hybrids is only one of many changes you need to make. Cutting out red meat is huge, switching to energy efficient bulbs, appliances, etc is another. Righties throw this argument out all the time to discourage consumers from making environmentally aware automobile choices. How about this crazy idea, care about what you drive as well as care about a few other choices you make. Can a single person do more than one positive step for our beloved planet? I think so.

Oh that's right only lefties are taken seriously because they are highly educated individuals. They are enlightened and we uneducated rednecks just won't understand that the backers of the Global Warming Hoax just want us to sign over our paychecks and redistribute them and that will count as our pollution credits to offset our use of SUV's!!

The history of the world coming soon!!

When you call it a global warming hoax at a time when even your dictator, I mean president, admits global (climate change) warming is real, it speaks more to your intellect and knowledge than anything anyone else could say.

Toyotamarc and all you other liberals (Girliemen). I think this version of the history of the world sums it up for me which catergory you fall into. So keep driving your Yugo's baby becasue I could care less what you think!!

World History - As it Really Was

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.
*_That's how villages were formed._*

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is
*_known as the Conservative movement_*.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing.
*_This was the beginning of the Liberal movement._*

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.
*_The rest became known as girliemen_*.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or noth

sounds logical

sorry the post wouldn't let go that long apparently.

The Rest

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

I didn't even make it through that rant. You surely must have better things to do with your time. But when you start off by calling liberals girliemen, I can justs top right there. I have to ask myself how much time should I really spend on you. I'm done.

Come on it's so funny though!! And it brings to light why all leberals believe in Global Warming and drive Prius's.

I think that global warming may be occuring on some minute level, but the way that it's spewed as the catalist to the end of the world is pathetic. I have not seen one ounce of specific evidence that "Global Warming" has occured on any substantial level. Every crazy scientist who has come out to support it uses their title to spew nothing short of groundless propaganda and the rank and file ignoramous buys right into it.

It's funny that when the temperature gauge gets up to 60 degrees in NY in January everyone shouts "Global Warming!!! Global Warming!!!" but a week or two later when the same area gets over 140 inches of snow no one says a thing.

As a matter fo fact I AM ACTUALLY QUITE HAPPY THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS!!! Without it, we all be stuck in the ICE AGE.

Besides, if Al Gore and the French are touting it, it must be B.S.

One Learjet and two Hummers for me please.

will, you can't try to teach COMPLEXITIES to the simple minded who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, much less process more than one idea at a time.

it is simply BEYOND their small minds to see that: warmer temps => more h2o evaporation => more precipitation.

Newsflash Will: why the hell would "warming" cause 140 inches of snow? I understand that precipitation is generated by the evaporation of H2O; however why were the temps in the low to even sub zero range? (the reason why we had so much snow)

ApexAlex is obviously one of the many dumb asses out there. While warmer temps = more H20 = more precipitation sounds very easy. Mr Apexalex has not mentioned that we have experienced extreme bouts of rain and snow of equal proportion prior to the industrial revolution. Even so, it has nothing to do with global temperatures.

AGAIN, WE HAVE PROPAGANDA WITH NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT, BUT PLENTY OF PERSONAL INSULTS!!!

GET A HALF A CLUE YOU PATHETIC IGNORAMOUSES!!!

"PATHETIC IGNORAMOUSES!!!"

are you describing YOURSELF? at least i can SPELL "ignoramus" which is obviously FAR beyond YOUR capability. so, barely literate and unable to spell, you consider yourself a climatic expert?
how exactly do you KNOW we've had like extremes of rain and snow before the industrial revolution? just because the bible described a great flood?

and even were this true, how do you explain "500 year floods" --and other extreme weather phenomena-- now seeming to occur with GREATER frequency?

i got one of the biggest laffs recently, on hearing the "brilliant conservative" Savage on Savage Nation attempt to shoot holes in scientists' prognostications.

said he, "They want you to believe that what happened on the Sun 93,000,000 years ago is having an effect on global climate today."

somewhere in his muddled mind, he confused the distance to the sun in MILES with LIGHT-YEARS. the sun is only some 9 light-MINUTES away!

the magnitude of his error is just SO representative of the magnitude of RETARDATION and IGNORANCE of the right wing talksters.

Again, ApexAlex has succeeded in providing personal attacks and no concrete evidence for "Global Warming". I have a funny feeling that when in 5 years global warming is proven to be yet another political fad, Apexalex will have changed his screen name.

in 5 years, one of the most powerful supercomputer centers in the country (and world), which happens to be less than 10 miles from me, will likely double it's computing capacity yet AGAIN.

it has ALREADY performed extensive climate modeling, numerous times. with MULTIPLE models.

people in my circle generally don't even BOTHER trying to argue with flat-earthers who are blind to OBVIOUS trends and occurences.

Wow everyone Apex lives next to a supercomputer. He must know everything. Agian, no concrete evidence, only propaganda

You know, I though this was about these celebrites driving hybrids, not whether global warming exists or not, or whether liberals or conservative are better... who cares!

If global warming becomes more intense, I will give up my principles and buy a GS450h. Zero emissions... maybe I'd just indulge in a Lotus Elise or something on the side, because I'd still need handling in one of my cars!

This conversation, only far better argued in my opinion, has already been wrought and re-wrought upon this website multiple times. I believe that I have already said what I really have to say about this subject.

I will say this however. First, one would be entirely surprised with the amount of information about climate through history which could be determined through geology. In fact there are simple quantitative methods as well for example, for oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere simply look at the size on insects and arthropods at the time. These creatures have passive lung systems and so their sizes are completely contingent upon, in the case on insects, atmospheric concentrations of oxygen.

Second, no model independent of the size of the computer is going to provide you with a truly definite solution. Often what actually happens when a model even gives you statistically valid results is that whatever set of mechanisms were assumed were the primarily mechanisms of the moment. What is really needed is a full earth simulator. Be that as it may you run into simple problems determining temperature, i.e. temperature is not a property of a single atom, it is a property of multiple atoms, so at what scale do you determine this high priority property? You could model each atoms vibration, which makes things three orders of magnitude more complex, but translating that into flow is exceptionally complex due to the fact that a single atom also has no pressure, that is a group property as well. You eventually will run into the problems arising from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem [the results of which all people should really think about when it comes to computers]

Think about ENSO [El Nino Southern Oscillation: that is its proper name] until relatively recently nobody had a really acceptable answer as to why it happened. Although now they think they have it down pretty well: it is caused by feedback: something a computer has immense problems with. Computers are inherently linear devices, they run through code sequentially. Nature however, does not obey the laws of classical logic and does not have a rule about circular systems. This ENSO feedback occurs between the atmosphere over the ocean and that over the Indonesian and Australian landmasses, and eventually drives forward an escalation in the input parameters, which then again feedback through the system and result in an increase in the inputs. Think of it in a way as for each input represents a sin function through time, each input has a different period and amplitude. If you begin to put these together, into a single curve you will find that the result will have a different amplitude [obviously] and period than the inputs. Imagine it like the reasoning behind the LePlace space an transforms: that is a curve may be described by an infinite series of sine functions. Although this is an oversimplification: nature actually uses what are called Bessel functions really, which are decaying si

...sine functions for lack of a better way to put it. The problem with these is that they are extremely complex for a mathematical standpoint, they result for either differential or integral solution arguments, and at least in my field usually matrices are used to solve them fully. Although we usually use empirical equations to get around that.

I had actually intended it to be short...

You also run into Chaos theory problems. In order to incorporate feedback there must be time dependence,and even the slightest tiniest most immesurable difference between actual temperature and calculated one will make your results completely chaotic [relative to actual] rather quickly.

Ask yourself how well a we can predict the local weather...

Hell, it isn't Laplace its Fourier. I can be an idiot at times.

"I can be an idiot at times"

Then I would hate to think what that makes some more frequent Autospies posters...

who gives a crap--lets talk cars

cdoke:

interesting propositons and factoids you present. you mite find it of interest that the Arctic Supercomputer Research Center (ASRC, google it) is only ONE of many tools, and a very powerful one, used to study climatic changes.

just up the hill from it, is the increasingly reknown Geophysical Institute. which studies space weather as well as all of the traditional geosciences. all this, a natural evolution of the School of Mines which was a major part of the university of alaska from its very beginning. (i have many geologist friends.)

we also have scads of natural scientists studying the changes in flora and fauna.

and even in the social sciences, researchers have picked the minds of aboriginal elders, to get THEIR perspectives on climate change over the past century and further.

so we have EMPIRICAL studies which back up all the impirical ones in our labs.

climate changes also are MORE PRONOUNCED at high latitudes, so our environment is the PERFECT field laboratory. consequently, MANY climate change conferences have been hosted here. many of our scientists will be participating in The International Geophysical Year.

Apex Alex,

I am not saying "Don't do the research" and "Don't try", but I think most people trust computers too much. There really is, even in the scientific community in general, this "black box" approach to computation. There are compuatational limits beyond "number of equations/number of unknowns", which cannot be programmed out: they exist by virtue of computation itself: Godel is a good example of this. All findings should undergo due speculation: there is no OLGA or TACITE for the earth. This problem is not like a computer processor, where its fundamental physics are described by differential equations and can be put into massive matrices [aparhaps 1,000,000 by 1,000,000 or more] and solved by a supercomputer. This operation is trivial compared to the complexity of describing, pressure distributions, temperature distributions, incroachment of radiant energy from the sun and its distribution, the ocean floor and ocean currents, and heat transfer between the ocean and the landmasses and both of those and the atmosphere, the prevailing winds and the Coriolis effect [which is non-trivial] due to the geometrically and density non-uniform rotation of the oblate spheroid that is earth in space, et alia. The thing a lot of people don't really think about is that climate change is simply the progression of atmospheric conditions through time, well the side effect of being able to accuratly determine that, is being able to predict relatively well the weather [barring Force Majeure: massive asteroids striking earth and the like] You know, computers can't predict the future.

In the end, chaos would be probably the most fundamental problem: you cannot be infinitly accurate. This converstion really does not apply to "static models" to some extent. This all begs for probabilistic analyses, but I have never seen a model which is beyond deterministic. I would imagine that the deterministic complexity is such that Monte Carlo simulation almost cannot be applied [it makes it about 1000 orders of magnitude more computationally intensive]

Incidentally; I am a graduate student at the Colorado School of Mines.

~

cdoke:

"There are compuatational limits beyond "number of equations/number of unknowns", which cannot be programmed out: they exist by virtue of computation itself..."


methinks you grossly UNDERestimate the power of modern supercomputers. WHATEVER modeling the mind of man can conjure, can usually be reduced to algorithms that simulate the models' mechanics.

and, there are always CONSTANT refinements of the models to better track OBSERVATIONS.

the researchers here also have the advantage of numerous satellite images, which provide REAL TIME observations of geophysical events in the arctic region as well as other parts of the planet.