Global Warming = Anti-Testosterone?

tom63 · March 22, 2007, 2:40am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Dutchmo wrote:
I would say also to any liberals, progressives, etc. –

WTF is wrong with you?

This thread is basically saying that if you support the future of the planet
in any way, shape, or form, you are less of a man.

If you don’t respond to this type of crap, then maybe its true.

thats all i have to say

The earth will be fine with or without your “support” and whether you fight your brother or not.
[/quote]

Word, the world did just fine before us and will after us. It’s a very egocentric view that we impact so much and can change the world so much.

While I don’t want a filthy world, the hippies have to realize that we’re just a blip in geologic time. Even if we make it a billion or more years, that’s only 15+% of the time this planet existed.

People have to get over themselves.

tom63 · March 22, 2007, 2:46am

[quote]Taquito wrote:
I don’t know if we caused it but locally the weather has been really screwed up the last few years. We shouldn’t have 70 degree days in early march.[/quote]

Again a very small window of looking at things.

I’m 43 years old. I remember blizzards in 69, 78, 93, and a few years ago. old timers say we don’t get winters like we used to. Yeah right and like you shoveled 4’ of snow as opposed to my shoveling 3’.

In 71 we had over 15" on Easter sunday. In the mid 70s, we approached 100 degrees on two consecutive Easter sundays.

In the summer of 78 we had one of the coolest summers on record. In 05 one of the hottest ever. I live in Pa. btw. so do we have global warming or cooling?

The answer is that the average person doesn’t pay attention to when they last showered, let alone lengthy climate patterns.

And 38 years ain’t lengthy folks in serious time. We’ve had some good records of weather for about 130 years. Man has been around in early incarnations for a few million years.That’s under 1% of people time, let alone world time.

Get over yourselves, there is no way to tell if what we are experiencing is normal or not.

Kritikos · March 22, 2007, 3:39am

[quote]Tallguyy76 wrote:
Here I was defining masculinity as the will stand up when called upon to act. Be it civically, militarily, as a son, as a husband, as a dad. Now I know to define masculinity as driving the biggest, most gas guzzling SUV possible (overcompensation?) and making light of the destruction of habitat of wild animals. Oh yeah and grilling steaks. Can?t forget grilling steaks. If this is what defines masculinity then I must be a huge pussy. Even though I served my country proudly, try to live my life well and will stand up anyone or anything I care for I am just not man enough because I have a concern that I might not be leaving this planet a better place for those that come after me.

I know the writer was taking a stab at being humorous but the part that kills me is that he is probably your typical soft, Middle American male whose idea of hardship is having to wait 10 minutes in the fast food drive through at Wendy?s. I find that a lot of people who think like he does have had to sacrifice far to little in their lives to ever realize what true strength or masculinity is so they make up for it by dressing themselves up in the garnishments of what it means to be a man. IMHO true masculinity isn?t loud and ostentatious. True masculinity speaks softly and carries a big stick. But the men in my family have always been stoics so I guess that influences my opinion.
[/quote]

GOOD POST.

diesel25 · March 22, 2007, 3:46am

[quote]Dutchmo wrote:
The rest of the family is worked up now, saying this is not the right way to handle it. My response to that is, tough shit.[/quote]

Science does that to you.

Rolls eyes

diesel25 · March 22, 2007, 3:54am

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Taquito wrote:
Get over yourselves, there is no way to tell if what we are experiencing is normal or not.
[/quote]

Should we wait and find out?

Kritikos · March 22, 2007, 4:00am

I find that too many times people believe that science is the absolute and only truth. IMHO, there is always a bias behind it. There are usually people funding these studies, which is why you’ll find some scientists saying that charcoal grills, SUVs, and rice fields (yes, rice paddies), etc. – and others will say that it’s simply a natural climactic change.

That being said, Dutchmo, please don’t start sending me hate mail for questioning science.

Also, yes man has been on this world for a long time. But we haven’t been driving around in SUVs and emitting harmful chemicals and gasses from our manufacturing plants, factories, and such since the beginning of time.

Would anyone argue that man hasn’t become more destructive to nature and the environment as we’ve “progressed?” I also think that we, as Americans, are really too wasteful for our own good.

Somewhat related: it’s funny how many liberal politicians push environmental agendas, and yet still travel in convoys of Chevy Suburbans, and not hybrid cars.

Kritikos · March 22, 2007, 4:09am

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Taquito wrote:
I don’t know if we caused it but locally the weather has been really screwed up the last few years. We shouldn’t have 70 degree days in early march.

Again a very small window of looking at things.

I’m 43 years old. I remember blizzards in 69, 78, 93, and a few years ago. old timers say we don’t get winters like we used to. Yeah right and like you shoveled 4’ of snow as opposed to my shoveling 3’.

In 71 we had over 15" on Easter sunday. In the mid 70s, we approached 100 degrees on two consecutive Easter sundays.

In the summer of 78 we had one of the coolest summers on record. In 05 one of the hottest ever. I live in Pa. btw. so do we have global warming or cooling?

The answer is that the average person doesn’t pay attention to when they last showered, let alone lengthy climate patterns.

And 38 years ain’t lengthy folks in serious time. We’ve had some good records of weather for about 130 years. Man has been around in early incarnations for a few million years.That’s under 1% of people time, let alone world time.

Get over yourselves, there is no way to tell if what we are experiencing is normal or not.

[/quote]

You certainly make good points, however, one of the characteristics of global warming (or maybe it’s another term they use) is not only abnormally warm weather, but also abnormally cold temperatures, and any other sort of abnormal environmental occurence (ie, rising sea levels).

I’m not really all that knowledgable in this field, just some info I’ve picked off from some reading, maybe it’s just something to think about.

ElbowStrike · March 22, 2007, 5:56am

[quote]Kritikos wrote:
You certainly make good points, however, one of the characteristics of global warming (or maybe it’s another term they use) is not only abnormally warm weather, but also abnormally cold temperatures, and any other sort of abnormal environmental occurence (ie, rising sea levels).[/quote]

Exactly.

“Global warming” seems to be confusing people so I guess the new buzzword is “climate change”.

If the overall heat energy of the earth is increasing, then it yields more heat energy to drive our air and water currents, meaning hot air from the equator and cold air from the poles is being driven farther and harder than it has in previous years, centuries, whatever.

Simmer a pot of water. Watch the currents flow. Add some heat, watch the currents go berserk. This is how the ocean currents and the winds work.

If the ice in Greenland melted, that infusion of steady cold water would screw with the ocean currents enough to put Europe into a mini ice-age, despite the overall world temperatures being warmer.

It isn’t just as simple as “everywhere in the world gets exactly 0.5 degrees warmer”. If that were the case, it would be a non-issue (except possible polar ice cap meltage).

Our weather is a complex system of energy interactions. Saying that increasing it by 4 degrees won’t effect anything is kind of like saying that increasing your body temperature 4 degrees won’t effect anything.

“What? I’d be a bit warmer! Big deal!”
“No, sir, you would be dead.”
“Yeah, well I don’t believe in your hippy science voodoo crap!”

Hmm…

– ElbowStrike

Kritikos · March 22, 2007, 6:18am

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Kritikos wrote:
You certainly make good points, however, one of the characteristics of global warming (or maybe it’s another term they use) is not only abnormally warm weather, but also abnormally cold temperatures, and any other sort of abnormal environmental occurence (ie, rising sea levels).

Exactly.

“Global warming” seems to be confusing people so I guess the new buzzword is “climate change”.

If the overall heat energy of the earth is increasing, then it yields more heat energy to drive our air and water currents, meaning hot air from the equator and cold air from the poles is being driven farther and harder than it has in previous years, centuries, whatever.

Simmer a pot of water. Watch the currents flow. Add some heat, watch the currents go berserk. This is how the ocean currents and the winds work.

If the ice in Greenland melted, that infusion of steady cold water would screw with the ocean currents enough to put Europe into a mini ice-age, despite the overall world temperatures being warmer.

It isn’t just as simple as “everywhere in the world gets exactly 0.5 degrees warmer”. If that were the case, it would be a non-issue (except possible polar ice cap meltage).

Our weather is a complex system of energy interactions. Saying that increasing it by 4 degrees won’t effect anything is kind of like saying that increasing your body temperature 4 degrees won’t effect anything.

“What? I’d be a bit warmer! Big deal!”
“No, sir, you would be dead.”
“Yeah, well I don’t believe in your hippy science voodoo crap!”

Hmm…

– ElbowStrike[/quote]

Yes, you certainly do a much better job of explaining it.

While we’re on the topic of books, there’s a really good book out there called:
“Rogue Nation” by Clyde Prestowitz.

Don’t be mislead by the title – it’s not written by a left-wing crazy, Prestowitz has a really impressive “resume” and also served under Regean (Treasury Dept, I think?).

I’d say it’s a fairly balanced book that generally covers U.S. foreign policy after WW2, but also environmental issues, globalization, consumerism, the “American” lifestyle.

It was very interesting and eye-opening, but then again I’m a history major and reading this book when I was 19 was a complete mindfuck. HIGHLY recommended.

Zap_Branigan · March 22, 2007, 11:21am

[quote]Kritikos wrote:
…You certainly make good points, however, one of the characteristics of global warming (or maybe it’s another term they use) is not only abnormally warm weather, but also abnormally cold temperatures, and any other sort of abnormal environmental occurence (ie, rising sea levels).
…[/quote]

This is just a scare tactic.

Global warming would mean warming. Adding heat to a system does not make it cooler.

Remember climate and weather are always changing.

I worry more about water and air pollution than CO2.

I worry more about energy conservation for its own sake rather than to limit CO2 emissions.

tom63 · March 22, 2007, 11:43am

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom63 wrote:
…And 38 years ain’t lengthy folks in serious time. We’ve had some good records of weather for about 130 years…

This fact gets overlooked constantly in this whole debate.
[/quote]

It seems to me push that most people have a bias in regards to changes they have seen int heir lives and relate larger cycles to that. Hell, the world might be ending , but not due to human activity.

Then what do we do?

In Crichton’s book, he quoted many scientific studies that contradicted what we constantly here reported. You don’t hear those studies do you? Just the doom and gloom.

And believe it science isn’t totally poor. Money for research must come from somewhere and if people don’t like what you find, they don’t want to give.

Zap_Branigan · March 22, 2007, 11:47am

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Kritikos wrote:
You certainly make good points, however, one of the characteristics of global warming (or maybe it’s another term they use) is not only abnormally warm weather, but also abnormally cold temperatures, and any other sort of abnormal environmental occurence (ie, rising sea levels).

Exactly.

“Global warming” seems to be confusing people so I guess the new buzzword is “climate change”.

If the overall heat energy of the earth is increasing, then it yields more heat energy to drive our air and water currents, meaning hot air from the equator and cold air from the poles is being driven farther and harder than it has in previous years, centuries, whatever.

Simmer a pot of water. Watch the currents flow. Add some heat, watch the currents go berserk. This is how the ocean currents and the winds work.

If the ice in Greenland melted, that infusion of steady cold water would screw with the ocean currents enough to put Europe into a mini ice-age, despite the overall world temperatures being warmer.

It isn’t just as simple as “everywhere in the world gets exactly 0.5 degrees warmer”. If that were the case, it would be a non-issue (except possible polar ice cap meltage).

Our weather is a complex system of energy interactions. Saying that increasing it by 4 degrees won’t effect anything is kind of like saying that increasing your body temperature 4 degrees won’t effect anything.

“What? I’d be a bit warmer! Big deal!”
“No, sir, you would be dead.”
“Yeah, well I don’t believe in your hippy science voodoo crap!”

Hmm…

– ElbowStrike[/quote]

We are not experiencing more severe weather/hurricanes etc. It is impossible to determine if what you are saying is what is happening.

The data is simply too complex to analyze.

What we are seeing is growth of cities and more “hot spots” due to deforestation etc. This is real and unquestionable.

We are also seeing increased solar energy, that is why global warming is occurring on Mars etc.

Even the UN/IPCC has said mans effect on the apparent warming is not as much as they had previously stated and they have a vested interest in playing up mans influence.

Global temps peaked in 1997 or 1998 and have been slightly cooling.

CO2 levels have often followed increased global temperatures, not caused them.

What does all this mean? It means we don’t know what is happening and probably won’t have a good understanding in any of our lifetimes.

It means we should not make rash decisions based on the alarmist hype of politicians like Al Gore whose monthly energy use is 22 time that of the average Americans yearly use.

We should not tie ourselves to a complex carbon credit trading scheme that will cost us all money and will not benefit the environment. Coincidentally Al Gore is set up to enrich himself if we implement this.

We should continue to work hard to clean our air and water.

We should work to develop viable alternate energy sources, not corporate welfare like ethanol.

We should do a better job of efficiently using the energy we have available. The gas mileage most people get is shameful.

There are plenty of good reasons to wean ourselves off of oil. We do not need to use this questionable one to confuse the issue.

Flop_Hat · March 22, 2007, 6:00pm

[quote]wfifer wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Real men build civilizations. They certainly don’t destroy their own countries. That this lesson is missed by so many of you tells me how little you understand about what it means to be a man.

Thank you.
[/quote]

Real men don’t let people on the internet define their manhood. Genghis Khan didn’t build shit, but he was a man and a leader by every definition of the word.

tGunslinger · March 22, 2007, 6:59pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We are not experiencing more severe weather/hurricanes etc. It is impossible to determine if what you are saying is what is happening.