Posted by 512c on April 22, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need to stop the Coal plant!!! Who cares if our buildings are "green" when they're covered in soot. Our lungs and blood with mercury, and our mountains are razed and poured down our throats!
ilovemountains.org

Posted by 512c on April 22, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.ilovemountains.org/mc/show_co...
our coal use currently

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I see that the city is discovering new ways to oppress people...there is actually a law that says your car can't idle for 5 minutes?! It is official: environmentalism is the new communism!

How would that law be enforced? Would they actually have a cop around every street corner and parking lot timing cars that were parked and running in idle? What if the person is dropping off or picking up someone? What if the vehicle in question is a clunker that can't be turned off because it won't start due to a dead battery or some other condition? What if the vehicle is a truck with a refrigerated section carrying items that have to remain cool? Those trucks have to remain running to power the refrigerator.

The city's idiocy is even more pronounced with this dumbass "lights out in buildings at night" campaign. I guess security and safety at night are meaningless values as opposed to "cutting down emissions".

Incredible. This environmental movement is getting out of hand, and this country is regressing before my very eyes.

Posted by pompusmaximus on April 22, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I applaud the efforts made in this article, this is only a fraction of what needs to be done in order to truly turn the planet around.

Lets start by building walkable, bikeable, transit oriented communities. This will decrease the amount of automobile traffic and therefore decrease overall city emissions. With gas aproaching $4 a gallon, it doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

<<pompusmaximus wrote: "...this is only a fraction of what needs to be done in order to truly turn the planet around."

Are we that vain and self-centered to think that these efforts will turn the PLANET around, much less even our local environment? The stupidity of the mind-numbed, green sheep continues...

Posted by pompusmaximus on April 22, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Icbmman, people like you are why this world is turning into sh*t. All you do is doubt everything and berate anybody who wants to atleast try and make this world a healthier, cleaner place. Then when things get real bad you just complain that it's the governments fault. You should move to China where most people share your frame of mind.

Anyone who doesn't think we make an impact on our planet has no idea what they are talking about and obviously pays NO attention to scientific data. I don't even support, hydrogen, ethanol and all that other inefficient crap. However, I know that we can no longer live at this level with the world's resources diminishing like they are.

Icbmman, i know I took you to task in the parapgraph above, but I believe even people like you are not lost causes. Just take a look at this site. I promise you will have a different perspective. http://www.lifeafterpeakoil.com

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pompus, your name surely descibes your mindset and attitude; vanity is a part of being pompous. You obviously have completely bought into the scam and hoax that a POLITICAL organization (mixed with a few scientists) along with the Goracle have thrust into people's minds and hearts; you have only paid attention to propaganda displayed as "unbiased" scientific data. Again, the IPCC consists of many politicians and policy makers; they found scientists that would provide data that fit their cause. Explain why scientific data such as the facts below have been ignored by this group among others and the media:

Fact 1: Fluctuations in solar radiation have directly impacted the earth's temperature AS WELL AS most of the other planets in our solar system.
Fact 2: Carbon dioxide levels have been found to change in correlation to temperature changes...not the other way around.
Fact 3: Simple, actual EXPERIMENTS (which IPCC and other green movements still have yet to actually accomplish) by scientists from NASA and NOAA indicate that cloud cover may be the primary indicator of temperature fluctuations on all different regions of the planet.

You've hardly taken me to task for anything...just spouted an opinion. You're right, we can't live at this level with the world's resources diminishing; BUT THEY'RE DIMINISHED BECAUSE GOVERNMENT GETS IN THE WAY. What will it take for you people to understand this? Since when has government been a primary source of good things? Limited government was what our founding fathers envisioned, because they knew that if it continuously expanded, it would continuously oppress its people, all for some supposed good. The green movement is just another means that politicians have found to expand power. If we were truly concerned about limited resources, we would drill ANWR among other places in the US for our own oil, build more refineries, build more nuclear plants, and encourage development of clean coal power.

For you to declare that I would find China suitable for my standard of living indicates a serious lack of rational thought. China is a heavy polluter AND an oppressor of people. And in your last sentence, I see another peak oil nut.

Let me give you a link or two about our oil:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/new...
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_ind... (an interesting discovery indicating oil may not be a "fossil fuel")
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie... and http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&am... (report about an amazing discovery that could solve the oil price problem)

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 22, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To celebrate, I think I'll fill up my boat so I can pump my share of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere at 55 mph in the harbor!!! :)
By the way, most environmentalists are liars and their research data is flawed by their bias and needs to be summarily ignored. They are a bunch of hypocritical chicken littles like Al Gore who happens to own a house that uses more electricity in a month than the average family uses in a year, flies around constantly in a private jet then tells the rest of us that we are wasteful! What a bunch of flaming hypocrites.

Posted by FindingMyself on April 22, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh how horrible! We're risking security and safety to be environmentally friendly?

Tell me, icbmman, what's the point in having safer material products if all the shoppers end up with cancer and whatever else because of all the pollutants we put into the air?

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 22, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, there is NO credible scientific proof that man made global warming exists. There are natural centuries long fluctuations of temperature. We are just blessed that we happen to live at the peak of one such warming trend. If you add up ALL human generated "greenhouse" gasses generated in the last century, it is less that what is produced by a single large, volcanic eruption like the one that happened in the Phillipines in the '90's.
Global warming theories are fraud, plain and simple.

Posted by pompusmaximus on April 22, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ICBMMAN, you actually expect the USGS to give you non politically motivated data on our future oil supply!? They just follow the policy of whatever administration is in charge at the time. Open your eyes and turn off FOX news for two seconds.

Also, your anti government rants are getting old. You can't leave everything up to the free market or else you will end up with a polluted, wasteland of a country. I bet you didn't even bother reading anything on that website I showed you because as soon as you saw the words peak oil, you labeled me as some environmentalist nut. Get a clue man. Luckily, the majority of our country is beginning to figure it out.

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FindingMyself, cancer has been a problem for centuries. We've only just begun truly understanding it. I think your huge generalization only refers to lung cancer, and that in itself can be caused without smoking or overexposure to pollutants. My grandfather died of it and lived in the country.

However, I don't understand why or what you're implying...that we must be environmentally friendly to eliminate cancer? Yes, may be locally, but allow technology and companies to address the issue...not oppressive government.

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, pompus, luckily the majority of the country is becoming nothing but a bunch of green, mind-numbed lemmings........like yourself.

You refer to my peak oil bias, and in the same breath, show your bias towards the USGS website, while AVOIDING all the others. Typical. Mentioning Fox News as well as your views on capitalism further shows that you are nothing but a liberal/communist hack. NONE of my sources came from Fox...did you even take a look at them?

Actually, the current administration is strongly promoting biofuels and subsidies for farmers, which is highly anti-oil. Additionally, Bush is PUSHING for more environmental policies that will stifle oil production. The USGS isn't a highly political organization, unlike the IPCC, so most of its measurements and results are fairly neutral. I'd guess you'd be OK with their findings if Obama or Clinton were in the White House? Sheesh. I guess you'll say the same thing about NASA? NOAA? Pathetic.

Posted by pompusmaximus on April 22, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Umm yeah I would actually. Infact, top climate scientist at those agencies complained that the Bush adminsitration forced them to downplay the reality of climate change. Turn down FOX news so that their is no background noise in your room and read the story that proves my point. Here it is...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/scienc...

Your boy George Bush only has very recently supported ethanol ONLY because he knew the next president(McCain, Obama, Clinton) would put in place these new goals. Besides ethanol is a joke and it is rendering impoverished nations to starve to death because all of their food crop is being replaced with corn or palms for ethanol production.

Oh and P.S. No president since Roosevelt has increased the size of government than George W. Bush.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman- have you done any research on the rate of the current warming trend relative to the rate of natural fluctuations that occurred in the past, as in B.C. (before cars), as in while our ancestors were still monkeys wandering around inventing simple tools and stuff?

Can you refer me to any websites?

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think i just had a revelation of why so many wacked out, far-right conservatives truly believe their own bullsh*t. They treat their politics like they do religion: they blindly have faith in conservative politicians and policies, accepting them as some sort of religious dogma. They perceive criticisms of their conservative views and conservative policies as some sort of blasphemy. Case in point: icbmman.

icbmman: Do you really think George Bush gives a flying crap about people like you, or Christianity, or gay marriage for that matter? Get serious. I think the real sheep here are all the conservative christians that got duped by Karl Rove et al. into thinking that Bush was some sort of crusader for Christian values.

Hey all you conservative christian Bush supporters: George Bush doesn't give a flying f*ck about any of you middle class, conservative sheep. He masterfully manipulated you into voting him back into office. Just a friendly little heads up for you.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.

• Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice.

• Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique “fingerprint.”

• Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.7ºC, with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades.

• The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- the independent organization of the country’s most renowned scientists established by Congress to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues -- has concluded: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”

Posted by wpc3iop on April 22, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The_Mouth_of_the_South: WELL SAID, BOTH POSTS!

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In the course of writing this report we found inescapable, overriding conclusions. In the coming decade the United States faces an ominous set of challenges for this and the next generation of foreign policy and national security practitioners. These include reversing the decline in America’s global standing, rebuilding the nation’s armed forces, finding a responsible way out from Iraq while maintaining American influence in the wider region, persevering in Afghanistan, working toward greater energy security, re-conceptualizing the struggle against violent extremists, restoring public trust in all manner of government functions, preparing to cope with either naturally occurring or manmade pathogens, and quelling the fear that threatens to cripple our foreign policy—just to name a few.

"Regrettably, to this already daunting list we absolutely must add dealing responsibly with global climate change. Our group found that, left unaddressed, climate change may come to represent as great or a greater foreign policy and national security challenge than any problem from this list. And, almost certainly, overarching global climate change will complicate many of these other issues.

"While all those who collaborated in this study completed the process with a profound sense of urgency, we also collectively are encouraged that there is still time for the United States and the international community to plan an effective response to prevent, mitigate, and where possible adapt, to global climate change. We hope this study will help in that endeavor.

"Indeed, the overall experience of these working groups helped underscore how much needs to be done on a sustained basis in this emerging field of exploration. This study hopefully will help illuminate how security concerns might manifest themselves in a future warming—and worrisome—world. Moving forward, the United States and other nations must chart a new path, for we already live in an age of consequences."

The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Nov. 2007

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good night, you people are demented! My post was a CRITICISM of Bush, not a praise of him. It is pointless to converse with you communist morons, because you REALLY have no clue how to use reading comprehension skills.

Pompus, you typically refer to the liberal rag, the NY Times...do they have the same credibility as when they were reporting on the McCain intern "affair"? Or how about they're reporting on the war, presidential candidates (Dem & Repub), Islam, etc.? If Bush's policies were to help the oil companies, why aren't we seeing more oil being drilled and refined? I completely agree with you about Bush's ethanol plan; it is absolutely despicable to burn our food and not feed people with it. It's amazing that you have not seen our common ground from my earlier posts. BTW, your NASA debunking has George Soros money written all over it: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx...

TP, I've done plenty of research from credible organizations that show contrary evidence to man-made glo-bull climate change/warming/cooling/whatever. In fact, the furor and absolute zombie-like following with this hoax equates to what you indicated: environmentalism has become the new religion. You've all been suckered into believing it. Case in point: man is evil to the earth (polluter, ravager of the earth), he must atone for his sins (buying indulgences with carbon credits, buy CFLs; basically make sacrifices for the earth), and the earth will not be destroyed...in other words, man will be spared death/damnation by preserving the earth. Of course, if the earth continues its course, it just means we have to do more. Incredible. The worship of Gaia has increased 1,000-fold. Here is an interesting piece on the truth behind Gore's Nobel prize that seems to fuel this insanity: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists...

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Badger, in your first post, what you've displayed is not fact, it's theory, but thanks for ignoring my earlier arguments. Here are some more against your "facts":

1. It is NOT conclusive that CO2 warms the atmosphere; many studies have shown that C02 may increase when temperatures warm...showing a reverse relationship.

2. Dr. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist from the University of Virginia: "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence."

3. Studies also show that this kind of carbon "footprint" pales in comparison to the natural geological events that have occurred which temporarily do affect the weather, such as volcanic eruptions.

4. Temperatures have only been recorded for about 150 years, so there is no indication what temps really were before pre-industrialization.

5. First, global temperature readings have been highly skewed and manipulated due to poor locations of the thermometers: near AC units, in parking lots, and near airplane terminals. Second, it is highly impossible to accurately measure the temperature of the earth. If you measured a temperature of 65 degree in one spot, you could walk 100-200 yards and find differences of 1-5 degrees.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LMAO!!

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you have a man-crush on Al Gore dude, all you do is talk about him in your posts. You're borderline obsessive.

You say the NY Times is a liberal rag; does that mean you think the websites you posted are neutral and unbiased? I'm laughing out loud right now disturbing others at work!!!

Posted by pompusmaximus on April 22, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok ICBMMAN, suppose we are all crazy and dead wrong about climate change. What is the worst that comes out of it? Worst case scenerio is that we have a cleaner, healthier, more beautiful environment to live in.

On the other hand, if we do nothing and Me and others like Badger & TP are right, then we are screwed beyond all hope.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey icbmman, what are your views on intelligent design being taught in public schools?

Posted by blah_blah_blah on April 22, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't Conservatives want to Conserve our natural resources?

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TP, you are truly an idiot. Absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever...just condescending tripe, then a totally irrelevant question to further your arrogant opinion of me as a "conservative/right-wing/nutjob". You just ignored all the facts and proof I've provided, and responded with nothing constructive. Typical workings of a troll.

Pompus, I think we can see by the ethanol debacle that whatever solutions that government can provide will ultimately hurt people throughout the world, for the most part. Bad results can be many more people being oppressed economically, some starving, many unemployed, some homeless...is it really worth it? Besides, if you, Badger, and TP are right, it doesn't matter, because we are not in control of this planet. Even the control you think you have over your own life is an illusion.

Here is some sobering facts for all of us to digest right now: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

It amazes me that people ignore the primary source of energy on this planet as a possible controller of its climate. I think that article puts into perspective.

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, thanks for putting my comments into a form of extremism. When did I say that we shouldn't conserve? My point is that if we conserve, we do it in a way that doesn't inhibit our abilities and we use common sense approaches. None of that is being done now.

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 22, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The earth is a God given gift for humans to exploit. I for one have NO intention to lower my standard of living to the level of some third world country to placate some lunatic environmentalist.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it really sucks that our cars and coal powered plants killed off all of the dinosaurs. It's horrible that in the last global warming trend, mankind caused the end of the ice age. If we had only had more walkers and bikers...

Oh wait. Those weren't our fault. We weren't here yet. Hmmm... Maybe this is just Mother Nature at work in her normal cycles??? I don't know....

Neither do you.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i just got reprimanded by my co-worker for laughing out loud again!!! (Sorry, Betty...)

The only thing you have proven is that you're so far out there, you are just as extreme as the nuts in green peace. Even other reasonable, conservative republicans think you're a kook dude. But you do provide good entertainment!

But seriously, thanks for setting me straight once again, intercontinental ballistic missile man.

Posted by PalmettoDP on April 22, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I used to think that humanity was the primary cause of global warming/climate change. I've tried to read reports by climatologists on both sides of the issue and have come to believe that climate change is a mostly a natural cycle that *may be* slightly amplified by human activity. Either way, city council and the mayor can read public opinion polls - and they know that as far as the public is concerned, we may as well be the primary cause of climate change, even if we aren't. The Green Committee allows Mayor Riley to kill two birds with one stone - he can save the city money on utility bills and also say to the public, "See, we care about the environment."

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TP, the only thing you have proven is that you're obtuse and a troll. I'm not a Repub, though I've mostly voted for them in elections. Since I don't follow any party line, your accusation rings hollow. I don't how I've proven that I'm a kook, but that comment just underlines your imbecility. I'm glad I provide you entertainment...you provide me nausea. All I've done is give arguments debunking the hoax that is climate change and provided evidence for it, you've given nothing. I'm obviously fighting a battle of wits against an opponent who is clearly unarmed. Good day.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right, coldbeer. It might be a natural cycle. Unfortunately there's a pretty significant confounding factor we need to deal with: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Maybe they're speeding up a natural cycle, maybe they're the sole cause of a warming trend, or maybe they're insignificant. I've said it 1000 times, science doesn't have the answer in this case, and both sides are spinning the issue for the own benefit. That's the closest thing to a 'fact' you will find in this whole thread today.

I don't think any rational person would deny the fact that earth's climate has fluctuated since god created the earth in seven days (SARC). But when either side to so matter-of-factly states that one of these scenarios is "proven" (like my friend icbmman) or indisputable, that's a bit extreme for me.

icbmman thinks if he regurgitates what hears on Rush Limbaugh and reads on conservative, right wing websites, his arguments are proven. He's operating at about a 5th grade level, and I just cannot relate to his small mindedness.

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman- i'm going to email you some tissues so you can stop crying man.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I don't think any rational person would deny the fact that earth's climate has fluctuated since god created the earth"

Um, not to stir the pot, but being a rational agnostic, I would have to deny that it's a fact that god created the Earth. :)

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, TP...Wall Street Journal, The Australian, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and Investors Business Daily are all tools of the conservative press. Good f*****g night. You really are a blithering pathetic moron.

Posted by blah_blah_blah on April 22, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Earth a God given gift for humans. Imagine what he will say when you get to heaven and ask why you have destroyed it.

Posted by blah_blah_blah on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ultimately, we all must realize that there are too many of us. We can't ask everyone to live like it is the 1600's. One solution to a problem just creates another problem (i.e. corn as fuel.)
But can we really make people limit the number of children they have? I think not, even though, as extreme as it sounds, is the only real solution.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“There is a growing concern about global warming and the impact it will have on people and the ecosystems on which they depend. Temperatures have already risen 1.4°F since the start of the 20th century—with much of this warming occurring in just the last 30 years—and temperatures will likely rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years. This warming will cause significant changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts. In the Arctic, where temperatures have increased almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are already changing rapidly.

“Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least 650,000 years and continue to rise.

“There is no doubt that climate will continue to change throughout the 21st century and beyond, but there are still important questions regarding how large and how fast these changes will be, and what effects they will have in different regions. In some parts of the world, global warming could bring positive effects such as longer growing seasons and milder winters. Unfortunately, it is likely to bring harmful effects to a much higher percentage of the world’s people. For example, people in coastal communities will likely experience increased flooding due to rising sea levels.

“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower."

Introduction to the report, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 2008 Edition published by the National Academies of Science. To access the entire report, go to: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/...

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Badger, how about reading an article before recycling old news? Here is a quote from an article I posted earlier:

"All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“A significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 has led to speculation that the Earth is experiencing a period of sustained cooling.

“A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

“There are a number of natural factors contributing to so-called interannual variability, the single most important being the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña (see Met Office: Expert speaks on La Niña).

“The current La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
“The La Niña has strengthened further during early 2008 and is now the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008 compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature has been influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.

“However, once La Niña declines, it is very likely that renewed warming will occur as was the case when the Earth emerged from the strong La Niña events of 1989 and 1999.

“January 2008 may seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 — the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño — but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.

“In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.”

Source: Hadley Research Center -- March 5, 008.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/had...

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBVIOUSLY people....I've waited all day to RANT on this article. The ONLY thing warming at this moment is all our WALLETS!!
DAVID ..DAVID...DAVID

"The goal of the committee, appointed last year by Mayor Joe Riley, is to create a plan for Charleston to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for warming the planet, and to reduce waste."

**Demonstrate an owner's commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility.**
DAVID...GET IN RILEY's FACE AND TELL HIM that we will show more Enviro STEWARDSHIP...when he solves the landfill issue without raising our TAXES. Google "joseph Longo" or go to STARTECH.NET!!
WE ARE FED UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

David,

Why don't you coordinate a day for everyone to take their trash down to CITY HALL!!!

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll go one more....I'm gonna make you a millionaire! Why don't you ...yes YOU! Create a website "SC SLUDGE" ..you guessed it just like the drudgereport but for South Carolina ONLY!! Linking all pertinent newspapers and TV stations...to show just how SHALLOW all news print is in this state!!! Employ an investigative team that does nothing but DIG!!!

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HARV JACOBS....I believe is his name?! Would be your first HIRE!!!!!!

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aren't NEWSPAPERS the publics first line of DEFENSE!?

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

David,
You would probably make so much money from webhits that the first MAG-LEV would be named the SLADE Express!!!

"The HARV HARRIER LINE"
"The Silver SLADE"

I could digress....oh how I want too!

Posted by TP on April 22, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

#1 sign that a your news might have a conservative bias:

The website where you get it advertises "Imagine No Liberals" t-shirts for sale

Simple as that. I have proven my argument.
(score yet another victory for me over icbmman; this is too easy!)

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Take a carriage ride with someone with the CITY PAPER!

ONE GIANT VOICE?!!

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com
/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid
%3A43752&cb=fb8cce7d
5e14995a6fe9fa14366e52fe#comments

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW! What a mess!
First, For manmade CO2 to effect global temp's, the upper troposphere must warm due to an accumulation of "greenhouse gases". This is the basic premise of the computer models used by the manmade climate change alarmists. The problem is that weather balloon and satellite measurements show no such warming in the upper troposphere.
The computer climate modelers have no explanation for this discrepancy, except that maybe the models need to be "tweaked" to correspond more "viably" with existing data.

In other words, "Our theory can't be wrong, it just requires "adjustment"!! (LMAO!!!) So far, no adjustment has accounted for this particular discrepancy.

No theory on manmade global climate change can explain climate change on other planets where change has been significant. One scientist tried to explain this phenomena @ a year ago, (I emailed the article to myself, so I can reprint it if anyone wants to see it). The scientist explained that Mars has been recently been subject to higher velocity of atmospheric winds than previously recorded, and subjected to more radiation! This explains higher surface temps, but the reporter never asked the obvious follow-up,...
What is the source of the higher radiation levels?... What is driving the higher winds to higher velocities?

The wind on earth is driven by the sun, coincidently, the sun is the #1 source of radiation on earth. Why would Mars be different? We'll never know, 'cause the reporter never asked.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Global Highlights for March 2008

• The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3°F above the 20th century mean of 40.8°F. Temperatures more than 8°F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

• The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the second warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28°F above the 20th century mean of 54.9°F. The warmest March on record (1.33°F above average) occurred in 2002.

• Although the ocean surface average was only the 13th warmest on record, as the cooling influence of La Niña in the tropical Pacific continued, much warmer than average conditions across large parts of Eurasia helped push the global average to a near record high for March.

• Despite above average snowpack levels in the U.S., the total Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

• Some weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred in March, but moderate La Niña conditions remained across the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Source: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one is talking in this State.....

http://www.charleston.net
/news/2008/feb/01/
county_incinerator
_no_longer_adds_up29288/

"
The county's decision caught some town officials by surprise. "It snuck up on us a little," said Mac Burdette, Mount Pleasant's town administrator. "It's definitely going to have an impact on us, and I wish they would have involved the stakeholders a little more.""

I wonder if they will do the common sense thing and put a STARTECH machine back on the original incinerator site??

DIG Boys and Girls!! What is eventually going to go on that site? Isn't it WATERFRONT!? Hmmm????????

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, idling my vehicle for more than 5 mins could get me a ticket?
Suppose I start at White Point Gardens and drive the speed limit up E.Battery, E.Bay, Morrison, and Mt Pleasant to the ramp to I-26. Before all the traffic control lights were installed, this was an 11 minute drive. It is now a 19 minute drive. Do I get ticketed for idling more than 5 cumulative minutes at red lights?

If so, do I make the check payable to King Joe?

I don't object to traffic control lights, but they need to be synchronized to conserve fuel and cut down on emmisions. (But this is not what this new round of oppression is about, King Joe and his minions want to make sure we know who is in charge.)

The fact is, synchronizing would require a real effort on the part of gov't, so it'll never happen. Gov't never takes on more work when they can put the burden on the proletariat.

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who has bought the land AROUND It???????
In the Vicinity????
Why?

FOR HOW MUCH??

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Land GRAB!!

http://www.charleston.net/news
/2008/feb/01/county_
incinerator_no_longer
_adds_up29288/#comments

Posted by zoomru on April 22, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A new location for UNION PIER!! Hmm maybe?

"We've got to have a complete waterfront boardwalk from the battery to the bridge before I DIE!! said Joe"

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BS "Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Global Highlights for March 2008

• The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3°F above the 20th century mean of 40.8°F. Temperatures more than 8°F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

• The global surface (land and ocean surface) temperature was the second warmest on record for March in the 129-year record, 1.28°F above the 20th century mean of 54.9°F. The warmest March on record (1.33°F above average) occurred in 2002.

• Although the ocean surface average was only the 13th warmest on record, as the cooling influence of La Niña in the tropical Pacific continued, much warmer than average conditions across large parts of Eurasia helped push the global average to a near record high for March.

• Despite above average snowpack levels in the U.S., the total Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

• Some weakening of La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, occurred in March, but moderate La Niña conditions remained across the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Source: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...

And the point of posting this interesting but entirely unrelated info is?... Surface temp measurements have 0 reflection on "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE".

Wondrful anecdotes, but you really need to learn to focus.

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh"

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously....

See link for full message.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When Gov't has too much resources, (money) it will inevitably turn to ordering the lives of the proletariat so as to justify its' own existence.

From Al Gore to King Joe, this has nothing to do with the environment, it is about justifying their own office (or in Gores' case, lack of same).

Chas County council has found its' self with more money than it knows what to do with, so it ran a "contest" in the P&C to gain ideas as to how to spend the windfall. It never occurred to them to give the money back to those from whom it had been taken!

When are you sheeple going to wake up?

Posted by icbmman on April 22, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rollo, yep, I've been posting that link. Your posts again refute the idiocy of man-made global climate change. I see no one has read the article, though, especially TP-for-my-bunghole. Hey TP, let me guess...you get your propaganda from NY Times, DailyKos, and The Daily Show? Yeah, that's objective and "true" news for ya there.

BTW, exactly which source that I mentioned in my previous post has conservative T-shirt ads? Yes, World Net Daily does have them, but I only used that source as a link in my post way above. The WND link also merely highlighted another link to the actual story, which you failed to even read or notice. Also, I didn't refer to it when making my retort to you. Take a 2nd grade English class in reading comprehension, you dolt. Are you a little child? Keeping score (while proving nothing) is indicative of utter immaturity. I have nothing more to say to an ignoramus who has as much intellectual capacity and reading skills as a kindergartener.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World

"Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica."

The above is the first paragraph of a joint press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder; the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), based in the United Kingdom; and the Earth Dynamic System Research Center at National Cheng Kung University(NCKU)in Taiwan. The press release was posted on March 25, 2008.

http://nsidc.org/index.html

Posted by rollo on April 22, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BS "Posted by Badgersouth on April 22, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World

"Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica."

The above is the first paragraph of a joint press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder; the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), based in the United Kingdom; and the Earth Dynamic System Research Center at National Cheng Kung University(NCKU)in Taiwan. The press release was posted on March 25, 2008.

http://nsidc.org/index.html

There is an underwater volcano directly under that ice melt. Average seawater temps @ Antarctica are going down.
You want the links? Would you read them if I posted them?

Posted by icbmman on April 23, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, that press release conveniently does not report the rapid gain of ice on the western shelf of Antarctica, nor has any mass media reported on the ice gains around Alaska and the Arctic Circle. Standard media SOP: pick and choose, then create hysteria.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 23, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Melting mountains a "time bomb" for water shortages

By Sylvia Westall, Reuters, Mon Apr 14, 1:44 PM ET

Glaciers and mountain snow are melting earlier in the year than usual, meaning the water has already gone when millions of people need it during the summer when rainfall is lower, scientists warned on Monday.

"This is just a time bomb," said hydrologist Wouter Buytaert at a meeting of geoscientists in Vienna.

Those areas most at risk from a lack of water for drinking and agriculture include parts of the Middle East, southern Africa, the United States, South America and the Mediterranean.

Rising global temperatures mean the melt water is occurring earlier and faster in the year and the mountains may no longer be able to provide a vital stop gap.

"In some areas where the glaciers are small they could be gone in 30 or 50 years time and a very reliable source of water, especially for the summer months, may be gone."

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the info Badgersouth and rollo. When i get some time i will look at those links in more detail and see which ones seem most objective. Do any of them advertise "Imagine No Liberals" shirts? That's kind of a red flag, you know?

icbmman- when you finish watching Beavis and ButtHead, check out: I_Have_A_Man_Crush_On_Al_Gore.com; oh wait, you're the webmaster of that site, LOL!!!!

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(from the American Geophysical Union's statement on climate change;
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positi...)

"...Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."

please comment, icbmman. (After you finish reading the Limbaugh Letter, of course.)

Posted by icbmman on April 23, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey troll, did you read my last post to you or are you still working on your elementary school reading skills?

I will not feed the trolls.

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok. Does that mean you will stop cluttering up the boards with your extremist, right wing nonsense and let the adults have a discussion?

Unfortunately, you keep coming back for more and getting slapped like a punk. You're like a moth to the flame, lol.

Last thing- did you really just reference Beevis and Butthead in one of your posts? Not only are you an extremist, you're also just a plain old f*cking tool-bag. LMAO!!

Posted by icbmman on April 23, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TP, go f**k yourself. YOU are the extremist, and you have no f***king clue to what you are talking about. YOU are the one incapable of rational thought and adult conversation. You are a tool that needs to be banned from P&C, since all you do is incite meaningless drivel and spew vitriol.

You've done nothing to produce intelligent conversation...just berate and insult. If anything, you've cluttered the board with idiocy. The only thing you can produce out of your pea-sized mind is typical liberal horse manure.

If anything, you're the absolute immature douchebag who keeps using 5-year-old phrases like "slapped like a punk" and "man crush". But I would expect nothing from a pseudo-intellectual jerkoff.

Bye, troll, have a nice life.

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm being totally serious icbm, what do you think of that statement from AGU?

Posted by Badgersouth on April 23, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Delivering Climate Security: International Security Responses to a Climate Changed World

By Nick Mabey, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI*) April 23, 2008

“This Whitehall Paper argues that the international response to climate security threats has been ‘slow and inadequate’ and nations need to integrate climate change into their security policy to prepare for worst case scenarios.

“In the next decades, climate change will drive as significant a change in the strategic security environment as the end of the Cold War. If uncontrolled, climate change will have security implications of similar magnitude to the World Wars, but which will last for centuries.

“The past will provide no guide to this coming future; a robust response will require clear assessments based on the best scientific projections.

“Security sector actors must not just prepare to respond to the security challenges of climate change; they must also be part of the solution. This Whitehall Paper outlines a framework for climate security analysis and some of its implications for security policy, practice and institutional change.”

*RUSI is the leading forum in the UK for national and international Defence and Security. Founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington, RUSI is the oldest institute of its kind in the world.

http://www.rusi.org/

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If anyone else wants a little insight into icbmman's clinical problems, here's a great website:

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/rush.html

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the AMS website (http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatecha...)

"...Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."

I wonder why none of Rush Limbaugh's wonk follower's are responding these objective assessments of the global warming situation? Where are you, rollo?

Posted by TP on April 23, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(also from AMS...the rollo's and icbmman's of the world are looking less and less credible...)

Final remarks
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."

[This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 23, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TP:
As I said earlier, their conclusions are fraudulent.

Posted by Badgersouth on April 23, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sun Cycles Not Key To Recent Global Warming - Expert

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Satellite data show that changes in the sun are contributing to global warming but to a smaller extent than human activity, a space scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington told a group of petroleum geologists Wednesday.

"The sun is playing a role that you can detect, but it's not the dominant role," Judith Lean told a crowded session at the 2008 convention of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in San Antonio.

Climate-change sceptics have suggested that solar cycles may be more responsible than human activity for increasing global temperature. But Lean said her findings showed "the sun is a factor of 10 less than the anthropogenic."

Reuters, April 23, 2008

http://www.planetark.org

Posted by TP on April 24, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're probably right, mouth. It's probably a conspiracy among all of those scientists.

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 24, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not all scientists are convinced of man driven global warming, just the ones that make millions of dollars from government grants.

Posted by icbmman on April 24, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Badger, your latest source is just as biased if not moreso than only one of mine. It is an entertainment-based website; which of course tows the line of the green movement. Mouth pretty much sums it up: follow the money. If a scientist wants a government grant or more funding, all they have to do is concur with man-made climate change nonsense.

Posted by TP on April 24, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since you two seem pretty in sync with the scientific community, please cite some of these grants your talking about, the project, the bias, and the amount.

You guys speak in cliche's and conservative catch phrases. Unfortunately, those don't hold up under scrutiny. icbmman's a small minded twit. Mouth, i'm still not sure about you.

Posted by icbmman on April 24, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anybody smell a piece of horsesh*t? Or is that a troll lurking about?

Posted by TP on April 24, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that might be your upper lip that you're smelling.

Calling me a troll doesn't make your little wannabe Rush Limbaugh arguments any less extreme and foolish.

In all seriousness, have you ever considered counseling or a 12-step program? You at least need medication.

Posted by icbmman on April 24, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ladies and gentlemen, I've just found a picture of TP here: http://www.caveyourtrolls.com/img3.jpg

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on April 24, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rush Limbaugh is a little too left wing for me. . .

Posted by icbmman on April 24, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't agree with everything Rush says either, Mouth. On some issues, I believe he's been inaccurate. However, it is quite amazing how TP has managed to twist and distort my views into Republican talking points, at least in his mind. If he actually read my posts, he would see that I have come to the conclusion that both major parties have left me for their conquest for power...I have no party anymore.

Posted by rollo on April 24, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BS "Posted by Badgersouth on April 23, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Melting mountains a "time bomb" for water shortages

By Sylvia Westall, Reuters, Mon Apr 14, 1:44 PM ET

Glaciers and mountain snow are melting earlier in the year than usual, meaning the water has already gone when millions of people need it during the summer when rainfall is lower, scientists warned on Monday.

"This is just a time bomb," said hydrologist Wouter Buytaert at a meeting of geoscientists in Vienna.

Those areas most at risk from a lack of water for drinking and agriculture include parts of the Middle East, southern Africa, the United States, South America and the Mediterranean.

Rising global temperatures mean the melt water is occurring earlier and faster in the year and the mountains may no longer be able to provide a vital stop gap.

"In some areas where the glaciers are small they could be gone in 30 or 50 years time and a very reliable source of water, especially for the summer months, may be gone."

Try this! Not theory, this is right from the source!
"Brundage Mountain extends ski season into May

09:08 AM MDT on Thursday, April 24, 2008

KTVB

Brundage Mountain

Brundage Mountain has received 10 inches of new snow over the past week and will now be open May 3rd and 4th.

McCALL -- Near-record snowfall and low spring temperatures are creating ideal conditions at Brundage Mountain Resort. Resort officials announced today that they will be open for a third bonus weekend in May.

The resort is currently closed on weekdays, and had planned this Saturday and Sunday to be the final ski weekend of the season, but that was before 10 inches of fresh powder fell this week. Now, resort managers have decided to be open on May 3rd and 4th.

“Mother Nature has been extremely kind to us this year,” said resort spokesperson April Russell. “And our loyal visitors have shown that they are still interested in skiing and riding on the best snow in Idaho.”

Resort operators are keeping a close watch on Mother Nature and customer interest to decide if additional weekends in May are possible.

This is the first time Brundage Mountain has ever offered lift service in the month of May.

Brundage Mountain has received 422 inches of snowfall this season. That makes this the second snowiest winter on record."

Ski conditions, snow cam & directions

Wow! Now that's a serious threat to the snowmelt!

Posted by rollo on April 24, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I'm wondering if City operated vehicles, CARTA vehicles, etc are exempt from the fines for idling for more than 5 mins at at time? If you observe such, as a citizen, to whom do you make a complaint, and how would you follow up?

The "Green Committee" is as bogus as the whole "manmade climate change" scam. The entire purpose of the committee is revealed in the article, "$2 billion for energy efficiency and conservation grants to cities".

That's $2 billion of taxpayers hard earned money to be awarded to city gov'ts that whip their slaves, (OOPS! er, uh, I mean proletariat taxpayers) into shape.