"BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Residents of the upper Midwest bundled up or just stayed inside Tuesday as a wave of bitterly cold air barreled south out of the Arctic, following on the heels of a fast-moving blizzard.
Some schools closed because of the cold and temperatures hit the single digits as far south as Kansas and Missouri.

The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said.

In northern Minnesota, it was 35 below zero in Roseau and 36 below in Hallock, with wind chills down to 45 below in Hibbing. Just to the north, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, also hit minus 36, according to Environment Canada.

In North Dakota, the Minot area got 6 inches of snow, on top of about a foot that fell late last week, and Bismarck collected 4. Bismarck, Fargo and Grand Forks all broke snow records for December, each with more than 30 inches."
Sharp cold wave shocks upper Midwest, temps to -36

Um, yeah. I read this morning something about expecting the coldest winter in years. Oh, and didn't he invent the internet? Does he know how much the internet contributes to global warming? I also understand he's made a fortune off of Google, which some say is also not very eco-friendly.

While my mind is not yet made up on what all factors are contributing to climate change, local weather anomalies mean nothing by themselves, and are a fractional indicator of what is happening on a global scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JSingle911

While my mind is not yet made up on what all factors are contributing to climate change, local weather anomalies mean nothing by themselves, and are a fractional indicator of what is happening on a global scale.

---

Upon what factors have you determined that "climate change" is other than an 'anomly'? Couldn't it be a convenient lie?

The biggest hoax since Y2K

Even the Huffpos are becoming skeptics
Harold Ambler: Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Upon what factors have you determined that "climate change" is other than an 'anomly'? Couldn't it be a convenient lie?

---

Climate change, as I see it, refers to any change in the global climate, whether by man or natural forces. So when I refer to it, I refer to the last 6 billion years of meteorological changes the Earth has undergone. Whether we are at fault for or contribute to any change in the actual climate of the Earth is precisely what I hold in question. I will never underfund research into issues that might affect us. Lots of bogus theories and "hoaxes" have turned out to be true, and many we thought were true turned out to be false. I am confident that the answers will come in time, while there is still time to do something about it (or not do anything, depending on what the situations calls for). But only if our best minds work on the issue.

Very cold in North America this winter doesn't mean someone isn't sweating their nuts off somewhere else to a greater degree.

When the ice caps start melting, there is cause for concern. Call it what you will, Global Warming or Earth Cycles, it certainly warrants continued investigation.

I grew up in Toronto back in the 60's and I remember snow being on the ground for months, because it wouldn't melt; the temps stayed under freezing for a long period. Also there were outdoor skating rinks where the ice would stay frozen for a couple of months. However, over the years the snow melted within weeks, then days and the outdoor ice rinks are a thing of the past as the ice melts to often.

I have see and felt this climate change in the Toronto area; I knew about warmer winters over time from my personal experience long before I ever heard of climate change.

Yet now it's happening on a massive scale, the northwest passage for the first time may or is passable in the winter without ice breakers. Greenland is losing it's ice a record rates.

I don't see why the 'right' wants to politicize this other than the fact that they think it will force us to loose our competitive edge against countries that couldn't give a flying nut about climate change in the pursuit of profit.

We owe it to our kids to look at this seriously and do whatever it takes before our stupidity hurts our planet in ways we can't imagine.

For the first time in four decades – from Atlantic to Pacific, from Windsor just south of Detroit to Ellesmere Island, just south of the polar icecap – all of Canada experienced a white Christmas this year..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

For the first time in four decades – from Atlantic to Pacific, from Windsor just south of Detroit to Ellesmere Island, just south of the polar icecap – all of Canada experienced a white Christmas this year ..

---

I certainly hope it continues, because I really miss Canada being white and cold at Christmas.

I really hope you are right and the trend is now reversing itself and Al Gore and all like him were wrong.

However, I will reserve judgement for 5 more years and see if the nice cold Canadian winters return.

Ah now, Pravda says we're headed for a new ice age, global ice coverage had a tremendous rebound, and the definitive experts on the weather - the Old Farmers Almanac - suggests we're headed for global cooling.

I guess we can thank our lucky stars Paulson and Bernanke weren't advising Bush on Kyoto and warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ah now, Pravda says we're headed for a new ice age, global ice coverage had a tremendous rebound, and the definitive experts on the weather - the Old Farmers Almanac - suggests we're headed for global cooling.

---

Oh goodie... can you say, "burn baby burn". I think I'll take an extra trip in my SUV today and 'floor it' after every stop to celebrate! Hmmm... nevermind, I now live in Texas and there more than enough heat to go around... hmmm... can you say export? Cause y'all can have some of that heat we have in the summer, we don't need it all, I promise you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Oh goodie....can you say, "burn baby burn". I think I'll take an extra trip in my SUV today and 'floor it' after every stop to celebrate! Hmmm....nevermind, I now live in Texas and there more than enough heat to go around...hmmm...can you say export? Cause y'all can have some of that heat we have in the summer, we don't need it all, I promise you.

---

Um, Tex, I'm in Texas, too. It was 18 degrees last night, looking for a whopping 19 degrees tonight. You can send some of your heat up to the Panhandle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Um, Tex, I'm in Texas, too. It was 18 degrees last night, looking for a whopping 19 degrees tonight. You can send some of your heat up to the Panhandle.

---

Maybe we could get some windfarms installed down here in southeast Texas and blow some your way... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said.

---

Hello George:

You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming...
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's going to get warm... Nope.

If you would just check out some of this stuff first... But, that's probably too much to ask of ideologues who get their information from talk radio.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming....
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's gonna get warm.... Nope.

excon

---

"You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming....
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's gonna get warm.... Nope."
Thanks, excon, we do need liberals to explain what 'cold as hell' really means.
But I'm a quick read: the sun is setting, but we should call it sun-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Maybe we could get some windfarms installed down here in southeast Texas and blow some your way...:D

---

Call T. Boone ;)

George... the believers can take any weather event and provide proof that it is the result of man made climate manipulation . This cold spell was already covered in "The Day after tomorrow ".. Melting ice caps (which are now at pre-1971 levels of thickness by the way ) pump fresh water into the Atlantic .Then the gulf stream shifts causing huge northern hemisphere hurricanes (50 ft waves taking out the Statue of Liberty etc. ) . At the eye of these hurricanes extreme cold air gets down drafted causing the next ice age. Didn't you see that on the Weather Channel over the weekend ?

Hello Righty's,

Do you know that there are STILL people who think the Earth is flat?? You don't really want to be one of THEM, do you?? Hmm. Maybe you DO.

So, tell me, Mr. Righty smarty pants... I suppose you think our atmosphere can take all the junk we can throw at it WITHOUT responding... I don't know WHY you would think such drivel... except, maybe your guru's on right wing radio tell you to think that...

I actually, CAN'T imagine ANYONE thinking we can just put TONS and TONS of garbage into the air WITHOUT ANY consequenses... I can't imagine that... But, I couldn't imagine any American would support torture either, and I was wrong...

excon

More from the Flat Earth Society:
Let's put a few numbers out here, the empirical discussion and see what we can make of it. First is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has very good records on temperatures, average temperatures in the United States, dating back to 1880. And here's what these numbers look like. You've all seen those. But help us all -- the audience and most of all me to get through this, they show the warmest years on record, 1998, 2006, and 1934. 2008 was cooler, in fact the coolest since 1997. It's intriguing to see that graph there. The graph we're looking at showing some question that the warming trend may be just a snapshot in time. The global temperatures by NOAA are seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

So let me start, if I may, Joseph, your reaction to those numbers. Do you quibble with what they represent?

D'ALEO: Yes, I do. In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe, 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn't jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA data set. Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe's stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it's a lot colder in rural areas than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting -- that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set.

DOBBS: Your thoughts on these numbers. Because they are intriguing. They are a brief snapshot admittedly, in comparison to total extended time. I guess we could go back 4.6 billion years. Let's keep it in the range of something like 500,000 years. What's your reaction to those numbers and your interpretation?

JAY LEHR, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: Well, Lou --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry.

DOBBS: Go ahead, Jay.

LEHR: Lou, I'm in the camp with Joe and Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and I think more importantly, it is to look at the sun's output, and in recent years, we've seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely, in my mind, not only in a cooling period, we're going to be staying in it for a couple decades, and I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it. I'm hopeful that this change in the sun's output will put some common sense into the legislature, not to pass any dramatic cap in trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole. I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to 2 years, but I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession will last quite a few more years and we'll come out of it with a lower standard of living on very tenuous scientific grounds.
CNN.com - Transcripts 01/13/2009

If your talking about things like acid rain then yes there is a definite linkage proven by science. The idea that human emissions affects climate is science fiction . If you are arguing for the reduction of known pollutants than I'll sign on... it is good policy .

But the "hypothesis " that human emission of carbon dioxide can have any affect on the climate had better be proven beyond a doubt before you ask humans to fundamentally change their ways. I see more proof that climate change is greater affected by sun spot activity.

Let's also throw out for debate the proposition that the last time the earth experienced a significant global warming cycle ,the earth was lush with vegatation and animal life thrived. It took an extra-terrestrial killer asteroid to plunge the planet into the ice age that we are still retreating from .So what is the natural state of the planet ? Cold and ice caused because a killer asteroid plunged into it killing off multitudes of plant and animal life ? Or warm and full of life of all kinds .

Hello again, George & tom:

So, you DO think it's fine to use our air as a garbage dump. I thought as much.

excon

Obviously you did not read my response.

Ex,

It's that kind of extreme that makes me shake my head. Apparently we righty's can't be reasonable. Since we question the propaganda we must obviously think that “we can just put TONS and TONS of garbage into the air WITHOUT ANY consequences,” as if we love our smog, nasty rivers and Wal-Mart bags flying from our trees.

We can't take a step back and question the science or buck the consensus. We can't think it a little odd for environmentalism to take on a religious fervor and we're obviously out of touch with reality to object to ceding our rights and sovereignty in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Funny, but questioning the prevailing opinion sounds just like something you would do in so many other areas.

Sorry, but when I read things like the stadium in San Francisco is going to be submerged due to melting sea ice I have to laugh. Go take a glass of ice water, mark the level, see what the level is after it melts – and then tell me I'm crazy for not believing everything I read about global warming.

Dear Ex and others who belong to the religion of Man Made Global Warming; all sane people including those of the Right, believe that we should make greater effort to preserve the environment and wean ourselves from fossil fuels. What I find offensive is that ALGOR says "the debate is over", and that anyone who has not become a deciple of MMGW is branded as a stooge of the oil industry, a fool, or an evil person, who should be sent off to a "re-education camp."

Three points that I have not seen the MMGW camp address are: 1) Since CO2 is but 0.5% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution to that might be 20%= 1/1000 of the atmosphere, one could conclude that other more important factors would be in play. 2) Increases in temperature seem to Precede increased CO2 levels by about 800 years, which should negate the causality of CO2. 3) Changes in solar activity are ignored by the MMGW camp, as a possible cause.

Inquiring minds want to know.:)

Hello again,

Look, I'm not a scientist... I'm just a guy who knows there are consequences for being disrespectful to our environment...

I don't know if it's going to get warm, cold or start raining fish. I don't care. I'm sure it's going to DO something. The Goricle has studied the issue. He makes as much sense as anybody does... I certainy don't think he's looney!

The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...

If you're NOT doing that, then tell me what price, if any, YOU think we'll pay for dumping our garbage out there... Inquiring minds want to know.

excon

PS> Tom, it's true. I just threw your name in there at the last minute... But, you're not off the hook.

This questioner (not nay-sayer), just asks, asks, and asks, only to have his questions ignored in every discussion. Yes, ALGOR has studied the issue, and probably has about as much scientific education as Madonna or Michael Moore. ALGOR has made millions from his book and movie. His proximity to the glitterati earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, which should have gone to the fine lady who rescued thousands of children from the Nazis in WWII.:)

That's just it, ex, I don't know who is running around out there dedicated to the proposition that there are no consequences for being disrespectful to our environment, there are. There are also consequences to jumping in with both feet to this religion of environmentalism.

Hello again, Dr:

I'm not ignoring your questions. I just don't know.

You ARE ignoring MY question, though. Calling yourself an inquirer doesn't get you off the hook.

Ok, I'll make it EASY for you. I got that you think global warming is hogwash... So, I'm not going to ask you about THAT.

What I want to know is, do you think there are ANY consequences to throwing our trash into our atmosphere, even if you don't know what they are?

excon

George, one thing about your line of thinking is if your wrong, there may not be anyone around to rub your face in it.

parttime

The problem as I see it is that although the Goracle has declared the debate ended ;in fact there is not a consensus among scientists about cause and effect. There was a time when such differences were welcomed in the scientific community . Instead those who dare "nay say " are treated as heratics.(speechlesstx main point)

Public policy should not be conducted this way ,committing tremendous resources and fundamental sociatal changes to a problem that may or may not exist.

Hello again,

I have GOOD news for you righty's. Global warming MIGHT be a hoax. We're not going to find out, though, so you'll still be able to carp about it...

So, whether throwing our trash into the air DOES or DOESN'T cause global warming, is going to be a MOOT point.. What we DO know, is that we're running out of oil, and notwithstanding Dr D's unwillingness to say there's a consequence, THINKING people around the word KNOW there's a consequense...

But, the running out of oil thing is the really BIG point. Because we're going to have to find a way to run things when we DON'T have any oil. THAT should be our priority. Clean air will simply be a BYPRODUCT of that. End of argument.

So, who cares whether it's global warming or an ice age?? We're never going to know, because, in SPITE of you guys, Obama is going to take us in a NEW direction, and we'll never find out... Poor Goricle.

excon

Then again . We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Oh yeah Obama will take care of that too.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. For righty's, you don't seem to think much of our entrepreneurial spirit. Instead, you sound like Exxon stockholders.

So, you DON'T think there's a way out of being addicted to oil/coal? Really?

excon

Ex - I do not believe that Global Warming is hogwash, but that the jury is still out as to the cause. If we are in for a period of warming, I believe that the main cause will be found to be solar in origin; that the increased temperature of the oceans, causes a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere - hence the 800 year lag from warming to more CO2 -makes sense to me. If the warming turns out to be beyond our control, the vast expenditures proposed by ALGOR to reduce man's 1/000th contribution to CO2 levels, and the disruption of the economies of poor nations that the Left claims to care about, would be better spent in preparing the world for the inevitable.

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since we live in the real world, with finite resources, I believe that any asset should be put to its highest and best use.

Ex
I think that coal can be burned clean ;Obama doesn't and he will not invest in it . I think nuclear power provide safe power. Obama doesn't .

It's not an oil/coal addicition... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country .

Yeah I know... invest in windmills .

Quote:

---

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since

---

That makes 3 of us that have stated controlling pollutants is a laudable goal. It is an argument that deserves to be made on it's own merit... not clouded in the deception of junk pseudo science .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's not an oil/coal addicition .... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country.. Yeah I know ....invest in windmills .

---

Hello again, tom:

No, I don't have the answer. If I did, I'd be a jillionere. But, I DO believe in our ability to create an alternate energy economy, and not only remain vibrant (which we AIN'T), but that economy would MAKE it vibrant.

I guess I believe in the entrapranure... I really don't understand why you don't. Maybe you ARE an Exxon stockholder...

You know, we're very close to breakthroughs in battery technology, in hydrogen cell technology, in fusion technology, in geothermal technology, in robo/gps/autocar technology, and many, many others. A breakthrough in ANY of one of them will put us on top and keep us there for the next century... I have no doubt that we can do it...

I don't know why you don't.

excon

Now have you ever heard me oppose research in any of those ? Of course you haven't just like you never heard me say that carbon burning should be the sole emphasis of our energy policy . But now this has drifted away from the subject of the posting .
The problem as I see it is that none of the solutions you cited are near term ;but climate change chicken-littles are advocating draconian responses when there is no long term solution at hand .
Don't want dirty coal emissions ? How about applying that techno-knowhow to scrubbers for smoke stacks ? There is more of a chance of that having an immediate impact on the environment than the resources devoted to robocars ;and more of a chance that we could export that technology immediately world wide.

During this spirited discourse, I have noticed that members of the Left Team (wearing the blue jersy) either choose to ignore of fail to read statements of the Right Team (wearing red of course), and continue to attribute positions to the Red Team which are not theirs, and then proceed to knock them down. This device is known as the "Straw Man".

The Left Team appears to be in favor of the "Precautionary Principle" in order to promote their agenda or idiology. Below is a short explanation:
For
.. to avoid irreparable harm to the environment and to human health, precautionary action should be taken: Wherever it is acknowledged that a practice (or substance) could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it has caused harm or does cause harm, the practice (or emissions of the substance) should be prevented and eliminated.

Against
We should not let the distraction of purely hypothetical threats cause us to lose sight of the known or highly probable ones.
When we apply the precautionary principle and focus on hypothetical risks and ponder what actions we might take "just in case", we leave the world of science and enter the realm of ideology. We allow ourselves to come under the spell of those who are motivated, for whatever reason, by a desire to return to what they perceive as a pre-industrial Garden of Eden

Go AZ Cardinals - "The worst team to ever be in the playoffs." This Cinderella team, led by Kurt Warner, the patron saint of old, over the hill guys, could take it all. - A Zonie:)