Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby Mennisco » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:02 am

EPelle wrote:Got into a long discussion this morning with a cleaner guy here at work. He says this whole GW talk is science-speak. He was passionately sinister in his views.


Yes, and the Earth is most definitely flat.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:59 pm

2000-6 largest agricultural production period in history for india and pakistan.

http://www.gdnet.org/pdf2/gdn_library/annual_conferences/fifth_annual_conference/kurosaki_paper.pdf

this is a very burdensome article to read but see figure 1 on page 12 which shows the very dramatic improvement in agricultural production of india and pakistan.

every decade without exception there is a big increase in food production.
which corresponds nicely with an increase in co2....

is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:12 pm

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/I.2Indicators.pdf

longer growing seasons for northwest usa? data looks ok...

but on second glance the data is spun a bit .. they take a baseline from 1890 when the world was coming out of a little ice age....(correlated with solar activity - lack of sunspots data)

still it looks like things have warmed up a bit..

whatever the reason, for this part of the world, farmers got to love it.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Daisy » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:16 pm

figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Postby bad hammy » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:53 pm

figo,

You seem a tad obsessed. Get a life . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:55 pm

i'm kind of wondering what the bad effects of global warming are, right now.

forget about the so called strange local weather we're all having, check out what is happening to the world economy and agricultural production... a nice big averaging effect to put things into a proper perspective.

just about every agricultural graph for whatever, from whatever country, from whatever source goes up, hot or cold country no matter continuously over the last century.......

exceptions are citrus in the us, and africa overall.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:02 pm

Daisy wrote:
figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.


Plants Will Grow More Rapidly With Higher Carbon Dioxide

Soy will grow more rapidly in higher CO2.

Although ozone slows plant growth, the beneficial effect of the carbon dioxide more than compensates for this effect, Leakey found. His unpublished results predict an increase in soy yields of 13% by 2050. US farmers currently plant about 150 million acres of soybean a year.

The following press release emphasies that the increased plant growth in the presence of higher CO2 is not enough to take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But the fact that the trees and plants grow more rapidly is economically valuable.

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 16, 2004 -- Trees absorb more carbon dioxide when the amount in the atmosphere is higher, but the increase is unlikely to offset the higher levels of CO2, according to results from large-scale experiments conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and elsewhere.

"Some people have used carbon dioxide fertilization to argue that this is a boon of the fossil fuel era and that it will lead to greater agricultural yields and carbon sinks," said Richard Norby of the Department of Energy's ORNL. "Some recent experiments, however, have suggested that there will be no lasting effect of carbon dioxide fertilization. As is often the case, the truth may lie in between."

Norby is among several scientists participating in a panel discussion titled "CO2 Fertilization: Boon or Bust?" Feb. 16 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Seattle.

For the last six years, Norby and colleagues at ORNL have examined the responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels in a stand of sweetgum trees a few miles from ORNL. The experiment consisted of pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the plots, raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the tree stand from the ambient level of about 370 parts per million to 550 ppm, and studying the effects.
...

In every year since the FACE project began, net primary productivity, which is the total amount of carbon dioxide fixed into organic matter such as leaves, stems and roots, has been higher in plots given extra carbon dioxide. The average increase has been 24 percent, and there is no indication that the increase will not continue. But, Norby notes, while his colleagues have observed a sustained increase in leaf photosynthesis, the response to carbon dioxide fertilization would not be apparent if only above-ground growth were measured. Wood production increased significantly during only the first year of treatment.

While Norby and colleagues have learned a great deal about above-ground allocation of carbon dioxide, in recent years they have focused their efforts on impacts on fine roots and soil sequestration of carbon dioxide. Fine root production has increased substantially in response to elevated carbon dioxide.

Fine roots are important for water and nutrient uptake, but they have a short life and their carbon returns to the soil within a year. Initial results suggest that the increase in carbon supply to fine roots has increased the carbon content of the soil. Norby cautions, however, that the positive effect of carbon dioxide fertilization is insufficient to halt the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

If some types of forest trees will grow more rapidly then higher atmospheric CO2 holds the prospect of lowering timber costs and hence of lowering housing and furniture costs.

Another forest experiment shows CO2 raises tree growth rates.

SEATTLE -- A futuristic Duke University simulation of forest growth under the carbon dioxide-enriched atmosphere expected by 2050 does not reinforce the optimism of those who believe trees can absorb that extra CO2 by growing faster, said a spokesman for the experiment.
During seven years of exposure to carbon dioxide concentrations 1½ times higher than today's, test plots of loblolly pines have indeed boosted their annual growth rates by between 10 and 25 percent, found the researchers. But "the highest responses have been in the driest years, and the effect of CO2 has been much less in normal and wet years," said William Schlesinger, a professor of biogeochemistry and dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.

These counterintuitive findings suggest that nitrogen deficiencies common to forest soils in the Southeastern United States may limit the abilities of loblolly pine forests to use the extra CO2 to produce more tissues as they take in more of the gas, he said.

"In a dry year trees naturally grow less so the amount of nitrogen doesn't make any difference," he said. "In a wet year, when there's plenty of water, the amount of nitrogen does make a difference." Tree growth depends on the availability of nitrogen, which foresters routinely add to Southeastern soils in the form of fertilizer when they plant trees, he added.

One advantage the plants may have in dry years is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere the leaves do not have to open their pores as much to let in the CO2. This reduces water loss from evaporation and allows plants to grow in dry environments. This explanation has been put forward to explain plant growth into the Negev desert in Israel.

The really bad news? More poison ivy:

Meanwhile, some other species in Duke's CO2-bathed forest plots have grown at faster rates than the loblolly pines, scientists report. Still-unpublished data shows 70 percent growth increases for poison ivy, according to Schlesinger.

It seems likely that the growth increase caused by higher CO2 will differ by tree species. Some will experience larger increases in growth rates and others will benefit from higher CO2 to a lesser extent. Also, since water is more of a rate-limiting factor in some areas and less in other areas the extent of the benefit of higher CO2 in terms of faster growth in lower water conditions will be greater in some geographic regions and less in other regions. Higher CO2 probably will increase total tree cover in drier areas and may even make it possible to grow trees into deserts as appears to be happening with the Negev.

Another factor to consider: It should be possible to select for or genetically engineer crop plants that will grow even faster in higher CO2 conditions. So the extent of the benefit of high CO2 seen with existing crop plants understates the size of the benefit likely to be achievable in the longer run.

Of course, higher atmospheric CO2 levels will cause many other effects. If higher CO2 raises global temperatures it could change precipitation patterns, total global precipitation, length of growing seasons (generally longer), wind patterns, and other many other factors. How will all this work out in terms of benefits and costs? It seems impossible at this point to hazard a guess that will have any degree of accuracy. But it seems clear that rising atmospheric CO2 will generate not just costs but benefits as well.


http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:03 pm

bad hammy wrote:figo,

You seem a tad obsessed. Get a life . . .


hammy, go watch some tv and make your self useless (more).
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:07 pm

i'm sorry daisy........

Daisy wrote:
figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.


The Net Primary Productivity Response of Earth's Temperate Forests to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
Volume 9, Number 28: 12 July 2006
In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Norby et al., 2005), an international team of 19 researchers states that "experiments have unequivocally shown that plants can grow faster and larger in a CO2-enriched atmosphere, and the mechanisms of response are well understood." Furthermore, they state that computer simulations of "climatic responses to atmospheric CO2 will be incorrect if the magnitude of the CO2 fertilization effect is not represented accurately." Hence, to help overcome this deficiency (which is but one of many inherent in even the most advanced of today's climate models), they provide an analysis of the net primary productivity (NPP) response of closed-canopy forests to increases in the air's CO2 concentration in the only Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) studies that have been conducted on assemblages of trees that were large enough and spatially concentrated enough to meet this important criterion of realism.


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N28/EDIT.jsp
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Daisy » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:18 am

figo wrote:i'm sorry daisy........

I didn't say it had no effect. I said there are other factors that dwarf any effect an increase in CO2 may have on the plants.

I have not read those articles closely but nothing in the text you quoted convinces me to change my opinion. i can give you details if you wish :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:38 am

Daisy wrote:i can give you details if you wish :)

That’s what we need – more mind-numbing details of opposing viewpoints gleaned by hours of scouring the web and reposted here for T&F denizens to ignore. We haven’t had enough of that killing this thread already . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:17 am

figo, do you realize you've posted more words in the last week than MJD has in almost 4 years and 11,000 posts? :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby MJD » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:16 am

Exactly.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:24 am

And too much of it is slipping over the line of "fair usage"; please cease and desist.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby figo » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:19 am

gh wrote:And too much of it is slipping over the line of "fair usage"; please cease and desist.


gh has spoken! enough said.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:54 pm

conclusion summary article.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
end - that's it. ok gh?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby MJD » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:16 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17042993/

More Oswego. They have to put snow at the dump-they figure it will get to 75 feet high and that it will not melt until August.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby cullman » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:29 pm

It's sunny and warm out here on the west coast of Canada. I'm still waiting for the earthquake to hit.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby Mennisco » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:42 pm

cullman wrote:It's sunny and warm out here on the west coast of Canada. I'm still waiting for the earthquake to hit.

cman


We stole your weather in November and December. Now it's our turn to suffer. 49 days til April.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby figo » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:28 am

Al Gore's experience
Reporter, politician.
Degree. BA, some law, religious studies.

Grades Science.
NATURAL SCIENCES 6 (MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE): D
NATURAL SCIENCES 118: C+

at Harvard University, Al Gore's "grades were mostly Cs, with not a single A to lighten the darkness. The best he could manage in a course called Man's place in nature was a D." And Bush? "Derided by Gore and many others as a blockhead," they write, Bush in fact boasted "a better academic record" as a history major at Yale. Gory stuff.

note: no minor degrees in sciences, environmental studies, sciences, climatology etc. etc.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:34 am

figo wrote:Al Gore'sGrades Science.
NATURAL SCIENCES 6 (MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE): D
NATURAL SCIENCES 118: C+.


Which only proves that you don't have to be really smart to see which way the wind's blowing. It's blowing towards us and it's hot. No rocket science degree or brain surgury credentials necessary there!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby figo » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:55 am

if you can't figure out an introductory course in a soft science,
you're likely very challenged to decipher with any accuracy the quality of "scientific" advisory advice.
gore is more qualified to read tarot cards that to have any say what so ever in
a scientific argument of any kind, let alone become a self appointed leader, mentor.....

Well I don’t know why I post here tonite.
I’ve got the feeling that something ain’t right.
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
and I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs.

Clowns to the left of me! (gore)
Jokers to the right! (bush)
Here I am stuck in the middle with you (tafnut).

Trying to make some sense of it all
but I can see that it makes no sense at all.
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor?
I don’t think that I can take anymore.

Yes I’m stuck in the middle with you,
and I’m wondering what it is I should do.
It’s so hard to keep this smile from my face.
Losing control yeah I'm all over the place.

Clowns to the left of me! Jokers to the right! Here I am stuck in the middle with you...........
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:06 am

Some clown around here seems to think that Gore is passing himself off as a scientist. That is a joke . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:15 am

bad hammy wrote:Some clown around here seems to think that Gore is passing himself off as a scientist. That is a joke . . .


hammy, thank you for the thought provoking comment, well said.
maybe i should rewrite "my" song above, stuck in the middle with me.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:23 am

Gore is merely a high profile messenger. I didn't write any literary classics, but I sho can teach 'em!! :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby tandfman » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:42 am

I just looked for some reference to Gore's college grades that would support the statements made about them by figo. All I could find was the same information repeated over and over in blogs and other web sites with a clear conservative bias.

It may all be true, but I'm skeptical.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:54 am

tandfman wrote:I just looked for some reference to Gore's college grades that would support the statements made about them by figo. All I could find was the same information repeated over and over in blogs and other web sites with a clear conservative bias.

It may all be true, but I'm skeptical.

I’ve heard similar things and am not that skeptical. It plays in with my general jaded feeling that the best and brightest generally don’t become politicians. But as tafnut pointed out, it is a moot point here.

Gore is certainly qualified to be a high-profile messenger passing along the wisdom of a huge number of scientists who are much more qualified to interpret data as it relates to global climate change and our contributions to it than are Gore, figo, me or most of the folks here.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:07 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

gore in the washington post.. high iq, terrible science marks, tendency to perhaps excellence in the arts......

Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore." The vice president chose not to comment on his grades and test scores...

When John C. Davis, a retired teacher and assistant headmaster at St. Albans, was recently shown his illustrious former pupil's college board achievement test scores, he inspected them closely with a magnifier and shook his head, chuckling quietly at the science results.

"Four eighty-eight! Terrible" Davis declared upon inspecting the future vice president's 488 score (out of a possible 800) in physics.

"Hmmmm. Chemistry. Five-nineteen. He didn't do too well in chemistry."

As Davis moved down the page, his magnifier settled on Gore's more promising achievement scores in other scholastic realms.

"English. Seven oh-five. Right at the top!"

"U.S. History. Seven oh-one. Not so bad."

Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability."
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:17 pm

figo wrote:"Four eighty-eight! Terrible" Davis declared upon inspecting the future vice president's 488 score (out of a possible 800) in physics.

"Hmmmm. Chemistry. Five-nineteen. He didn't do too well in chemistry."

"English. Seven oh-five. Right at the top!"

"U.S. History. Seven oh-one. Not so bad."

Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability."


And, of course, NONE of that means squat in THIS context.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby tandfman » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:23 pm


Very interesting article. Thank you.

Gore was graduated from Harvard cum laude. He's obviously not dumb. He apparenty did not do well in science, either in high school or college. OK, he didn't go into the sciences as a career.

Fact is, I don't care if the President is a scientist or did well in science in school. I do think it's best if the President has a willingness to listen to responsible scientists, take appropriate positions on public issues with scientific implications, and exercise the political skills needed to give effect to those positions. Not wanting to get this post pulled, I'll say no more.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:27 pm

figo wrote:Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability."


No one wants to go there-trust me.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:46 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
tafnut wrote:
MJD wrote:Soft, whiny and lazy USAnians


Redundant,redundant, redundant


Colder in Buffalo today than it was the day after the Super Bowl but, funny, the schools didn't get closed. Strange how that works.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:44 am

This is funny:

"As much of the United States already knows, February doesn't seem as unusually warm as January was."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070215/D8NAE9404.html
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby figo » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:16 pm

i'm getting scared about global warming....

after all this cold weather, the earth seems to be hotter than ever. oh no.

imagine how much warmer earth will be when the weather is not so cold, like say summer, my friends?

look out.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:10 pm

"According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." --Jay Leno

"The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, 'Hey, can't blame me for that one.'" --Jay Leno

"President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius" --Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming

"Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world's oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing: Gary Coleman is going to drown." --Conan O'Brien

Finally, President Bush is going to do something about global warming. He became alarmed when another chunk of ice fell off his mother." --David Letterman

"Has anybody seen the Al Gore movie about global warming and the environment? Well, the Bush administration has seen it and they are very annoyed about the whole thing. As a matter of fact, earlier today, Dick Cheney shot a projectionist. ... One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election." --David Letterman

"President Bush told reporters he won't see Al Gore's documentary about the threat of global warming. He will not see it. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he's seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up." --Conan O'Brien

"According to a survey in this week's Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House." --Jay Leno

"Al Gore has a hit movie called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' I have an inconvenient truth for him: you're still not the president. ... This past weekend, Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' earned more per screen than any film in the country. ... I dare say Gore's movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history. ... Global warming: Can we live with it? ... It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress' Lead]. ... For instance, when sea levels rise, we'll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]" --Stephen Colbert

"Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice." --David Letterman

"Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it's called [Leno snores]. ... The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold." --Jay Leno

"President Bush said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said 'It's just springtime.'" --Jay Leno

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That's so typical. Two cyborgs, 'Oh, let's blame the humans.'" --Jay Leno

"Al Gore is coming out with a movie about global warming called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It's described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, 'Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.' He said, 'It's so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.'" --Jay Leno

"Don't kid yourself. Global warming is no joke. Here's how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Barry Bonds." --David Letterman

"According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought." --Jay Leno

"They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out." --Jay Leno, on global warming

"Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn't chop down trees to make a book that no one will read." --Conan O'Brien

"We estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers. Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it's not a problem, but if they find a leader -- a Captain Caveman, if you will -- we'll be facing an even more serious problem." --Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman, on the dangers of global warming

"At a press conference yesterday NASA announced that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It is so hot, and global warming is so bad, if the presidential election were held today, Al Gore would still lose." --Jay Leno

"Heating bills this winter are the highest they've been in five years, but President Bush has a plan to combat rising bills. It's called global warming." --Jay Leno

Yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news? Parts of New Jersey won't be under water." --Conan O'Brien

"Al Gore said over the weekend that global warming is more serious than terrorism. Unless the terrorist is on your plane, then that extra half a degree doesn't bother you so much." --Jay Leno

"President Bush is taking more liberal positions. For example global warming. He used to be against it. Now it's the Republican plan for heating homes this winter." -Jay Leno


We should move towards a second ice age. Follow me, if the glaciers are coming towards us at like an inch a year, then the government would have time to respond." --Jay Leno

"Barbra Streisand told Diane Sawyer that we're in a global warming crisis, and we can expect more and more intense storms, droughts and dust bowls. But before they act, weather experts say they're still waiting to hear from Celine Dion." --Jay Leno (dust bowls were created in a cooling period 1930's- and subsided during the warming trend)

"Governor Schwarzenegger spoke about the dangers of global warming. Schwarzenegger's exact words were: fire, hot, bad." --Conan O'Brien

"NASA just released their new report on global warming or, as President Bush, calls it -- Spring." --Jay Leno
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:40 pm

figo,

Thanks! Made me laugh . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:52 pm

good stuff - I see all the 'Frigid Hilary' jokes and note that in today's paper there was an article about how the Republicans and Conservatives (sorry for the redundancy there) are ganging up on her now and starting their smear campaigns early. Obviously they are VERY scared of her and Obama, who is taking lots of shots pretty darned early in the campaign (only 21 shopping months left till the election :shock: ). I can only surmise that this campaign will be the messiest ever (or does each one get dirtier than the previous one, regardless of opponents?)!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby bad hammy » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:55 pm

Thanks, tafnut. We have carefully nurtured this thread for weeks and now you have to bring blatant partisan politics into it, ensuring its premature demise . . . :roll:
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:59 pm

Fine! In 2 minutes I'll delete this post, then you delete yours and I'll delete mine, got it?! :)
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cullman, Google [Bot] and 7 guests