Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Gregstrom]

Amen to that.

[Xietor]

Here is a picture from snowy New Orleans. As I was driving past a local high school I saw a lot of boys pelting each other with snow balls. A light bulb went off. Later that day, my ad aired on TV:

"Were you or a loved one injured or distressed by flying snow? If so, you may be entitled to a large cash award. Someone must pay. Throwing a snowball, under the law, is no different than throwing a rock. Would you let someone hit you with a rock or other object without suing for redress? And it makes no difference if the perpetrator is a minor under the age of 18. In that case, you can sue their parents as they are responsible for the actions of their children. Do not delay! Call right away! The law offices of......"



















just joking.

[JimMorrison]

Is that equipment even designed to operate below freezing? >.>

And I've been calling for more aggressive lawsuits against parents who let their children (or teach them to!) throw snowballs, for years now. We really can make a difference, if we work together.

[Edi]

That's more snow than we have right now!

[licker]

Good job missing the point guys.

I guess you think it would be better if the planet were getting colder right?

Pandas and Polar bears? Who cares, either they adapt or they die, that's the way of the world, that's the way it's always been. Or do you cry for the woolly mammoth? Or the other mega fauna?

It's not possible to pick a temperature and keep the system there right? Thus the temperature is always going to be moving somewhere, and up is generally accepted to be better than down. At least in the context of crop yield and animal population health.

Sure you can pull some specific examples which fare worse, but so what? That's not what I said, and I made it abundantly clear that hot isn't better for EVERYTHING, it's just better for almost everything.

Still all of that is beside the point that less pollution is better than more pollution, only I don't think we needed to have people with ulterior agendas try to scare everyone into believing that the end times are upon us.

So if you want to accept Al Gores lies for reasons for initiating sometimes radical proposals to end CO2 emission I will have to assume that you also accepted Bushes lies for reasons to invade Iraq.

[Tichy]

Good job destroying the light tone Xietor tried to inject back into this thread.
You're missing the point...which is that you can be SUED for throwing SNOWBALLS!

[Zeldor]

But what is the amount of human caused global warming? Compared to volcanoes, farting cows etc?

What about theories that there were no glaciers in Alps when Hannibal was marching on Rome?

But even if we assume that global warming is caused by humans, all that is done in the world to prevent it is mostly pure propaganda and abusing people and cheating them. Cars make about 15% of CO2 emissions. The real problems are bad power plant and we should switch to nuclear energy [which ecologists don't like], wind turbines make electricity 4x more expensive than nuclear one. And making a turbine is not ecological process at all. Also there are worse gases than CO2. We'd all have to resign from eating meat. But I guess even ecologists like steak

[Mithras]

Must aviod talking about global warming...
The thing about the snowballs? What scares me the most is that I am neither suprised nor disgusted.

[llamabeast]

The bottom line is that, regardless of the details, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much, much higher than it was (a factor of 5 perhaps? something like that). And CO2 definitely has a considerable effect on the way radiation passes through the Earth's atmosphere.

That can't fail to cause changes of one kind or another to the climate. Mostly, change is bad, because locally both human society and flora and fauna have adapted to the status quo. Natural mechanisms (migration in particular, and also adaptation) can cope with slow changes, but not with fast ones. Imagine if all the local climates switch around, so that areas which were fertile become desert or swamps, and vice versa. Even if overall "warmer is better" (which I think is not true, but hey), it'd take us a very long time to adapt to that. Our cities and populations are all in the wrong place, not to mention the damage to nature. In the meantime there'll be a lot of suffering.

[licker]

Mostly change is inevitable.

Thinking that we can somehow regulate the climate to our liking is asinine at this point in our technological adventures. It's as though everyone forgets about the natural disasters which certainly happened long before humans were belching out CO2 or any other gas.

Our mere presence cannot but change the environment, and while it's a nice thought to want to minimize the impact, thinking in terms of Gaia is somewhat pointless when trying to devise methods for approaching the issue.

I strongly believe that we are better of expanding our use of renewable energies, recycling, reducing consumption, ... all of it. But I am not convinced that we are in a death spiral, or even anywhere close to it.

I'm not alone here, and if you want to poo poo the 700 scientists who break with the political orthodoxy of the IPCC so be it. Just realize that the models are just that, models, and are failing to live up to their hype from the early part of this decade.