BajaNomad - Will the cooling of the arctic ocean improve fishing in Baja?

Will the cooling of the arctic ocean improve fishing in Baja?

Pages: 1 2

David K - 9-11-2013 at 01:30 PM

Mother Nature always wins, even though we may bruise her on occasion... Great news, everyone should be happy to hear:

From the Daily Mail:

"And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013

Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli...

DaliDali - 9-11-2013 at 04:58 PM

Gawd I love Al Gore.... :fire:

gnukid - 9-11-2013 at 05:28 PM

No global warming for the past 202 months

Quote:

“shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. … tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-...

Bajaboy - 9-11-2013 at 08:05 PM

and smoking does not cause cancer

woody with a view - 9-11-2013 at 08:11 PM

i dunno, it's been hot as balls in Yuma this summer!

MMc - 9-11-2013 at 08:38 PM

What kinda balls?

Weather is what we complain about and can't do anything about.
If humans are causing change, we will not be able to prove it until it to late.
Most Americans are not willing to cut back on there lifestyle do do anything about it.
Anything America does will be out paced by India, China and Indonesia.
NEVER FORGET NATURE BAT'S LAST.
Just cause humans can't live on the planet doesn't means it ends, ask the dinosaurs.
Solved, Any questions?
:lol:

[Edited on 9-12-2013 by MMc]

[Edited on 9-12-2013 by MMc]

acadist - 9-11-2013 at 08:43 PM

does this mean we will get bigger halibut?

MMc - 9-11-2013 at 09:11 PM

I plan on it!!
I like how you get to the important stuff.

Mexitron - 9-11-2013 at 09:43 PM

So you're now predicting global cooling....sure to start a panic in the other direction. :lol:

Skipjack Joe - 9-11-2013 at 11:08 PM

Global cooling would not occur that dramatically in one year.

If you look at the monthly change of the arctic ice cap it will grow larger with each month until dead winter and then grow smaller as summer approaches. During winter there is little difference in the ice cap between global warm years and the previous years. But during the summer the ice cap is vastly different during the warm era and it stays small longer before growing back. So what's likely happened is that the winter conditions have come earlier this year and the cap we would normally see in october we are seeing in august.

It's all statistics and the boundaries you choose for your sample measurements. You can prove anything with statistics by picking the time frame that you decide to do your measurements. That's how people are manipulated. A better thing to do is to research the political leanings, if there are any, of the reporter of this news and see how that correlates with the type of news that's being reported. I know nothing about the 'Daily Mail' but if there is any truth to this it will spread to other reputable news services and there should be agreement amongst the majority of climatologists. Unless you are fond of conspiracy theories. Then you reverse everything and believe everything is the opposite of what you are reading because man is a congenital liar.

Balls and Yuma

DaliDali - 9-12-2013 at 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
i dunno, it's been hot as balls in Yuma this summer!

It's hot as balls ANY summer in Yuma...... :spingrin:

Great bals of fire?

durrelllrobert - 9-12-2013 at 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
i dunno, it's been hot as balls in Yuma this summer!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IjgZGhHrYY‎

Barry A. - 9-12-2013 at 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

-----------because man is a congenital liar.

A very broad statement--------Links and sources for this conclusion would be appreciated, SkipJack.

Barry

David K - 9-12-2013 at 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Global cooling would not occur that dramatically in one year.

If you look at the monthly change of the arctic ice cap it will grow larger with each month until dead winter and then grow smaller as summer approaches. During winter there is little difference in the ice cap between global warm years and the previous years. But during the summer the ice cap is vastly different during the warm era and it stays small longer before growing back. So what's likely happened is that the winter conditions have come earlier this year and the cap we would normally see in october we are seeing in august.

It's all statistics and the boundaries you choose for your sample measurements. You can prove anything with statistics by picking the time frame that you decide to do your measurements. That's how people are manipulated. A better thing to do is to research the political leanings, if there are any, of the reporter of this news and see how that correlates with the type of news that's being reported. I know nothing about the 'Daily Mail' but if there is any truth to this it will spread to other reputable news services and there should be agreement amongst the majority of climatologists. Unless you are fond of conspiracy theories. Then you reverse everything and believe everything is the opposite of what you are reading because man is a congenital liar.

The MEDIA said we were heading into an Ice Age just 30 years ago... that didn't create the drama, so switch the facts and blame America for pollution (but not China, India or East Europe)! We are going to burn up and sea levels will have us underwater in 20 years!

Actually, the 'reputable' media in this country will bury any truth that counters the goals of the current administration and its socialist allies.

As for climate experts, I agree with the founder of the Weather Channel (John Coleman) who has sued Al Gore for the false graphs and lies he has told (which only serve to fatten his and other special interest group pockets). If you live in San Diego TV area, you will know Coleman as the retired weather expert who is enjoying his late years being the funny weatherman on KUSI.

chuckie - 9-12-2013 at 04:11 PM

How will it affect the temperature of Pacifico?

Barry A. - 9-12-2013 at 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
How will it affect the temperature of Pacifico?

"Pacifico" will be several degrees cooler outside your Fridge, and you will save on electricity, a distinct bonus welcomed by all (even Al Gore, tho he will NEVER admit it).

Barry

David K - 9-12-2013 at 04:37 PM

motoged - 9-12-2013 at 04:48 PM

Now, where is the evidence that this is accurate info?

It's kinda like the news flashes predicting global warming ... people can believe whatever they want and find some kind of info to support their opinion/belief....regardless of its veracity....

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Mother Nature always wins, even though we may bruise her on occasion... Great news, everyone should be happy to hear:

From the Daily Mail:

"And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013

Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli...

Change is coming your way

DaliDali - 9-12-2013 at 05:45 PM

"Hope and change".....grasp it...covet it....embrace it with all your might.
Lest the seas surely rise and consume us all.

elgatoloco - 9-12-2013 at 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K[/

As for climate experts, I agree with the founder of the Weather Channel (John Coleman) who has sued Al Gore for the false graphs and lies he has told (which only serve to fatten his and other special interest group pockets). If you live in San Diego TV area, you will know Coleman as the retired weather expert who is enjoying his late years being the funny weatherman on KUSI.

ROTFLMAO - if john coleman is a climate change expert then al gore invented the interwebs? :lol:

Coleman is a TV weatherman whos 'expertise' is weather. He has a degree in journalism who would not be allowed into the weather channel today.

Back to your regular programming...............

chuckie - 9-12-2013 at 06:40 PM

Film at 10

David K - 9-12-2013 at 07:34 PM

Pass me a Pacifico please :cool:

How about my original question... will the colder Arctic Ocean improve fishing off Baja?

Bajaboy - 9-12-2013 at 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Pass me a Pacifico please :cool:

How about my original question... will the colder Arctic Ocean improve fishing off Baja?

You started all the nonsense.

David, do you trust NOAA to predict a storm path? If so, then why don't you trust them when they say man made climate change is real :?:

John Coleman......what a frrrrrrrrreeeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkk!

[Edited on 9-13-2013 by Bajaboy]

woody with a view - 9-12-2013 at 07:41 PM

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee can't stand that guy!

chuckie - 9-13-2013 at 04:25 AM

If the arctic oceans are in fact getting colder, most certainly the fishing will change. Over what period of time I couldnt guess. This topic like many got carried off into zombieland....

Skipjack Joe - 9-13-2013 at 08:18 AM

Will the fishing get better in baja?

It's unlikely to do so because there are very few that migrate to the polar regions other than the whales. Perhaps albacore.

The way to help baja fisheries is to regulate them better. Enforcement of limits. Stricter limits. No gillnetting. Etc.

David K - 9-13-2013 at 08:26 AM

Thank you for your opinion Igor. I used to fish a lot, but that was back in the last Ice Age (1970's), LOL!

I guess the cooling of the earth couldn't hurt the fishing... it is afterall not been getting a lot better the past 6 years, has it? We need Skeet to show us his spots!

Thanks amigos! :biggrin:

David K - 9-13-2013 at 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Pass me a Pacifico please :cool:

How about my original question... will the colder Arctic Ocean improve fishing off Baja?

You started all the nonsense.

David, do you trust NOAA to predict a storm path? If so, then why don't you trust them when they say man made climate change is real :?:

John Coleman......what a frrrrrrrrreeeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkk!

[Edited on 9-13-2013 by Bajaboy]

Really?

FROM WIKIPEDIA, John Coleman:

Professional career

Coleman started his career at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at University of Illinois. After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.[2]

Eyewitness News team, 1972. Back, from left: anchor John Drury, anchor Joel Daly. Front, from left: weatherman John Coleman, anchor Fahey Flynn, sportscaster Bill Frink.

At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format derisively dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style.

It was then that Coleman became the original weathercaster on what was then the brand-new ABC network morning program, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden.[1]

In 1981, he persuaded communications entrepreneur Frank Batten to help establish The Weather Channel, serving as TWC's CEO and President during the start-up and its first year of operation.

After leaving TWC, Coleman became weather anchor at WCBS-TV in New York and then at WMAQ-TV in Chicago, before moving to Southern California to join the independent television station, KUSI-TV in San Diego, in what Coleman fondly calls, "his retirement job."[1]

Views on global warming

In the fall of 2007, he described the current concern over global warming as "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam."[2][3][4] Critics of Coleman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change. [5][6][7] [8] In 2008, Coleman gave a speech to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization."[9]

Coleman has also made appearances on CNN, Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullchit!, to share his global warming views. Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam"[10] in which he promotes the idea that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in fraudulent activity based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government.

In January 2010, Coleman produced a special report for KUSI-TV, entitled Global Warming: The Other Side, in which he forwards his view on global warming as a scam, and lays out what he believes to be evidence of a deliberate manipulation of world temperature data by NASA and others.[11]

The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming. [12]

mtgoat666 - 9-13-2013 at 08:45 AM

the world does not benefit from conspiracy theorists that so hate change that they imagine that everything they hear is lies.

you flat-earthers and science-deniers are irrelevant chattering ostriches with your head stuck in the sand

p.s. john coleman is entertaining, but he has loopy personal baggage and lack of intellect so has very little ability to rationally evaluate climate science.

mtgoat666 - 9-13-2013 at 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Pass me a Pacifico please :cool:

How about my original question... will the colder Arctic Ocean improve fishing off Baja?

You started all the nonsense.

David, do you trust NOAA to predict a storm path? If so, then why don't you trust them when they say man made climate change is real :?:

John Coleman......what a frrrrrrrrreeeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkk!

[Edited on 9-13-2013 by Bajaboy]

Really?

FROM WIKIPEDIA, John Coleman:

Professional career

Coleman started his career at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at University of Illinois. After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.[2]

Eyewitness News team, 1972. Back, from left: anchor John Drury, anchor Joel Daly. Front, from left: weatherman John Coleman, anchor Fahey Flynn, sportscaster Bill Frink.

At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format derisively dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style.

It was then that Coleman became the original weathercaster on what was then the brand-new ABC network morning program, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden.[1]

In 1981, he persuaded communications entrepreneur Frank Batten to help establish The Weather Channel, serving as TWC's CEO and President during the start-up and its first year of operation.

After leaving TWC, Coleman became weather anchor at WCBS-TV in New York and then at WMAQ-TV in Chicago, before moving to Southern California to join the independent television station, KUSI-TV in San Diego, in what Coleman fondly calls, "his retirement job."[1]

Views on global warming

In the fall of 2007, he described the current concern over global warming as "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam."[2][3][4] Critics of Coleman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change. [5][6][7] [8] In 2008, Coleman gave a speech to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization."[9]

Coleman has also made appearances on CNN, Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: bullpuckey!, to share his global warming views. Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam"[10] in which he promotes the idea that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in fraudulent activity based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government.

In January 2010, Coleman produced a special report for KUSI-TV, entitled Global Warming: The Other Side, in which he forwards his view on global warming as a scam, and lays out what he believes to be evidence of a deliberate manipulation of world temperature data by NASA and others.[11]

The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming. [12]

i prefer chrissy russo and aloha tailor, tv weather personalities should have legs and drip sex appeal! heck, all they do is read what they find on the national weather service website, just need a babe who can look and speak well on TV :lol:

willardguy - 9-13-2013 at 09:24 AM

as god as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly :lol:

woody with a view - 9-13-2013 at 11:49 AM

"Dear God"

Dear God, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
but all the people that you made in your image, see
them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
and all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
in the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
and if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

it's you....

[Edited on 9-13-2013 by woody with a view]

Skeet/Loreto - 9-13-2013 at 12:22 PM

Thank the Good Lord for the great people of this world, or should I say the "Good people of the World??
Thank you for the freedom to think and beleive as we see Fit.
Thank you Lord for giving us the Brain power to know the difference between "Good" and "Bad".

Thank you for giving us "Nature' so that we may survive through "Reproduction".

Thank you for giving us the "Religious People' who go to Different countries and give the Poor People so much Food and love.
God Bless America

Skeet/Loreto - 9-13-2013 at 12:25 PM

And Lord thank you for the Sea of Cortez Fishing which does not need to be Improved by a bunch of burroes, The Sea is loaded with Fish .!!!!!

David K - 9-13-2013 at 12:27 PM

Amen!

woody with a view - 9-13-2013 at 12:29 PM

who's trying to improve the SOC? :rolleyes:

Mexitron - 9-13-2013 at 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Thank the Good Lord for the great people of this world, or should I say the "Good people of the World??
Thank you for the freedom to think and beleive as we see Fit.
Thank you Lord for giving us the Brain power to know the difference between "Good" and "Bad".

An old farmer had a mare in his corral but no stallion to mate it with. The local villagers came by and said "that's too bad"....to which the old farmer replied "well, I don't know if that's good or that's bad". That night a wild stallion miraculously jumps into the corral and mates with the mare....the village folks came by and said "oh that's good, you have a mate for the mare, that's good!" The old farmer again said he didn't know if that was good or bad. The next day the farmer's son was working on breaking in the wild stallion and was thrown off and broke his leg. The villagers exclaimed "oh, that;s bad, that's bad!" The farmer had the usual response. That night a nurse was sent up to the farm to tend to the farmer's son---they fell in love immediately. The villagers were quite excited by this "that's good, that's good, your son will have a wife now!" The old farmer looked at them with his twinkly eyes...."well, I don't know if that's good or that's bad.....
-----old Chinese proverb

And of course this can go on ad infinitum.

chuckie - 9-13-2013 at 12:40 PM

Whatever woody is smoking didnt come from God, maybe Thailand? Its OK woody, I'll pray for you, it'll be alright, calm down, take deep breaths....join a cult.....

Skipjack Joe - 9-13-2013 at 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote:

Well I know the difference. I spent 3 years in parochial school and they taught me what's good and what's bad.

2 years in a protestant school: the looked down on the catholics.
1 year in catholic school: protestants were/are heretics.

And this year I got the ultimate argument about why we (eastern orthodox) are the real thing - we were the first christians and all other christian religions are offshoots.

You can join in any time now Ken. I'm going fishing.

elgatoloco - 9-13-2013 at 01:31 PM

Dagmar Midcap

woody with a view - 9-13-2013 at 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Whatever woody is smoking didnt come from God, maybe Thailand? Its OK woody, I'll pray for you, it'll be alright, calm down, take deep breaths....join a cult.....

lucky for you chuckles, i don't smoke. i am however, a lifelong member in the cultish sacred saint surf club.

chuckie - 9-13-2013 at 01:49 PM

I'm a Lutheran....

Ken Bondy - 9-13-2013 at 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

You can join in any time now Ken. I'm going fishing.

Thanks Igor, but I think I'll stay out of this one

Mexitron - 9-13-2013 at 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Whatever woody is smoking didnt come from God, maybe Thailand? Its OK woody, I'll pray for you, it'll be alright, calm down, take deep breaths....join a cult.....

Those are lyrics from an old XTC song....

chuckie - 9-13-2013 at 04:28 PM

I knew that...

Barry A. - 9-13-2013 at 06:53 PM

Heard tonight on the KUDLOW REPORT (CNBC) that 114 out of 117 significant Global Warming and Climate Change alerts by the worlds top Climatologists since 1990 turned out to be wrong.

(source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/opinion/index.html )

"Climatology" is not an exact science, even from the PHd's .

Barry

Bajaboy - 9-13-2013 at 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Heard tonight on the KUDLOW REPORT (CNBC) that 114 out of 117 significant Global Warming and Climate Change alerts by the worlds top Climatologists since 1990 turned out to be wrong.

(source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/opinion/index.html )

"Climatology" is not an exact science, even from the PHd's .

Barry

This is all I get from your link:

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

woody with a view - 9-13-2013 at 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
I knew that...

somehow, i doubt it....
:lol:

Bajaboy - 9-13-2013 at 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
I knew that...

somehow, i doubt it....
:lol:

I think Chuckles knows everything....:

MMc - 9-13-2013 at 07:58 PM

Just ask him! I sure he'll say he does! :tumble:

Barry A. - 9-13-2013 at 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

I am only reporting what I heard reported, and using the reference provided by CNBC.

Barry

bajadogs - 9-13-2013 at 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Man's pollution doesn't come close to competing with earth's own 'pollution' (volcanoes, gas vents, lightning caused fires)... and when solar (sun spots, flares) activity increases, how are you going to change that?

Well David, first we understand the problem. The earth's 'pollution' as you put it is has been going on for a few billion years. This natural pollution has always been absorbed through natural cycles. In a blink of an eye we've added real pollution that our planet has not been able to absorb. That's why CO2 levels have been rising.

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. Does that make sense to you? :?:

Barry A. - 9-13-2013 at 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajadogs

Quote:

That statement starting with "In the blink of an eye-----" is so wrong and / or unsubstantiated and illogical on so many levels I don't know where to begin-----so I won't. :lol:

(I would be wasting my breath)

Barry

bajadogs - 9-13-2013 at 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
That statement starting with "In the blink of an eye-----" is so wrong and / or unsubstantiated and illogical on so many levels I don't know where to begin-----so I won't. :lol:

(I would be wasting my breath)

Barry

But David's quote makes sense to you? :lol:

willardguy - 9-13-2013 at 10:28 PM

a nod is as good as a blink to a blind horse.....okay I changed it a bit... :lol:

monoloco - 9-13-2013 at 10:29 PM

Well Barry, the industrial age started just over a hundred years ago, in geological terms, that is indeed just a blink of the eye. It's hard to say exactly what the net effect will ultimately be, but it would be pretty naive to think that pouring trillions of tons of c02 and other gases into the atmosphere wouldn't have any effect on the climate.

Bajaboy - 9-13-2013 at 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by bajadogs

Quote:

That statement starting with "In the blink of an eye-----" is so wrong and / or unsubstantiated and illogical on so many levels I don't know where to begin-----so I won't. :lol:

(I would be wasting my breath)

Barry

Seems pretty straight forward to me....yes there has always been climate change...but man-made climate change has drastically altered the rate of change. And to me, it's the rate of change that seems to be the problem, challenge, what ever you want to call it...unless of course you believe the scientists that claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

monoloco - 9-13-2013 at 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaliDali
-------

As dependent as we are on fossil fuels, I seriously doubt if it is reversible. Nature will take care of it eventually, as the planet becomes less hospitable, the population will decline until we achieve a balance again.

[Edited on 9-18-2013 by BajaNomad]

The tide of life

DaliDali - 9-13-2013 at 11:22 PM

Quote:

You may be onto something here Mono.
Makes you wonder if the earth has a finite life and were all just temporary inhabitants.

chuckie - 9-14-2013 at 02:05 AM

If it can be found "Earth, a Living Organism" is a good read...

David K - 9-14-2013 at 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajadogs

Quote:

CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is a good thing, without it ALL PLANTS would DIE. Plants make OXYGEN which us animals need to LIVE.

Absorbing pollution? That was the point of the thread, along with my question...

The point is the ICE PACK is getting BIGGER, not disappearing the way the alarmist have said it would.

So, it would seem to anyone who uses observational science that the earth IS absorbing or processing man's pollution just fine... if man ever polluted enough to change the climate, which really is quite hard to believe if you ever get a concept of the size of the earth compared to man.

Why do you believe things are worse? We (man) burned so much coal and oil and filled the sky with clouds of soot in the 1800's and early 1900's. There are many times more of us now, and things are so much cleaner. This is especially true in the United States where we do so much more to control pollution, yet some think we haven't been punished enough?

Polluted rivers of the 1960's are flowing clean... we fix what we mess up. Time to lighten up on the United States as being some evil monster... We use a lot of natural resources, but then we produce enough food to feed the world and give our children up to fight dictators and terrorists for humanity.

In the end... what was good news that I shared (bigger ice pack) is not good news to the alarmist because it means they are wrong or that they will lose power and funding... The taxed money can be better spent by families who earn the money. :light:

chuckie - 9-14-2013 at 08:52 AM

David has some good points, when I was a kid, the Hudson river was a mess with effluent from paper mills and chemical plants. Now its a fishery. San Francisco bay is much cleaner, I dont know about the delta region. Streams in the logging areas are not as choked with mud as 20years ago. It aint all bad....

monoloco - 9-14-2013 at 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
David has some good points, when I was a kid, the Hudson river was a mess with effluent from paper mills and chemical plants. Now its a fishery. San Francisco bay is much cleaner, I dont know about the delta region. Streams in the logging areas are not as choked with mud as 20years ago. It aint all bad....

Any progress we have made in north America has been more than offset by conditions in Asia, China, India, and Indonesia are pumping pollutants into the air at an unprecedented rate. Given the geo-political obstacles, there is very little to nothing that we can do to make any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas production, I'm afraid we're just going to have to live (or not) with the consequences, whatever they may ultimately be. Remember, the whole of human existence is just a blip in the geologic history of the planet, and the majority of species that have existed here are now extinct, we can alter our environment for a while, but he Earth will survive this the same way it always has, by mutation, extinction, and evolution.

David K - 9-14-2013 at 09:26 AM

With all this bad stuff man is doing (at least you are blaming other countries and not just America)... the ICE PACK is still getting bigger.

So, either what Americans have done has made a difference or (more likely), what nature has done corrects the changes that occur.

Nature is just so much more powerful than man, it is quite silly to think man can change climate, one way or the other... We make it dirty, but then we see that is bad, and we clean it up... what we can't clean, nature does.

The news media made it sound like the Gulf of Mexico would be a dead sea for decades after the oil spill... not so... just a couple years after, people are playing on the beaches and shrimp is being fished from the water.

LaTijereta - 9-14-2013 at 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Originally posted by DaliDali
From the cheap seats.....

As ALWAYS.. "Mother Nature bats last"...

Barry A. - 9-14-2013 at 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajadogs

Quote:

(I would be wasting my breath)

Barry

But David's quote makes sense to you? :lol:

Dogs----------YES, David's quote makes sense to me.

But I am mostly aligned with Mono's thinking---------and also realize that our existance on Earth as we know it is an incredibly fragile thing, not from within but from a catastrophic event from outside-------that IS the apparent history of the Universe, like it or not (and I don't like it, but it is what it is).

Barry

Ateo - 9-14-2013 at 09:31 AM

I love that song. I remember being a kid thinking I was gonna burn in hell for listening to it.

As for global warming, I ask all of you this question:

If you are wrong, and say in 20 years there's is indisputable evidence that you were wrong, will you admit it?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
I knew that...

somehow, i doubt it....
:lol:

I think Chuckles knows everything....:

monoloco - 9-14-2013 at 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
With all this bad stuff man is doing (at least you are blaming other countries and not just America)... the ICE PACK is still getting bigger.

So, either what Americans have done has made a difference or (more likely), what nature has done corrects the changes that occur.

Nature is just so much more powerful than man, it is quite silly to think man can change climate, one way or the other... We make it dirty, but then we see that is bad, and we clean it up... what we can't clean, nature does.

The news media made it sound like the Gulf of Mexico would be a dead sea for decades after the oil spill... not so... just a couple years after, people are playing on the beaches and shrimp is being fished from the water.

David, just because we are not smart enough to figure out what the consequences of pouring trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will ultimately be, doesn't mean that there will be no consequences. Just like the Gulf Coast tourism council would like everybody to believe that everything is hunky dory there, but from what I've been reading, they have been experiencing unprecedented mortality of sea turtles, dolphins, and other species of marine life. Just because you don't see tar balls on the beach doesn't mean it has all just disappeared. It will possibly be generations before we know what the full effect of our actions are. We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we know for certain that it is much higher than it was during the pre-industrial age, we may not know for sure what that means, but it would be incredibly naive to think that it won't have any effect on the climate. All I'm saying is that it is counter productive to worry about it because it's too late to change the outcome. All the carbon credit, carbon tax, carbon sequestration, etc. crap they have come up with is either unrealistic, ineffective, a scam for someone to make money, or all three.

David K - 9-14-2013 at 09:57 AM

What are you suggesting we do? Stop living... give more money to Al Gore... what?

We are doing the best possible to reduce pollution... even things that are good, like CO2... what all animal exhale and all plants inhale...

What is the crisis/ panic agenda's purpose... I think everyone is aware and is trying better... Man is not an alien here, he is a natural part of this planet, afterall.

Mexitron - 9-14-2013 at 10:01 AM

Quote:

My only comment would be to be careful of using only one year of data. One of the conservative arguments against climate change is that we are only using one hundred years of data!

MitchMan - 9-14-2013 at 10:07 AM

I think that we can all agree that continued unmitigated global warming is not a good thing. The big picture is quite simple and reflects basic universally accepted laws of physics and chemistry.

Since the industrialization of world production and the corresponding use/combustion/burning of earth/room temperature fossil fuel chemicals, heat that otherwise would not have been created was, in fact, created. Any argument there?

Combustion of fossil fuels is a basic chemical reaction that creates heat that previously did not exist.

The logical questions are “where did/does this additionally created heat go?” And “what are the current and future global effects of this additionally created heat” and finally, “has there actually been enough additionally created heat together with future created additional heat to render any future detrimental global effects?”

Keep in mind the original question: “where did/does this additionally created heat go?” To ignore this question or to fail to answer it in any comprehensive assessment of global warming makes that assessment irrelevant and off-point.

With regard to the propriety of our government to deal with the issue, that depends on “we the people”. “Us/we” are the government. To view the government as an entity separate from “we the people” and then to demonize it makes no sense in the big picture perspective. We get the government “we the people” deserve because “we the people” vote for its principal managers.

Also, if there is no significant role for the government to play in this matter, then who/what does the role belong to? Other governments or societies outside the USA? Big business? Religious groups or other charity or non-profit groups? If so, where will they get the authority and wherewithal to implement effective measures?

Quote:

David K
...what nature has done corrects the changes that occur.
... what we can't clean, nature does.

Are you sure about that, David? Unless there is quality documented support that the earth is as clean as it was, say in the year 1400, how can you make that claim?

Just looking at the USA, are our rivers, lakes, aquifers, and tangent oceans as clean as they were even 200 years ago? Are our lands as clean, healthy, plentiful and foliated as they were even 200 years ago?

Side point: Are the sport fishing catch of Dorado in Loreto or La Paz as large and plentiful as even twenty years ago? Is there the same level of mercury in tuna as there were in the past?

BTW, the surface area size of the arctic ice cap is not reflective of the actual volume of the arctic ice cap. The volume of the cap is the principal long term indicator of global warming, not the surface area alone. While the seasonal surface area of the arctic cap is in September 2013 larger than predicted, the reduction of the volume of the cap has been and is now still on a very downward trend.

monoloco - 9-14-2013 at 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
What are you suggesting we do? Stop living... give more money to Al Gore... what?

We are doing the best possible to reduce pollution... even things that are good, like CO2... what all animal exhale and all plants inhale...

What is the crisis/ panic agenda's purpose... I think everyone is aware and is trying better... Man is not an alien here, he is a natural part of this planet, afterall.

I guess you didn't read the last part of my post where I said we shouldn't worry about it because there's little we can do, and that all these greenhouse gas mitigation schemes are scams. No we are not aliens here, we are animals, and we are temporarily out of balance with our environment, and like other species that become out of balance, we will eventually have our numbers reduced by natural processes like increased mortality from pollutants, disease, predation (war), inability to produce enough food, etc. until we again achieve a natural balance. You can't fight mother nature.

[Edited on 9-14-2013 by monoloco]

Barry A. - 9-14-2013 at 10:28 AM

I will just slip this in, and then sit on the sidelines for a while------

MitchMan said in part: "Just looking at the USA, are our rivers, lakes, aquifers, and tangent oceans as clean as they were even 200 years ago? Are our lands as clean, healthy, plentiful and foliated as they were even 200 years ago? "

One of my hobbies is collecting and comparing historical photos with today-photos, mostly in the west. It appears to me that almost all photos taken in the far past reveal much less vegatation, especially trees, in the past with what todays photos show. This is true even on wildlands-------this has always caused me to wonder about claims that "foliation" has been seriously impacted by man.

Barry

Scams are rampant

DaliDali - 9-14-2013 at 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

we shouldn't worry about it because there's little we can do, and that all these greenhouse gas mitigation schemes are scams.

I think you're on to something valid here Mono.
I was just reading in the San Diego UT paper commentary section the other day, a scheme afoot to impose a "fee" at the wellhead, port of entry or mine for carbon fuels. A "disposal fee"
The "fee", as the article goes on to mention, is to drive up the cost of these carbon fuels to accelerate the use of green alternatives.

What caught my eye was that these "fees" would be "returned" to the consumer to help mitigate the added cost of carbon fuels.

Remaining positive

DaliDali - 9-14-2013 at 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

With regard to the propriety of our government to deal with the issue, that depends on “we the people”. “Us/we” are the government. To view the government as an entity separate from “we the people” and then to demonize it makes no sense in the big picture perspective. We get the government “we the people” deserve because “we the people” vote for its principal managers.

Quote:

It would seem that things have morphed somewhat from "we the people" to "we the special interests"
From alternative energy advocates to San Francisco bay marsh mice affectationados.

And unfortunate or not, it's all about the money and the "we" seems to have taken a back seat.

However, the "we" just got a jolt of energy from the recent recall election in Colorado.....maybe there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

Ateo - 9-14-2013 at 02:59 PM

Jesus is coming back in a few years so who cares about global warming? I'm trolling big time. :lol:

chuckie - 9-14-2013 at 03:32 PM

Yeah buddy...

dragging a troll

DaliDali - 9-14-2013 at 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Jesus is coming back in a few years so who cares about global warming? I'm trolling big time. :lol:

I HATE trolling....put me down in the cast and retrieve column.

woody with a view - 9-14-2013 at 07:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHmTqoLjlXo

Give it a listen. It just may shatter your illusions.......

Mexitron - 9-15-2013 at 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
I will just slip this in, and then sit on the sidelines for a while------

MitchMan said in part: "Just looking at the USA, are our rivers, lakes, aquifers, and tangent oceans as clean as they were even 200 years ago? Are our lands as clean, healthy, plentiful and foliated as they were even 200 years ago? "

One of my hobbies is collecting and comparing historical photos with today-photos, mostly in the west. It appears to me that almost all photos taken in the far past reveal much less vegatation, especially trees, in the past with what todays photos show. This is true even on wildlands-------this has always caused me to wonder about claims that "foliation" has been seriously impacted by man.

Barry

Very true, at least in the eastern US---the small family farms which cleared huge swaths of the east in the early days have been largely abandoned and forest has regrown.
I remember seeing pics in college of ranchers in SLO County dynamiting huge mature Oaks to allow more sun for grass for their cattle...they finally stopped when one of my profs did a study and found the nutrient value of the grasses under the Oaks superior to open range grass.

Ateo - 9-15-2013 at 12:11 PM

Interesting..............

Was listening to a podcast this morning and they dedicate a lot of time to this exact subject.

If you go to itunes or just google "Skeptics' Guide To The Universe" episode 426, you will find the discussion.

Starting at the 8:30 minute mark, they discuss how hard it is to go against your own political beliefs when confronted with cold hard facts.

Our beliefs become part of our identity and it's very hard to shed that identity. There is a lot of cherry picking going on. Looking at a limited set of data, rather than all the data in a meaningful way.

Then, at 21:00 minute mark they discuss the exact study that David brings up.

Give it a listen if you are interested.

David K - 9-15-2013 at 12:50 PM

Thank you Jon... I am only concerned with facts and not a political belief. Science is about observations and collecting new data. Nothing is conclusive about man made climate change despite those who repeat that over and over.

Bajaboy - 9-15-2013 at 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Thank you Jon... I am only concerned with facts and not a political belief. Science is about observations and collecting new data. Nothing is conclusive about man made climate change despite those who repeat that over and over.

You mean despite what the scientists keep repeating over and over. David, I'm going to trust the scientists at NOAA way before I believe you or your slanted journalists....you know the same ones who worked for big Tobacco.

motoged - 9-15-2013 at 01:03 PM

Quote:

And one might say: "Nothing is conclusive (regarding the denial) about man made climate change despite those who repeat that over and over. :light:

willardguy - 9-15-2013 at 01:05 PM

what trips me out is WHY this remains to be a nomad hot button issue?? :?:

chuckie - 9-15-2013 at 01:15 PM

underoccupied

willardguy - 9-15-2013 at 01:17 PM

comedic value? :lol:

Barry A. - 9-15-2013 at 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by willardguy
what trips me out is WHY this remains to be a nomad hot button issue?? :?:

-----because it is an international "hot button" issue, I am guessing. Certain people & groups want to spend trillions off-setting something that may not be happening at all, and even if it is there is mostly nothing we can do about it-------that's pretty "hot-button", it seems to me. :tumble:

Barry

Iflyfish - 9-15-2013 at 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

-----------because man is a congenital liar.

A very broad statement--------Links and sources for this conclusion would be appreciated, SkipJack.

Barry

I'm with Skipjack on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Barry A. - 9-15-2013 at 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

-----------because man is a congenital liar.

A very broad statement--------Links and sources for this conclusion would be appreciated, SkipJack.

Barry

I'm with Skipjack on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Good grief---way to complicated --------by those definitions almost everything could be a "lie". I reject many of those defnitions.

I personally do not lie, as best I know. But I probably at times say something that I believe to be true, which in fact turns out to be not true----to me that is NOT lying.

Lying is bad-----period--------as far as I am concerned. However, I do tend to sometimes exagerate, I am told, but even that is not intentional.

Barry

Bajaboy - 9-15-2013 at 02:58 PM

So to the naysayers....Did you also refute the thinning of the ozone layer due to use of CFCs? Well, thanks to science and people taking action, things are getting better: http://news.discovery.com/earth/ozone-layer-earth.htm

Iflyfish - 9-15-2013 at 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ateo
Interesting..............

Was listening to a podcast this morning and they dedicate a lot of time to this exact subject.

If you go to itunes or just google "Skeptics' Guide To The Universe" episode 426, you will find the discussion.

Starting at the 8:30 minute mark, they discuss how hard it is to go against your own political beliefs when confronted with cold hard facts.

Our beliefs become part of our identity and it's very hard to shed that identity. There is a lot of cherry picking going on. Looking at a limited set of data, rather than all the data in a meaningful way.

Then, at 21:00 minute mark they discuss the exact study that David brings up.

Give it a listen if you are interested.

Bingo. Our primitive Neurology requires us to scan our surroundings for anomalies and then to decide danger/no, that then forms a network of neuronal associations that get hard wired. Another way of saying this is that the human brain has evolved to be very good at pattern recognition. Once we decide what a pattern is it is very hard to change as it is wired. God=Good, Athiest=Bad, Conservative=good/Liberal=bad and on it goes. Once these patterns are formed then it is very easy to take in that which reinforces these neuro-networks, that are wired deep in the brain. Once we decide that this/that matches the pattern we have formed then we are not open to input. This is the underlying neurology of the True Believer, see the book The Believing Brain or the YouTube video http://tinyurl.com/llv5hfa
for elaboration of the replicated Psychological research that deals with this. This is why people on this site ALWAYS take predictable positions on issues regardless of the facts. Their mind is already made up on a subconscious level that they will see the patterns that they have seen before. The interesting thing about this is that "True Believers" are better than most at recognizing patterns even when they don't exist, it's a survival mechanism of the brain.

Iflyfishwithmysubconsciouslookingforpatternsoffishbehavior

[Edited on 9-16-2013 by Iflyfish]

Iflyfish - 9-15-2013 at 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

-----------because man is a congenital liar.

A very broad statement--------Links and sources for this conclusion would be appreciated, SkipJack.

Barry

I'm with Skipjack on this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Ok, gotcha, my bad, exaggeration is not lying. "Do I look fat in this honey?" Good thing you always tell the truth. Good thing you always pay as much in taxes as you possibly can. Glad you protected your kids from Santa and the Tooth Fairy. I know you always tell the cop "yes I was speeding" Good thing you always declare everything at the border. I'm sure when you invited your date to see the submarine races with you that you actually went to see submarine races. Good thing you have never told yourself that one more cookie wouldn't hurt the diet, or that one more drink would not impair your driving, never seduced a women with flattery. Never bluffed in a poker game? How did you learn to do that with a straight face? We all should be so virtuous. I am sorry that the article I referenced was too complicated. Maybe this one will be better: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/arts/must-people-lie-yes-a...

"But like a car accident on the side of the road, lies are hard to turn away from and impossible not to tell, even for those of us who pretend otherwise. Two recent anecdotally rich books, for example, are almost obsessively preoccupied with nailing down the lie, finding its origins and, to a certain extent, defending it. ''The Liar's Tale: A History of Falsehood'' by Jeremy Campbell, takes a broad philosophical perspective, examining ideas about language and truth, evolution and social adaptation, the pre-Socratics and the French Deconstructionists. Mr. Campbell mourns the decline of the concept of truth in recent philosophy, but also honors the intellectual heritage of the lie. For Evelin Sullivan, in ''The Concise Book of Lying,'' the truth about lies is explored in a more popular vein, with examples from movies, novels and politics; she offers typologies of lies and analyses of the costs of untruths. Like Mr. Campbell, she honors truth but respects the necessity of lies."

Me: "you look beautiful" "what, I was sperding?", "Santa is someone who loves you", "They rolled away the rock and the Easter Bunny came out", "I'm sure that is a business deduction", "Would you like to take a walk with me to see the sunset and then have a drink at my place?". But, hey, that's just me and I do lie. I fear that as human beings our reach exceeds our grasp.

See Self Deception for elaboration:
http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html

IflyfishandlieaboutwhatIcatch

p.s. I am glad you said "I reject many of those defnitions." which means you accept some of them, which by definition means that you accept, at least in part, that we all lie. Good thing minimization is not lying. I guess it has to be something larger like "Obama is a Muslim Socialist who hates white people", "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" or "Obamacare will destroy America and bankrupt the country" for a lie to blip on your radar.

[Edited on 9-16-2013 by Iflyfish]

[Edited on 9-16-2013 by Iflyfish]

Curt63 - 9-15-2013 at 09:33 PM

Barry A. - 9-15-2013 at 09:51 PM

Well, IFLYFISH et all, I still claim that I don't intentionally lie, and none of those examples you give make me squirm as I do not do those things, and it takes effort to accomplish that, I admit. It pays off hansomely, I believe. I have never lied to get out of a traffic ticket. My accountant does my taxes, and I admit I don't check his reporting that much----so I don't know if it is TOTALLY accurate, but I think it is. I do know that he saves me a lot of money by knowing what is legally deductible, but I don't think he "lies" about anything, nor do I. I do not play poker (or other games) as I am so bad at it.

I don't believe that I have ever caught my kids since adulthood lying, nor my wife. We all work at NOT lying, successfully I believe. I am 100% against lying, and all my Family and friends know it. The claims of those links you have provided I simply can't believe, and are incredibly cynical----they may be right, but I simply can't believe it, nor can I relate to it. Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that I am sanctimonious--------what others do is their business, and if proven to be lying I simple realize that they have no credibility, with me anyway, but I seldom challenge them.

This is not a "holier than thow" statement as I really have no idea what others may do-------I normally believe folks until proven that they lie. (Trust, but verify)

I continue to believe that most don't lie, as that is my experience, and what serves me best.

Our credibility is the most precious thing we have, bar none, IMO.

Barry

On Edit-------I do except some definitions of lying, but I don't except that means that everybody does it.

[Edited on 9-16-2013 by Barry A.]

DianaT - 9-15-2013 at 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Curt63

Beautiful

Barry A. - 9-15-2013 at 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

Originally posted by Curt63

Beautiful

What is "beautiful"?? How can we "create" a better world-------for who or what??? Impliment all the things that the Global Warming crowd wants and the world of man shrinks to new lows, at best, IMO.

Barry

Iflyfish - 9-15-2013 at 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Well, IFLYFISH et all, I still claim that I don't intentionally lie, and none of those examples you give make me squirm as I do not do those things, and it takes effort to accomplish that, I admit. It pays off hansomely, I believe. I have never lied to get out of a traffic ticket. My accountant does my taxes, and I admit I don't check his reporting that much----so I don't know if it is TOTALLY accurate, but I think it is. I do know that he saves me a lot of money by knowing what is legally deductible, but I don't think he "lies" about anything, nor do I. I do not play poker (or other games) as I am so bad at it.

I don't believe that I have ever caught my kids since adulthood lying, nor my wife. We all work at NOT lying, successfully I believe. I am 100% against lying, and all my Family and friends know it. The claims of those links you have provided I simply can't believe, and are incredibly cynical----they may be right, but I simply can't believe it, nor can I relate to it. Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that I am sanctimonious--------what others do is their business, and if proven to be lying I simple realize that they have no credibility, with me anyway, but I seldom challenge them.

This is not a "holier than thow" statement as I really have no idea what others may do-------I normally believe folks until proven that they lie. (Trust, but verify)

I continue to believe that most don't lie, as that is my experience, and what serves me best.

Our credibility is the most precious thing we have, bar none, IMO.

Barry

On Edit-------I do except some definitions of lying, but I don't except that means that everybody does it.

[Edited on 9-16-2013 by Barry A.]

I lied, I never did any of the things I said I did. There is no Santa and the Rabbit did not come out from under the rock. I know that I have a place in heaven next to you, the Popes and the Televangelists who also have never lied. Hard to believe, I know, but there you have it. All those studies, just theory I guess, more of that science crap, most of the subjects probably lied.

In the end another solar system is scheduled to collide with ours anyway....I'm not lying about that one. So we should do nothing about the environment cause that's what God wants us to do so he can take care of it. We know that God is a man. See I am a Conservative too.

Iflyfishwithmytonguefirmlyimbeddedinmycheek

Barry A. - 9-15-2013 at 10:33 PM

I am assuming that you are being sarcastic, Fish----why I can only guess. Other than that I really don't know what you are trying to say. I am an Agnostic, and always have been.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't lie, and my close friends and Family members don't either.

You may live in a different environment than I do.

Barry

Iflyfish - 9-15-2013 at 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

Originally posted by Curt63

Beautiful

You are right, mankind can do nothing to create a better world. Me, I'm not mowing my lawn any more and I am not contributing to AIDS or Cancer research either since man cannot create a better world. Besides adding and improving water treatment plants, limiting fracking to protect water tables, engaging in toxic waste clean up, building better coal emission scrubbers, sequestering CO2 and carbon, upgrading public sanitation, recycling, improving air quality, decreasing acid rain, increasing use of wind and solar, building more fuel efficient cars, improving batteries and other worthless efforts only waste money that could be invested in the stock market. I think I have that right.

Iflyfishwithnehilistnomadamigos

Pages: 1 2