Ye Olde Political Thread

[VincentVega]

rofl George Hamilton

[FuzzyLogik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeShark

FOXNews.com - Spanish-Language Radio Station Slams Police for Describing Suspect as 'Hispanic' - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

ignoring the whole "Hispanic" term originally meaning those from the territory of Spain known as Hispania, can we just all understand that Hispanic usually means a brown-skinned native of Mexico or other Latin American countries?

If the victims said the attacker was "white", the police would be looking for a "white" guy, regardless of nationality. If he was "brown", that term is very generic, meaning light-skinned black man, Hispanic, Meditteranean, or George Hamilton. If he was described as 'black', police would be looking for a "black" man, whether a black man, dark Hispanic, or Ted Danson.

Yeah I thought that was ridiculous.. talking about racial profiling with this. They're looking for somebody Hispanic with specific qualities.... the guy's "Hispanic!" - just like you said coffee.. if it was a white guy.. they'd say white, black, black - whatever! It's like they took it as meaning all Hispanics are rapists or something :P

[FuzzyLogik]

so....wait... now there's crap out there talking about:

Quote:

UN GROUP WARNS: TEMPS UP 6-DEGREES GLOBALLY NEXT 25 YEARS -- IF NO CHANGE!

(there's other links within the article.)

Haven't been able to find that quote .. but it's like.. they're trying to make it sound worse.. and faster? There's another link in there that actually shows that for the majority, green-house gas emissions have actually gone down significantly (except in "developing countries"):

Quote:

Thirty-eight of the 41 Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Parties) submitted
their national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories in 2007; 18 of them submitted by the deadline of
15 April. Thirty-six Annex I Parties provided a national inventory report.
For all Annex I Parties taken together, total aggregate GHG emissions excluding
emissions/removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) decreased by 2.8
per cent between 1990 and 2005 (by 4.6 per cent for GHG emissions including LULUCF). For
Annex I Parties with economies in transition (Annex I EIT Parties) GHG emissions excluding
LULUCF decreased by 35.2 per cent; GHG emissions including LULUCF decreased by 36.2 per
cent. For the Annex I non-EIT Parties, GHG emissions excluding LULUCF increased by 11.0 per
cent and GHG emissions including LULUCF increased by 10.0 per cent.

Soooo.. I guess.... it's not enough to stop this roaring train of global destruction. The fact that we're at levels lower than 1990...doesn't mean anything to them? hello? anybody else see this? lol

[CoffeeShark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by christy

John Christy, an IPCC author, who is skeptical of the more alarmist predictions about global warming, says:

"Scientists are mere mortals…. Our cousins in the ... weather prediction business learned this ... because they were held accountable for their predictions every day. Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty.

in other words, computer models aren't so accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boer

"Everyone will feel its effects, [said Yvo de Boer, director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will 'threaten the very survival' of some people, he said. 'Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible' and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, de Boer said."

evil Global Warming, only targeting poor people. Must be a Republican Global Warming. Just in case you were thinking this was a scientific study, not a political one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by study

The three IPCC reports issued earlier this year predicted that by 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels.

well that's accurate. Hell, I could've told you that. Hey, I'll raise it to 9.3 C. See? Doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by study

Sea levels would rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (7.2 and 23.2 inches), driven mainly by thermal expansion of the oceans, as water warms, its volume expands.

wait, warm water? I thought all the glaciers were going to raise the oceans 20 feet?

same ol', same ol'.

[VincentVega]

criminally....? wtf?

[CoffeeShark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VincentVega

criminally....? wtf?

Ve vill haff a consensus for ze fuhrer!!! SCHNELL!!!!

[FuzzyLogik]

Lol

[DennyCrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeShark

Ve vill haff a consensus for ze fuhrer!!! SCHNELL!!!!

Me and all my friends on vent say you're insane.

[CoffeeShark]

Sea ice melt not just tied to warming

Quote:

Originally Posted by nasa

A University of Washington team, analyzing data from a NASA satellite and NOAA deep-sea pressure gauges, concludes that the Arctic Ocean is undergoing a circulation reversal.

The reversal appears to be tied to a decade-long atmospheric cycle known as the Arctic Oscillation, which could explain part of the past two decades' dramatic fluctuations in sea ice.

isn't it weird how all this stuff keeps coming up after we all decided that everything is due to Global Warming? Didn't anyone tell the Earth we had a consensus?

[VincentVega]

silly. anyone would tell you that obviously the reversal is due to global warming