East Coast Conks: How you like Global Warming Now?

[AZGrizFan]

And a similar map would be found for Oregon, Montana, etc.

GATW....GFY.

He said OUTSIDE of the cities he mentioned WA and OR are conk strongholds, not that they're red as a whole. Are you looking to build on BDSM's performance yesterday?

"strongholds". THere are more people in the cities he mentioned that in all the rest of WAshington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming COMBINED. Some "stronghold".

[GannonFan]

The whole climate change debate has been way too oversentionalized and politicized, hence the strident opinions on either side of the debate. From the practical side, though, there is nothing we can do, within reason, to reverse the change. Even if we somehow had the determination to cut back on greenhouse gases and be satisfied with the reduction in quality of life that would go along with it, and convinced the rest of the world to do the same, most scientists say that we would only slightly reduce the temperature rise in about 50 years. So basically, we could do all that, condemn third world nations back to abject poverty and starvation, and we'd still experience significant climate change. That's why it's never going to happen - the climate is going to change and we just need to learn to deal with it. Storms like Katrina and Sandy have only been significant because they hit areas that are either right at sea level, or even below sea level, and they are right next to the water. Otherwise, they weren't particularly strong storms - they just hit the wrong places. We just need to start getting used to living in a world where this can happen and learn to adjust. I for one am looking forward to seeing a place like Satskatchewan warm up and turn into a tourist destination.

[houndawg]

The whole climate change debate has been way too oversentionalized and politicized, hence the strident opinions on either side of the debate. From the practical side, though, there is nothing we can do, within reason, to reverse the change. Even if we somehow had the determination to cut back on greenhouse gases and be satisfied with the reduction in quality of life that would go along with it, and convinced the rest of the world to do the same, most scientists say that we would only slightly reduce the temperature rise in about 50 years. So basically, we could do all that, condemn third world nations back to abject poverty and starvation, and we'd still experience significant climate change. That's why it's never going to happen - the climate is going to change and we just need to learn to deal with it. Storms like Katrina and Sandy have only been significant because they hit areas that are either right at sea level, or even below sea level, and they are right next to the water. Otherwise, they weren't particularly strong storms - they just hit the wrong places. We just need to start getting used to living in a world where this can happen and learn to adjust. I for one am looking forward to seeing a place like Satskatchewan warm up and turn into a tourist destination.

Yeah baby, party time in Moose Jaw!

[Seahawks08]

Every time I see this map I wonder what the electoral college would look like if every state allocated electoral college votes like Nebraska does. Suddenly California doesn't go all D, Texas doesn't go all R, etc.

A better representation of the United States and would actually make your vote count a little more. Plus, it could help 3rd parties, which the two/one-party system would never want.

[SeattleGriz]

Thought this was an interesting article.

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

At a workshop last week in Oxford, UK, convened by the Attribution of Climate-related Events group — a loose coalition of scientists from both sides of the Atlantic — some speakers questioned whether event attribution was possible at all. It currently rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming. One critic argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically far-from-perfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all. And even if event attribution were reliable, another speaker added, the notion that it is useful for any section of society is unproven

http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mainejeff]

You can stop polluting and quit having so many god damned kids and leave the forests alone.

Mainejeff, is that you?

He's right and you know it.

[dbackjon]

What is the blue area in southern Texas? I don't even know what cities (if any) are down that far.

I assume the lone blue dot in the middle is Austin?

Lower Rio Grande Valley - basically Mexico. Brownsville, Harlingen, etc.


And yes, Austin is a lonely beacon of life.

[AZGrizFan]

What is the blue area in southern Texas? I don't even know what cities (if any) are down that far.

I assume the lone blue dot in the middle is Austin?

Lower Rio Grande Valley - basically Mexico. Brownsville, Harlingen, etc.


And yes, Austin is a lonely beacon of idiot hipsters.

FIFY

[Col Hogan]

-
We just need to spend more money on Green energy picked by Obama
He's really good at picking winners

On the eve of striking a deal with Vanderbilt, John D. Rockenfellers refinery was a moment away from bankruptcy. Kerosene was revolutionary and there was bad press about cheap kerosene being dangerous.

Think about it. I'm not excusing Obama or these companies, but it takes a lot of failures to get it right.

Difference is, Vanderbilt was using private money...a capitalist taking a risk...

0bama is playing his game with public funds...supporting research is one thing...investing in unproven companies is another...

[89Hen]

Mainejeff, is that you?

He's right and you know it.

How's that? We have two. That would seem to be a good number to keep our country going. You and D having none between you is also a good thing for this country.

[GannonFan]

Mainejeff, is that you?

He's right and you know it.

I always find it amazing that people who rant about the world's population being too large aren't offering themselves as candidates to leave the planet to keep the numbers down.

Besides, the problem isn't that we are overpopulating, per se, it's that we aren't having enough smart people (i.e. good genes) reproduce. Dumb people reproduce like rabbits and it's not helping.

[kalm]

He said OUTSIDE of the cities he mentioned WA and OR are conk strongholds, not that they're red as a whole. Are you looking to build on BDSM's performance yesterday?

"strongholds". THere are more people in the cities he mentioned that in all the rest of WAshington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming COMBINED. Some "stronghold".

Ibanez made a point that the NW has a ton of logging considering how liberal it is. My point is that outside the aforementioned cities, the NW is largely conk. This was clearly a "land" statement on account of forestry takes place on...land...which is...outside of urban areas. So the NW timber industry takes place on conk controlled...land. I later pointed out that this was all irrelevant anyway as almost all timber harvest occurs on federal lands. That's actually a mistake. The majority occurs on private lands. A smaller percentage occurs on federal land. The smallest percentage occurs on state DNR land.

To recap, the result of statewide and federal elections in the Great PNW has very little to do with the amount of logging. It has much more to do with trees.

BDKAZGrizFan...you're welcome.

[89Hen]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 618542.htm

The seasonal hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic this year was the second smallest in two decades, but still covered an area three times the size of Australia, say US experts.

The average size of the hole in the Earth's protective shield was 17.9 million square kilometres, according to satellite measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

"It happened to be a bit warmer this year high in the atmosphere above Antarctica, and that meant we didn't see quite as much ozone depletion as we saw last year, when it was colder," says Jim Butler of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory.

So global warming is helping shrink the ozone hole. What a conundrum.

[Grizalltheway]

He's right and you know it.

I always find it amazing that people who rant about the world's population being too large aren't offering themselves as candidates to leave the planet to keep the numbers down.

Besides, the problem isn't that we are overpopulating, per se, it's that we aren't having enough smart people (i.e. good genes) reproduce. Dumb people reproduce like rabbits and it's not helping.

Smart people and their offspring consume natural resources and contribute to pollution, too.

[Chizzang]

He's right and you know it.

How's that? We have two. That would seem to be a good number to keep our country going. You and D having none between you is also a good thing for this country.

[GannonFan]

I always find it amazing that people who rant about the world's population being too large aren't offering themselves as candidates to leave the planet to keep the numbers down.

Besides, the problem isn't that we are overpopulating, per se, it's that we aren't having enough smart people (i.e. good genes) reproduce. Dumb people reproduce like rabbits and it's not helping.

Smart people and their offspring consume natural resources and contribute to pollution, too.

Of course they do. But we stand a better chance of figuring out a way to live in the world with more smart people to do the heavy lifting and inventing. I'm not counting on the dumb people to craft a good solution to dealing with climate change.

[AZGrizFan]

"strongholds". THere are more people in the cities he mentioned that in all the rest of WAshington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming COMBINED. Some "stronghold".

Ibanez made a point that the NW has a ton of logging considering how liberal it is. My point is that outside the aforementioned cities, the NW is largely conk. This was clearly a "land" statement on account of forestry takes place on...land...which is...outside of urban areas. So the NW timber industry takes place on conk controlled...land. I later pointed out that this was all irrelevant anyway as almost all timber harvest occurs on federal lands. That's actually a mistake. The majority occurs on private lands. A smaller percentage occurs on federal land. The smallest percentage occurs on state DNR land.

To recap, the result of statewide and federal elections in the Great PNW has very little to do with the amount of logging. It has much more to do with trees.

BDKAZGrizFan...you're welcome.

So you're assumption is that these private lands are automatically held by conks?

[Grizalltheway]

Smart people and their offspring consume natural resources and contribute to pollution, too.

Of course they do. But we stand a better chance of figuring out a way to live in the world with more smart people to do the heavy lifting and inventing. I'm not counting on the dumb people to craft a good solution to dealing with climate change.

Fine, let them be smart and find solutions, but they can also wrap up their shit or get their tubes tied. The planet has more bipeds than it needs as is.

[kalm]

Ibanez made a point that the NW has a ton of logging considering how liberal it is. My point is that outside the aforementioned cities, the NW is largely conk. This was clearly a "land" statement on account of forestry takes place on...land...which is...outside of urban areas. So the NW timber industry takes place on conk controlled...land. I later pointed out that this was all irrelevant anyway as almost all timber harvest occurs on federal lands. That's actually a mistake. The majority occurs on private lands. A smaller percentage occurs on federal land. The smallest percentage occurs on state DNR land.

To recap, the result of statewide and federal elections in the Great PNW has very little to do with the amount of logging. It has much more to do with trees.

BDKAZGrizFan...you're welcome.

So you're assumption is that these private lands are automatically held by conks?

Automatically? No

But it's a safe bet that the majority are held by private citizens and organizations that predominantly vote conk. Can't really blame them for that. Your point...if any?

[AZGrizFan]

So you're assumption is that these private lands are automatically held by conks?

Automatically? No

But it's a safe bet that the majority are held by private citizens and organizations that predominantly vote conk. Can't really blame them for that. Your point...if any?

My point is what's your point regarding conk/donk strongholds if you can't verify or substantiate that the logged lands are owned predominantly by conks?