Was ALGORE in TOWN? Sleet, Snow Fall In Parts Of Central Florida VIDEO Included

Central Florida saw a very unique winter weather mix Saturday, the likes of we may not see again for a generation.

[lccs1794]

Well how about that? The former vice president makes megabucks because he claims global warming, and we are freeezing our hind ends off in Florida. Emagine that!

[P-Revere]

lccs1794 wrote:

Well how about that? The former vice president makes megabucks because he claims global warming, and we are freeezing our hind ends off in Florida. Emagine that!

Didn't you hear it's no longer Global Warming, it's Climatic Change. Where did I hear that word before, change. To bad Al the pubic is getting wise to you and your brethren Climatebaggers.

[deadi]

lccs1794 wrote:

Well how about that? The former vice president makes megabucks because he claims global warming, and we are freeezing our hind ends off in Florida. Emagine that!

I submit that we should create a word "agore" (no capitals) the meaning of which is bullshit.

[cleopatra]

P-Revere wrote:

<quoted text> Didn't you hear it's no longer Global Warming, it's Climatic Change. Where did I hear that word before, change. To bad Al the pubic is getting wise to you and your brethren Climatebaggers.

It was 2 below zero here yesterday morning and I still have about 18 inches of global warming, I mean snow, in my front yard. Thanks Al.

[Thor]

lccs1794 wrote:

Well how about that? The former vice president makes megabucks because he claims global warming, and we are freeezing our hind ends off in Florida. Emagine that!

"Global warming" is accurate despite colder winters. Remember all the news reports of polar, Greenland ice shelf and Icelandic meltings? The trend toward hotter summers causes the melting of gargantuan amounts of ice and snow that have been frozen for thousands of years. The resulting water desalinates ocean water. The specific gravity (the ratio of the density of a substance) of the oceans drastically changes resulting in the oceanic currents changing devastatingly.

All life on Earth depends on the oceanic currents and for thousands of years we have built our civilizations based on what the currents were before global warming. A more accurate name would be 'cataclysmic climate change'.

The term "global warming" is based on the aggregate temperature of the Earth as a whole. The average temperature of Earth is rising. So all this brutal cold is going to be offset by extremely hot summers. The desalination of our planet is causing MASSIVE weather extremes. The hotter summers mean more hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and very destructive weather. Call it mother nature striking back for the abuse of the planet for decades. In short, it is only going to get worse.

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

<quoted text>
"Global warming" is accurate despite colder winters. Remember all the news reports of polar, Greenland ice shelf and Icelandic meltings? The trend toward hotter summers causes the melting of gargantuan amounts of ice and snow that have been frozen for thousands of years. The resulting water desalinates ocean water. The specific gravity (the ratio of the density of a substance) of the oceans drastically changes resulting in the oceanic currents changing devastatingly.
All life on Earth depends on the oceanic currents and for thousands of years we have built our civilizations based on what the currents were before global warming. A more accurate name would be 'cataclysmic climate change'.
The term "global warming" is based on the aggregate temperature of the Earth as a whole. The average temperature of Earth is rising. So all this brutal cold is going to be offset by extremely hot summers. The desalination of our planet is causing MASSIVE weather extremes. The hotter summers mean more hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and very destructive weather. Call it mother nature striking back for the abuse of the planet for decades. In short, it is only going to get worse.

Global Warming
Climate Change
Cataclysmic Climate Change

Does it really matter; we have ZERO control and cannot stop either Global Warming or Global Cooling, because we humans are not causing the cycles in the first place.

[pedro]

Thor wrote:

<quoted text>
"Global warming" is accurate despite colder winters. Remember all the news reports of polar, Greenland ice shelf and Icelandic meltings? The trend toward hotter summers causes the melting of gargantuan amounts of ice and snow that have been frozen for thousands of years. The resulting water desalinates ocean water. The specific gravity (the ratio of the density of a substance) of the oceans drastically changes resulting in the oceanic currents changing devastatingly.
All life on Earth depends on the oceanic currents and for thousands of years we have built our civilizations based on what the currents were before global warming. A more accurate name would be 'cataclysmic climate change'.
The term "global warming" is based on the aggregate temperature of the Earth as a whole. The average temperature of Earth is rising. So all this brutal cold is going to be offset by extremely hot summers. The desalination of our planet is causing MASSIVE weather extremes. The hotter summers mean more hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and very destructive weather. Call it mother nature striking back for the abuse of the planet for decades. In short, it is only going to get worse.

The hoax that is being forced on the citizens is that this "change" is caused by humans. Although, if we read the emails of the scientists that are providing this information, we see that they have to doctor the data to get the results they want.
No one, not scientists or anyone else, can predict what lies in store for the earth. What really has been proven is that if man were gone for 100 years and released no pollutants, it would have no effect on the climate.

[Thor]

What the Earth needs, and I believe we are on the brink of, is another great extinction. It is imperative to the survival of the planet. The Earth has natural resources enough to support two to three billion people max. The population currently stands at 7 billion. Or six billion, nine hundred ninety nine million five hundred thousand following the quake in Haiti.

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

What the Earth needs, and I believe we are on the brink of, is another great extinction. It is imperative to the survival of the planet. The Earth has natural resources enough to support two to three billion people max. The population currently stands at 7 billion. Or six billion, nine hundred ninety nine million five hundred thousand following the quake in Haiti.

And you know this How?

[jrjr]

Scientists predicting the weather will increase by one or two degrees over a long period of time? You must be kidding. Show me a 15-day weather forecast that doesn't get changed. And the number of meteorologists around the world are countless, are paid billions, and keep on ticking.

[Thor]

Multiple doctorates, a number of research and academic accolades and a lifetime of work in the field. And you?

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
And you know this How?

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

Multiple doctorates, a number of research and academic accolades and a lifetime of work in the field. And you?
<quoted text>

Multiple doctorates very impressive those I do not have. Granted how many times in the history of man has the quote-n-quote highly educated told the people that certain numbers in total population was all the Earth could support. 100 Million, then it was 500 million, then a billion and so forth. As to the Earth only having enough natural resources that could only be calculated if the total amount available is know, and with new discoveries of key resources and then with the development of replacements does science truly have all the facts, or is it mostly a bunch of consensus and hypothesizes.

[Thor]

Excellent deductive reasoning. You state your point clearly, support with facts (to those of us who recall the history of it) and make logical arguments. In other words, you are not the typical topix poster!

There were flaws in the previous calculations regarding calculating actual supplies of resources. The science of it was in its infancy at the time and was basically a scientist holding his thumb up to measure the scale of the available resources...'about *this* much'. We have infinitely greater knowledge of what the Earth has and is capable of supporting now. Many of those multi-billion dollar satellites the tax payers pay for are for the sole purpose of cataloguing the resources of earth. Add this information to manned exploration of the Earth... I seem to be getting off on a rant here, but to make a long story short we have a very clear picture of what the resources are and where they are.

Famines, water shortages, food shortages, epidemic disease, deepening poverty and massive environmental destruction due to depletion of natural resources do all prove there being more people than the resources of earth can handle. It is easy for us to say everything is fine when we live in an industrialised nation with all the comforts. People throughout the world who have no access to food and literally eat dirt- just to have something in their stomachs, would tend to disagree.

As populations increase, the cost of every vital resource increases exponentially, becoming out of reach for the poorest inhabitants. As the population increases also, the average wage simply cannot keep up with inflation. In the days of my youth, generally, fathers would have one job. With it they paid all expenses of the household, new car every couple years, vacations, all the expenses of childhood. How many people do you know now who have the family with the 2.5 children,dog, white picket fence, two story house on Elm Street with a stay-at-home mother and new car every two years? Not many if any at all. It is a direct effect of over population. As there are more mouths to feed the cost of that food increases to the point where not everyone can afford it. The problems of starvation and disease will continue to increase with the population until it not only effect people in the poorest countries on earth anymore.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
Multiple doctorates very impressive those I do not have. Granted how many times in the history of man has the quote-n-quote highly educated told the people that certain numbers in total population was all the Earth could support. 100 Million, then it was 500 million, then a billion and so forth. As to the Earth only having enough natural resources that could only be calculated if the total amount available is know, and with new discoveries of key resources and then with the development of replacements does science truly have all the facts, or is it mostly a bunch of consensus and hypothesizes.

[Thor]

In short, I have grave concern about where we are headed as a whole.

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

Excellent deductive reasoning. You state your point clearly, support with facts (to those of us who recall the history of it) and make logical arguments. In other words, you are not the typical topix poster!
There were flaws in the previous calculations regarding calculating actual supplies of resources. The science of it was in its infancy at the time and was basically a scientist holding his thumb up to measure the scale of the available resources...'about *this* much'. We have infinitely greater knowledge of what the Earth has and is capable of supporting now. Many of those multi-billion dollar satellites the tax payers pay for are for the sole purpose of cataloguing the resources of earth. Add this information to manned exploration of the Earth... I seem to be getting off on a rant here, but to make a long story short we have a very clear picture of what the resources are and where they are.
Famines, water shortages, food shortages, epidemic disease, deepening poverty and massive environmental destruction due to depletion of natural resources do all prove there being more people than the resources of earth can handle. It is easy for us to say everything is fine when we live in an industrialised nation with all the comforts. People throughout the world who have no access to food and literally eat dirt- just to have something in their stomachs, would tend to disagree.
As populations increase, the cost of every vital resource increases exponentially, becoming out of reach for the poorest inhabitants. As the population increases also, the average wage simply cannot keep up with inflation. In the days of my youth, generally, fathers would have one job. With it they paid all expenses of the household, new car every couple years, vacations, all the expenses of childhood. How many people do you know now who have the family with the 2.5 children,dog, white picket fence, two story house on Elm Street with a stay-at-home mother and new car every two years? Not many if any at all. It is a direct effect of over population. As there are more mouths to feed the cost of that food increases to the point where not everyone can afford it. The problems of starvation and disease will continue to increase with the population until it not only effect people in the poorest countries on earth anymore.
<quoted text>

Yes I will agree that the previous calculations as you explained where flawed and would add that if you were to ask those very educated men they would have told you that they had the latest and greatest information and where 99.9 percentage sure of their results. Yes, the scientist of today have infinitely greater knowledge of the Earth and what makes it up and how it works, however how much do we really know?

And yes w as humans do have a clearer picture of the Earth I am (Not a scientist) not yet ready not say we as humans have a “very clear picture of what the resources are and where they are”.

Can you imagine what doors will be opened once fusion is developed. What will the next supercomputer allow us to solve? The earth may have a population maximum, most things do have limitations but those limitations are in many cases fluid and change with the latest and greatest invention or jump in technology.

Here are some interesting numbers to think about that my help us keep things in prospective.

Square Miles of Land in the United States: 3,794,101

Converting Acres to square miles ...
1 Acre = 0.001562 sq. miles
5 Acre = 0.00781 sq. miles
10 Acre = 0.01562 sq. miles

This means that the United States has
2,429,001,921 Acres of Land

The Worlds population is 6,797,206,013
16:11 UTC (EST+5) Jan 18, 2010

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[Thor]

Fusion plants will be the greatest advancement in the development of man by far.

The rough figure is that for each and every human on the planet approximately 100 acres of USABLE land is required for them to live a symbiotic life with planet earth. Land for food production, both flora and fauna, land for building resources, land for required oxygen production and conversion of carbon dioxide, land for waste disposal, land for production of other resources- electricity, drinking water, clothing, everything you own- automobiles, books, cookware, bathroom fixtures, your computer and on and on endlessly.

"Usable land" as obviously desert is not that, nor is areas of permafrost nor mountain.

And yes, these things are fluid and are dictated by many fluctuating criteria.

I see so many things happening currently which are the direct cause of over-population. Take the massive destruction and loss of life in Haiti. Yes there are many things that went wrong, but the island was completely over-populated and all the natural resources were used up long ago. Without such a population density and stripping of all natural resources the loss of life would have been significantly less.

I do realize I am a bit of a killjoy in regards to population. I just see the Earth as the only planet we have been given. I would like to see responsibility to it before we have to go "Oops, too late now!".

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

Fusion plants will be the greatest advancement in the development of man by far.
The rough figure is that for each and every human on the planet approximately 100 acres of USABLE land is required for them to live a symbiotic life with planet earth. Land for food production, both flora and fauna, land for building resources, land for required oxygen production and conversion of carbon dioxide, land for waste disposal, land for production of other resources- electricity, drinking water, clothing, everything you own- automobiles, books, cookware, bathroom fixtures, your computer and on and on endlessly.
"Usable land" as obviously desert is not that, nor is areas of permafrost nor mountain.
And yes, these things are fluid and are dictated by many fluctuating criteria.
I see so many things happening currently which are the direct cause of over-population. Take the massive destruction and loss of life in Haiti. Yes there are many things that went wrong, but the island was completely over-populated and all the natural resources were used up long ago. Without such a population density and stripping of all natural resources the loss of life would have been significantly less.
I do realize I am a bit of a killjoy in regards to population. I just see the Earth as the only planet we have been given. I would like to see responsibility to it before we have to go "Oops, too late now!".

Where did the planet approximately 100 acres of USABLE land is required for them to live a symbiotic life with planet earth”

If you could please sources I would love to read that research.

[Thor]

An exhaustive research project nearing completion which should be published second quarter of this year. And I only had minimal input in my fields of expertise.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did the planet approximately 100 acres of USABLE land is required for them to live a symbiotic life with planet earth”
If you could please sources I would love to read that research.

[Mr Logic in Jax]

Thor wrote:

An exhaustive research project nearing completion which should be published second quarter of this year. And I only had minimal input in my fields of expertise.
<quoted text>

I cannot wait to see the "exhaustive" research.