"It's Groundhog Day.. again.."
 

In a rare stunner, Punxatawney Phil DID NOT see his shadow this morning "in this little tiny hamlet in Western Pennsylvania"... Early spring kids...



The film Groundhog Day is one of my absolute favorites. A brilliant Murray and deep supporting cast, handled deftly by Harold Ramis, makes it wonderful and easy to watch over and over...

"Too early for flapjacks?"

"What about the satellites? Is it snowing in space?"

"If you're going to eat steak.. get sharper teeth.."

If I had been Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, I'd be 71 years old by the end of the movie...

Ned? Ned Ryerson?

Bing!



"Ned... Ryerson! "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing. Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple of times until you told me not to anymore? Well?"

The sooner winter is over the better. Coldest weather of the last few years is coming early next week....Global warming is bunk.

"I'd like to drink to world peace."

I love the movie, too.

Now this is kinda weird. My newspaper this morning, the Harrisburg Patriot News, ran the exact same Comics pages today as last Friday. And the Cyberquote, Jumble and Crossword puzzles were repeats, too. Is it a blunder, or is someone at the paper trying for the Grondhog Day effect?!

Worst of all, I'm not sure if the beavers are going make it in Mark Trail! Okay, I know they are going to stay, but still...

--Dunbar

global climate change...:rolleyes: and it's not bunk.

I've always hated groundhogs day...at least I have since I was 6 and my brother was born:o

I actually don't believe in it. I think the earth has warmed and cooled at different rates over the past 1000 years. Right now we may be warming a bit, but it could go the other direction quite easily. I think human responsibility for the current warming might be 5%. Not much at all.

i'm not going to argue with you about it...agree to disagree.

was filmed in woodstock ill..my friend had a bar that was loaded to the gills with movie money....bill is cool guy and also partys pretty hard.. back then..during filming half the small town were extras...very funny..

Even if we are warming, the good of it outweighs the bad. Plenty of penguins in zoos for the future children to visit....And a nice tan being worked on in March with a Corona in hand. The future looks bright and warm.

He likes the nose candy.

saying you don't believe in it is like saying you don't believe in gravity or the existence of other planets. it isn't something you believe in or not.....it is something you understand or don't understand.
natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ when in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
since the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. in 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.
so just out of curiosity what are you basing your 5% figure on?

anyway.......great movie.

Some articles I've read from non-believers who think we overestimate the ability of humans to impact warming....They cited natural events in the past which have made CO2 levels go up and down and how human impact has been less than that. Will try and find some links but this is from a long time ago.

yes but there is no real debate among atmospheric scientists.
do you dispute that humans deposit a lot of CO2 into the air?
or do you dispute that high CO2 levels are a cause of global warming?

I don't dispute the CO2 being released. I think the impact is exaggerated....Don't forget, during a cold stretch in the 70's, the prevailing wisdom was we were headed towards another ice age---many scientists believed that---and now we are going to be baking into oblivion. I don't see it.

Don't Drive Angry

Randall, I don't think you will find an article written by any leading scientist that questions the seriousness of global warming. You may find some articles by fringe people, or by "scientists" on a par with the tobacco company "scientists".

--Dunbar

Well, coincidentally, the NYTimes cover story is on the latest report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...2vyMpuC0PVkpKw

Though frankly, I think it's too late. So long to polar bears, hello to yearly Katrinas and Wyoming beaches.

so just to be clear....your argument is that although there is basically total agreement among all atmospheric scientists, we are probably wrong becauase......why exactly?
we have made their case for global warming.....but the only thing i hear doubters like you argue is basically that all science is hogwash. we present a factually based and logical argument, and you come back with a completely unsubstantiated claim of 5%. based on what?

Again, I'm a Nader voter so obviously what I'm saying is sacreligious but we could be warming and the opposite affect could take place. The Atlantic conveyor gets disrupted and suddenly its too cold for millions of people. Again, eveything comes back to equilibrium.

Based on articles I've read....Mind you, Dr. Gray, the same Dr. Gray who is the hurricane forecaster for the enitre United States doesn't believe in the impact of humans on Global Warming either. And all he does is study it and other atmospheric conditions since the 60's.

as the article says....."over 90% confident." but some people choose not to believe in it. why? nobody knows. including them.

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

i can't help getting arrogant. i am a scientist. that is just the kind of people we are.

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

leave it to derby trail to turn groundhog day into a global warming debate!

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

that makes so little sense that it boggles the mind.

thank you dear...;)

um...i frankly don't know why i am even bothering to respond to such juvenile reductionism but oh well......i'll bite.

so do you think we would be better served by going with the minority of scientists all the time or by just ignoring science all together? do you want me to list all of the millions of things that the majority of scientists have been right about over the years?

Can we move this to the off-topic board?

Interesting article- fairly evenhanded, though one of the scientists quoted does say Bill Gray has a "mind block" where the topic of global warming is concerned:

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...NEWS/109300057

Regardless of being speeded up by humans or not, our frantic burning of fossil fuels isn't good. Not just environmentally speaking, but our oil addiction keeps us chained to the Middle East. Want to see Iran lose power? Stop sucking down so much oil. The drop in oil prices sank the Soviet Union- it would sink Iran. I fail to see why this nation is so resistant to getting unaddicted. And I'm not talking about the government- I know why they're so uninterested. I don't see why we the people aren't pushing for it. We should be.

And then the sheiks couldn't buy up every race horse in sight, either!

i just thought you should know that i have a masters degree in microbiology and am currently working on PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I just showed this entire thread to some of the people in the lab where i work and your ignorance gave us all a good laugh. i know you won't care about this at all, because we are all scientists and since the vast majority of us laughed at you, it must mean (according to your logic) that we are wrong!
you might want to consider the fact that you obviously have no idea what the term strawman means, and you are using it very incorrectly. i tell you this only because i don't want you to use the term with all your PhD friends and look foolish.
have a nice day.