The Unknown Zone - proudly an American forum!

And global warming caused by human's will lead to the end of civilization as we know it.  What a bunch of crap!!!  Beware the manbearpig!!!!

It's not about the climate....it's all about the money.  How many people are getting rich on this hoax? 

From CNN:
The scientific report also suggests the cataclysm also reduced the population of the earliest people to inhabit the region and triggered a 1,300-year-long cold spell that stretched around the world.

The heat generated by the extraterrestrial impact likely melted much of a glacier that once covered the Great Lakes region, sending a massive flood down the Mississippi River, the study said.

According to the report, the cold waves of glacial runoff into the Gulf of Mexico shifted Atlantic Ocean currents, changing climate patterns throughout the world in a cooling period known as the Younger Dryas.

Have ya got a link to the story?  Sounds kind of interesting.

I believe the quoted passage was from a CNN report on evidence supporting that a comet or asteroid shower and resulting explosion of an overtly large mass within the same, drove the extinction of mammals in north American lands and elsewhere. Creating the great lakes, etc.

This was supported by the presence of micro-diamonds within a specific layer of the strata throughout several test sites across north America, and only within the specific strata.

I have a problem understanding how the poster extrapolates this into support of his apparent perspective that global warming is a hoax. On the contrary; while data can be manipulated to support both sides of this argument, temperature studies clearly indicate a climatic swing far outside of the normal cyclic range this planet has historically ranged within.

This clearly is an indication of a large variance in the earths normal cycle, and whether this is the "shot across the bow" that warns of the worst case scenario, global warming, is yet to be seen.

A small portion of global warming is due to natural processes, but to diminish the effect that mankind has had  on the phenomena of global warming is a mistake and to think that global warming isn't a legitimate concern is foolish. There are more than enough conclusive scientific studies to indicate that the earth is warming up at a rapid rate  and you'll find the evidence in  glacial retreat and sea level rise. How can anyone honestly talk themselves into believing that mankind hasn't had a major impact? How long does anyone honestly believe the earth will last at the current rate of consumption, deforestation,  emissions, etc. ?

I think it's a mixture of chemicals we use and Mother Nature. *Shrugs*

I don't think there is enough data on temperatures over time to conclude any significant change in planetary climate.  We only have solid data for maybe the past 60 years on a truly global basis.  To make conclusions on global climate change based on the last 60 years is a stretch to say the least.  I believe I read somewhere recently that 8 of the past 20 years have been below average temperatures.  I might as well take todays temperature in Anderson which is 40F and claim that the the average annual temperature in Anderson has dropped by 20 degrees.  Beware Global Cooling.

If you buy the CO2 emission argument, there are probably about 1.5 billion too many people breathing on this planet that contribute more than industrial sources.

I'm not really sure how one can believe it is a hoax either.  Ice caps and glaciers are melting and not regenerating.  Where will this water go?  There is photographic proof of this.  You can't deny that weather phenomenon has become extreme - hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, drought, etc...  This doesn't just happen on its own.  

And how about a happy medium?  Even if you don't believe in Global Warming as it has been stated, can one not believe that we need to take care of our planet, support the life that lives here, and preserve it for future generations?  

Hell, by the time we finish the argument, it'll be too late, anyway.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 03, 2009, 03:30:20 PM
I don't think there is enough data on temperatures over time to conclude any significant change in planetary climate.  We only have solid data for maybe the past 60 years on a truly global basis.  To make conclusions on global climate change based on the last 60 years is a stretch to say the least.  I believe I read somewhere recently that 8 of the past 20 years have been below average temperatures.  I might as well take todays temperature in Anderson which is 40F and claim that the the average annual temperature in Anderson has dropped by 20 degrees.  Beware Global Cooling.

If you buy the CO2 emission argument, there are probably about 1.5 billion too many people breathing on this planet that contribute more than industrial sources.

Via archeological/geological means it is possible to determine the climate for any given point in history by examining the composition of the strata to determine the life forms  contained within it, then extrapolating the temperature averages based upon the requirements of said life form remnants.

We don't need a Neanderthal thermometer or digitized graphs to know what the climate was back then, or from any period in time. It is a fairly simple process and easy to understand.
In fact, this very process was utilized to produce the data you used to support your perspective in the opening post.

The Sun has more effect on the temperature of the earth than any single other factor.
I say we stop this global warming thing at the source: Boycott the Sun! Fines and taxes on the Sun!

Hey!!!!!

Let's Tax GAWD -- that is, if you xtians will be so kind as to call him/her/it down here.

Lots of you seem to talk with him/her/it on a daily basis -- just tell him/her/it to CUT IT OUT!!

If he/she/it destroys all you guys, he/she/it won't have an income any more.

And you know what that means -- he/she/it will have to go on unemployment compensation .........

ooooooooops...........no government to collect it from.

Oh, crap.

Shew.

Global Warming Fast facts - National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html)

This is a good article that addresses if it's happening, what the probable causes are, and what the effects are and will be. Check it out.

Quote from: followsthewolf on January 03, 2009, 03:57:34 PM
Hell, by the time we finish the argument, it'll be too late, anyway.

:spooked:

In fact, this very process was utilized to produce the data you used to support your perspective in the opening post.


Good Point!

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 04, 2009, 11:19:08 AM
In fact, this very process was utilized to produce the data you used to support your perspective in the opening post.


Good Point!

:smile:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081230165231.aspx (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081230165231.aspx)
'Cow Tax' Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases

This is what 'erks' me with the whole "global warming" scare tactics enduced by the Al Gore crowd.......

It is ALL about the money.....NOT what is best for this earth....or the people that live here. :mad:

Quote from: kimmi on January 03, 2009, 03:33:07 PM
Ice caps and glaciers are melting and not regenerating.  Where will this water go?  There is photographic proof of this.  You can't deny that weather phenomenon has become extreme - hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, drought, etc...  This doesn't just happen on its own.  

And how about a happy medium?  Even if you don't believe in Global Warming as it has been stated, can one not believe that we need to take care of our planet, support the life that lives here, and preserve it for future generations?  

I think EVERYBODY is in favor of taking care of our planet....but we cannot TAX our way into fixing it...


Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979  http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 05, 2009, 10:26:16 AM
I think EVERYBODY is in favor of taking care of our planet....but we cannot TAX our way into fixing it...

sounds good.  has a nice ring to it.  might even be true (maybe not).  but it has no real substance.  just another sound bite from the republican machine that you're supposed to repeat.

got any idea what will "fix" it?

encourage entrepreneurs and scientist to continue to develop better and more efficient technologies..........heck, we have already come a long ways...........I just think the whole carbon tax, gas tax, cow tax, Kyoto Protocol to just name a few...BAD IDEAS, are the wrong way to handle the problem...

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 05, 2009, 01:06:38 PM
encourage entrepreneurs and scientist to continue to develop better and more efficient technologies..........

what form should that "encouragement" take?

Quote from: awol on January 05, 2009, 02:55:35 PM
what form should that "encouragement" take?

I think it should be, to allow private investors to invest it's money under a tax shelter....such as allow money to be given to R&D, and NOT having it's return on it's investment taxed to death.....let Americans use it ingenuity and capitalize on developing better and more efficient energies...

in other words: monetary.

so where is all this money going to come from?

Quote from: awol on January 05, 2009, 04:02:52 PM
in other words: monetary.

so where is all this money going to come from?

I said...PRIVATE..investors....read my post again...I THOUGHT, I explained it pretty well.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 05, 2009, 03:09:26 PM
I think it should be, to allow private investors to invest it's money under a tax shelter....such as allow money to be given to R&D, and NOT having it's return on it's investment taxed to death.....let Americans use it ingenuity and capitalize on developing better and more efficient energies...

But isn't that some of the very same methodology that brought about the current debacle surrounding big oil? They file exploration under R & D, along with anything else they can, to get out of paying taxes on their profits. . .

How ever you slice it it's ridiculous to tax a bodily function whether it be a cows or ours which could possibly happen if they keep it up.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 05, 2009, 04:07:06 PM
I said...PRIVATE..investors....read my post again...I THOUGHT, I explained it pretty well.

ok, i have to explain further:  this magic investor money, which would have been taxed, now goes to a non-taxable investment -- creating a larger tax deficit.  so where does the money come from to fill that hole?

Quote from: me on January 05, 2009, 06:15:47 PM
How ever you slice it it's ridiculous to tax a bodily function whether it be a cows or ours which could possibly happen if they keep it up.

When they start taxing my personal flatulation I'm getting an industrial butt plug!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Palehorse on January 05, 2009, 07:33:13 PM
When they start taxing my personal flatulation I'm getting an industrial butt plug!  :biggrin:

my vote for most disturbing visual of the year.  *so far.

Quote from: awol on January 05, 2009, 07:48:57 PM
my vote for most disturbing visual of the year.  *so far.

Happy to be of service so early in the new year!  :biggrin:

Heck no!  Don't plug!  If you have to pay for it, let it rip!!!!  :biggrin:

Quote from: kimmi on January 05, 2009, 08:30:08 PM
Heck no!  Don't plug!  If you have to pay for it, let it rip!!!!  :biggrin:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote from: awol on January 05, 2009, 06:19:37 PM
ok, i have to explain further:  this magic investor money, which would have been taxed, now goes to a non-taxable investment -- creating a larger tax deficit.  so where does the money come from to fill that hole?

for one, when the private investor world begins to hire employees to R&D and to actualy produce a product, there will be more federal revenue being generated....and the best of all of this is, that GOV has very little to do with this....it is encouraging free enterprise to excel and opens the market....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 06, 2009, 08:41:10 AM
for one, when the private investor world begins to hire employees to R&D and to actualy produce a product, there will be more federal revenue being generated....and the best of all of this is, that GOV has very little to do with this....it is encouraging free enterprise to excel and opens the market....

so you're saying that the tax burden should be shoved off on the end consumer, and the workers.

let's see your figures on that.

Quote from: awol on January 06, 2009, 10:10:20 AM
so you're saying that the tax burden should be shoved off on the end consumer, and the workers.

let's see your figures on that.

No, I'm saying that encouraging Private Investor will create jobs, thus generating MORE federal tax revenue...........it is a WIN/WIN situation.

the taxes NOT paid by the private investor will more than be compensated by the increased employement AND, it can bring and end to our enviromental problems.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 06, 2009, 10:13:33 AM
No, I'm saying that encouraging Private Investor will create jobs, thus generating MORE federal tax revenue...........it is a WIN/WIN situation.

the taxes NOT paid by the private investor will more than be compensated by the increased employement AND, it can bring and end to our enviromental problems.

Exactly, Henry! I think AWOL (welcome back, btw. I sincerely hope you are feeling better) is arguing from a point of view that says money is owned by the government. So whenever people get to keep more of their hard-earned money (as opposed to paying more of it out in taxes) then somehow that has to be "paid for". In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money. Allowing people to keep more of it to use for their own best interests and purposes (such as investing in companies doing R&D to help clean up the planet) does not create a hole that needs to be filled.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 06, 2009, 10:54:23 AM
...In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money... Allowing people to keep more of it to use for their own best interests and purposes (such as investing in companies doing R&D to help clean up the planet) does not create a hole that needs to be filled.

soooooo, common defence, infrastructure, social welfare...

these don't cost anything.  right?

That's not at all what I said, awol. Go back a re-read my post.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 06, 2009, 10:54:23 AM
In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money.

clarify, then.

Quote from: awol on January 06, 2009, 12:49:33 PM
clarify, then.

Ok, I'll try.
The gov't does not earn any money. People with jobs earn money.
The gov't has no money of it's own to fund anything. People have money.
Are you with me so far? Good.

The gov't takes the people's money from them in the form of taxes, fines, tariff's, etc, and spends the money on gov't programs, the military, infrastructure, etc (after taking a hefty cut for their OWN paychecks, btw).

So, lets say that a company needs to raise money for R&D because they feel they can create a widget that will stop global warming. Let's say the need $1000. So the company offers shares of stock to the public to raise the money.
People could invest in the company with their after-tax dollars, if they have enough, that is, and the company can raise the money and get to work easing global warming! They sell their widget and make a nice profit. The stock price goes up and the people who own stock have now increased their net worth.

Sounds good to me...how about you?

Now, from another point of view:
The gov't owns the means of production and therefore the "profits".
The company still needs the $1000 dollars, so they apply for a gov't grant to get the money.
However, Senator Obama of Illinois (for example) has a political pal who helped him get elected, so he denies the grant and gives the money to his pal's company instead, who aren't making widgets to ease global warming, but are mostly engaged in making contributions to political campaigns.
Global warming isn't eased, and the people did not increase their net worth. Well, I suppose Obama's buddy did increase his wealth.

Now, back to scenario #1:
What if the gov't allowed people to keep MORE of their hard-earned money? Then the people would have more to invest in global warming widget makers, wouldn't they? And there would be no need for the gov't to be playing "special interest" games that line the pockets of only a few while the rest just pay more taxes and get less for it.

So, allowing peoiple to keep more of their money doesn't "cost" anything. Gov't overspending (can you say "bridge to nowhere"?) causes deficits, but that means the people owe money to themselves. And raising taxes won't solve THAT, either.

Ok, that is my attempt to clarify, lol! I hope that it helps.

Don't forget "Big Dig".... :rolleyes:  (That little Boston job)

 :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Massachusetts)

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 06, 2009, 01:56:09 PM
Ok, I'll try.
The gov't does not earn any money. People with jobs earn money.
The gov't has no money of it's own to fund anything. People have money.
Are you with me so far? Good.

The gov't takes the people's money from them in the form of taxes, fines, tariff's, etc, and spends the money on gov't programs, the military, infrastructure, etc (after taking a hefty cut for their OWN paychecks, btw).

so, you agree that the gov't needs money for "programs", military, and infrastructure.  these things cost a predictable ammount of money each year.  so if the gov't takes in less money...?

(i ignored the rest of your post, as it is nothing but a false dichotomy)

OK Ghost and Henry.  I really like what you've posted.  I think Mr awol is being difficult just for the fun of it.  He should go tax the profitable "non profit" green organizations. They might have a few less of the millions of trust fund dollars to keep the ecomaniacs jetting around the world creating chaos and fear mongering in the name of Gorebal Warming.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 06, 2009, 07:21:16 PM
OK Ghost and Henry.  I really like what you've posted.  I think Mr awol is being difficult just for the fun of it.  He should go tax the profitable "non profit" green organizations. They might have a few less of the millions of trust fund dollars to keep the ecomaniacs jetting around the world creating chaos and fear mongering in the name of Gorebal Warming.

:thumbsup:

Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting. :smile:

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 06, 2009, 11:19:47 PM
Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting. :smile:

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

Certainly you're not expecting simple minds to grasp complex problems?

You mean like the get rich scheme of the carbon credits?  Oh, I understand it completely... :biggrin:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 06, 2009, 11:19:47 PM
Oh how nice, a Goreaphobe meeting. :smile:

Hopefully you'll be able to work the environmental crisis into your agenda after you discover that  global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing.

It's kind of silly to disregard an entire issue based on one person you happen to dislike don't you think?

You can thank the liberal media for the whole Al Gore/Global Warming deal........THEY are the ones who gave him an Academy Award for movie full of misinformation.........THEY are the ones who gave him a Nobel Prize.......and again, NOBODY is disregarding this issue....I don't know ANYONE who WANTS to trash the earth.  But, Al Gore left a very bad taste, because of his trash talk and his desire to TAX the crap out of Americans to cure this issue...and his scare tactics he used for leverage.............we need level thinking on this.....not a bunch of BS.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 08:21:46 AM
You can thank the liberal media...

Fallacy number one: there is no such thing as 'the liberal media'; corporate media would be a more appropriate term.

Quote...for movie full of misinformation...

Please explain which parts of the movie (that I'm sure you've not even seen) are misinformation and provide verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific sources to support your claims.

QuoteTHEY are the ones who gave him a Nobel Prize.

No, after a long and painstaking process in which potential nominees are discussed and scrutinized by experts in their specific disciplines, the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which consists of five representatives selected by the Norwegian parliament.  It has nothing to do with the media whatsoever.

Quote...and again, NOBODY is disregarding this issue...

Trivializing it would be a better explanation.

QuoteI don't know ANYONE who WANTS to trash the earth.

And yet we continue.

Quote...we need level thinking on this.....not a bunch of BS.

Correct; please keep your brain-washed, uninformed opinions to yourself to avoid muddying up the issue.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Fallacy number one: there is no such thing as 'the liberal media'; corporate media would be a more appropriate term.

you woud be wrong....Liberal Media is VERY appropriate....

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Please explain which parts of the movie (that I'm sure you've not even seen) are misinformation and provide verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific sources to support your claims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gore's-'nine-Inconvenient-Untruths'.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gore's-'nine-Inconvenient-Untruths'.html)  this is just one site that I grabbed to throw at you....

One example........and the one that MOST stood out at me was the claim that the sea-level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting ice in Antarctica in the very near future......that HAS been debunked already.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
No, after a long and painstaking process in which potential nominees are discussed and scrutinized by experts in their specific disciplines, the prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which consists of five representatives selected by the Norwegian parliament.  It has nothing to do with the media whatsoever.

If you believe THAT, then you are WAY more gullible than I thought.. Those guys are nothing more than a group of government (political) appointees...and to give the award to Gore, who's views have been WIDELY disputed by serveral hundred scientists, shows the political paritsan that they represent....imo

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Trivializing it would be a better explanation.

Who is trivializing it?........simply because MOST intelligent people do NOT drink the Gore Kool-aid, or the kyotot treaty crap...does NOT mean it is trivialized.....

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
And yet we continue.

where have you been?   :confused:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Correct; please keep your brain-washed, uninformed opinions to yourself to avoid muddying up the issue.

...take a good long look in the mirror pal....I think you described yourself to a tee... ;)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 09:59:20 AM
you woud be wrong....Liberal Media is VERY appropriate....

Only to a complete buffoon who knows absolutely nothing about how business and money interests work.

I asked for peer-reviewed scientific sources which you did not provide because you can't

QuoteIf you believe THAT, then you are WAY more gullible than I thought. Those guys are nothing more than a group of government (political) appointees...and to give the award to Gore, who's views have been WIDELY disputed by serveral hundred scientists, shows the political paritsan that they represent....imo

Your ignorance of the selection process for a Nobel prize is in no way related to my gullibility; it is simply your ignorance which you seem to take such pleasure in flaunting.  It has been proven to you over and over again that climate scientologists overwhelmingly agree on global warming and yet you continue to quote so-called authorities whose areas of expertise have nothing whatsoever to that area of study.

Quote...simply because MOST intelligent people do NOT drink the Gore Kool-aid, or the kyotot treaty crap...does NOT mean it is trivialized.....

That someone who can't conjugate the verb 'to be' thinks he has the right to speak for 'most intelligent people' is laughable albeit sadly pathetic.

Quotewhere have you been?

Learning.

Here ya to Exterminator I doubt if you'll read any of it but its at least a start. 
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml)
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm (http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html)
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26)
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A)

Here are few more, but like me, I doubt you'll read any of them...

global warming and Al Gore are not the same thing........

Correct:  One is a human with a self-righteous ego the size of Cleveland.  The other is a myth and like most myth's....some truth but mostly embellishment and over-exaggeration.

Quote from: me on January 07, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
Here ya to Exterminator I doubt if you'll read any of it but its at least a start. 
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

Let's see...

A list of rebuttals from the Association of British Drivers (who are ostensibly basing their global warming assumptions on observations made through their windshields, an article about a lone geophysicist who doesn't dispute that global warming is occurring but isn't sure what's causing it and a pair of ultra-right-wing tabloids.

Is the concept of peer-reviewed scientific literature really that difficult for you people to understand?  It would seem that many of you have already come to a conclusion and are only willing to consider information that supports their preconceived notions no matter how outlandish the source.  It's a great way to remain blissfully ignorant but it is no way to learn.  You're dead wrong and the majority of the learned, experienced scientists who have spent their careers studying the climate all agree that you are.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 03:40:00 PM
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml)
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm (http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html)
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/26/science/sci-adapt26)
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A)

Here are few more, but like me, I doubt you'll read any of them...

I've already read them all and you, like your counterparts, will latch on to any article that supports only that which you have already decided to believe and ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.  You can't fix stupid.

whatever...it is YOU that is ignoring the overwheliming emprical evidence.......

whatever happened to the "ice age" that your "expert" scientist said was coming back in the late 70's?..........

what about the 'acid rain' that was going to destroy our plantet?.......

Quote from: Exterminator on January 07, 2009, 03:53:44 PM


A list of rebuttals from the Association of British Drivers (who are ostensibly basing their global warming assumptions on observations made through their windshields, an article about a lone geophysicist who doesn't dispute that global warming is occurring but isn't sure what's causing it and a pair of ultra-right-wing tabloids.

They also rely heavily on the Oregon Petition where "31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs"  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.petitionproject.org/ (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

Yet if you look up these people to see their credentials....


A random sample (the first five names from the list alphabetically) would be Earl M. Aagaard, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron.

1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn't find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically "large animal surgery").    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I'm sure has some bearing on climate change).

5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications.

And that signature on their home page - Edward Teller?

Teller died in 2003 at age 95, so it's possible that he did sign this. And given his famously contrarian personality, it's not even unlikely. Even so, the august Dr. Teller was a nuclear physicist–not a climatologist.

Now if you would care to read something by scientists who are relevant to the subject ...
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm)

1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM).

3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.

5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 07, 2009, 04:01:22 PM
whatever...it is YOU that is ignoring the overwheliming emprical evidence.......

whatever happened to the "ice age" that your "expert" scientist said was coming back in the late 70's?..........

what about the 'acid rain' that was going to destroy our plantet?.......

Like I said, you can't fix stupid.  The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly supports my position despite your inability to understand it or your choice to remain willfully ignorant.

Trotting out the same old, tired, inane arguments doesn't help your assertions either.  The so-called ice age predicted in the 70's was never generally accepted by the scientific community nor did anyone ever suggest that acid rain would 'destroy' the planet but feel free to continue to attempt to cloud the issue with red herrings.

As Bo D illustrates above, your so-called list of scientists who dispute global warming doesn't hold water either.  Not long after it was first introduced, several people whose names appear on it came forward and said that they had never signed any such petition bringing into question the authentity of the entire list.  Additionally, I no more care about a biologist's opinion on global warming than I would want the advice of a proctologist to treat a brain tumor although I will admit that the latter would seem appropriate in your case.

Now the ball's in your court...do you choose to continue to deny the obvious and paint yourself as uninformed or are you willing to read the information at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm ?  If history is any indication, my guess is you'll stick with ignorance.

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm 'Mistaken' 
11 More Scientists Join Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenters 
'The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken'
Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Bali conference proves global warming a myth
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4561710.html

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 08:31:12 AM
Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm 'Mistaken' 
11 More Scientists Join Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenters 
'The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken'
Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

A single scientist whose field has nothing to do with climate disagrees with thousands who specialize in the field and you offer it as proof?

QuoteBali conference proves global warming a myth
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4561710.html

Rather than refer to a news article consisting almost entirely of quotes from unknown sources, why not actually read the reports from the conference itself?  They tell quite a different story: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

QuoteU. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Again, the number of scientists who specialize in this field and believe there is an issue far outnumber those who don't.  I do note, however, that the publication fails to identify all of the 650 and out of those it does, many have no expertise related to climate studies.

What astounds me is that you people are not the lest bit open minded on the subject.  I have honestly looked for reasons not to believe the consensus and what I've found is that there simply aren't many believable sources who a.) have the requesite background, b.) have never taken money from industry, and c.) think it's all a big hoax.  These people simply do not exist but feel free to continue to intentionally seek out articles that prove that you are going out of your way to bely logic and remain ignorant.

You didn't even bother to read those articles did you?

A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California "Gender and Science" professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=17181 (http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=17181)

Here's my take on this WHOLE thing.....there is enough skepticism, to keep me from passing laws, like the Kyoto Protocol suggests....and to get all jiggy about a Al Gore film, I feel, that is designed to promote a world tax, and punish capitalism.

Secondly, the IPCC is a bunch of scientists that have been hired BY governments around the world AND supported by the UN....uh, governments and the UN are TWO factions that I do NOT trust.

I 100% support of improving our conditions here on earth, but do not WANT to act rashly, but be good stewards of this earth AND the economy.

EX, if you feel the need to continue to referr to me as stupid and continue to name call....I am through with you. You make me to want to take the low road on discussion........I really don't have enough respect from you to truly care what your opinion is, let alone to engage in debates.....you want to discuss with me, try taking the high road and put your arrogance aside.  If not, I wont lose any sleep, but will simply no longer respond to your posts.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 09:09:13 AM
You didn't even bother to read those articles did you?

Are you not paying attention?  Yes, I read them and with the exception of the third link, they're bullshit.  What value does a news "article" with half a dozen anonymous quotes have?  Seriously?

This list don't look anonymous to me:( did not include the entire list but scroll down to the end and you'll find all of them.
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:   

"I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. 

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years." 



Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.



"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.



"So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." -  Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time."  - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico 
  "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.   

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. 


"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round...A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact," Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



"Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions." – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 


"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. 

Oh thats from the 3rd link BTW

I'm beginning to think that some people get their teeth cleaned by a proctologist.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 09:25:42 AM
I'm beginning to think that some people get their teeth cleaned by a proctologist.

Now why would you say that about Exterminator?  :biggrin:

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 09:27:02 AM
Now why would you say that about Exterminator?  :biggrin:

The point is (and you know it) that those of you who will believe that a veterinarian or an oncologist is an expert on climatology may as well go see the vet to get your flu shot.

You didn't check out those names fully did ya?

"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round...A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact," Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

"Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions." – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
  "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

Bo, these guys ARE all experts in related fields...these guys ARE highly intelligent scientists...and maybe not complete experts in climatology, but ARE knowledgeable in the study of earth....and to disregard their opinions ALL together is foolish.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 09:37:28 AM
Bo, these guys ARE all experts in related fields...these guys ARE highly intelligent scientists...and maybe not complete experts in climatology, but ARE knowledgeable in the study of earth....and to disregard their opinions ALL together is foolish.

OK...I have a degree in Computer Science and I have 25 years experience in the field (no joke.) Some would call me an expert. Computers are used to study climate change so that is a related field.

That makes me just as much an expert in climatology as the vet or the oncologist.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 09:43:48 AM
OK...I have a degree in Computer Science and I have 25 years experience in the field (no joke.) Some would call me an expert. Computers are used to study climate change so that is a related field.

That makes me just as much an expert in climatology as the vet or the oncologist.

Uh Bo, those are not vets and oncologists on that list.

Henry, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you engage me in conversation or not.  As you have consistently proven with your tripe during the election process, you have absolutely no qualms with continually disseminating information that has been proven false to you over and over again.  What you do is not research by any stretch of the imagination; you pick a position and then pay attention only to that which supports that position.

People with no exposure to it assume that formal education is designed to teach things when, in fact, it is designed to teach how to think critically.  Those with such exposure pay attention not only to what is being said by by whom and in what context, weigh those factors accordingly and often form an opinion that, while it may lean more to one side, is more often near the middle than any extreme.

That global warming is happening, is affecting the planet and has potentially far reaching consequences is, by now, clear to any thinking person.  My personal position on it is that regardless of what those consequences may or may not be, there is absolutely no downside to reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses.  Many will claim that there are potentially dire economic consequences but that is nothing more than rhetoric spread by corporate interests who do not want to be forced to pay to change their processes in favor of better stewardship of the environment.  The economy as a whole won't suffer because new technologies would have to be developed to achieve those goals and innovation is always better for the economy than the laws of diminishing returns associated with the status quo.  What those companies are really saying is that it will affect their economies; at least they can count on the general public to be too ignorant to understand the difference.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 09:43:48 AM
OK...I have a degree in Computer Science and I have 25 years experience in the field (no joke.) Some would call me an expert. Computers are used to study climate change so that is a related field.

That makes me just as much an expert in climatology as the vet or the oncologist.

Bo, THAT is an extremely poor analogy.....

did you even read the link, where studies have shown that climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 10:04:18 AM
Bo, THAT is an extremely poor analogy.....

It is absolutely analogous to the 'scientists' your ilk presents as authorities.

Quotedid you even read the link, where studies have shown that climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate?

Do you mean the almost four-year-old article presented by an organization whose bias is decidedly pro-industry?  As is typical, I doubt you vetted your source before presenting them as an authority.  From Wikipedia (and verifiable elsewhere):

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"

In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list, writing that "They [the scientists] have no right—legally or ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography." The Institute did rename the list from its original title (chosen by its public relations department) to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares", to clarify that the scientists in question do not doubt global warming. Ultimately, the Heartland Institute concluded that "... the point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis."

So, you're presenting as a believable authority (as well as part of the basis for your position on global warming) a group of known liars...nice!  I suppose that to you, Heartland Institute's inclusion of executives from companies like GM and ExxonMobil (who's contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars) on their board of directors shouldn't call into question any potential bias on global warming much in the same way that having executives from Phillip Morris on the board probably doesn't influence their position that second hand smoke isn't harmful; huh?

Are you for real?

Another example of ....follow the money.

Where does the money come from to fund all these studies.....follow it and you won't even have to read the infomation to know what they will conclude.

Lifelong climatologists will lose their jobs, funding, etc if they don't "prove" global warming.

I saw one quote on these posts that read something like this......Now that I am no longer affiliated with....I can no tell you what I really believe the data suggests.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 09:09:13 AM
You didn't even bother to read those articles did you?

Perhaps you should do some reading.  If you are arguing that there is no consensus that global warming is occurring and that its cause is primarily man-made, you might want to read this: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm (note that none of the people or organizations named have asked to have their names removed).

again, the IPCC, is a government ran AND appointed organization, with UN backing...............there are enough credited denouncers of man-made global warming to keep this debate open..........and EX, I am open minded about this, but I am NOT yet convinced we are doomed IF we do not begin to TAX our way to save the planet.....I think the G8 summits are good, but are we willing to throw BILLIONS of $$ at something that will NOT make a real difference.............

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.smith07jan07,0,5420174.column (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.smith07jan07,0,5420174.column)..this explains how I feel, quite well.


and I have noticed, why is it NOW, referred to as Climate Change instead of Global Warming?.....is it because SOME of these scientist got it wrong?

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 09:22:32 AM
This list don't look anonymous to me:( did not include the entire list but scroll down to the end and you'll find all of them.
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:   

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years." 

Instead of posting from other blogs and forums, perhaps you should go to the source and see what was really said ..


Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/)

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 08, 2009, 11:51:37 AM
Another example of ....follow the money.

Where does the money come from to fund all these studies.....follow it and you won't even have to read the infomation to know what they will conclude.

Lifelong climatologists will lose their jobs, funding, etc if they don't "prove" global warming.

I saw one quote on these posts that read something like this......Now that I am no longer affiliated with....I can no tell you what I really believe the data suggests.

Yeah, scientists like Dr. Peter Kershaw (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7124) spend years in the sub-zero temperatuers in the arctic studying the effects of climate change on the permafrost for the money.   :rolleyes:  Nitwit.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 12:24:02 PM
again, the IPCC, is a government ran AND appointed organization, with UN backing...

So what?

Quote...there are enough credited denouncers of man-made global warming to keep this debate open...

Only amongst the easily misled.

Quote...and EX, I am open minded about this, but I am NOT yet convinced we are doomed IF we do not begin to TAX our way to save the planet...

Try to focus on the global warming subject and quit trying to sully up the waters with this tax bullshit, another of your red herrings.  If global warming is insignificant and we lower greenhouse gas emissions anyway, what's the effect; cleaner air.  What if it is real and it is as profound as some think and we do nothing; what if you're wrong?

For the record, you are anything but open-minded on the subject.

Quote..I think the G8 summits are good, but are we willing to throw BILLIONS of $$ at something that will NOT make a real difference...

But throwing hundreds of billions at a struggling financial market is cool; huh?

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 12:47:17 PM
What if it is real and it is as profound as some think and we do nothing; what if you're wrong?

I can ask the same on Christianity...What if your wrong?

sorry...............got a little side tracked...


Ex, I really don't think ANYONE is against cleaning the air or work on reducing carbons........but, I think we have to be careful on how we approach it, because IT COULD potentially impact our economy if we do not handle this correctly..........and not be hasty...first of all, I have also read where, reducing carbons produced by humans could have little effect....can we logicaly reduce enough too impact anything?.........I think we are making more strides for better effecient automobles by the oil crisis, more than the Al Gore scare-tactics......the future of battery, hybrid and fuel-cell cars is not too far away....WITHOUT a kyoto protocol....

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 12:44:44 PM
Yeah, scientists like Dr. Peter Kershaw (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7124) spend years in the sub-zero temperatuers in the arctic studying the effects of climate change on the permafrost for the money.   :rolleyes:  Nitwit.

Why do you always feel you have to name call to get a point across?  Are you a control freak or something?  I know that type always do that 'cause they think it makes them sound tough.  Having a different opinion from you don't make someone a nitwit, dumb ass, or moron.  It also makes discussions with the name caller pointless because they aren't listening anyway they're just interested in bullying and controlling.  When people stop posting to you its not because you won the argument its because you are trying to bully tough talk your way into being right whether you are or not.  No one, and I don't care who they are, is right 100% of the time so quit trying to belittle those who disagree with you and grow up.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
Having a different opinion from you don't make someone a nitwit, dumb ass, or moron. 

Sure it does.

QuoteIt also makes discussions with the name caller pointless because they aren't listening anyway they're just interested in bullying and controlling.  When people stop posting to you its not because you won the argument its because you are trying to bully tough talk your way into being right whether you are or not.  No one, and I don't care who they are, is right 100% of the time so quit trying to belittle those who disagree with you and grow up.

Are you such a nitwit that you don't see the irony in your indirectly calling me a bully, controlling and immature?   :razz:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 01:35:25 PM
Sure it does.

Are you such a nitwit that you don't see the irony in your indirectly calling me a bully, controlling and immature?   :razz:

You included immature I didn't say anything about that but if the shoe fits.  :razz:  Besides thats regarding personality traits not intelligence and there is a difference ya know.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 12:42:15 PM
Instead of posting from other blogs and forums, perhaps you should go to the source and see what was really said ..


Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/)

What? You don't care to address this?

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 01:41:53 PM
You included immature I didn't say anything about that but if the shoe fits.  :razz:  Besides thats regarding personality traits not intelligence and there is a difference ya know.

* that's

And when you tell someone to grow up, you're implying they're immature so neener neener boo boo!   :razz:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 01:57:32 PM
* that's

And when you tell someone to grow up, you're implying they're immature so neener neener boo boo!   :razz:

Still a personality trait though..... :razz:

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 01:48:23 PM
What? You don't care to address this?

There are still things that can be done without raising tax's and throwing good money after bad.  The money raised will never get spent the way it was intended and then we will be taxed again.  If the people keep letting the government devise ways to take our money away from us we will soon be working entirely for the government and not be allowed to keep any of our wages.  Think about it.  How many new tax's are already being proposed and Obama's term hasn't even started yet. On one hand he's talking tax reductions and on the other hand Congress is figuring out a way to take the tax reduction from us by adding different types of tax's and most of the public is only hearing "tax reduction".   What does that have to do with this you ask...Well, aren't they talking about raising tax's and charging extra for different types of energy consumption?  Gas tax, cow fart tax, wheel tax...and on and on and on.....

This whole tax issue is nothing more than another BS smoke screen devised to further cloud the issue of global warming.  To the best of my knowledge, no one is seriously considering the types of taxes you people are claiming and emissions credits have been is use for decades.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 02:33:45 PM
This whole tax issue is nothing more than another BS smoke screen devised to further cloud the issue of global warming.  To the best of my knowledge, no one is seriously considering the types of taxes you people are claiming and emissions credits have been is use for decades.

there has been alot of talk by those from the kyoto protocol to leaders in europe, in proposing a world wide carbon tax.......they want developed countries to pay billions of $$ and to supply technology fpr climate related studies and projects........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

what makes you think it is smoke and mirrors?.......it is going to cost a great deal to do the things they want to do.......and WHO is going to pay for it?..............you can bet the U.S will be right at the top of the list as $$ donors....and the only way to do that is TAX the American workers....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/climatechange.carbonemissions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/climatechange.carbonemissions)

Did I already say bullshit?

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Did I already say bullshit?

how and who is going to pay for ALL this Mr. EX?

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 02:08:20 PM
There are still things that can be done without raising tax's and throwing good money after bad.  The money raised will never get spent the way it was intended and then we will be taxed again.  If the people keep letting the government devise ways to take our money away from us we will soon be working entirely for the government and not be allowed to keep any of our wages.  Think about it.  How many new tax's are already being proposed and Obama's term hasn't even started yet. On one hand he's talking tax reductions and on the other hand Congress is figuring out a way to take the tax reduction from us by adding different types of tax's and most of the public is only hearing "tax reduction".   What does that have to do with this you ask...Well, aren't they talking about raising tax's and charging extra for different types of energy consumption?  Gas tax, cow fart tax, wheel tax...and on and on and on.....

You still didn't address the fact that a source you used to debunk global warming is really an advocate of acting "on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

How can you, in good conscience, keep using partial quotes, veterinarians, ontologists, chemists, geologists, etc., to support your side?

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 12:42:15 PM
Instead of posting from other blogs and forums, perhaps you should go to the source and see what was really said ..


Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/)

Where among these names do you see anyone who would not be qualified?  You seemed to think some of them were qualified when some of them were on the other side.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."



Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.



"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.



"So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." -  Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time."  - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
  "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.   

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round...A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact," Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



"Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions." – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
Where among these names do you see anyone who would not be qualified?  You seemed to think some of them were qualified when some of them were on the other side.

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

We aren't studying CHEMISTRY.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

We aren't studying GEOLOGY.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
"So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." -  Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

We aren't studying CHEMICAL ENGINEERING.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time."  - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

There are some who believe that the Sun also has some part in global warming. As he says, we will see. I'm surprised you don't understand that he is essentially saying you are wrong if you firmly and truly believe that global warming is a hoax.




etc., etc., etc.

But I saved the best for last....

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

And she goes on to say....

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.[/size]

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/)



(Didn't you read this the last two times I posted it?)

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 03:49:35 PM
We aren't studying CHEMISTRY.


We aren't studying GEOLOGY.

Who would be better able to check for certain type changes in the earth than a geologist?

We aren't studying CHEMICAL ENGINEERING.

Who better would know what certain chemicals might do to the atmosphere than a chemist?




There are some who believe that the Sun also has some part in global warming. As he says, we will see. I'm surprised you don't understand that he is essentially saying you are wrong if you firmly and truly believe that global warming is a hoax.

We cannot control the suns orbit and it does play a part in the temp of the earth and different weather cycles.




etc., etc., etc.

But I saved the best for last....

And she goes on to say....

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.[/size]

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/)



(Didn't you read this the last two times I posted it?)

Quotehe main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

I read this part and that don't say to me that we should be willing to hand over our hard earned dollars to a government that will not spend it on what it is intended for and nothing will change.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 03:49:35 PM
And she goes on to say....

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.[/size]

and THEN, she goes ont to say.............."But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

decision have to be made on "incomplete information...".....and IF...."the climate models are right"

here is a full quote from her...:
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." -




and maybe these guys are NOT 'climatologists"........their opinions and conclusions are STILL something to ponder, and should NOT be disregarded all together....

another just to point out.............the IPCC predicted warming trends...but temperatures went (and are going) down while CO2 increased...

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 04:11:02 PM
I read this part and that don't say to me that we should be willing to hand over our hard earned dollars to a government that will not spend it on what it is intended for and nothing will change.

Selective reading at its best! You just confirmed what X and I have been stating. You have made up your "mind" based on all the junk e-mails in your inbox and reading blogs of completely unqualified hacks.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 04:14:42 PM
and THEN, she goes ont to say.............."But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

decision have to be made on "incomplete information...".....and IF...."the climate models are right"

here is a full quote from her...:
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." -




and maybe these guys are NOT 'climatologists"........their opinions and conclusions are STILL something to ponder, and should NOT be disregarded all together....

another just to point out.............the IPCC predicted warming trends...but temperatures went (and are going) down while CO2 increased...

Skeptical is fine. Denial is wrong.

She does say "IF...the climate models are right"

She doesn't claim they are wrong. and the more complete quote is "if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

No...those guys aren't climatologists. And I don't go to a proctologist to get my teeth cleaned. And I don't consult my family doctor for tax advice.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 04:24:55 PM
Selective reading at its best! You just confirmed what X and I have been stating. You have made up your "mind" based on all the junk e-mails in your inbox and reading blogs of completely unqualified hacks.

And you have failed to explain how raising our tax's is going to help.  I am not basing what I am saying on junk emails and blogs I am basing it on seeing how the government has handled our tax dollars in the past and continues to handle our tax dollars. 

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 04:33:21 PM
And you have failed to explain how raising our tax's is going to help.  I am not basing what I am saying on junk emails and blogs I am basing it on seeing how the government has handled our tax dollars in the past and continues to handle our tax dollars. 

I am not discussing taxes. I am discussing the fact that global warming is real.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 04:35:16 PM
I am not discussing taxes. I am discussing the fact that global warming is real.

Based on hypothetical figures plugged into a computer by climatologists who were being paid to find certain results.   

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 04:33:03 PM
Skeptical is fine. Denial is wrong.

She does say "IF...the climate models are right"

She doesn't claim they are wrong. and the more complete quote is "if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

No...those guys aren't climatologists. And I don't go to a proctologist to get my teeth cleaned. And I don't consult my family doctor for tax advice.

but your family doctor is NO heart specialist, but he CAN dedect a heart problem.........he is NO optimalogist, but he CAN tell you if your vision is bad....he is NO gynecologist but he COULD deliver a baby.........he is no proctologist, but he knows what to feel for in that area to detect a problem.........(by the way, I AM glad to hear that your proct Doc is NOT cleaning your teeth... ;) ;D )   :spooked:

the bottom line is there are a lot of very intelligent folks out there that are NOT sold on the IPCC's findings........even THEY have admitted that their modeling systmes are not always accurate, but yet THAT is how they determined much of their claims....

they remind me of the chicken yelling the sky is falling....................maybe it is?..........but let's get it right before we jump in with both feet and sink BILLIONS of dollars on something..........heck we are already doing that with the BANKS and the AUTO-MAKERS.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 04:43:12 PM
but your family doctor is NO heart specialist, but he CAN dedect a heart problem.........he is NO optimalogist, but he CAN tell you if your vision is bad....he is NO gynecologist but he COULD deliver a baby.........he is no proctologist, but he knows what to feel for in that area to detect a problem.........(by the way, I AM glad to hear that your proct Doc is NOT cleaning your teeth... ;) ;D )   :spooked:

Man, you talk about bad analogy? At least a GP knows the human body. How can a rock hound claim to be an expert on the climate?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 04:43:12 PM
the bottom line is there are a lot of very intelligent folks out there that are NOT sold on the IPCC's findings........even THEY have admitted that their modeling systmes are not always accurate, but yet THAT is how they determined much of their claims....

Yet some of you are absolutely certain that they are wrong because some hack tells you they are.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 04:39:16 PM
Based on hypothetical figures plugged into a computer by climatologists who were being paid to find certain results.   

Prove it.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 04:51:12 PM
Man, you talk about bad analogy? At least a GP knows the human body. How can a rock hound claim to be an expert on the climate?

Yet some of you are absolutely certain that they are wrong because some hack tells you they are.

No hack is telling me anything...........believe it or not.....I have done a great deal of research on this, because of this forum over the last few years...........and yes, I am a skeptic, but it is based upon the distrust that I have in the IPCC, the UN, the Kyoto Protocol and AL GORE...

Bo, I hope I am right and THEY are wrong...not so I can say "I told you so!!...I am just not sold that Man has dicked up the earth SO bad, that we only have less than 10-years to live here....per algore...

and my analogies probably ARE bad...but the jest IS.....those people are experts on issues that relate to one another in some shape or form.....and these guys understand the problem alot better than the average joe....so, when they talk, it is not like they are trying to clean your teeth or check your prostate out.....

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 04:51:54 PM
Prove it.

Why should all the proof have to come from here yet we are supposed to just take your word for it?  You prove it wasn't hypothetical figures.  Both sides used a certain amount of hypothetical figures from the distant past with different results because different inputs were used.  Humans weren't around to cause the ice age so what makes anyone think we can stop the warming of the planet?  Would it be warming without us here at all because of the natural order of things?  Is it really happening that fast or are we just being duped by certain interests to gain money?  Yes, we can make the planet cleaner and stop being a throw away society that we have become and that will help make the air quality better and keep pollution down but do we really need to be panicked into spending billions or trillions of tax dollars?  Common sense will go further in the long run.  Quit buying from factories that pollute, they'll get the hint.  Quit changing furniture and carpeting on a whim and just to get new or keep up with the latest trends, get back to using nature to get rid of garden pests instead of chemicals, quit going to the Dr. to get the latest drug to cure something you "might" get and use natural things which won't pollute our water and don't come with a side effect warning that sometimes states things the drug could cause that are worse than what you're taking it to prevent or get rid of.  Stop and think a little for pete's sake.   

Let me clarify.......

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 04:39:16 PM
climatologists who were being paid to find certain results.     

Prove it.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 08, 2009, 05:01:30 PM
No hack is telling me anything...........believe it or not.....I have done a great deal of research on this, because of this forum over the last few years...........and yes, I am a skeptic, but it is based upon the distrust that I have in the IPCC, the UN, the Kyoto Protocol and AL GORE...

Bo, I hope I am right and THEY are wrong...not so I can say "I told you so!!...I am just not sold that Man has dicked up the earth SO bad, that we only have less than 10-years to live here....per algore...

and my analogies probably ARE bad...but the jest IS.....those people are experts on issues that relate to one another in some shape or form.....and these guys understand the problem alot better than the average joe....so, when they talk, it is not like they are trying to clean your teeth or check your prostate out.....

OK.. Henry. Just as an exercise...look up what will happen to the Gulf Stream if the Arctic Ice Sheet melts.

Hint...the result will be tropical weather for the eastern US (we will be able to gorw palm trees on the banks of the Potomac...heck, we can already grow banana trees here.) while western Europe will be locked in a deep freeze.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 05:23:23 PM
OK.. Henry. Just as an exercise...look up what will happen to the Gulf Stream if the Arctic Ice Sheet melts.

Hint...the result will be tropical weather for the eastern US (we will be able to gorw palm trees on the banks of the Potomac...heck, we can already grow banana trees here.) while western Europe will be locked in a deep freeze.

And they used to grow grapes in England but can't now because the climate is too cold so where's the global warming there? Check that out... :razz:

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 05:31:12 PM
And they used to grow grapes in England but can't now because the climate is too cold so where's the global warming there? Check that out... :razz:

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 05:23:23 PM
OK.. Henry. Just as an exercise...look up what will happen to the Gulf Stream if the Arctic Ice Sheet melts.

Hint...the result will be tropical weather for the eastern US (we will be able to gorw palm trees on the banks of the Potomac...heck, we can already grow banana trees here.) while western Europe will be locked in a deep freeze.

Last time I checked England is part of western Europe.

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 05:34:26 PM

Last time I checked England is part of western Europe.

But have you checked out how long it took for it to get to this point?  It was a bunch more than 10yrs.

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 05:31:12 PM
And they used to grow grapes in England but can't now because the climate is too cold so where's the global warming there? Check that out... :razz:

BTW, that part about not being able to grow grapes in England ... LIE!!!!!!

http://www.englishwineproducers.com/ (http://www.englishwineproducers.com/)

"Englands vineyards are spread throughout the country, although the majority are still in the southern half of the counrty, there are more and more being planted further north"

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 05:43:31 PM
BTW, that part about not being able to grow grapes in England ... LIE!!!!!!

http://www.englishwineproducers.com/ (http://www.englishwineproducers.com/)

"Englands vineyards are spread throughout the country, although the majority are still in the southern half of the counrty, there are more and more being planted further north"

Ah, then England isn't cooling down and therefore that debunks any problem there.

QuoteQuote from: Bo D on Today at 05:23:23 PM
OK.. Henry. Just as an exercise...look up what will happen to the Gulf Stream if the Arctic Ice Sheet melts.

Hint...the result will be tropical weather for the eastern US (we will be able to gorw palm trees on the banks of the Potomac...heck, we can already grow banana trees here.) while western Europe will be locked in a deep freeze.

  :hide: :tomahit: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :bike:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 08, 2009, 06:13:49 PM
  :hide: :tomahit: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :bike:

:rotfl: :rotfl:  Ya gotta admit it's kept us occupied, off the streets, and out of our respective partners hair all day....hehehe

It was gettin' pretty hot in here.  :spooked: I thought a little diversion might be in order.  :biggrin:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 08, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
It was gettin' pretty hot in here.  :spooked: I thought a little diversion might be in order.  :biggrin:

Good thinkin' Dexter.... :biggrin:

I really appreciate all the comments and different points of view posted on this issue.

One thing that has not been mentioned with all the tax and spend comments.

Many USA manufacturing industries have closed down, shipped manufacturing jobs, and built new facilities outside of our borders.  It is not just all about labor rate.  It also has a whole lot to do with the cost of doing business in the USA today....permitting, regulation, controls, etc.  It has become unreasonable to build significant new industry here based on climate change legislation derived from fear....Builiding big modernized facilities (such as refineries) has become nearly impossilble to fund in this country.  A company would have to be insane or just incredibly patriotic to put up with the constraints.

Why do you think Obama only mentions "Green Jobs". 

We need to refine and drill, we need to build cars (parts), make TV's, computers, plastics, steels, carpet, paper, clothing, electronics, etc.....Nobody can afford to build these facilities because of the extreme environmental caps placed on them.

If we could relieve some of the extremist environmental burden....we could create millions of jobs in this country.  It's too easy, and too cheap to build these factories elsewhere and import the goods into the USA.

Instead of asking companies to be reasonable and good environmental stewards, we force them to be extreme.   What is the end result....build elsewhere and puke whatever they want in the climate......good policy.

Good point although I know some here won't understand what you're saying. 

Because what he is saying is garbage.  If it were true, Nestles wouldn't have just built a factory in Anderson and Honda wouldn't have built one in Greensburg.  Most of the costs associated with meeting environmental codes are typically one time costs and are not prohibitive.  Labor is the primary reason companies locate their facilities outside of the country.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 09, 2009, 08:30:21 AM
Because what he is saying is garbage.  If it were true, Nestles wouldn't have just built a factory in Anderson and Honda wouldn't have built one in Greensburg.  Most of the costs associated with meeting environmental codes are typically one time costs and are not prohibitive.  Labor is the primary reason companies locate their facilities outside of the country.

But he's talking about if new more strict requirements are implemented which would be more expensive.  Also Nestles wouldn't fall under the same category as a lot of businesses as far as needing to meet some of the more expensive regulations and controls.

Quote from: me on January 09, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
But he's talking about if new more strict requirements are implemented which would be more expensive. 

And you know this how?  If you don't yet know what those restrictions might be, how can you possibly establish what they might cost?  Even if they were expensive, most are still not ongoing costs and environmental regulations have been tightening for decades even while factories continued being built.

QuoteAlso Nestles wouldn't fall under the same category as a lot of businesses as far as needing to meet some of the more expensive regulations and controls.

Again, you know this how?  Did you help design that facility or have any insight whatsoever into what regulations govern the building of any factory or are you just pulling "facts" out of your tuckus?

Quote from: me on January 08, 2009, 05:48:22 PM
England isn't cooling down 

Yet..... :wink:

Quote from: Dexter Morgan on January 08, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
It was gettin' pretty hot in here.  :spooked: I thought a little diversion might be in order.  :biggrin:

Hey... if you can't take the heat, ......

:biggrin:

Sorry, but I think for the most part we are being civil.

I am not only referring to future industry, this has been going on for years.  I base my opinion on personal experience.  I worked in the plastics manufacturing industry for nearly 20 years.  Between early 90's and now, I watched billions of dollars being spent on new facilities in mexico, china, india, and thailand.  Nothing was spent on new construction in the USA and a large reason for that was the cost of enviromental regulations and compliance.  It is a lot more than one time costs at construction.  The annual cost to maintain, permit, document, file, etc is huge.

There are certainly many considerations that go into decisions new contruction, I am just pointing out that cost of environmental 'compliance' is a significant contributing factor.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 09, 2009, 09:14:12 AM
I am not only referring to future industry, this has been going on for years.  I base my opinion on personal experience.  I worked in the plastics manufacturing industry for nearly 20 years.  Between early 90's and now, I watched billions of dollars being spent on new facilities in mexico, china, india, and thailand.  Nothing was spent on new construction in the USA and a large reason for that was the cost of enviromental regulations and compliance.  It is a lot more than one time costs at construction.  The annual cost to maintain, permit, document, file, etc is huge.

There are certainly many considerations that go into decisions new contruction, I am just pointing out that cost of environmental 'compliance' is a significant contributing factor.

And what will be the cost to our great-great-grandchildren if we continue to spoil the planet?

Quote from: Bo D on January 09, 2009, 09:24:38 AM
And what will be the cost to our great-great-grandchildren if we continue to spoil the planet?

Who cares?

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 08, 2009, 10:31:53 PM
I really appreciate all the comments and different points of view posted on this issue.

One thing that has not been mentioned with all the tax and spend comments.

Many USA manufacturing industries have closed down, shipped manufacturing jobs, and built new facilities outside of our borders.  It is not just all about labor rate.  It also has a whole lot to do with the cost of doing business in the USA today....permitting, regulation, controls, etc.  It has become unreasonable to build significant new industry here based on climate change legislation derived from fear....Builiding big modernized facilities (such as refineries) has become nearly impossilble to fund in this country.  A company would have to be insane or just incredibly patriotic to put up with the constraints.

Why do you think Obama only mentions "Green Jobs". 

We need to refine and drill, we need to build cars (parts), make TV's, computers, plastics, steels, carpet, paper, clothing, electronics, etc.....Nobody can afford to build these facilities because of the extreme environmental caps placed on them.

If we could relieve some of the extremist environmental burden....we could create millions of jobs in this country.  It's too easy, and too cheap to build these factories elsewhere and import the goods into the USA.

Instead of asking companies to be reasonable and good environmental stewards, we force them to be extreme.   What is the end result....build elsewhere and puke whatever they want in the climate......good policy.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 09, 2009, 09:14:12 AM
I am not only referring to future industry, this has been going on for years.  I base my opinion on personal experience.  I worked in the plastics manufacturing industry for nearly 20 years.  Between early 90's and now, I watched billions of dollars being spent on new facilities in mexico, china, india, and thailand.  Nothing was spent on new construction in the USA and a large reason for that was the cost of enviromental regulations and compliance.  It is a lot more than one time costs at construction.  The annual cost to maintain, permit, document, file, etc is huge.

There are certainly many considerations that go into decisions new contruction, I am just pointing out that cost of environmental 'compliance' is a significant contributing factor.

Excellent points DB! This goes right along with the unreasonable expectations surrounding regulatory compliance within the pharmaceutical, medical device industries. These are the main drivers behind companies like Roche Diagnostics making decisions to ramp down manufacturing operations in the US and ramp them back up in Germany; putting 2,500+ manufacturing workers and support personell out of jobs, (Just within the Indy location alone), within the next 2-5 years. Turning their current manufacturing facility into nothing but a distribution center.

Things like this drive employers to utilize unsavory business practices in dealing with its tenured labor pool, in an attempt to minimize as much as possible the costs associated with severence packages.

IMHO something needs to be done about each of these points IF the US wants any kind of future at all within the manufactoring sectors of business.

EDIT: The point being that heavy handed tactics surrounding the attainment of compliance measures established to remediate contributions made toward global warming by the various sectors of industry should be well planned and milestones put into place that are reasonable; avoiding overwhelming industry to the point where it makes it cheaper or easier to just close its doors and move to another country. . .

Quote from: Exterminator on January 09, 2009, 08:45:06 AM
And you know this how?  If you don't yet know what those restrictions might be, how can you possibly establish what they might cost?  Even if they were expensive, most are still not ongoing costs and environmental regulations have been tightening for decades even while factories continued being built.

Again, you know this how?  Did you help design that facility or have any insight whatsoever into what regulations govern the building of any factory or are you just pulling "facts" out of your tuckus?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a factory bottling chocolate milk wouldn't need the same restrictions and emission controls as a plant that deals with plastics, glass, steel, or chemicals. 

Quote from: me on January 09, 2009, 12:11:56 PM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a factory bottling chocolate milk wouldn't need the same restrictions and emission controls as a plant that deals with plastics, glass, steel, or chemicals. 

Of course but any structure of that size will contend with some environmental issues.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 09, 2009, 12:38:09 PM
Of course but any structure of that size will contend with some environmental issues.

But it would be mostly the ones that are already in place like the green areas and so forth rather than having to do with emissions which are the most costly. 

Quote from: me on January 09, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
But it would be mostly the ones that are already in place like the green areas and so forth rather than having to do with emissions which are the most costly. 

You're making the incorrect assumption that there are no emissions associated with food processing.  If you have to heat anything as part of the process, there will be emissions.  Granted, they won't be the same as, say, a foundry but much of what is spewed out by a foundry isn't greenhouse gasses either.  Simply heating and cooling a space the size of the Nestle facility produces emissions...they might not be directly produced by the factory but the factory will still have to be built to be as efficient as possible to minimize the emissions from the power plant supplying it.  My point was and remains that emission control systems have been in place in factories for decades and they didn't cause those factories to locate elsewhere nor do they constitute anywhere even close to the ongoing cost of labor at such facilities.

Companies place factories outside the US for a number of reasons which all fall under avoiding US requirements and regulations - which happen to be in place for good reasons. Instead of alowing these companies to continue to exploit people and the environment we need to get tougher not softer and the best case scenario would global include global cooperation.

side note: pardon the spelling errors I'm on my cell and handicapped w/out spellcheck :biggrin:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 09, 2009, 02:00:21 PM
side note: pardon the spelling errors I'm on my cell and handicapped w/out spellcheck :biggrin:

Likely story.   :razz:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 09, 2009, 01:58:27 PM
Companies place factories outside the US for a number of reasons which all fall under avoiding US requirements and regulations - which happen to be in place for good reasons. Instead of alowing these companies to continue to exploit people and the environment we need to get tougher not softer and the best case scenario would global include global cooperation.

Which brings up another point for consideration. Given the number of foreign owned companies in the US these days, what is preventing them from say, closing down Nestle in Anderson in order to meet a demand from their home country to increase the number of jobs available there? Answer: Nothing. Should there be?

I wouldn't disagree that the regulatory bodies and regulations that they are supposed to work within are in place for "good reasons" however, there are certainly many areas in which these regulations are either over the top or unreasonable when it comes to manufacturing. Streamlining is certainly way past due when it comes to entities like the EPA and FDA. I am not saying that they should be eliminated by any stretch, but rather more can and should be done to facilitate companies surrounding timelines for compliance and paperwork requirements.

The government is a huge labrynth and their forms, regulations, requirements, etc. are just as bad.
At a minimum, we make cut~n~run a viable option for companies because of the expenditures required to come into compliance as well as the unreasonable windows within which compliance is expected to be achieved.

As for uniting gloabl efforts; you're more likely to see a man walk on water than to have 2 or more countries agree on requirements; much less all of them. . .

I might bring up another point which might not set well with some of you and really isn't right but it is food for though.  The factories might be sending a small amount of pollutants here, which is not right agreed, but if the regulations are made so tough and expensive here that they move elsewhere where there are no restrictions wouldn't that be worse in the long run?  Sure the pollutants wouldn't be here but neither are the jobs and the pollutants would eventually reach here. 

Quote from: me on January 09, 2009, 04:04:13 PM
I might bring up another point which might not set well with some of you and really isn't right but it is food for though.  The factories might be sending a small amount of pollutants here, which is not right agreed, but if the regulations are made so tough and expensive here that they move elsewhere where there are no restrictions wouldn't that be worse in the long run?  Sure the pollutants wouldn't be here but neither are the jobs and the pollutants would eventually reach here. 

And I do believe THAT is the whole point of the messages being delivered; isn't it? Unless all pull in the same direction then all we are doing is stalling the inevitable. No? But as usual there are 2,000 entities pulling in 2,000 directions; each one of them wanting to lead and none of them willing to follow.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 09, 2009, 01:55:01 PM
You're making the incorrect assumption that there are no emissions associated with food processing.  If you have to heat anything as part of the process, there will be emissions.  Granted, they won't be the same as, say, a foundry but much of what is spewed out by a foundry isn't greenhouse gasses either. 

I am not sure.  I would like to know how much CO2 is released from just making crackers.  It is a bi-product of both the dough rising, as well as, the baking.

The problem is more complex than just greenhouse gases, though.  It is also particulates (smoke).  Now the problem isn't just reducing greenhouse gases as the amount of particulates that have been released, which have actually been masking the acceleration of global warming.  We should already be over 5 degrees warmer than we are, but the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has been reduced by the "haze".

If you just reduce the particulates without a major reduction of greenhouse gases, ahead of the particulates, we could very quickly go up in flames (well, maybe not flames, but the northern coast of alaska could feel like the Caribbean pretty quickly).  So, fixing the problem will be far more difficult than our efforts were to cause it.

Quote from: Palehorse on January 09, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
Which brings up another point for consideration. Given the number of foreign owned companies in the US these days, what is preventing them from say, closing down Nestle in Anderson in order to meet a demand from their home country to increase the number of jobs available there? Answer: Nothing. Should there be?

I wouldn't disagree that the regulatory bodies and regulations that they are supposed to work within are in place for "good reasons" however, there are certainly many areas in which these regulations are either over the top or unreasonable when it comes to manufacturing. Streamlining is certainly way past due when it comes to entities like the EPA and FDA. I am not saying that they should be eliminated by any stretch, but rather more can and should be done to facilitate companies surrounding timelines for compliance and paperwork requirements.

The government is a huge labrynth and their forms, regulations, requirements, etc. are just as bad.
At a minimum, we make cut~n~run a viable option for companies because of the expenditures required to come into compliance as well as the unreasonable windows within which compliance is expected to be achieved.

As for uniting gloabl efforts; you're more likely to see a man walk on water than to have 2 or more countries agree on requirements; much less all of them. . .

I wouldn't disagree that the government, regardless of which level, is notorious for making every process as burdensome and complicated as possible. Honestly, I think much of that could be remedied if someone who is actually knowledgeable about a process was actually the one in charge of reviewing and creating the regulations for whichever particular process is being governed. I also don't honestly believe that we'd ever get every nation to agree and comply...that's a "best case scenario...kinda like world peace, but certainly if our government can offer tax breaks for simply doing business as usual, then it can offer tax breaks for going green initiatives.  I defer to  your expertise regarding manufacturing, but as someone looking from the outside in I find it hard to believe that the US is powerful enough to sanction other countries, but can't seem to find a way to encourage our own companies to do business within the CONUS without making the planet a cost of doing business.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 09, 2009, 02:14:10 PM
Likely story.   :razz:

I have better stories. :biggrin:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 10, 2009, 01:01:19 AM
. . .I find it hard to believe that the US is powerful enough to sanction other countries, but can't seem to find a way to encourage our own companies to do business within the CONUS without making the planet a cost of doing business.

I guess for me that is the frustrating part. They focus so much on regulatory initiatives and  compliance with processes utilized that they fail to see where these same efforts can drive a major impact surrounding the environment if only they would do so. But they don't or won't.

Show me a government official that works to make environmental initiatives a priority, by utilization of initiatives to obtain compliance instead of corporate punishment methodology, and I'll show you someone that should be president and Time's person of the decade!

Here is a smart ass comment.....We need GREEN weapons.  All those rocket lauches (including space shuttle type), missiles, explosions, tanks, jets, etc are destroying our climate 10 times faster than any industrial emmissions.  This war in Gaza and Iraq has set back climate change progress 20 years.

We also need less wild fires, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes......those natural disasters are puking so many 'green house' gases....we need to put some regulatory compliance measures on mother nature.

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 10, 2009, 11:49:50 AM
Here is a smart ass comment.....We need GREEN weapons.  All those rocket lauches (including space shuttle type), missiles, explosions, tanks, jets, etc are destroying our climate 10 times faster than any industrial emmissions.  This war in Gaza and Iraq has set back climate change progress 20 years.

We also need less wild fires, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes......those natural disasters are puking so many 'green house' gases....we need to put some regulatory compliance measures on mother nature.

:biggrin:

Quote from: DannyBoy on January 10, 2009, 11:49:50 AM
Here is a smart ass comment.....We need GREEN weapons.  All those rocket lauches (including space shuttle type), missiles, explosions, tanks, jets, etc are destroying our climate 10 times faster than any industrial emmissions.  This war in Gaza and Iraq has set back climate change progress 20 years.

We also need less wild fires, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes......those natural disasters are puking so many 'green house' gases....we need to put some regulatory compliance measures on mother nature.

We are just one good volcanic eruption away from a year (or more) without summer.  However, it isn't the greenhouse gases from that, but the particulates punched up high in the stratosphere.

Quote from: Bo D on January 09, 2009, 09:06:18 AM
Hey... if you can't take the heat, ......

:biggrin:

Sorry, but I think for the most part we are being civil.

Chill Bo D. I was just kidding.  :biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 08, 2009, 07:49:28 AM
Like I said, you can't fix stupid.  The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly supports my position despite your inability to understand it or your choice to remain willfully ignorant.

Ridicule neither makes you appear smart nor bolsters your argument,  but it does make appear a boorish ass. If you cannot disagree without being disagreeable, then it is YOU who afflicted with the stupid that cannot be fixed.

Quote
Trotting out the same old, tired, inane arguments doesn't help your assertions either. 

You are doing the same, and it doesn't help your assertions either.

Quote
The so-called ice age predicted in the 70's was never generally accepted by the scientific community nor did anyone ever suggest that acid rain would 'destroy' the planet...

Turnabout being fair play, please provide peer-reviewed citations for the above assertions.
Aside to Henry: I bet he/she/it cannot provide such.

Quote
Additionally, I no more care about a biologist's opinion on global warming than I would want the advice of a proctologist to treat a brain tumor although I will admit that the latter would seem appropriate in your case.

What a coincidence: I feel the same about your opinion.

Quote
Now the ball's in your court...do you choose to continue to deny the obvious and paint yourself as uninformed or are you willing to read the information at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm ?  If history is any indication, my guess is you'll stick with ignorance.

There's nothing "obvious" about the cause of global warming or if it is even occurring; nor is it obvious what it may mean for the climate of the planet. Indeed, even among climatologists there is not universal agreement on the subject.
There is interesting material at the the link that you provided. Of course, the material is provided by people who make their living providing global warming "evidence". I imagine the buggy-whip makers had pretty good arguments for their cause when the age of the automobile began.


Some things I consider when contemplating global warming:
The temperature (and climate) of the earth is "controlled" by the the nearest star to the earth, the sun. Solar activity and the distance between the earth and the sun are by FAR the biggest contributors to "climate change". Don't believe that? Then tell me: what causes the changing seasons on this planet?

The earth's orbit around the sun is not static. It varies, plus the earth "wobbles" a bit on it's axis, causing different parts of the earth to receive more or less sunlight during a given period. And then there's precession (go look it up, there's not enough space here to explain it adequately).

Climatologists are not astronomers nor cosmologists, so their understanding of the above may be inadequate.

"Big Al the environment's pal" is making a KILLING off of the global warming panic (and so are a lot of other people). There's less altruism in this cause that one might assume. Oh, and Big All is not a climatologist either, btw.

A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built.
Thanks to Bo for correcting my misunderstanding. -GoJ

Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet. 
Henry has discovered that the same wiki awol uses to refute this assertion reports both carbon and hydrogen as being the most abundant element in the known universe - GoJ
According to this sources found by Bo, carbon either doesn't exist because there is only hydrogen and helium in the universe, or carbon is the 6th most abundant element relative to silicon(?). Since the matter is in dispute, I will strike this assertion as well.-GoJ

The earth has been around some 4.5 billion years and has undergone and continues to undergo climate changes in cycles or patterns, and linearly, too, for that matter. So I am certain that the climate of the earth is indeed changing: a perfectly natural process that has been occurring for billions of years and we most likely cannot do anything about.
Does that mean that I think we should "trash" the planet? Nope, not at  all. Neither should we give up our freedoms (and our incomes) in a blind panic.


I welcome your thoughts on the above as long as you can discuss them like an adult rather than a petulant twelve-year-old.
Otherwise, don't bother; just continue to be confused as to why it's dark all around you and smells like your bathroom.

-GoJ

Quote from: awol on January 06, 2009, 05:35:40 PM
so, you agree that the gov't needs money for "programs", military, and infrastructure.  these things cost a predictable ammount of money each year.  so if the gov't takes in less money...?

(i ignored the rest of your post, as it is nothing but a false dichotomy)

Of course I agree that the gov't needs money for necessary things ("Provide for the common defence...").
I'm not getting your point, awol, perhaps you could clarify it for me?

False dichotomy? How so?

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 12:49:49 PM
A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Volcanoes = 255 million tons annually
Humans = 30 BILLION tons

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 01:12:53 PM
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Volcanoes = 255 million tons annually
Humans = 30 BILLION tons

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 01:18:46 PM
Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

Just keepin' it honest, Dude!

:wink:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 01:18:46 PM
Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

BTW... thanks for withdrawing..."somebody" on here a few days ago tried to debunk global warming by saying it is so cold in England that they can't grow grapes there...

didn't show your class by backing off their assertion though....

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 01:18:46 PM
See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

Quote from: awol on January 12, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

From a book written by a noted astronomer! I am surprised that that wiki has a different answer.
Hooray! Yet another thing you and I can disagree on!

Quote from: awol on January 12, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen)

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 01:48:29 PM
. . . Yet another thing you and I can disagree on!

Which pretty much summarizes the whole gloabl warming deabte; doesn't it. . .  :smile:
Both sides can manipulate the data to support theri opposing perspectives. Both sides think the other is wrong. Somebody is right, but perhaps not necessarily either side of the current argument?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen)

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha!! Thanks, Henry! You crack me up, sometimes!

Quote from: Palehorse on January 12, 2009, 02:06:29 PM
Which pretty much summarizes the whole gloabl warming deabte; doesn't it. . .  :smile:
Both sides can manipulate the data to support theri opposing perspectives. Both sides think the other is wrong. Somebody is right, but perhaps not necessarily either side of the current argument?

you are very correct.....but, the whole point to my side of the arguement has ALWAYS been, and always will be, it the alamists such as the AL Gore crowd, who believes the only solution is to bring corporate america to a halt by regulating and taxing them out of existence......

but, this is almost like the abortion debates.......neither side is wrong.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen)

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

Perhaps if you go to something besides Wiki ....

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blabundant.htm (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blabundant.htm)
"Answer: The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare. "

Where is carbon?

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_uni.html (http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_uni.html)

The 10 Most Abundant Elements in the Universe

Source: Exploring Chemical Elements and their Compounds; David L. Heiserman, 1992

Element Abundance
measured relative to silicon
Hydrogen 40,000
Helium 3,100
Oxygen 22
Neon 8.6
Nitrogen 6.6
Carbon 3.5
Silicon 1
Magnesium 0.91
Iron 0.6
Sulfur 0.38

Ah...there is is ... #6!

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 02:11:32 PM
but, this is almost like the abortion debates.......neither side is wrong.

But when someone says you can't grow grapes in England becasue it is too cold there...when someone asserts "A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built." ...when someone writes ""Carbon...is the most common element in the known universe"

Then they are wrong.

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 01:23:43 PM
BTW... thanks for withdrawing..."somebody" on here a few days ago tried to debunk global warming by saying it is so cold in England that they can't grow grapes there...

didn't show your class by backing off their assertion though....

Thanks. I tend to respond to people in the same tone that they use with me, but I am all for reasoned discourse.
People can disagree without being disagreeable.

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 02:17:29 PM
But when someone says you can't grow grapes in England becasue it is too cold there...when someone asserts "A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built." ...when someone writes ""Carbon...is the most common element in the known universe"

Then they are wrong.

Ok so I was wrong buuuuttttt...On the other hand that also means England isn't cooling down like the global warming is supposed to be causing sooooo I guess it was kind of a draw there.  Not trying to be argumentative just stating the other side of the coin here.   :wink:

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 02:17:29 PM
But when someone says you can't grow grapes in England becasue it is too cold there...when someone asserts "A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built." ...when someone writes ""Carbon...is the most common element in the known universe"

Then they are wrong.

there is some truth to the grape thing, at least according to wiki........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom)

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 02:13:51 PM
Perhaps if you go to something besides Wiki ....

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blabundant.htm (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blabundant.htm)
"Answer: The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare. "

Where is carbon?

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_uni.html (http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_uni.html)

The 10 Most Abundant Elements in the Universe

Source: Exploring Chemical Elements and their Compounds; David L. Heiserman, 1992

Element Abundance
measured relative to silicon
Hydrogen 40,000
Helium 3,100
Oxygen 22
Neon 8.6
Nitrogen 6.6
Carbon 3.5
Silicon 1
Magnesium 0.91
Iron 0.6
Sulfur 0.38

Ah...there is is ... #6!

Isn't 3/4 = 75%?  And 75% + 25% = 100%? So the only two elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium?
Gotta love statistics!

Hey, if there's so much helium, how come we don't all talk with squeaky voices?


Gee, I'm glad carbon showed up in the list! You just about had me convinced that the existence of carbon is a myth, Bo!

Grapes don't grow in England because...well, let's face it: who would drink English wine? Their gin on the other hand...mmmm!


Ok, I updated my original post to better reflect current data. It doesn't change my point, though: the global climate is in constant flux.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 02:31:11 PM
Isn't 3/4 = 75%?  And 75% + 25% = 100%? So the only two elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium?
Gotta love statistics!

Hey, if there's so much helium, how come we don't all talk with squeaky voices?


Gee, I'm glad carbon showed up in the list! You just about had me convinced that the existence of carbon is a myth, Bo!

Grapes don't grow in England because...well, let's face it: who would drink English wine? Their gin on the other hand...mmmm!


Ok, I updated my original post to better reflect current data. It doesn't change my point, though: the global climate is in constant flux.

you crack me up too..sometimes.... ;D

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 02:31:11 PM
Isn't 3/4 = 75%?  And 75% + 25% = 100%? So the only two elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium?
Gotta love statistics!

Please read again. "The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 12, 2009, 02:31:11 PM
Hey, if there's so much helium, how come we don't all talk with squeaky voices?

Are we going to dsicuss this rationally? My source goes on to say....

"The chemical composition of the earth is quite a bit different from that of the universe. The most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen, making up 46.6% of the earth's mass. Silicon is the second most abundant element (27.7%), followed by aluminum (8.1%), iron (5.0%), calcium (3.6%), sodium (2.8%), potassium (2.6%). and magnesium (2.1%). These eight elements account for approximately 98.5% of the total mass of the earth's crust. Of course, the earth's crust is only the outer portion of the earth. Future research will tell us about the composition of the mantle and core."

Quote from: me on January 12, 2009, 02:27:59 PM
England isn't cooling down like the global warming is supposed to be causing .......

England isn't cooling down....yet.

(My! You are a hardheaded one.)

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 03:07:10 PM
Please read again. "The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare.


Are we going to dsicuss this rationally? My source goes on to say....

"The chemical composition of the earth is quite a bit different from that of the universe. The most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen, making up 46.6% of the earth's mass. Silicon is the second most abundant element (27.7%), followed by aluminum (8.1%), iron (5.0%), calcium (3.6%), sodium (2.8%), potassium (2.6%). and magnesium (2.1%). These eight elements account for approximately 98.5% of the total mass of the earth's crust. Of course, the earth's crust is only the outer portion of the earth. Future research will tell us about the composition of the mantle and core."

I know, I was just having a little fun.
I corrected my original post to strike the line about carbon being the most abundant element.
That is a fascinating article, btw.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 02:28:35 PM
there is some truth to the grape thing, at least according to wiki........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom)

Henry, you yourself have shown that Wkikpedia is not a rliable source for anything other than basic information.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen)

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

For instance...read the wiki arcticle carefully ...
"The Romans introduced wine making to the United Kingdom, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. However, the British climate was simply too cold and too wet to grow grapes for making wine. Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England as mentioned in the Domesday Book"

The British climate was too cold yet "Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England as mentioned in the Domesday Book" ??????

Contradiction within a single paragraph.

Quote from: Bo D on January 12, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

Henry, you yourself have shown that Wkikpedia is not a rliable source for anything other than basic information.

For instance...read the wiki arcticle carefully ...
"The Romans introduced wine making to the United Kingdom, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. However, the British climate was simply too cold and too wet to grow grapes for making wine. Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England as mentioned in the Domesday Book"

The British climate was too cold yet "Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England as mentioned in the Domesday Book" ??????

Contradiction within a single paragraph.

I do take wiki info with a grain of salt..........but, the only point I was getting at...the wine industry is not the way it once was, because of the cooler climate that it now has...

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
...the wine industry is not the way it once was, because of the cooler climate that it now has...

We have already discounted that assertion also...back on page 8....

Quote from: Bo D on January 08, 2009, 05:43:31 PM
BTW, that part about not being able to grow grapes in England ... LIE!!!!!!

http://www.englishwineproducers.com/ (http://www.englishwineproducers.com/)

"Englands vineyards are spread throughout the country, although the majority are still in the southern half of the counrty, there are more and more being planted further north"

What exactly do you think that proves relative to the issue of global warming? Seriously.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 12, 2009, 04:16:52 PM
What exactly do you think that proves relative to the issue of global warming? Seriously.

Who? Me?

My point is that England is currently warmimg up, but once the warming reaches a certain point, it could cause the Arctic ice sheet to melt. This would totally disrupt the Gulf Stream and plunge western Europe (which does include Egland) into a deep freeze.

I'm sorry, question was intended for those who are basing their arguement on grape growing.

Okay, I'm not doing well on the cell today..."the question"...and "basing their arguement against global warming".  I'll wait until I'm in front of the computer to comment further. ;D

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Wow! Did you see that picture of the alien? Yeah...this is a quality source! :rolleyes:

But seriously, Henry. If you had done as I asked and read up on the effects of Global Warming on the Gulf Stream, then you would know that an Ice Age is EXACTLY what would follow if the current warming melts the Arctic ice sheet.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....

YEP.  i don't have the conservative luxury of making up whatever facts i need to support my argument.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 02:11:32 PM
...but, the whole point to my side of the arguement has ALWAYS been, and always will be, it the alamists such as the AL Gore crowd, who believes the only solution is to bring corporate america to a halt by regulating and taxing them out of existence...

Who has ever so much as suggested that bringing corporate America to a halt is even a possibility and who would possibly benefit by doing so?  No one, that's who...never happened.  Corporate America is interested in a singular goal...profit.  They will continue to do business exactly as they have until such time as it is no longer profitable and then they will make the changes necessary to return to profitability.  The recent switch to flat panel televisions is a perfect example.  It has long been known that it is much cheaper to make a flat panel TV than its CRT conterpart but manufacturers didn't make the switch immediately when the technology became available.  The reason they didn't is because they had huge investments in the complex machinery and processes in use to make cathode ray tubes.  Given no outside influence, they'd still be making them until the machines no longer worked but in this case, the demand for the newer product forced those manufacturers to abandon their old lines and retool for the products consumers want.  Guess what?  They're still making money much in the same way as they would be if stricter regulations had caused the changes in their production processes instead of consumer demand.  Those companies that won't or can't afford to adapt go out of business and their market share is absorbed by those who do.  Corporate America continues producing and selling products and life goes on.  The assertion that addressing the issue of emissions will fundamentally affect this paradigm is ridiculous and unfounded.

I've never gotten a good answer to the question of what, exactly, the down side is to reducing emissions.  When a blizzard is forecast by the weather service, people take action.  They dig out their snow shovels or go buy new ones, stop at the hardware store and buy ice melting salt, fill the gas tanks in their cars, stand in long lines at the grocery store buying bread, milk batteries and emergency candles...road crews start out salting still-dry roads in anticipation...all of this costs money and we go through this preparation despite the number of times in my life that I've seen a winter storm so bad that it would prevent people from moving about 48 hours later has been, well, never!  This is even more startling when you consider the frequency with which the forecasts, based on scientific methods and computer models just like the global warming predictions albeit using infinitely less precise data gathered over considerably shorter time intervals and with nowhere near the global concurrence of the scientific community.  I really fail to understand why some would spend even a moment considering what is likely to be a non-event that, at worst, will have virtually no lasting impact and then not only ignore but go out of the way to deny even the possibility of a permanent change in the climate with potentially serious negative consequences.

Okay, I somewhat agree with you ex...and my stance on this whole global warming has become that I do not "believe" things are as bad as the Al Gore crowd says, but I also believe that there could be REAL concerns........... I also do not believe in many of the scientist and because there are so many different views on this subject, it has become somewhat confusing at times? Figuring out the facts and the myths...........I know that companies ARE paying some politicians and scientists to say the things they are saying...from BOTH sides of the spectrum.....I personaly have done things to become MORE green, so to speak.......like I now use the super efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, instead of the incandescents bulbs....I'm more concerned with proper upkeep of my cars, I plan my trips more, like stopping by the store on my way home from work, I don't drive nearly as much as I used too....

but I STILL think that the kyoto protocol was/is bad...........I think we need to be very careful on how we approach this from an economic view.....if I could say one thing positive about the Gore's doomsday crowd is, that they DID open up a can of worms that needed opened.....and we ARE taking serious looks at being better stewards of this earth.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 12:09:00 PM
...I know that companies ARE paying some politicians and scientists to say the things they are saying...from BOTH sides of the spectrum...

Again, I ask why?  I can understand companies paying for anti-global-warming opinions to avoid having to make infrastructure changes but what interest would scientists have in propagating such a myth and who would pay them to do so?  They've been receiving grant money to study the climate since long, long before any mention of global warming so the claim that skewing their results one way or the other to continue to do so is nonsensical.  What do they have to gain?

Quotebut I STILL think that the kyoto protocol was/is bad...

Really?  Why?  What does it say exactly?  The fact of the matter is that it is primarily designed to encourage other countries to meet many of the same standards to which we've been adhering anyway.  How is encouraging global cooperation on that front bad?

Quote...I think we need to be very careful on how we approach this from an economic view...

As I have pointed out several times now, the 'economic impact' is a fallacy invented by the corporations who are working only to protect their own interests.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
Again, I ask why?  I can understand companies paying for anti-global-warming opinions to avoid having to make infrastructure changes but what interest would scientists have in propagating such a myth and who would pay them to do so?  They've been receiving grant money to study the climate since long, long before any mention of global warming so the claim that skewing their results one way or the other to continue to do so is nonsensical.  What do they have to gain?

The United Nations has a lot riding on this....Billions of dollar could be generated IF enough hype is sold...I personally to not trust the UN, I believe they are the most crooked organization on earth.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
Really?  Why?  What does it say exactly?  The fact of the matter is that it is primarily designed to encourage other countries to meet many of the same standards to which we've been adhering anyway.  How is encouraging global cooperation on that front bad?

It would encourage factories and investors to move the "smokestacks"....and all their carbon dioxide...AND the jobs that works for those "smokestacks" to other countries...Like China that is not subject to Kyoto's "carbon dioxide limits"...

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
As I have pointed out several times now, the 'economic impact' is a fallacy invented by the corporations who are working only to protect their own interests.

how is it a fallacy?........countries leave here...go to China or wherever they can get around the High standards of CO emissions that would be set in the US........THAT would have an 'economic impact'.....

If they (the Kyoto protocol) set's up the same standards across the board to ALL countries...THEN maybe....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 01:44:07 PM
The United Nations has a lot riding on this....Billions of dollar could be generated IF enough hype is sold...I personally to not trust the UN, I believe they are the most crooked organization on earth.

Huh?  Billions of dollars for whom?  This is the basis for your position?

QuoteIt would encourage factories and investors to move the "smokestacks"....and all their carbon dioxide...AND the jobs that works for those "smokestacks" to other countries...Like China that is not subject to Kyoto's "carbon dioxide limits"...

how is it a fallacy?........countries leave here...go to China or wherever they can get around the High standards of CO emissions that would be set in the US........THAT would have an 'economic impact'.....

They're doing that now without Kyoto; how would it change anything?

QuoteIf they (the Kyoto protocol) set's up the same standards across the board to ALL countries...THEN maybe....

Well, that is the idea.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:49:19 PM
Huh?  Billions of dollars for whom?  This is the basis for your position?

The UN  WANTS to be the Governing body of Global Warming....they have sunk millions into the IPCC....it does not take a brain surgeon to see opportunity for the UN to impose 'Global Taxes' to manage this doom and gloom scenario that they have succeeded in doing to 'save' the planent..

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:49:19 PM
They're doing that now without Kyoto; how would it change anything?

and it would get even worse IF this was imposed upon them........let's not give them any MORE reasons to continue to leave.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 01:49:19 PM
Well, that is the idea.

But that is NOT what is proposed by the Kyoto Protocol...

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 02:00:14 PM
The UN  WANTS to be the Governing body of Global Warming....they have sunk millions into the IPCC....it does not take a brain surgeon to see opportunity for the UN to impose 'Global Taxes' to manage this doom and gloom scenario that they have succeeded in doing to 'save' the planent..

Bullshit hyperbole; the U.N. has no authority to tax anyone.

And if you want factories to stop leaving the country, stay the hell out of WalMart.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 02:10:01 PM
Bullshit hyperbole; the U.N. has no authority to tax anyone.

And if you want factories to stop leaving the country, stay the hell out of WalMart.

No authority NOW!!....hyperbole?  :-\ ..maybe.......maybe not..........do you think that they could NOT, with the right people in charge? I don't think it is bullshit, no more bullshit than the world scorching in 7 years as predicted by Gore and the IPCC...

btw, I very rarely go into Walmart..........but, Walmart had NOTHING to do with GM moving plants to mexico or china.....

closing the doors of walmart will not bring back factories...

So you're basing your entire dissent on the possibility that the UN will impose taxes on Americans?  LMAO...wow!  :no:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 02:37:38 PM
So you're basing your entire dissent on the possibility that the UN will impose taxes on Americans?  LMAO...wow!  :no:

lmao at you  :rolleyes: :yes:...HOW did you come up with THAT?   :confused:    it is simply ANOTHER reason for me NOT to be a kool-aid drinker and believe that Al Gore and his UN croonies.....It is ALL about money, NOT saving the earth.....at least THAT is how many people feel about the lunacy of Al Gore.  The UN is without a doubt a crooked organization, who would love nothing more than to gain even MORE control of the world than the do now................global warming is simply another tool being used to accomplish that task.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 02:44:52 PM
lmao at you  :rolleyes: :yes:...HOW did you come up with THAT?   :confused:

How did I come up with my opinion that the U.S. will not cede power to the U.N.?  What are you, on dope with your whacked conspiracy theories?

Quoteit is simply ANOTHER reason for me NOT to be a kool-aid drinker and believe that Al Gore and his UN croonies...

Yeah, believe Rush Limbaugh instead.   :rolleyes:  You are the quintessential kool-aid drinker.  You can't persevere in a discussion using facts so you resort to wild-assed scenarios in which the U.N. is taking over the world!

Quote...It is ALL about money, NOT saving the earth...

Oh, it's about money alright but not the way you're suggesting.

QuoteThe UN is without a doubt a crooked organization...

Please prove this assertion with verifiable sources and be prepared to be called names if your sources suck.

Quote...global warming is simply another tool being used to accomplish that task.

Again...bullshit!

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 03:03:58 PM
Please prove this assertion with verifiable sources and be prepared to be called names if your sources suck.

why don't you just google Secretary-General Kofi Annan and oil-for-food and pick your own sources... ;)

So the son profitting by taking advantage of his father's position means that the entire organization is crooked even though it was the organization itself that handled the investigation and rebuked the Secretary-General?  That's some stretch!   :rolleyes:

Is that all you've got?

That was considered one of the largest $$ corruption cases ever...then there was these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat))
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp)

also look up the following:

The UN failed to act in Liberia-200,000 people were butchered...
In 1994, the 270 UN peacekeepers sent to Rwanda failed to prevent the murder of 800,000 Rwandans...
The UN failed to condemn slavery in Sudan...
The UN failed miserably in Sierra Leone...
The UN failed to uphold the rights of white farmers in Zimbabwe
(which has resulted in a massive famine)....
The UN failed in Angola, in Kashmir, and in Colombia....
The UN failed to act against Saddam Hussein, claiming that diplomacy and inspections would provide the answer...
The UN has refused to discuss North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship and ignored human rights violations throughout the Near and Far East....

and yet the US and several other countries continue to give $$$$ for these guys to "handle" the worlds issues.. :rolleyes:

It is a corrupt organization....and we should not be a part of it..........at least that's MY opinion...

Quote from: Exterminator on January 13, 2009, 03:03:58 PM

You can't persevere in a discussion using facts so you resort to wild-assed scenarios in which the U.N. is taking over the world!

So....the UN does NOT have a stake in world governance? "World taxes" have already been proposed, to be paid to the UN.
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22United+nations%22+taxation&sourceid=Mozilla-search&form=CHROME (http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22United+nations%22+taxation&sourceid=Mozilla-search&form=CHROME)
Fortunately the 108th Congress didn't agree.

Quote
Please prove this assertion with verifiable sources and be prepared to be called names if your sources suck.

Still waiting for you to provide the same vis-a-vis your assertions that no one believed in global cooling and a coming ice age in the 1970's.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 03:54:30 PM
That was considered one of the largest $$ corruption cases ever...then there was these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat))
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp)

also look up the following:

The UN failed to act in Liberia-200,000 people were butchered...
In 1994, the 270 UN peacekeepers sent to Rwanda failed to prevent the murder of 800,000 Rwandans...
The UN failed to condemn slavery in Sudan...
The UN failed miserably in Sierra Leone...
The UN failed to uphold the rights of white farmers in Zimbabwe
(which has resulted in a massive famine)....
The UN failed in Angola, in Kashmir, and in Colombia....
The UN failed to act against Saddam Hussein, claiming that diplomacy and inspections would provide the answer...
The UN has refused to discuss North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship and ignored human rights violations throughout the Near and Far East....

and yet the US and several other countries continue to give $$$$ for these guys to "handle" the worlds issues.. :rolleyes:

It is a corrupt organization....and we should not be a part of it..........at least that's MY opinion...

Indeed, Henry, the worst abusers of human rights have a seat on the UN's Human Rights Council.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Yes, brought on by global warming.

In my experience, I have usually found that when people resort to name calling and bullying they are usually trying to cover up their own inadequacies.

Tree huggers versus Industry......from either side there is enormous amounts of money being spent or lost.

I'm not going to research so slam me now.....I would assume that the TV manufacturers that were referenced....if they were in the USA, rather than retooling and rebuilding their plants here....they shut them down and are now making their flat screens in China.

Corporations are all about profit, I agree.  If they can operate cheaper, for a number of reasons including environment compliance costs, they will do so outside our borders.  You can't deny it has been going on for years....rather than rebuilding 30 year old factories....ship labor, construction, operations, taxes, etc overseas.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 13, 2009, 04:08:44 PM
So....the UN does NOT have a stake in world governance?

Not really, no.

Quote"World taxes" have already been proposed, to be paid to the UN.

And the proposal was poo-poo'ed; thank you for illustrating my point.

QuoteStill waiting for you to provide the same vis-a-vis your assertions that no one believed in global cooling and a coming ice age in the 1970's.

:rolleyes:  Do your own research or remain ignorant, your choice.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2009, 03:54:30 PM
That was considered one of the largest $$ corruption cases ever...then there was these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Yakovlev_(diplomat))
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6429003.stm)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp)

A few bad apples doesn't prove that the entire organization is corrupt.  If it does, the U.S. government is so tainted as to require dismantling.  I'm betting we could probably find more than a few complaints against your employer...does that mean everyone in the company is a sheister?

Quotealso look up the following:

The UN failed to act in Liberia-200,000 people were butchered...
In 1994, the 270 UN peacekeepers sent to Rwanda failed to prevent the murder of 800,000 Rwandans...
The UN failed to condemn slavery in Sudan...
The UN failed miserably in Sierra Leone...
The UN failed to uphold the rights of white farmers in Zimbabwe
(which has resulted in a massive famine)....
The UN failed in Angola, in Kashmir, and in Colombia....
The UN failed to act against Saddam Hussein, claiming that diplomacy and inspections would provide the answer...
The UN has refused to discuss North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship and ignored human rights violations throughout the Near and Far East....

And the U.S. did what to stop these atrocities?  Oh, that's right...no oil, no potential new market, no action.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2009, 08:29:19 AM
And the U.S. did what to stop these atrocities?  Oh, that's right...no oil, no potential new market, no action.

It is NOT the US job to to assure World Peace.....It IS the responsibilty of the UN tob facilitate peace, human rights and international security......and they have failed miserably.  We can argue all day.  Based upon my personal views of the UN....they are corrupt.  I do not trust them.....basicly like you do not trust Republicans. ;)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 14, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
It is NOT the US job to to assure World Peace....

Really?  We sure are more than willing to accept that role when it benefits us.

QuoteIt IS the responsibilty of the UN tob facilitate peace, human rights and international security......and they have failed miserably...

Given their limited resources and authority, I think they've done quite a bit.

QuoteBased upon my personal views of the UN....they are corrupt.  I do not trust them.....basicly like you do not trust Republicans. ;)

The obvious difference, of course, being that the Republicans are corrupt.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 12, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2009, 10:26:33 PM
Yes, brought on by global warming.

Is it true? Is there really someone else here who understands the dynamics of the Gulf Stream and the Arctic ice sheet?

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2009, 09:29:03 AM
The obvious difference, of course, being that the Republicans are corrupt.

You are showing your incompetence when you make blanket statements like that.........thus making intelligent discussions unfounded and negated..... :no:  your lack of education and your capacity to comprehend a higher form of intellectual discourse has exceeded your abilities to further communicate on a level that is acceptable to those of us who champion the art of contentious deliberations of sophisticated substance......sorry.....got a little carried away. :razz: :redface:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 14, 2009, 09:49:45 AM
You are showing your incompetence when you make blanket statements like that.........thus making intelligent discussions unfounded and negated..... :no:  your lack of education and your capacity to comprehend a higher form of intellectual discourse has exceeded your abilities to further communicate on a level that is acceptable to those of us who champion the art of contentious deliberations of sophisticated substance......sorry.....got a little carried away. :razz: :redface:

Careful Hank! You'll blow your cover!  :wink: :smile:

Quote from: Palehorse on January 14, 2009, 09:52:23 AM
Careful Hank! You'll blow your cover!  :wink: :smile:

WHOOPS!!... :redface:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 14, 2009, 09:49:45 AM
You are showing your incompetence when you make blanket statements like that.........thus making intelligent discussions unfounded and negated..... :no:  your lack of education and your capacity to comprehend a higher form of intellectual discourse has exceeded your abilities to further communicate on a level that is acceptable to those of us who champion the art of contentious deliberations of sophisticated substance......sorry.....got a little carried away. :razz: :redface:

BWAHAHAHAHA!  That's pretty good for someone who can't conjugate the verb 'to be'; from whom did you copy it?

Some of you are underestimating ol Hank. . . He's far more intelligent than he reveals herein. . . I think on purpose!  :smile:

Quote from: Palehorse on January 14, 2009, 10:00:03 AM
Some of you are underestimating ol Hank. . . He's far more intelligent than he reveals herein. . . I think on purpose!  :smile:

Riiiiiiiiight!

I do believe that Exterminator thinks he's the only one on this forum that is educated. 

Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2009, 09:55:48 AM
BWAHAHAHAHA!  That's pretty good for someone who can't conjugate the verb 'to be'; from whom did you copy it?

Simply because my conjugational preferences are not deemed appropriate, by the standards set by the English language..I prefer to adhere to my Caucasian "trailer" rubbish milieu in which I was reared upon.....and did not replicate the above mentioned statement regarding your unfounded edification....

Okay seriously ...........I'm done...........I think I pulled a brain muscle.... :sweatdrop:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 14, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
Okay seriously ...........I'm done...........I think I pulled a brain muscle.... :sweatdrop:

That notwithstanding, I did enjoy, "Caucasian trailer rubbish milieu."

Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2009, 07:59:21 AM
Not really, no.

And the proposal was poo-poo'ed; thank you for illustrating my point.

:rolleyes:  Do your own research or remain ignorant, your choice.

Look, asshat, you are the one who demanded people provide "peer-reviewed" sources to bolster their assertions.
I only asked the same of you. You are no better than anyone else here. In fact, so far you've proven yourself to be less than most.

The UN, as a body, tried to institute global taxation. Taxation IS governance.
So the only "point" of yours that has been proven is the one on the top of your head.

We're trying to not look down on you and would rather consider you an intellectual equal, but you make it very difficult because you argue like a child rather than debate like an adult.
Go back to page 11 and read my reply #150. Think about what I said in that post and then try discussing this subject again, but like an grownup this time.

Maybe if you showed a little respect for others, you'd get some respect back.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 14, 2009, 10:40:49 AM
Look, asshat, you are the one who demanded people provide "peer-reviewed" sources to bolster their assertions.
I only asked the same of you. You are no better than anyone else here. In fact, so far you've proven yourself to be less than most.

How many times do I have to tell you to stay out of grown people's conversations?

Try to wrap your little brain around this: Would you agree that one could expect peer-reviewed sources for something that didn't happen to be conspicuously absent or would you relish reading an official-looking report on our last manned mission to Mars?

Having assumed that your chosen path would be that of continued ignorance, I repeated some of my earlier research with the same conclusion: global cooling in the 70's was a myth.  There is a fairly comprehensive and well documented discussion of subject here. (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)  I wouldn't expect you to actually be able to digest a whole 13 pages in one sitting so I'll offer a quote from that piece to give you the essence of it (emphasis mine):

"Despite active efforts to answer these
questions, a pervasive myth has taken hold in the
public consciousness: That there was a
consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s
that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was
imminent (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999,
Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004,
Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery
2007, Horner 2007). A review of the climate
science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the
myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a
selective misreading of the texts both by some
members of the media at the time and by some
observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse
warming dominated the scientific literature even
then.

If this arouses your curiosity even a little you can google, "70's global cooling myth," where you'll find a wealth of information on the subject.  Why people choose to go out of their way to look stupid rather than even try to find out the truth escapes me.  :rolleyes:

QuoteThe UN, as a body, tried to institute global taxation. Taxation IS governance.

So if I tried to fly, that would make me a bird?

QuoteSo the only "point" of yours that has been proven is the one on the top of your head.

Such wit!

QuoteWe're trying to not look down on you and would rather consider you an intellectual equal, but you make it very difficult because you argue like a child rather than debate like an adult.
Go back to page 11 and read my reply #150. Think about what I said in that post and then try discussing this subject again, but like an grownup this time.

The irony of that post is that it serves to do exactly that of which you accuse...psychology refers to this as the fundamental attribution error.

Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2009, 11:28:34 AM

Having assumed that your chosen path would be that of continued ignorance, I repeated some of my earlier research with the same conclusion: global cooling in the 70's was a myth.  There is a fairly comprehensive and well documented discussion of subject here. (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)  I wouldn't expect you to actually be able to digest a whole 13 pages in one sitting so I'll offer a quote from that piece to give you the essence of it (emphasis mine):

"Despite active efforts to answer these
questions, a pervasive myth has taken hold in the
public consciousness: That there was a
consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s
that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was
imminent (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999,
Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004,
Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery
2007, Horner 2007). A review of the climate
science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the
myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a
selective misreading of the texts both by some
members of the media at the time and by some
observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse
warming dominated the scientific literature even
then.

If this arouses your curiosity even a little you can google, "70's global cooling myth," where you'll find a wealth of information on the subject.  Why people choose to go out of their way to look stupid rather than even try to find out the truth escapes me.  :rolleyes:

So if I tried to fly, that would make me a bird?

Such wit!

The irony of that post is that it serves to do exactly that of which you accuse...psychology refers to this as the fundamental attribution error.

Ok, you took a slight amount of the ridicule out of your discourse, so I will take some out of mine. I won't call you an "asshat" anymore.

Your comment about being a bird is a deflection, which is a tacit admission that I am correct.
Instead of deflecting, and assuming that you still disagree, why don't you instead, say, "GoJ, you may have a point there about taxation being governance, but I don't equate governance with dominance and here's why.........."? Then you would be disagreeing without being disagreeable. It moves the discussion along and makes those who disagree much more open to new ideas about the subject.

"Such wit!"
Thanks. Most of my friends think I'm pretty darn hilarious sometimes.

"...fundamental attribution error."
No it doesn't. Wrong application of that term. Well, maybe, technically; but it was intentional. I was "talking" to you in the same tone that you were using on this thread. In essence, mimicking you in hopes that you would realize how it made you appear to other posters (boorish and an ass).


Now to the "meat" (in the nicer tone of voice I would prefer to use):

I was in school in the 1970's. None of the science literature, and I read a lot of science literature, I was exposed to even hinted at global warming. It was "all ice age, all the time." I'm not saying that there was not scientific opinion to the contrary, just stating what people in the 1970's were being told.
Perhaps opinions and evidence contrary to global cooling were being suppressed then.
Perhaps opinions and evidence contrary to global warming are being suppressed now.

Also from your source:
By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated
his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global
cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly
understood. The first satellite records showed
increasing snow and ice cover across the northern
hemisphere from the late 1960s to the early
1970s, capped by unusually severe winters in Asia
and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973
(Kukla and Kukla 1974), pushed the issue into the
public consciousness (Gribbin 1975). The new
data about global temperatures came amid
growing concerns about world food supplies,
triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend
might threaten humanity's ability to feed itself
(Thompson 1975). It was not long, however,
before scientists teasing apart the details of
Mitchell's trend found that it was not necessarily a
global phenomenon. A closer examination of
Southern Hemisphere data showed that what
appeared to be a global cooling trend was in fact
dominated by Northern Hemisphere temperatures,
while thermometers in the Southern Hemisphere
seemed to be headed in the opposite direction
(Damon and Kunen 1976).


The same argument is being made about global warming today. Basically, that the evidence is being misunderstood, the models fail to take certain variables into account, etc.
You know, I read  some of the data from the CCCP, er, ICCP -whatever- source that you provided previously. They actually (partially) address my contention that, if global warming is occurring, it's a natural process. The most affective causal factors being solar activity and the position of the sun relative to the earth. They did include solar activity in the models, but they seemed to being shying away from actually stating, "it's absolutely NOT a factor" (other scientists, btw, can correlate increased solar activity with global temperature increases. Of course, correlation does not prove causation for your scientists or mine).

See: "Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+.

    "This is an article written for scientists. The authors track 9 cycles of changes in solar brightness over the last 1800 years, and then correlate these with various changes in the Earth's climate. As you undoubtedly know, an especially suspicious correlation is that of a period of no sunspots (and hence low solar activity) corresponding with the Maunder Minimum of ~1645 to 1715 A.D, a period of extreme cold in Europe. Because of the complexity of effects on the Earth's climate, the jury is still out on whether this period of a Little Ice Age was indeed caused by the lack of solar activity. However, the correlations are intriguing and continue to be discussed at scientific meetings such as the AGU. You can find lots more about the Maunder Minimum and its relationship to sunspots on the web. "



And they apparently did not include the changing position of the earth's orbit and tilt relative to the sun, nor precession of the equinoxes; at least they do not mention doing so and they do seem rather thorough in recounting their variables.

See: http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Earths_Orbit.html (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Earths_Orbit.html)
"The Milankovitch theory, named after the Yugoslav mathematician who first proposed it, is the astronomical or orbital theory of climate variations. Since these ideas were put forward, much evidence from palaeoclimatic records has been found to support the theory. The original Milankovitch theory identifies three types of variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which could act as mechanisms to change the global climate. These include changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity), changes in the shape of Earth's orbit (eccentricity) and the shifting of the equinoxes (precession). Each variation has its specific time period, the shortest being 22,000 years and the longest being 96,000 years.

The three orbital variations together affect the total amount of sunlight received by the Earth, and distribution of that sunlight at different latitudes and at different times. With time periods measured in tens of thousands of years, one would expect that changes in climate as a result of orbital variations would occur over similar time periods. Indeed, the Milankovitch theory of climate change has been used to explain the global climate of the last 2 million years, with changes between warmer interglacial periods and colder Ice Ages occurring over a 100,00 year cycle, as predicted by the Milankovitch theory of climate change." (emphasis added - Goj)



Also apparently not included is that the rotational speed of the earth is not constant, which would cause more or less sunlight-per-square-meter-per-unit-of-time. It's slowing, btw.

See: http://novan.com/earth.htm (http://novan.com/earth.htm) and http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=35-12 (http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=35-12)
"The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in 1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since 1820. That seems like an insignificant amount of time BUT over the course of the planet's entire lifetime, it has had very profound effects on the geophysics of the planet.

It has caused mountains to rise, earthquakes, etc. to occur..."



Nor do they seem to consider variations in the core or mantle temperature of the earth, which may also affect global climate change.

See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17.1997B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17.1997B)
"Recent studies of the secular variation of the earth's magnetic field over periods of a few centuries have suggested that the pattern of fluid motion near the surface of earth's outer core may be strongly influenced by lateral temperature variations in the lowermost mantle."



In summary, your source fails to account for enough variables to convince me that man-made global warming is occurring.
Therefore, in my opinion, we shouldn't surrender our dollars and our freedoms in response an unproven (yet profitable*) theory.
My contention remains that global climate change is caused by natural processes, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

Once again I welcome your thoughts, as long as you debate like an adult rather than continuing argue like a child.



*I think we could probably agree that global warming has become an industry on both sides of the argument:
See:
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html) "SCIENCE FOR SALE: THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM"
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/global-warming-payola/ (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/global-warming-payola/) "Global-Warming Payola?"

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 14, 2009, 02:11:30 PM
Ok, you took a slight amount of the ridicule out of your discourse, so I will take some out of mine. I won't call you an "asshat" anymore.

Call me whatever makes you happy.

QuoteYour comment about being a bird is a deflection, which is a tacit admission that I am correct.
Instead of deflecting, and assuming that you still disagree, why don't you instead, say, "GoJ, you may have a point there about taxation being governance, but I don't equate governance with dominance and here's why.........."? Then you would be disagreeing without being disagreeable. It moves the discussion along and makes those who disagree much more open to new ideas about the subject.

No but perhaps I could have made myself clearer had I suggested that I, personally, proposed to impose a tax and was also unable to because, like the U.N., I don't have the authority either.

"Such wit!"

QuoteThanks. Most of my friends think I'm pretty darn hilarious sometimes.

Small minds are easily amused.   :razz:

QuoteNow to the "meat" (in the nicer tone of voice I would prefer to use):

I was in school in the 1970's. None of the science literature, and I read a lot of science literature, I was exposed to even hinted at global warming. It was "all ice age, all the time." I'm not saying that there was not scientific opinion to the contrary, just stating what people in the 1970's were being told.
Perhaps opinions and evidence contrary to global cooling were being suppressed then.
Perhaps opinions and evidence contrary to global warming are being suppressed now.

So was I and so did I and I don't remember either being covered.

I'll refrain from addressing each of your following points because sources are available that will say pretty much whatever anyone wants to hear on either side of the issue.  I continue to maintain that there is no significant downside to reducing emissions, not economically and certainly not from an environmental standpoint.

QuoteTherefore, in my opinion, we shouldn't surrender our dollars and our freedoms in response an unproven (yet profitable*) theory.

I am interested in knowing how many of your dollars and/or freedoms anyone has asked you to surrender because of global warming?

QuoteOnce again I welcome your thoughts, as long as you debate like an adult rather than continuing argue like a child.

Whatever, doody-head.   :biggrin:

Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2009, 10:26:33 PM
Yes, brought on by global warming.

so, you say global warming will NOT flood the earth, but it will bring on an Ice Age....hmmm  :confused:  :rolleyes:

could El Niño   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation/) POSSIBLY have ANYTHING  to do with this?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 14, 2009, 09:49:45 AM
You are showing your incompetence when you make blanket statements like that.........thus making intelligent discussions unfounded and negated..... :no:  your lack of education and your capacity to comprehend a higher form of intellectual discourse has exceeded your abilities to further communicate on a level that is acceptable to those of us who champion the art of contentious deliberations of sophisticated substance......sorry.....got a little carried away. :razz: :redface:

Republicans, on the whole, are morally and intellectually bankrupt (not just corrupt).  Bush is the shining example of that.

Quote from: dan foster on January 16, 2009, 10:18:48 PM
Republicans, on the whole, are morally and intellectually bankrupt (not just corrupt).  Bush is the shining example of that.

If Republicans are so intellectually bankrupt why are we the ones, well Henry and Jaco, doing the research and all you and Ex are doing is making stupid remarks and not backing them up?  :razz:  And on the moral issue, well, I think you'd better be doing some research.  Start off with Barney Franks.   :biggrin:

Quote from: me on January 16, 2009, 10:37:11 PM
If Republicans are so intellectually bankrupt why are we the ones, well Henry and Jaco, doing the research and all you and Ex are doing is making stupid remarks and not backing them up?  :razz:  And on the moral issue, well, I think you'd better be doing some research.  Start off with Barney Franks.   :biggrin:

Maybe df was trying to prove Henry's point about "blanket statements". If so he did an admirable job and, even though that would negate his whole blanket statement about Republicans, he is deserving of our kudos for being oh-so-clever.
If he didn't realize he was proving Henry's point, then his "intellectually bankrupt" assertion would appear to be projection.

Now, about that "morally bankrupt" assertion....
Setting aside comic cognitive dissonance that arises when someone who believes in neither Heaven nor Hell, God nor Satan, good nor evil, has made an assertion about morality at all, let alone the morality of others, then I am left with this question:

If eight years of "W" mispronouncing "nuclear" proves Republicans as a whole are morally bankrupt, what does the following prove about Democrats?

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

The DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Eliot Spitzer- Democrat - New York governor - resigned from office after being tied to a prostitution ring.

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - Democrat U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Wayne Bryant - Democrat NJ state senator- was convicted was found guilty on all 12 counts against him including bribery and pension fraud.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Otto Kerner - Democrat governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968 was jailed after the manager of two horse-racing tracks admitted to bribing the then- governor; charges were filed after Kerner left office he was convicted in 1973.

Dan Walker - Democrat governor of Illinois from1973 to 1977 served less than two years of a seven-year sentence for receiving improper loans a decade after leaving office.

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

Hiram Monserrate- Queens City Councilman and state Senator-elect - who has claimed to be an advocate of victims of domestic violence - was arrested for breaking a glass over his girlfriend's face. Monserrate, 41, a former cop, won election to the state Senate as a Democrat in November 2008.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Gary Siplin - Democrat state senator Florida- found guilty of third-degree grand theft of $5,000 or more, a felony, and using services of employees for his candidacy.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1973. Indicted on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Conspicuous by his absence from this list is William Jennings "Cold Cash" Jefferson

I'm just sayin'....  ;)

haha Jerry Springer is on that list!!  :razz: :biggrin:

Quote from: kimmi on January 18, 2009, 02:46:46 PM
haha Jerry Springer is on that list!!  :razz: :biggrin:

I laughed at that, too! He's probably the "most innocent"...certainly the "most funniest" (sic) one on the list!

Quote from: me on January 16, 2009, 10:37:11 PM
If Republicans are so intellectually bankrupt why are we the ones, well Henry and Jaco, doing the research and all you and Ex are doing is making stupid remarks and not backing them up?  :razz:  And on the moral issue, well, I think you'd better be doing some research.  Start off with Barney Franks.   :biggrin:

Not sure what you are referring to in YOUR research vs MY research.  I accept scientific results.  Not sure what yours is.

What is wrong with Barney Franks?  I think he is pretty sharp.  I don't know his personal life and don't care.  Is there a problem with his morality that has something to do with his service in congress?

Quote from: dan foster on January 18, 2009, 03:58:31 PM
Not sure what you are referring to in YOUR research vs MY research.  I accept scientific results.  Not sure what yours is.

What is wrong with Barney Franks?  I think he is pretty sharp.  I don't know his personal life and don't care.  Is there a problem with his morality that has something to do with his service in congress?

haha! You haven't DONE any research! None that you have cared to share in order to bolster your points, at least, lol!

So, as usual, one of us "nukular inteleckt-you-alls will pick up the slack for ya so you don't have to do any thinking on yer own:
Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

Oh, and then there is involvement in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. I think most would consider that "immoral".
But I'll let ya research that on yer own.
(Knowing your aversion to religion, I doubt that you find anything "immoral". How could you?)

What is the point of the list?  A GOP-based list would be even longer.  The list of assclowns interfering in just the Shiavo case, alone, would be longer.

As for bush,

- the pictures from Abu Ghraib and the very notion the US being involved in the torture of prisoners, far outweighs any "obstruction" charge levied for trying to conceal a blowjob.

- the release of classified information for political purposes is an act of treason and I, for one, think that is about as immoral as you can get in this country (with the exception of the last paragraph below).

- the murder, en masse, of innocent civilians in the bombings of iraqis (estimates are over 100,000) is pretty immoral, wouldn't you say?  Of course, like bush, many on these posts think bush was acting under direct orders from god and, therefore, what's a few thousand iraqi women and children?  After all, god can kill thousands of first borns on a whim just to prove a point (lessons to a pharoah).  This "attitude" is the lowest of the low in terms of morality, yet heralded as the "highest" religious morality.  Sick, and no wonder YOU GUYS can't see the problems with bush or his republican henchmen.

Now you know that Pat Robertsin says there is no such thing as global warming...he just said it again the other day... :razz: :rolleyes:

That's one of the few remotely intelligent things he has said in the past few years.

Quote from: DannyBoy on February 01, 2009, 05:08:37 PM
That's one of the few remotely intelligent things he has said in the past few years.

Man, don't you even care the polar bears are dying off?

Quote from: dan foster on February 01, 2009, 08:29:53 PM
Man, don't you even care the polar bears are dying off?

Polar Bears aren't dying off. 

Quote from: me on February 01, 2009, 08:35:57 PM
Polar Bears aren't dying off. 

They are being protected under the Endangered Animals Act because their habitat is shrinking:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080514-polar-bears.html

I know you're going to say "nitpicking" but: 

Quote"Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are—in my judgment—likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future," Kempthorne said during a press briefing.

Means they aren't endangered yet and may not be it's just an opinion.

Quote from: me on February 01, 2009, 08:35:57 PM
Polar Bears aren't dying off. 

OK

In Canada's Hudson Bay the number of bears has dropped 22 percent.

During 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service studied whether polar bears should be added to the list of threatened species. On May 14, 2008 they added polar bears to the list. This is the first time a species has been added under the Endangered Species Act directly because of global warming. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that because of the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice, polar bears could become endangered species in 45 years.

Quote from: dan foster on February 01, 2009, 10:45:56 PM
In Canada's Hudson Bay the number of bears has dropped 22 percent.

During 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service studied whether polar bears should be added to the list of threatened species. On May 14, 2008 they added polar bears to the list. This is the first time a species has been added under the Endangered Species Act directly because of global warming. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that because of the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice, polar bears could become endangered species in 45 years.

Oh, sure...it's not fair to use fact to contradict ignorance.  Didn't you get the memo?

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (Note regarding decision: On May 15, 2008 the polar bear was listed as a 'threatened species' under the Endangered Species Act.)

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, "To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

"These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear."

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit," is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.

The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include "Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century" by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and "Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions" by Christine M. Hunter et al.

Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.

Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors' assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears' ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.

Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.

The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, "Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear." A portion of the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof. Armstrong and questioning climate change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'


By Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard
Last Updated: 1:36AM GMT 09 Mar 2007

    * In pictures: Polar bears thriving in the Arctic

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.

"Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor.

While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.

Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.

In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.

The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

However, Prof Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.

Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.

"Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice," he said.

The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list.

Tina Cunnings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals.

Prof Derocher said the theory was "absolutely fanciful".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-%27thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up%27.html

Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice?
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
May 11, 2007 - 13:42 ET

This one is really too funny, folks, and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects be properly stowed (grateful and humorous h/t to NBer dscott).

Despite all the carping and whining by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of sycophant devotees about global warming killing polar bears, there is actually a baby boom occurring in this species in Canada's eastern Arctic.

As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

    But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that's an almost 150 percent increase in two decades.

The article continued:http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

Up to your typical strategy of looking for articles that will support your preconceived notions rather than trying to find out for yourself what the truth is, I see.  Feel free to remain ignorant.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 08:19:25 AM
Up to your typical strategy of looking for articles that will support your preconceived notions rather than trying to find out for yourself what the truth is, I see.  Feel free to remain ignorant.

Hum, isn't that what you do? 

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 08:24:26 AM
Hum, isn't that what you do? 

No, loser, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what 'preponderance of the evidence' means as it relates to logical thought processes.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 08:28:46 AM
No, loser, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what 'preponderance of the evidence' means as it relates to logical thought processes.

Here we are with the put downs again...sheesh don't you know how to carry on a civil conversation without having to always be right?  You are without a doubt the most closed minded opinionated person I have had the displeasure to run across lately.  Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about Dan.... :rolleyes:
You look at your sources and I look at mine.  I don't agree with your sources and you don't agree with mine and that don't make either of us losers, liars, or stupid, it just means we have a difference of opinion.  Deal with it.  :razz:

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 08:39:37 AM

You look at your sources and I look at mine. 

Your sources said you can't grow grapes in England.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote from: Bo D on February 02, 2009, 08:47:08 AM
Your sources said you can't grow grapes in England.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:razz:

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 08:39:37 AM
Here we are with the put downs again...sheesh don't you know how to carry on a civil conversation without having to always be right?  You are without a doubt the most closed minded opinionated person I have had the displeasure to run across lately.  Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about Dan.... :rolleyes:
You look at your sources and I look at mine.  I don't agree with your sources and you don't agree with mine and that don't make either of us losers, liars, or stupid, it just means we have a difference of opinion.  Deal with it.  :razz:

Look, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you choose to remain ignorant.  It isn't a reflection on me when people read what you've written or talk to you and roll their eyes; it's a reflection on you.  I look at all sources and weigh the empirical evidence; in your haste not to, you obviously missed an article in at least one of your 'sources' that soundly refutes one of the articles you offered.  If you posited that the world was flat and I posited that despite some articles supporting that, the majority of the evidence proved it was spherical, it doesn't mean we have a "difference of opinion"; it means you're stupid.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 09:19:49 AM
Look, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you choose to remain ignorant.  It isn't a reflection on me when people read what you've written or talk to you and roll their eyes; it's a reflection on you.  I look at all sources and weigh the empirical evidence; in your haste not to, you obviously missed an article in at least one of your 'sources' that soundly refutes one of the articles you offered.  If you posited that the world was flat and I posited that despite some articles supporting that, the majority of the evidence proved it was spherical, it doesn't mean we have a "difference of opinion"; it means you're stupid.

And which article would that be?

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 09:39:18 AM
And which article would that be?

Again, had you been looking for all information on the subject rather than only articles which support your flawed opinion, you'd have undoubtedly seen it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907224237.htm

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 10:15:51 AM
Again, had you been looking for all information on the subject rather than only articles which support your flawed opinion, you'd have undoubtedly seen it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907224237.htm

Notice the dates:  My source 

QuoteScience News

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Your source:

QuoteScience News
Polar Bear Population Predicted To Dwindle WIth Retreating Ice
ScienceDaily (Sep. 8, 2007) — Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies just released by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Could it be you're guilty of doing what you're accusing me of doing?

Well Ex?   :confused: :razz:

LMFAO!  Are you seriously suggesting that the difference of a few months in the dates of the articles has any bearing on which is more correct?  Does that mean if an article supporting a flat earth is newer, the earth must be flat?

Get real...why don't you actually read the articles and see who is saying what and then consider whether or not you want to present yourself as gullible enough to believe what a Bush-appointed Department of Interior has to say about climate change.  If you do, don't whine when people call you stupid.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 11:34:09 AM
LMFAO!  Are you seriously suggesting that the difference of a few months in the dates of the articles has any bearing on which is more correct?  Does that mean if an article supporting a flat earth is newer, the earth must be flat?

Get real...why don't you actually read the articles and see who is saying what and then consider whether or not you want to present yourself as gullible enough to believe what a Bush-appointed Department of Interior has to say about climate change.  If you do, don't whine when people call you stupid.

Did you not notice it was the same source you used?  Now who's stupid?  :biggrin: :razz:

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
Did you not notice it was the same source you used?  Now who's stupid?  :biggrin: :razz:

HE DID NOT!!..... ;D...because he does not actually read the articles he SAYS he reads.... ;D

Aer the two of you completely illiterate?  Yes, it is the same website which was precisely my point when I said that one of me's sources had another article with an opposing conclusion.  The articles, themselves, however, come from two entirely different perspectives...one from the Department of the Interior (hint: political group), the other the US Geological Survey (hint: scientific group).

This has nothing to do with the government and is another scientific opinion:

Heartland Institute - Article
Federal Government Continues to Weigh ESA Listing of Polar Bears
Numbers aren't declining, experts note
"[M]odest warming may be beneficial to [polar] bears because it creates better habitat for seals and makes blueberry bushes more abundant."

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?articleid=22940

Isn't Heartland funded by corporations such as Exxon? If that is the case, then I'm not sure that they would exactly unbiased. The article is written by H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is he really a scientist? or just offering an opinion?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 02, 2009, 01:23:58 PM
Isn't Heartland funded by corporations such as Exxon? If that is the case, then I'm not sure that they would exactly unbiased. The article is written by H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is he really a scientist? or just offering an opinion?

H. Sterling Burnett is a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Dr. Burnett received a Ph.D. in Applied Philosophy (oh yeah...I remember studying the environment in my philosophy classes  :rolleyes: )from Bowling Green State University in 2001.

They received nearly half a million in funding from Exxon.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 02, 2009, 01:23:58 PM
Isn't Heartland funded by corporations such as Exxon? If that is the case, then I'm not sure that they would exactly unbiased.

Yes, they are and this is just one more example of 'me' going out of her way to find articles that says what she wants rather than searching for the truth.  Who wants to see my best surprised look?

Quote from: Bo D on February 02, 2009, 02:04:30 PM
H. Sterling Burnett is a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Dr. Burnett received a Ph.D. in Applied Philosophy (oh yeah...I remember studying the environment in my philosophy classes  :rolleyes: )from Bowling Green State University in 2001.

They received nearly half a million in funding from Exxon.

LMFAO!  (http://forums.gottadeal.com/images/smilies/new/gdbusted.gif)

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
LMFAO!  (http://forums.gottadeal.com/images/smilies/new/gdbusted.gif)

His opinions were based on this mans findings:Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2571

I will take the USGS as a source over any of the others, any day.  The article I posted coontained data from the USGS, and nothing posted, yet, would reverse the fact that Nat'l Wildlife put the bears on the endangered species list, a very reckless move in the face of overwhelming stupidity, er, ah, I mean proof that global warming is a hoax.

Quote from: me on February 02, 2009, 09:19:37 PM
His opinions were based on this mans findings:Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2571

Did you read it?

"some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change."

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 08:46:07 AM
Did you read it?

She only looks at the pictures.   :rolleyes:

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, because I see it all the time, but I don't understand why someone reads something which is clearly an opinion of what someone else researched, discovered, what-have-you, and doesn't research that person and find out exactly what they said and form their own opinion.

One of the things that I think should tip people off is when the articles on a site contain adjectives such as "hysterical" and "alarmist" which are meant to simply persuade and not inform.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 03, 2009, 09:49:17 AM
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, because I see it all the time, but I don't understand why someone reads something which is clearly an opinion of what someone else researched, discovered, what-have-you, and doesn't research that person and find out exactly what they said and form their own opinion.

Because they aren't looking for information from which to form an objective opinion; they're intentionally looking only for information that will support the opinion they already have which was probably fed to them by Rush Limbaugh.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 03, 2009, 09:52:22 AM
Because they aren't looking for information from which to form an objective opinion; they're intentionally looking only for information that will support the opinion they already have which was probably fed to them by Rush Limbaugh.

I do not watch Rush in fact I don't even like him.  One thing I find quite odd it the fact that I am finding a lot of removed pages when I do run across something that would back up what I'm saying.  Doesn't it seem kind of strange that a lot of opposing information has just disappeared and replaced with page can not be found or page removed messages.   

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
Doesn't it seem kind of strange that a lot of opposing information has just disappeared and replaced with page can not be found or page removed messages.   

Not so strange at all if you consider this....

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews)

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
Not so strange at all if you consider this....

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews)

And you're going to use an article from a newspaper that comes from a country where the leader poisons people who oppose him?  Give me a break.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
Not so strange at all if you consider this....

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews)

keyword here is ... accused......by advocacy groups none-the-less...

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
And you're going to use an article from a newspaper that comes from a country where the leader poisons people who oppose him?  Give me a break.

Really? I must be behind in my reading. When did they do that in the UK?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
keyword here is ... accused......by advocacy groups none-the-less...

Yes - advocacy groups - the same type of group you depend on to advocate your position.

I didn't say I agreed with it. Although there has been considerable evidence that it happened.  I posted it as an illustration.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Yes - advocacy groups - the same type of group you depend on to advocate your position.

I didn't say I agreed with it. Although there has been considerable evidence that it happened.  I posted it as an illustration.

I'm with you on this....I just tend to lean towards Global Warming being a bit skewed to the liberal side and being PUSHED as "life and death".....because of things produced by MAN...

Leading Russian journalist 'poisoned'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/06/russia.chechnya

October 16, 2008
Lawyer of murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya 'poisoned'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4954795.ece


Radiation found after spy's death   
Police probing the death of Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko have found above-normal levels of radiation at three locations in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6180682.stm

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 12:38:55 PM
Really? I must be behind in my reading. When did they do that in the UK?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 12:55:05 PM
I'm with you on this....I just tend to lean towards Global Warming being a bit skewed to the liberal side and being PUSHED as "life and death".....because of things produced by MAN...

There are extremists on both sides of the debate. But to deny it is happening is just plain wrong.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 12:58:02 PM
There are extremists on both sides of the debate. But to deny it is happening is just plain wrong.

I'm not convinced that it is doom and gloom due to man's contribution........I don't deny, that pollution being dumped into our air is causing some havoc, and is harmful, but I am NOT a believer that our oceans will rise 20' feet in a few years due to our carbon problem....and I totally believe that Al Gore is a crook.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
I'm not convinced that it is doom and gloom due to man's contribution........I don't deny, that pollution being dumped into our air is causing some havoc, and is harmful, but I am NOT a believer that our oceans will rise 20' feet in a few years due to our carbon problem....and I totally believe that Al Gore is a crook.

It may be longer than a 'few years' but it is very possible over the course of a century or so. Nobody in the scientific community has ever claimed any different.

And what does Al Gore have to do with anything? Have I ever quoted him? No...

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
I'm not convinced that it is doom and gloom due to man's contribution........I don't deny, that pollution being dumped into our air is causing some havoc, and is harmful, but I am NOT a believer that our oceans will rise 20' feet in a few years due to our carbon problem....and I totally believe that Al Gore is a crook.

I'm with you on that one Henry.  He's all about lining his pockets with that carbon credit money.  It's like he's saying I've got money so I can do as I please since I can afford to purchase these cc's from my own company but you average people have to cut back on everything.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
I'm not convinced that it is doom and gloom due to man's contribution........I don't deny, that pollution being dumped into our air is causing some havoc, and is harmful, but I am NOT a believer that our oceans will rise 20' feet in a few years due to our carbon problem....and I totally believe that Al Gore is a crook.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
It may be longer than a 'few years' but it is very possible over the course of a century or so. Nobody in the scientific community has ever claimed any different.

And what does Al Gore have to do with anything? Have I ever quoted him? No...

Seems like he's the one that started this whole global warming thing with that movie.

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 12:57:38 PM
Leading Russian journalist 'poisoned'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/06/russia.chechnya

October 16, 2008
Lawyer of murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya 'poisoned'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4954795.ece


Radiation found after spy's death   
Police probing the death of Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko have found above-normal levels of radiation at three locations in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6180682.stm

Too funny!!!! I hope you aren't serious.

Just to recap. I quoted an article from the Guardian (in the UK or United Kingdom or colloquially 'England')

To which you responded .....

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
And you're going to use an article from a newspaper that comes from a country where the leader poisons people who oppose him?  Give me a break.

No where did you think the Guardian was from? Or the London Times OnLine? Or the BBC? Just because they published a report on the RUSSIANS????  LOL LOL LOL!!!!! I know for a fact that you can find those same reports on Fox news.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
It may be longer than a 'few years' but it is very possible over the course of a century or so. Nobody in the scientific community has ever claimed any different.

And what does Al Gore have to do with anything? Have I ever quoted him? No...

I never said you quoted him...it is people like HIM that is keeping people from trusting those that backed him.......like Rush's name was brought up earlier as one who is saying there is NO problems....

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
Seems like he's the one that started this whole global warming thing with that movie.

Naw. . . but he did provide it with increased visibility and awareness. Just look at this thread! If he had not produced "An Inconvenient Truth", would the majority of you even be discussing this?  :biggrin:

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
Seems like he's the one that started this whole global warming thing with that movie.

He commercialized it ... I don't disagree with that. But if you keep insisting that grapes can't grow in England, or that the English government poisons their opposition ....  well ... that tells me a lot about the caliber of your comprehension skills.

Just to be clear, Gore didn't start "this whole global warming thing".

Hum, seems like both sides are equally as guilty of hand picking evidence to support which ever side of the fence they're on which puts me right in the middle somewhere.  Guess all we can really do is hope the government don't go nuts doing stuff that is going to raise our taxes through the roof and not makes a dimes worth of difference in the long run.  If they can't predict the weather accurately a week ahead how can they predict years ahead? IMO all it amounts to is different sets of facts plugged into a computer with different sets of hypothetical situations which can arrive at many different conclusions.  I will agree that pollution is a problem but I don't agree with needing to be taxed out of existence to help cure it.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070130114413-25161.pdf

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 02:20:15 PM
Hum, seems like both sides are equally as guilty of hand picking evidence

At least I'm hand-picking grapes GROWN IN ENGLAND!

:icon_twisted:

I won't even attempt to teach you about forecasting weather trends and the Arctic ice melt and that effect on the Gulf Stream .... you might think Tony Blair is back and poisoning his enemies.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 01:13:39 PM
He commercialized it ... I don't disagree with that. But if you keep insisting that grapes can't grow in England, or that the English government poisons their opposition ....  well ... that tells me a lot about the caliber of your comprehension skills.

Guess that's what happens when I try to multi task.  :beer:

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 02:27:54 PM
At least I'm hand-picking grapes GROWN IN ENGLAND!

:icon_twisted:

I won't even attempt to teach you about forecasting weather trends and the Arctic ice melt and that effect on the Gulf Stream .... you might think Tony Blair is back and poisoning his enemies.

Na, he's one of the good guy's.  :smile:

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 02:28:43 PM
Na, he's one of the good guy's.  :smile:

Not what you said before....

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
And you're going to use an article from a newspaper that comes from a country where the leader poisons people who oppose him?  Give me a break.

Quote from: Bo D on February 03, 2009, 02:59:32 PM
Not what you said before....

I was thinking Putin in Russia for some reason.....I'm sooo confused....(Don't even go there)...Just had too many things going on when I clicked the link to look at the article. Guess I made a prime example of how misunderstandings occur when one isn't paying attention huh? I'll see if I can slow it up a little next time.

Quote from: me on February 03, 2009, 01:07:28 PM
I'm with you on that one Henry.  He's all about lining his pockets with that carbon credit money.  It's like he's saying I've got money so I can do as I please since I can afford to purchase these cc's from my own company but you average people have to cut back on everything.

Al Gore's intent has always been to generate a massive perpetual income stream for his hedge fund Generation X, by any means available to him. To achieve this he only had to convince a minority of people in power of his beliefs, which he has done, and those who place unquestionable trust in authority figures will then follow the leader of the herd. The sad thing here is that people don't realize they are capable of thinking for themselves.
In the face of the continued lack of 'consensus' to support Al's hypothesis (refer Global Warming Petition project) not even the amount of time that the wider hoax has been going on (since 1976) can even validate the IPCC theory. The scientific explanation given by the GWPP scientists is not too difficult for laypeople to understand.

The lesson to be learnt from Al Gore's behaviour that connects him to the biggest cover-up man of the 20th Century (Adolf Hitler) is: "It's easier to fool the public with a great big lie, than it is a small lie".
And, unfortunately, that's true.

Don't know about the rest of you but I could use a little "global warming" about now. Another 5 inches of snow today, wind, and cold, cold, cold.  It is time for spring now!

Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2009, 12:55:05 PM
I'm with you on this....I just tend to lean towards Global Warming being a bit skewed to the liberal side and being PUSHED as "life and death".....because of things produced by MAN...

Another humorist.  This just doesn't get any better.

Quote from: Doc on February 03, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
Al Gore's intent has always been to generate a massive perpetual income stream for his hedge fund Generation X, by any means available to him. To achieve this he only had to convince a minority of people in power of his beliefs, which he has done, and those who place unquestionable trust in authority figures will then follow the leader of the herd. The sad thing here is that people don't realize they are capable of thinking for themselves.
In the face of the continued lack of 'consensus' to support Al's hypothesis (refer Global Warming Petition project) not even the amount of time that the wider hoax has been going on (since 1976) can even validate the IPCC theory. The scientific explanation given by the GWPP scientists is not too difficult for laypeople to understand.

The lesson to be learnt from Al Gore's behaviour that connects him to the biggest cover-up man of the 20th Century (Adolf Hitler) is: "It's easier to fool the public with a great big lie, than it is a small lie".
And, unfortunately, that's true.

These are about the most ignorant statements I have seen, funny man.  Your Crazy Joe impersonation is dead on.

Quote from: Doc on February 03, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
Al Gore's intent has always been to generate a massive perpetual income stream for his hedge fund Generation X, by any means available to him. To achieve this he only had to convince a minority of people in power of his beliefs, which he has done, and those who place unquestionable trust in authority figures will then follow the leader of the herd. The sad thing here is that people don't realize they are capable of thinking for themselves.
In the face of the continued lack of 'consensus' to support Al's hypothesis (refer Global Warming Petition project) not even the amount of time that the wider hoax has been going on (since 1976) can even validate the IPCC theory. The scientific explanation given by the GWPP scientists is not too difficult for laypeople to understand.

The lesson to be learnt from Al Gore's behaviour that connects him to the biggest cover-up man of the 20th Century (Adolf Hitler) is: "It's easier to fool the public with a great big lie, than it is a small lie".
And, unfortunately, that's true.

"connects him to the biggest cover-up man of the 20th Century" (George W Bush).

Quote from: Doc on February 03, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
...and those who place unquestionable trust in authority figures will then follow the leader of the herd. The sad thing here is that people don't realize they are capable of thinking for themselves.

This would be hysterical coming from such a Bush sycphant if it weren't so pathetic.

QuoteIn the face of the continued lack of 'consensus' to support Al's hypothesis (refer Global Warming Petition project) not even the amount of time that the wider hoax has been going on (since 1976) can even validate the IPCC theory. The scientific explanation given by the GWPP scientists is not too difficult for laypeople to understand.

Would that be the same GWPP that has been widely exposed as an absolute fraud?  God, what a gullible shill you are.  You should really stick to discussing things you can understand like mullets and skinning squirrels and what not.

Quote from: dan foster on February 03, 2009, 11:38:53 PM
Another humorist.  This just doesn't get any better.

Geeeze, lighten up, Dan. It is cold here, much colder than average, a little warming would be good.  :biggrin:

And a scientist to boot. :biggrin:

Quote from: followsthewolf on February 04, 2009, 11:09:25 AM
And a scientist to boot. :biggrin:

:smile:

Wait until our global warming stops the ocean's heat conveyor.  It truly will be a cold day in hell for our little scientific friends  :wink:

Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2009, 08:28:46 AM
No, loser, but I wouldn't expect you to understand what 'preponderance of the evidence' means as it relates to logical thought processes.

I beg to differ. It is you who has not provided a single piece of peer-reviewed research to support any of your contentions during any discussion on any thread I have seen thus far.

And when we who are of a different opinion actually research the topic and provide such support for our opinions, you attack our sources for a missed dotted "i" or uncrossed "t" and dismiss them without ever offering any substantive rebuff from sources of your own.

I, personally, have illustrated your reasoning and logical thinking skills to be substandard time and time again.
Heck, my six-year-old can support her argument for a second cookie with better logic than you have offered to this group for any of your positions.
You think you are an intellectual; you are not.
You think you are well-read; you are not.
You think you are conversant on current events; you are not.
And you are mistaken if you think your boorish, uni-brow, low-forehead insults make you even appear to be intelligent.

The "preponderance" of evidence forces one to conclude through "logical thought processes" that what you are is a poseur.
A head-up-his-ass, blind-to-the-truth, snug-and-comfy-in-his-ignorance, poseur.

And if I and ME and HENRY and (sometimes) PH weren't having so much damn fun tweaking you and laughing at your sophomoric behavior behind your back, we'd probably band together and petition the mods to have you banned from this board for being such an obnoxious boor.

So remember as you bask so warmly in your own regard that you are the unwitting jester, the unknowing fool, our own Hopfrog; just one of a stable of such around here who speak with the same voice as you.
We love you for the entertainment that you bring to this board.
Just don't forget your station.


PS: Hell, even my insults are better than yours!  :yes:

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 07, 2009, 09:09:44 AM
I beg to differ. It is you who has not provided a single piece of peer-reviewed research to support any of your contentions during any discussion on any thread I have seen thus far.

And when we who are of a different opinion actually research the topic and provide such support for our opinions, you attack our sources for a missed dotted "i" or uncrossed "t" and dismiss them without ever offering any substantive rebuff from sources of your own.

I, personally, have illustrated your reasoning and logical thinking skills to be substandard time and time again.
Heck, my six-year-old can support her argument for a second cookie with better logic than you have offered to this group for any of your positions.
You think you are an intellectual; you are not.
You think you are well-read; you are not.
You think you are conversant on current events; you are not.
And you are mistaken if you think your boorish, uni-brow, low-forehead insults make you even appear to be intelligent.

The "preponderance" of evidence forces one to conclude through "logical thought processes" that what you are is a poseur.
A head-up-his-ass, blind-to-the-truth, snug-and-comfy-in-his-ignorance, poseur.

And if I and ME and HENRY and (sometimes) PH weren't having so much damn fun tweaking you and laughing at your sophomoric behavior behind your back, we'd probably band together and petition the mods to have you banned from this board for being such an obnoxious boor.

So remember as you bask so warmly in your own regard that you are the unwitting jester, the unknowing fool, our own Hopfrog; just one of a stable of such around here who speak with the same voice as you.
We love you for the entertainment that you bring to this board.
Just don't forget your station.


PS: Hell, even my insults are better than yours!  :yes:

Very well said. 

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 07, 2009, 09:09:44 AM
I beg to differ. It is you who has not provided a single piece of peer-reviewed research to support any of your contentions during any discussion on any thread I have seen thus far.

And when we who are of a different opinion actually research the topic and provide such support for our opinions, you attack our sources for a missed dotted "i" or uncrossed "t" and dismiss them without ever offering any substantive rebuff from sources of your own.

I, personally, have illustrated your reasoning and logical thinking skills to be substandard time and time again.
Heck, my six-year-old can support her argument for a second cookie with better logic than you have offered to this group for any of your positions.
You think you are an intellectual; you are not.
You think you are well-read; you are not.
You think you are conversant on current events; you are not.
And you are mistaken if you think your boorish, uni-brow, low-forehead insults make you even appear to be intelligent.

The "preponderance" of evidence forces one to conclude through "logical thought processes" that what you are is a poseur.
A head-up-his-ass, blind-to-the-truth, snug-and-comfy-in-his-ignorance, poseur.

And if I and ME and HENRY and (sometimes) PH weren't having so much damn fun tweaking you and laughing at your sophomoric behavior behind your back, we'd probably band together and petition the mods to have you banned from this board for being such an obnoxious boor.

So remember as you bask so warmly in your own regard that you are the unwitting jester, the unknowing fool, our own Hopfrog; just one of a stable of such around here who speak with the same voice as you.
We love you for the entertainment that you bring to this board.
Just don't forget your station.


PS: Hell, even my insults are better than yours!  :yes:

So, what you are saying is that global warming is a hoax?

Quote from: me on February 07, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Very well said. 

You guys should get a room.

Quote from: dan foster on February 07, 2009, 06:15:40 PM
You guys should get a room.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: dan foster on February 07, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
So, what you are saying is that global warming is a hoax?

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Ya kill me! That was awesome!  No sarcasm, I really did laugh out loud at that!

No, global warming is not the "hoax"... as I stated previously (and provided much unbiased scientific research to support my contention), the earth's climate is in constant flux. There are a myriad of factors far more powerful than anything Man can do that influence the climate in a meaningful way. From the "brightening/dimming" of the sun over time, to the wobble of the earth's rotation on its axis, to the varying distance of the Earth to the sun, to precession; the temperature of the Earth is ultimately a function of natural processes far beyond the control of Mankind.

The "hoax" part comes in the selling of "carbon credits", "green" taxes, and restrictions on our freedoms, and filling our children's heads full of Socialist mush in the name of "the environment". The "greening of America" should rightly be called the "fleecing of America".
And leading the fleecing (and making MILLIONS in the process) is "Big Al the Environments Pal". Al Gore, whose home in Tennessee has a larger "carbon footprint" than some small towns, is as big a hypocrite as I have ever come across.

You could slaughter all the cattle on the planet and stuff them into the volcanoes to stop the outpouring of methane and carbon emissions, you could kill everyone on the planet (except for the "enlightened" Liberals, of course*) and stuff the bodies into the smokestacks of coal-fired electrical generating plants to halt the carbon dioxide from escaping, outlaw the combustion of ANYTHING worldwide for ANY reason (except cannabis for the pothead Liberals in Cali, naturally), and, in the words of noted philosopher David Gates and the philosophical consortium formerly known as "Bread", "If the world should stop revolving, spinning slowly down to die..." (and it is, btw), none of that will make a dime's worth of difference and we couldn't do a damn thing about it!

There is a global warming hoax, alright, but it isn't that the climate of the Earth changes; it is that we can stop it from changing if we would but cede our freedoms and our fortunes to those more enlightened beings at the apex of Socialism/Communism. They of course, being so enlightened, are entitled to accrue power and wealth while the rest of us slave away in darkness. That is the hoax.


*D'jever notice that those who clamber  for "depopulating" the Earth in order to save it, never seem to actually LEAD by example?
Wanna know WHY? Read "Visions of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell.

O/T:
"Eternal damnation and punishment awaits those who question God's unconditional love." -Bill Hicks"

The lesson of the story of Job is NOT that one must be patient with God; but rather that is is fine to question or even become angry with God. You should read it without preconceptions sometime. It's really quite a story!

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 08, 2009, 11:38:37 AM
O/T:
"Eternal damnation and punishment awaits those who question God's unconditional love." -Bill Hicks"

The lesson of the story of Job is NOT that one must be patient with God; but rather that is is fine to question or even become angry with God. You should read it without preconceptions sometime. It's really quite a story!

The whole story is vile and wreaks of simple-minded, bronze-age justice.  You should read it without preconceptions sometime.  It's really a vicious story, from beginning to end, and afterwards.  Jesus is coming back, not to love, but to slaughter.

"Jesus is coming back, not to love, but to slaughter." says dan.  I say sometimes slaughter is good

  Slaughter who?  When?  Are you really a believer?  Is it the point of Job?

Last night is was at a little dinner for a guy turning 60 this month, retiring as an Army aviator, grounded lately for injuries and old age.  He  was a killer of the worse kind in his youth, self destructive from Vietnam, you know the type, or at least I do.  He was a drunk and drug abuser for years after. For years now his has been a man with a mission, called to preach.  Married 30 years, 4 grown kids, wife is an RN. Baptist, he went from hellion to a man who  wants to save people from their base nature of lust and violence.  He wasn't pushy.  We were good acquaintances but he never complained, pointed out my crassness, or made me feel a lesser man.  Why is having people like that a problem?  I think they are part of the solution. 

dan, I know you're crazy but maybe I am too because for some reason I want your response.

Quote from: Monroe on February 08, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
"Jesus is coming back, not to love, but to slaughter." says dan.  I say sometimes slaughter is good

  Slaughter who?  When?  Are you really a believer?  Is it the point of Job?

Last night is was at a little dinner for a guy turning 60 this month, retiring as an Army aviator, grounded lately for injuries and old age.  He  was a killer of the worse kind in his youth, self destructive from Vietnam, you know the type, or at least I do.  He was a drunk and drug abuser for years after. For years now his has been a man with a mission, called to preach.  Married 30 years, 4 grown kids, wife is an RN. Baptist, he went from hellion to a man who  wants to save people from their base nature of lust and violence.  He wasn't pushy.  We were good acquaintances but he never complained, pointed out my crassness, or made me feel a lesser man.  Why is having people like that a problem?  I think they are part of the solution. 

dan, I know you're crazy but maybe I am too because for some reason I want your response.

He will destroy those who's only crime might be they just didn't believe in fantasies.  No, I am not a believer.  Just like to point out the silliness of the story.  I don't know where Job comes in, other than an irrelevant point Jacko made.

As for the "preacher"; most people just drink the kool aid, preachers mainline it.  However, I believe most preachers are just better at the con and make a "living" off the feeble minded followers.  I haven't met a preacher, yet, that wasn't just on a con job and had many, many people fooled.

Revelation 19
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
       KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 07, 2009, 09:09:44 AM
I beg to differ. It is you who has not provided a single piece of peer-reviewed research to support any of your contentions during any discussion on any thread I have seen thus far.

And when we who are of a different opinion actually research the topic and provide such support for our opinions, you attack our sources for a missed dotted "i" or uncrossed "t" and dismiss them without ever offering any substantive rebuff from sources of your own.

I, personally, have illustrated your reasoning and logical thinking skills to be substandard time and time again.
Heck, my six-year-old can support her argument for a second cookie with better logic than you have offered to this group for any of your positions.
You think you are an intellectual; you are not.
You think you are well-read; you are not.
You think you are conversant on current events; you are not.
And you are mistaken if you think your boorish, uni-brow, low-forehead insults make you even appear to be intelligent.

The "preponderance" of evidence forces one to conclude through "logical thought processes" that what you are is a poseur.
A head-up-his-ass, blind-to-the-truth, snug-and-comfy-in-his-ignorance, poseur.

And if I and ME and HENRY and (sometimes) PH weren't having so much damn fun tweaking you and laughing at your sophomoric behavior behind your back, we'd probably band together and petition the mods to have you banned from this board for being such an obnoxious boor.

So remember as you bask so warmly in your own regard that you are the unwitting jester, the unknowing fool, our own Hopfrog; just one of a stable of such around here who speak with the same voice as you.
We love you for the entertainment that you bring to this board.
Just don't forget your station.


PS: Hell, even my insults are better than yours!  :yes:

My, but you are full of yourself.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: me on February 07, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Very well said. 

(http://www.justblowme.com/images/smilies/kissass.gif)

Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2009, 07:31:18 AM
(http://www.justblowme.com/images/smilies/kissass.gif)

Hey Ex   :finger01:

Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2009, 07:30:29 AM
My, but you are full of yourself.   :rolleyes:

Pot/kettle.

Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 09, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
Pot/kettle.

Go with that; it isn't a reflection on me.

Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2009, 10:35:27 AM
Go with that; it isn't a reflection on me.

:nocomment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlTagSZPm7o&feature=player_embedded

LMFAO!  Is anyone erally stupid enough to believe thsi bullshit?

Quote from: Exterminator on November 18, 2009, 01:43:19 PM
LMFAO!  Is anyone erally stupid enough to believe thsi bullshit?

Evidently!  :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And what exactly are Lord Christopher Monckton's qualifications?

Reporter?
Lead writer?
Editor of a tabloid?
Secretary?

He has "referred to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords" but is not a member of that body. In fact, when he ran for election to the House of Lords, he got NO VOTES!  :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#more-17970 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#more-17970)

Arctic sea ice grows back to 'normal' for first time since 2001...[/font][/b]

By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the "normal" line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/).  It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice.  Last month's news (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) led with this sentence.

In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.

But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news.  Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.

For goodness sakes, Henry. Yet another report from a TV weatherman, who readily admits on the site you linked to - "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" and he does this "just for fun."

And if the read the site "Sea Ice News" it states ... "The average ice extent for February 2010 was the fourth lowest February extent since the beginning of the modern satellite record." ... "The linear rate of decline for February is now 2.9% per decade."

.......................

What? You think we don't read this stuff?

Quote from: Olias on April 01, 2010, 11:31:31 AM
For goodness sakes, Henry. Yet another report from a TV weatherman, who readily admits on the site you linked to - "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" and he does this "just for fun."

And if the read the site "Sea Ice News" it states ... "The average ice extent for February 2010 was the fourth lowest February extent since the beginning of the modern satellite record." ... "The linear rate of decline for February is now 2.9% per decade."

.......................

What? You think we don't read this stuff?

and you wouldn't if I didn't link it........the fact IS: it is NOT doom and gloom....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 01, 2010, 11:34:24 AM
and you wouldn't if I didn't link it........the fact IS: it is NOT doom and gloom....

But why do you post completely misleading articles to justify your position? And it ain't exactly all rosy either. That is if you bothered to really read the very article your TV talking-head weatherman cited.

it is not completely misleading...there are other articles that support it....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/)

my point is....it was just a few short years ago, the north pole was melting and polar bears was screwed....NOW, data shows that those stories are false....

THAT is my point....period.

THIS is misleading....

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/27/Ice-expected-tp-disappear-from-North-Pole/UPI-45191214620247/ (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/27/Ice-expected-tp-disappear-from-North-Pole/UPI-45191214620247/)

   BOULDER, Colo., June 27, 2008 (UPI)
-- Ice, for the first time in human history, could disappear from the North Pole this year, scientists say.
With the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, it is making it possible to reach the North Pole sailing in a boat through open water, the Independent reported Friday.
The newspaper reported that some scientists say they believe the ice at 90 degrees north could melt away by summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze (http://www.upi.com/topic/Mark_Serreze/) of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.
If the ice melts, it could allow for extraction of oil and minerals, which have not been reachable because of the ice shelf.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice -- ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," Serreze said.
Serreze said reduced greenhouse gas emissions could "cool things down a bit," CNN reported.
"It would recover fairly quickly, but it's just not going to happen for a while," he said. "I think we're committed at this point."

AND, the Polar Bears are NOT dying...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/23/hurray-for-polar-bears/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/23/hurray-for-polar-bears/)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 01, 2010, 12:02:41 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/)

my point is....it was just a few short years ago, the north pole was melting and polar bears was screwed....NOW, data shows that those stories are false....

THAT is my point....period.

Let's tackle this one. In the article you cited from the Washington Times, the writer claims "A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center  in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. "

Yet if you read the very report he cites ... "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for February"

Looks to me like Mr. Jim Robins has a reading problem. And what are his credentials? Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at the Washington Times, Ph.D. and Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy.

A lawyer is your expert on global warming?

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/03/30/fox-nation-punks-itself-with-global-warming-news-story/

If this link doesn't work, I typed it wrong...so google - fox news punks itself with global warming

SSSPPPTTTFFF!! That was my frosty beverage being spewed over my monitor and keyboard.

Thank you sharing this one, Sandy. Reading it, I was prepared to believe it was a story from The Onion. But noooooo...... Faux News not only ran it last Monday, they ran it as NEWS, when it first appeared on a satirical news site (prominently labeled as such) way back in 2006.

Here's the snopes link, for those of you canny enough not to take someone's word for it:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/freeze.asp

80 degrees + on the 1st of April, Fire Weather Warnings in Indiana. . . no, there's no such thing as Global Warming. . . :rolleyes:

Quote from: Palehorse on April 01, 2010, 10:42:39 PM
80 degrees + on the 1st of April, Fire Weather Warnings in Indiana. . . no, there's no such thing as Global Warming. . . :rolleyes:

Oh, I believe there is global warming, it has been warming and cooling for a zillion years or how ever long this big marble has been built.......I just don't buy in to the fact that we are single handedly destroying this earth and that the effects we are seeing is NOT a result of man, but predominately by the mere nature of this planet....

Seriously, I say this w/affection, but someone would have to be a complete moron to think that we aren't influencing the rate of global warming. No one argues that part of it isn't natural, but to totally disregard mankind's impact is stupid.

and I say this with affection, but I find it stupid to think that this subtle change is ALL due to mankind....btw, I said 'predominatly'...I have know doubt that we need to be better stewards of this earth....but not to the point of wrecking economy's to achieve something that may not even make a difference...

With all due respect...bullshit. You talk about being "good stewarts" without any conviction whatsoever because you believe the changes to be "subtle". You're wrong, science indicates that you're wrong, but dammit if your neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher says that humans have no bearing on global warming the by-gawd it must be so then. :rolleyes:

bullshit right back at ya... :razz:

it is NOT my neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher that has anything to do with this....

here are some reasons why many, many people feel about this the way we do;

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

  RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

  Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

  U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html)

and

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)

and

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense)

and this!!

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/)

When I get back in front of a computer, I'll check your sources, but my guess is that you were better off w/the dog catcher.

Instead of trying to find every OPINION piece that you can to support only your point of view, why don't you read some of the actual scientific research and increase the chance that you'll have a valid opinion yourself.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 02, 2010, 01:15:34 PM
When I get back in front of a computer, I'll check your sources, but my guess is that you were better off w/the dog catcher.

Instead of trying to find every OPINION piece that you can to support only your point of view, why don't you read some of the actual scientific research and increase the chance that you'll have a valid opinion yourself.

because the scientist YOU relied on admitted to hiding evidence and tampering with data.......why SHOULD I believe them?

there are plenty of significant information that leads me to my stance on this....

here is another very good article that supports WHY I have taken my stance...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulations-A-Threat-to-American-Agriculture (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulations-A-Threat-to-American-Agriculture)

You couldn't research w/out bias to save your life.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 02, 2010, 01:05:34 PM
bullshit right back at ya... :razz:

it is NOT my neighbor's uncle's grandpa's dog catcher that has anything to do with this....

here are some reasons why many, many people feel about this the way we do;

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

  RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

  Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

  U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html)

and

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)

and

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/02/12/blizzard-lies-debunking-warm-air-holds-more-moisture-defense)

and this!!

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/)

A whole heap of horseshit, hank, and not one thing to do with the fact that the climate is changing and human activity has contributed to the change.  For one, you can start with climate-gate, as you call it:

Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

The really sad part to global warming is that if we hadn't polluted so much with particulates, the rise in temperature would have been much, much greater.  WE, (yes WE, Bill O junior) have dumped so much particulate pollution into the atmosphere, we have reduced the level of sunlight that reaches the ground, which can be seen in the reduced evaporative index of water on the surface.  I realize you have no idea what any of that means, so I don't see how you are qualified to judge any of the data/reports/scientific conclusions about any of this.  You can read more about the REAL REDUCTION IN SUNLIGHT reaching the ground;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/18/science.research1

but I know you won't fucking get it.  The bottom line; we now have to be very careful how we fix the mess WE (yes WE, you Faux Gnus wet dream) made; a big reduction of particulate pollution as compared to high greenhouse gas levels, and we get runaway overheating very quickly.  So, shut the fuck up until you can understand (no time soon) and have some clue about the real data.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 02, 2010, 01:26:04 PM
You couldn't research w/out bias to save your life.

all the mainstream media is post biased ....... I have to research to find anything that opposes what the MSM says....I simply do not trust the MSM...

it don't mean a hill of beans, I'm never going to change your opinion.....and I have enough proof for me to keep my opinion as it is....

Dan, suck it!!...you words don't mean squat to me.

Dan's right - first you have to know the difference between real data and biased information. You don't have real evidence, but you're comfortable with it so who cares what the truth is, right? Why investigate further? :rolleyes;

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 02, 2010, 01:57:32 PM
...all the mainstream media is post biased...

This is tantamount to saying, "I don't care if everyone else says the sky is blue; I don't believe it because I don't trust everyone else."  Denial...not a river in Egypt.

Even more ridiculous is that you deny this even though it is tangible...you can see and feel the effects...and then you profess your undying belief in your invisible man living in the sky which is not tangible...because he undoubtedly doesn't exist.   :rolleyes:

I can see and feel effects of what?..........we have had highs and low weather patterens for decades....


Are you guys willing to wreck the economy to fix something that may not even be broken?....I think we got to be careful on this.....I will say it again, I understand we need to take measures.....and seek better ways to keep the enviroment clean.....but there is some serious politics being played here and an agenda being driven....

   Let an Troll pipefitter give his idea of global warming.  I have worked with all kind of compressed gas.   Air, oxygen carbon dioxide, propane and steam, which is a gas.

  Let's say we live in a 1200 square foot house with 8 foot ceilings.  That's 9600 cubic feet of air in it.  We then take a high pressure compressor and we remove 26.3 cubic feet of carbon dioxide out of it for 365 days.  We compress it to 1800 pound per square inch, so it won't take up to much space.  After we do all this we have 9600 cubic feet of pure carbon dioxide (CO2).

  Then one night we get a large leak in the CO2 system and your house is filled completely with CO2.  You will die in 3 minutes and you won't even wake up.

  Over millions and millions of years, carbon (Carbon Dioxide) has been stored in oil, natural gas and coal.  We are releasing it at an unheard amount, like over night, in burning gasoline, kerosene, natural and coal.  We have released billions and billions of carbon dioxide since WWII.

  AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CARBON DIOXIDE.  HUMMMMMMMMMMM!

  THE TROLL   :yes: :yes: :yes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 02, 2010, 04:53:27 PM
....but there is some serious politics being played here and an agenda being driven....

Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

Quote from: LOsborne on April 02, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

It IS always about the money.  And big oil is keeping its share by ensuring folks like hank stay ill informed.  Just as in the health care debate, big pharma and big insurance kept theirs.  They are all still winning at the expense of ALL the rest of us, ill informed, or not.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 02, 2010, 01:57:32 PM

Dan, suck it!!...you words don't mean squat to me.

So, just as I predicted, you didn't understand a word I said.

Quote from: LOsborne on April 02, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
Okay, what do you believe is the goal of the agenda? Let's use the familiar rule; Follow the Money. Now, I can see who profits from not enforcing conservation and alternative energy. But who lines their pockets if we do? That is a real question, Hank. Let's try to find out who the pirates are on both sides of the question.

I can't help but find myself simply not trusting this whole thing when folks such as Al Gore and his Generation Investment Management (GIM) is worth close to 4 Billion dollars....and the IPCC, sponsored by the UN, (another group I distrust)....it IS politcally motivated and would love nothing more than to cripple Big Oil companies...

Dan, that picture just about makes me sick.  I was reading about old Lonesome Roads Beck.  It showed a Goggle air view of his $4.5 million house with a 8 foot concrete wall around it and and big iron gate. :icon_evil: :icon_evil: :yes: ;)

  Did you see the YouTube where they were putting Vick Salve under his eyes.  It was taking a little time to build up some tears.  He told the woman who was putting Vick's on his cheeks.  "I'm almost getting use to this stuff."  What a fraud and phony sham.  Just think there are two people on this forum what worship him.  We know who it is.  I won't mention any names. :wink: :smile: :yes: 

   Try to find so great Democrat's picture that would make these people sick.  Make them :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

  The Troll :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 05, 2010, 11:22:24 AM
I can't help but find myself simply not trusting this whole thing when folks such as Al Gore and his Generation Investment Management (GIM) is worth close to 4 Billion dollars....and the IPCC, sponsored by the UN, (another group I distrust)....it IS politcally motivated and would love nothing more than to cripple Big Oil companies...

Big oil needs to be crippled.  We need to move on from our oil empire, or be left behind.  China leads the world in renewable energy; technologies and resources.  They WILL replace us with a renewable energy empire, as we replaced the UK coal empire, as they replaced the Dutch wind/water empire.  But, as we all know; the only lesson learned from history is that no one learns the lessons of history...

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 05, 2010, 11:22:24 AM
I can't help but find myself simply not trusting this whole thing when folks such as Al Gore and his Generation Investment Management (GIM) is worth close to 4 Billion dollars....and the IPCC, sponsored by the UN, (another group I distrust)....it IS politcally motivated and would love nothing more than to cripple Big Oil companies...

Here ya go, hank. 

(http://www.sprattiart.com/UserFiles/Image/SprattiFolio/Spratti-GW-toon.jpg)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 02, 2010, 01:18:36 PM
because the scientist YOU relied on admitted to hiding evidence and tampering with data.......why SHOULD I believe them?

there are plenty of significant information that leads me to my stance on this....

here is another very good article that supports WHY I have taken my stance...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulations-A-Threat-to-American-Agriculture (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulations-A-Threat-to-American-Agriculture)

This seems to fit your online referencing capabilities.  Sorry.

(http://www.woodstockpropane.com/images/redposts.jpg)

Poor socialist France generates over 80% of their electricity with nuclear energy.  But here in a America the big chickens are afraid of it.  Just how do you deal with that. :confused: :confused: :(

The Troll :confused: :confused:

They need to talk to someone who actually works at a nuke power plant. So much wrong information out there about storing the waste, etc.It takes years to get permits to build a new plant the the waiting list for the parts (reactor chamber etc) is years long. If we started today and had all the permits in hand it would be 20-30 years to build enough plants to replace fossil fueled electricity.

only because our land is loaded with liberal lawyers who hold up the process with lawsuits and appeals just to get permits.....people bitch about big oil...but I say crooked, money grubbing lawyers are just, if not more, destructable to this great nation...they are screwing us hard working americans, while THEY get richer and richer, and stopping REAL progress from happening.... at least that is my 2 cents worth.

If you ever want to see a good presentation of how nuclear power actually works, the power plant near Clemson, SC has a visitor ccenter that I think is free that is very nice. The area where they discharge their cooling water (no it is not radioactive) keeps that area of the lake warm and it has excellent fishing in the winter. The plant in Crystal River FL attracts baby manatees in the winter because of the warm water around the plant.

Quote from: Anne on April 06, 2010, 10:48:12 AM
They need to talk to someone who actually works at a nuke power plant. So much wrong information out there about storing the waste, etc.It takes years to get permits to build a new plant the the waiting list for the parts (reactor chamber etc) is years long. If we started today and had all the permits in hand it would be 20-30 years to build enough plants to replace fossil fueled electricity.

   Anne, we got to start some where, in the past when we got the first one built. they seem to come a lot faster.  In World War II,  Kaiser was building one Liberty ship a month in one ship yard.  Before the war was over, they were building, in that same ship yard, one a day.

The Troll.

I agree, we should be building them now, the trick is to get the government and the people to allow it. It won't be a quick fix and it doesn't address planes, trains, and automobiles (sorry couldn't help myself) but it needs to be done. The administration, both this one and the last, seem to turn to jelly everytime someone mentions nuclear power like it was some kind of death sentence.

Quote from: Anne on April 06, 2010, 10:48:12 AM
They need to talk to someone who actually works at a nuke power plant. So much wrong information out there about storing the waste, etc.It takes years to get permits to build a new plant the the waiting list for the parts (reactor chamber etc) is years long. If we started today and had all the permits in hand it would be 20-30 years to build enough plants to replace fossil fueled electricity.

It will take a long time to get a return on building, but its the same amount of time we will get from increased drilling.  We need to do both, for national security reasons, but for the environment and our future, we need to have a 10yr "moon-shot" type approach to eliminate all imported energy needs, especially oil.  We don't need to drill and burn MORE oil, we need to eliminate it from our energy resource pool and that will take a bold, 10yr plan to replace all oil/coal consumption with renewable energy sources.  Otherwise, it won't matter how much we drill, or how many nuclear plants are constructed; whether by global warming/catastrophic failure or from armegeddon (not the biblical one, but the potential all out war we tend to make on each other) brought on by fighting over oil from the middle east.

One of the many cultural shocks I was dealt when I moved from Illinois to Indiana, was the fact that Indiana still generates electricity with coal. . . I found that fact to be unbelievable considering the fact that Illinois has a number of nuclear generating stations.

Each one of them has a cooling lake or lakes as mentioned above, and I have personally fished many of them. Dresden, Byron, Heidke Lake, Braidwood, LaSalle, and Clinton, and these plants generate 48% of all the electricity used in the state each year.

Indiana has one that I am aware of, (Turtle Creek) that is near Terra Haute. I've fished that one as well.

All of these facilities have some of the best year round fishing I have experienced outside of the great states of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Want to bet there are people wou there who wouldn't eat those fish because they are probably radioactive and you can get radiation poison from them?

Quote from: Anne on April 08, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
Want to bet there are people wou there who wouldn't eat those fish because they are probably radioactive and you can get radiation poison from them?

Thats alright. More for me!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Anne on April 08, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
Want to bet there are people wou there who wouldn't eat those fish because they are probably radioactive and you can get radiation poison from them?

:science: :science: :science: :science:   :happy: :yeah:  :flag: :salute:

So. . . how yah feeling about this global warming thing now?  :angel:

Quote from: Palehorse on July 27, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
So. . . how yah feeling about this global warming thing now?  :angel:

  Hey, trouble maker, do you have any idea how much this would cost the oil and power companies and the poor citizen of American if you try to fix this problem.  Especially the corporations.

Record highs here March, April, May, June, and July.  Our average number of days in the 90's is around 25 for a summer.  We have already hit 40 and still have a ways to go.

 :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29:

Quote from: kimmi on July 27, 2010, 08:13:51 PM
Record highs here March, April, May, June, and July.  Our average number of days in the 90's is around 25 for a summer.  We have already hit 40 and still have a ways to go.

We've already had more days in the mid to upper 90's than I ever remember. . .but a check with NOAA says: (Indianapolis)


Date    Max     Year                      Min     Year
   ----    ---     ----                      ---     ----
     1      97     1970                       48     1885
     2      99     1970                       50     1904
     3     100     1911                       49     1968
     4     103     1911                       48     1968
     5      99     1936                       49     1972

     6      99     1988                       48     2001
     7     101     1936                       54     1894
     8     104     1936                       51     1984
     9     103     1936                       52     1961 1952 1899 1891
    10     105     1936                       50     1963 1895

    11     104     1936                       52     1945
    12     103     1936                       53     1975 1918
    13     103     1936                       49     1976
    14     106     1936                       48     1975
    15     103     1988 1936                  51     1967

    16      98     1988 1887                  49     1945
    17     100     1887                       51     1976
    18     100     1954 1887                  51     1976 1886
    19      98     1930                       50     1984
    20     103     1934                       49     1947

    21     106     1934                       46     1944
    22     106     1901                       49     1947
    23     102     1934                       46     1947
    24     105     1934                       52     1947
    25     105     1934                       51     1911

    26      98     1941 1936 1934 1930 1916   51     1911
    27     100     1916                       51     1962
    28     101     1930                       54     2004 1971
    29     100     1941                       51     1881
    30     103     1940                       51     1965

    31      98     1913                       49     1895


    Highest Temperature for the Month:   106  in  1936  **
    Lowest Temperature for the Month:     46  in  1947  **

Quote from: Palehorse on July 27, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
So. . . how yah feeling about this global warming thing now?  :angel:

I still think its BS.   :razz:

The summer of 1983 was really hot. My mother-in-law died that summer (no hidden meaning in that btw) and it was nasty hot all summer.

Quote from: me on July 27, 2010, 10:35:35 PM
I still think ....   

Oxymoron.

Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
Oxymoron.

  Now hold on there Locutus, maybe she could a job on channel 8 as the weather girl, Kaye (what's her name) did.

Quote from: Palehorse on July 27, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
So. . . how yah feeling about this global warming thing now?  :angel:

one year ago, we (Indiana) had the 2nd coolest July ever.....this year was pretty warm....and next year who knows?...it seems like global warmer people only speak up when we have really warm weather and kind of shut up when we don't.........kind of like they WANT to see some bad things happen so they can make a juicy story out of something is just part of global history....thats the way I see it anyway.

Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
Oxymoron.

:razz:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 28, 2010, 09:25:48 AM
one year ago, we (Indiana) had the 2nd coolest July ever.....this year was pretty warm....and next year who knows?...it seems like global warmer people only speak up when we have really warm weather and kind of shut up when we don't.........kind of like they WANT to see some bad things happen so they can make a juicy story out of something is just part of global history....thats the way I see it anyway.

And then the "global warmer" deniers say things like "one year ago, we (Indiana) had the 2nd coolest July ever"

:rolleyes:

Those of us in Indiana can just be thankful this isn't 1936!

Quote from: Olias on July 28, 2010, 12:00:50 PM
And then the "global warmer" deniers say things like "one year ago, we (Indiana) had the 2nd coolest July ever"

:rolleyes:

I'm not denying anything, I just don't think keeping my tires properly inflated is going to save the planet......MAN is not causing this irregular weather (to heat up or to cool off).....that is just the way this earth works...and it would be doing the same thing if man never live here....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 28, 2010, 12:40:02 PM
I'm not denying anything, I just don't think keeping my tires properly inflated is going to save the planet......MAN is not causing this irregular weather (to heat up or to cool off).....that is just the way this earth works...and it would be doing the same thing if man never live here....

  Yeah, man can never f**k up the ecology, the air, the oceans, the Gulf.  Especially the Gulf.  If the earth would stop pushing out the oil that comes out of the well, Hell we wouldn't have a problem.

  Man never screw up the the earth in any way.  It's always God or the Sun which God built, fault.

Quote from: The Troll on July 28, 2010, 03:36:10 PM
  Yeah, man can never f**k up the ecology, the air, the oceans, the Gulf.  Especially the Gulf.  If the earth would stop pushing out the oil that comes out of the well, Hell we wouldn't have a problem.

  Man never screw up the the earth in any way.  It's always God or the Sun which God built, fault.

We can do lots for the air quality but not the weather.  Mother Nature controls the weather.

Quote from: The Troll on July 28, 2010, 03:36:10 PM
  Yeah, man can never f**k up the ecology, the air, the oceans, the Gulf.  Especially the Gulf.  If the earth would stop pushing out the oil that comes out of the well, Hell we wouldn't have a problem.

  Man never screw up the the earth in any way.  It's always God or the Sun which God built, fault.

I never said that, did I?

Quote from: me on July 28, 2010, 03:41:16 PM
We can do lots for the air quality but not the weather.  Mother Nature controls the weather.

  I have heard a lot about that woman.  Please just tell me who Mother Nature is and where does she live?

Quote from: kimmi on July 27, 2010, 08:13:51 PM
Record highs here March, April, May, June, and July.  Our average number of days in the 90's is around 25 for a summer.  We have already hit 40 and still have a ways to go.

Correct, Kimmi, as have most people for the past several months.  The pea-brained sheep miss tha obvious importance of the record set in June...not just the warmest June in recorded history for Anderson or Indiana or the midwest or the entire U.S...it was the warmest June in recorded history for the entire fucking planet!  I guess if you can deny the ireefutable evidence that the polar caps are shrinking, you can deny anything.

Yeah, there are a lot of folks living in denial. . . They won't believe it until their flesh is burning from the sunlight and it is far too late to fix things. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2010, 04:40:32 PM
Yeah, there are a lot of folks living in denial. . . They won't believe it until their flesh is burning from the sunlight and it is far too late to fix things. . .

What are you going to do to "FIX" things?.....Do you HONESTLY believe that ALL of this is happening because of man?...seriously?

Yes. We pollute our oceans and streams, our lands and our air, and we think it has NO impact upon how the natural world works? How illogical can you be?

Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2010, 04:56:14 PM
Yes. We pollute our oceans and streams, our lands and our air, and we think it has NO impact upon how the natural world works? How illogical can you be?

and because of that our weather pattern has gone to shit?.......c'mon!....the same folks was bitchin about an Ice Age coming because we was depleting our ozone back in the 70's....

Again, like I have said a zillion times on here, I am ALL in favor of doing things to make our land better and cleaner.....but this WHOLE, man-made global warming crap is all to push this 'CAP AND TAX' bill and has NOTHING to do with making this world a "cleaner place"....and if you think otherwise, I say it is YOU who is being illogical.

Where does the rain come from? The oceans and lakes of this planet. Pollute them and you pollute the rain.

Where does the rain fall? Over land, which supplies our drinking water. Pollute the rain, you pollute the drinking water. Spill chemicals and hazardous waste, and it goes into our drinking water. Bury garbage and the juices leech through into our drinking water.

How do we know that removing all of that oil and gas from the depths of the earth is not removing a critical component to the geothermal process of the earth? We don't. We just assume it doesn't and have been removing it for decades, so why not?

Where do all the particulates go that we are emitting into the air? Your lungs, and your water, and the food chain.

Where does all that "dispersed" oil go? Into the water at molecular levels, and into the food chain.

Where does all the fertilizer run off go from the farm fields? It leeches into the water table, streams, rivers, and lakes, and into our drinking water and the oceans. . . and the food chain.

And all that crap follows the circle of life that we call mother nature, and it is drawn up into the atmosphere in the form of moisture, and does anyone really know what it is doing to the atmosphere that is so critical in filtering the rays of the sun, and shielding this planet from space dust and other harmful matter?

Who is doing all this spilling, polluting, and creating the emissions? Humankind is! If not for us this crap would not be happening!

Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2010, 05:15:43 PM
Who is doing all this spilling, polluting, and creating the emissions? Humankind is! If not for us this crap would not be happening!

what crap exactly are you talking about?...are you talking about "hot" summers?, the Ice caps melting?, Strong Hurricanes?.....what exactly?
those things have been going on since before we was on this earth....and there is NO emperical evidence to prove that we ARE causing any ill effects in our weather patterns...and for arguments sake, if we WAS, contributing, do you think these "cap and tax" laws are going to SAVE this planet?...I can say IT WILL contribute to leading us further down the economic mess we are in....

What will happen is our utility costs will go through the roof and the polluters and rich will just trade those damn carbon chips and nothing will change except those of us who can't afford to buy the chips will have to conserve and that won't make a dimes worth of difference in anything.

Well said PH, unfortunately you lost him after "Where".

All of the above. . . While earth has historically gone through cyclic climatic swings, as HAS been empirically proven via ice core sampling among other means, the data demonstrates that the present swing we are seeing is happening at a greatly accelerated rate than has EVER transpired previously, and in some areas has already exceeded the parameters documented within that historical data.

Do you seriously think that molecules of oil and particulate matter do not have any impact upon the dynamics of the thermal process that is the life blood of this planet? It changes the basis weight of the hydrogen and oxygen within which it is encased, and requires an exponential increase in the thermal force required to feed the process. THAT is why we are seeing stronger storms, more violent storms, and an increased frequency of them. The increasing heat feeds the storms and helps accelerate the thermal process that creates storms, water, etc. And the more pollutants contained within the air, oceans and waters that feed the atmosphere, the higher the accumulating concentrations of those pollutants are within the atmosphere at any given time. . .

I don't see animals driving internal combustion engine powered vehicles, or drilling for oil over 5,000 feet below the oceans, or creating nuclear waste, hazardous waste, and garbage. They don't produce bodily waste that is full of process chemicals, unless we pollute their environment and put it into the food chain. WE do all these things, and it is imperative to the long term survival of this planet that we understand exactly how these things work, and make huge strides toward minimization and elimination of our negative impact upon them!

Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2010, 04:56:14 PM
Yes. We pollute our oceans and streams, our lands and our air, and we think it has NO impact upon how the natural world works? How illogical can you be?

  How many years did take to make all of this coal and oil?  Million and million and millions of years.  This coal and oil is sequestered carbon or in other words carbon dioxide.  This carbon dioxide was collected and stored by ferns, the large grasses and trees over the millions and millions years in the earth's past history.

  We are burning this coal and oil, which releases the carbon dioxide into the air and at a rate many, many times faster than our vegetation is putting it away and millions time faster than the earth stored it.  Which took million and millions of years to store it away.

  One question Henry, what don't you understand about what I just said.  Now, I have never been to higher education, college.   But I read science magizines, read science books and watch all of the science shows on TV.  I like science and biology.  As long I have can remember I have loved science.  As handicapped as I am, with no higher education, I understand what I said.  The books, science shows, science magizines and SCIENCIST, understand this.

  Just what don't you don't get.  You believe what Rush, Glen Beck and Fox News says or don't say.  They must be right, their so smart, because they are bought and paid for by the super rich who would lose money is we did something about CARBON DIOXIDE.

Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2010, 04:56:14 PM
Yes. We pollute our oceans and streams, our lands and our air, and we think it has NO impact upon how the natural world works? How illogical can you be?

Don't forget we are still cutting down trees like they can be replaced instantly.  Trees provide a cooling effect to the Earth.  Can't cool if they aren't there. 

Let's build another subdivision and strip mall!   :biggrin:

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 05:49:07 PM
Don't forget we are still cutting down trees like they can be replaced instantly.  Trees provide a cooling effect to the Earth.  Can't cool if they aren't there. 

Let's build another subdivision and strip mall!   :biggrin:

We could start a completely different thread on the extensive deforestation occurring worldwide and have a completely different conversation about that. 

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 05:49:07 PM
Don't forget we are still cutting down trees like they can be replaced instantly.  Trees provide a cooling effect to the Earth.  Can't cool if they aren't there. 

Let's build another subdivision and strip mall!   :biggrin:

  You know we also need to stop one more thing.  Breeding of humans.  Overpopulation.   For example Mexico.  They don't have jobs for them, they don't have education for them.  Really there not enough food for them.  To state a cold hard fact, the Mexican rich have nothing for the people of Mexico but poverty.   But they breed like cockroaches and send them up to us, so they won't rebel against the Mexican government.

  That what the Super Rich Predatory Capitalist Republicans have in mind for the Middle Class here in America.  The United States of Mexico.  For the rich, to the rich and by the rich.  You see it every day and it growing every day.

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 05:49:07 PM
Don't forget we are still cutting down trees like they can be replaced instantly.  Trees provide a cooling effect to the Earth.  Can't cool if they aren't there. 

Let's build another subdivision and strip mall!   :biggrin:

Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2010, 05:54:10 PM
We could start a completely different thread on the extensive deforestation occurring worldwide and have a completely different conversation about that. 

Exactly, but Kimmi does have a very valid point; as a key component in the filtration system of the earth, the deforestation is making a significant contribution toward negatively impacting the whole process as well!  :yes:

If the plants aren't there to consume the Co2 and other pollution, it has nowhere else to go but into the atmosphere!

Coal fired electricity generation! Indiana is terrible for this!  :rant:

Troll maybe we ought to go back to natural selection and only the strong survive!  :razz:

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
Troll maybe we ought to go back to natural selection and only the strong survive!  :razz:

  Kimmi you left an open ended question.  Would like to explain what you are trying to say.  With your skills in self defense, your ability with fire arms and army training.  Lack of fending for yourself in a big boy world where survival is the name of the game.  Surly you are not talking about natural selection that way are you?  Because I was taught that the strongest and the meanest were the survivors.  In a war, second place sucks.

Quote from: The Troll on July 28, 2010, 06:06:12 PM
  You know we also need to stop one more thing.  Breeding of humans.  Overpopulation.   For example Mexico.  They don't have jobs for them, they don't have education for them.  Really there not enough food for them.  To state a cold hard fact, the Mexican rich have nothing for the people of Mexico but poverty.   But they breed like cockroaches and send them up to us, so they won't rebel against the Mexican government.

  That what the Super Rich Predatory Capitalist Republicans have in mind for the Middle Class here in America.  The United States of Mexico.  For the rich, to the rich and by the rich.  You see it every day and it growing every day.

The f'ing catholics have guaranteed global disaster in their "breed like rabbits, no birth control approach" as mandated by god.

I was taught the smartest survive :smile:

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
Troll maybe we ought to go back to natural selection and only the strong survive!  :razz:

  Since you give me the  :razz:  Would you please tell in a college educated way, by a person who is in education.  What is wrong with what I said.  Because if there is truth in anything, I said it.  I just said it in a way educated people don't want to say it.  They want to BS their way though it.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 28, 2010, 09:15:26 PM
I was taught the smartest survive :smile:

Sorry, but it is the fittest, for the circumstances based on environmental factors.  Always will be.  The rich have screwed the rest of us and it would seem they will be the survivors, but when it all comes tumbling down, it will be those who decided to drop out, find  some soil to cultivate and protect, and live in small groups, that will survive. 

I see "fit" as being a combination of things including intellect. I don't buy that strength trumps smarts.

Troll don't get all testy! Sheesh! 

I was referring to natural selection.  It seems if we should mandate how many children people have before they "breed like rabbits", then why not only allow the strongest and healthiest to survive. 

Do you think that would put McDonalds out of business eventually? 

As Dan alludes to, the physically and mentally fittest will not end up being those who the masses assume. Those who have prepared in meaningful ways for the onslaught to come, will have an edge on everyone else. . . In situations like this it is not the most popular preparations that win the day, but the best preparations that deal meaningfully with the circumstances.

If most folks knew what was coming, it wouldn't get here. But obviously they do not.

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
Troll maybe we ought to go back to natural selection and only the strong survive!  :razz:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 28, 2010, 09:15:26 PM
I was taught the smartest survive :smile:

Actually, evolution is concerned with adaptability.  Survival of the most adaptable.  In harsh times where food is scarce, it might pay to be a scrawny lil' 'effer that doesn't require too many calories to get by.  :yes: ;D

For those of you who "don't think."  :wink:

---

WASHINGTON — Not only was the past decade the warmest on record, but climate indicators being tracked globally are worsening, scientists reported Wednesday in their annual "State of the Climate."

"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest" since recordkeeping began in 1870, declares the report, which was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10  indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."

Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.

The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.

"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.

Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.

That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.

But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade — about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit — may seem small," the report said.

"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."

Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.

The new climate report, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.

Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.

Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.

The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.

"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38454658/ns/us_news-environment/

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 28, 2010, 09:15:26 PM
I was taught the smartest survive :smile:

  So the smart survive and lead.  What in hell is happening in Washington.  Everybody that is in government is a college graduate.  Some of the most expensive colleges and degrees possible and look at what has happened.  The banks and the stock market.

  You must think you are very bright.  Well, Ms. Tree Hugger let's choose a total of  6 tools and weapons and I'll let you pick the most desolate area in the world and one on one we'll seen who starves first.  You or me.  At 72 years old, I know I can clean your clock.  We will see who the smartest and the one who has the strength to survive.

Quote from: kimmi on July 28, 2010, 09:57:07 PM
Troll don't get all testy! Sheesh! 

I was referring to natural selection.  It seems if we should mandate how many children people have before they "breed like rabbits", then why not only allow the strongest and healthiest to survive. 

Do you think that would put McDonalds out of business eventually?

  Have you watched the Judges on TV and see who the breeders are.  The people at the bottom.  The uneducated and the people who are just plain stupid.  Go to Ruskin Florida and go around Walmart and look at all of the Mexican mothers with 3, 4, 5 anchor babies.

  The white race here in the United States are going to be gone in a very short time.  They will be a mix of not too bright brown people.  I sure don't and won't be around when this happens.  It sure won't be pretty.  The few Super Rich, the slave driving super rich and powerful corporations, the dictators, the king and queens.  No middle class just slaves like the people in China, India and the other over populated countries.  Your young enough to see some of it.  Happy?

Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2010, 12:47:36 AM
  Have you watched the Judges on TV and see who the breeders are.  The people at the bottom.  The uneducated and the people who are just plain stupid.  Go to Ruskin Florida and go around Walmart and look at all of the Mexican mothers with 3, 4, 5 anchor babies.

  The white race here in the United States are going to be gone in a very short time.  They will be a mix of not too bright brown people.  I sure don't and won't be around when this happens.  It sure won't be pretty.  The few Super Rich, the slave driving super rich and powerful corporations, the dictators, the king and queens.  No middle class just slaves like the people in China, India and the other over populated countries.  Your young enough to see some of it.  Happy?

Now that is a racist statement if I ever heard one. 

Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2010, 12:28:53 AM
 

  So the smart survive and lead.  What in hell is happening in Washington.  Everybody that is in government is a college graduate.  Some of the most expensive colleges and degrees possible and look at what has happened.  The banks and the stock market.

  You must think you are very bright.  Well, Ms. Tree Hugger let's choose a total of  6 tools and weapons and I'll let you pick the most desolate area in the world and one on one we'll seen who starves first.  You or me.  At 72 years old, I know I can clean your clock.  We will see who the smartest and the one who has the strength to survive.

You had better know how to feed yourself too or soon you won't have the strength to whoop anybody.  Someone who can't whip their way out of a wet paper bag but who knows how to hide and feed themselves will survive a lot longer than someone who has weapons and tools. You just might find you should have made friends with Ms. Tree Hugger :razz:

Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2010, 12:28:53 AM
Everybody that is in government is a college graduate. 

You seem to have a real antipathy toward college degrees, troll. Why is that? Intelligence doesn't guarantee a college education to anyone. Only money does that. Look at GW Bush -- he has a history degree from Yale! And an MBA from Harvard!

Intelligence can help you get a college degree, but money will get you one with no intelligence. Would you want Bush, with his MBA running your company?

This is the guy that ran Arbusto and Spectrum 7 oil companies into bankruptcy, then sank Harken Energy by engaging in insider trading to buy the Texas Rangers. So I don't believe we can call him a business wizard.

You be the judge of how much history he knows.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

Quote from: me on July 29, 2010, 02:22:02 AM
Now that is a racist statement if I ever heard one.

  It's not racist, the the god damn truth, terrible truth, dumbass.  I sure can tell your are not well read.   Just look at England, France, California, New Mexico.  I could go on and on and on, but I think you got my drift.  The brown people are out breeding the white people,  You may think that's racist, I don't, it's my post and I'll say what I WANT.

  Your only form of education, the Fox News and your watching  the education classes of Glen Beck and you talk about me calling calling names.

The winners are the most adaptable to the circumstances, like Locutus noted.

If I remember correctly, we have had 7 or so calamitous events which resulted in mass extinction of species on earth. The most adaptable to the resulting climate were the species to survive.

Beginning to look like mankind will create its own calamitous event to ensure its own extinction.

Polarization of thought, in my opinion, is the beginning of the process.

Quote from: followsthewolf on July 29, 2010, 08:40:27 AM
The winners are the most adaptable to the circumstances, like Locutus noted.

If I remember correctly, we have had 7 or so calamitous events which resulted in mass extinction of species on earth. The most adaptable to the resulting climate were the species to survive.

Beginning to look like mankind will create its own calamitous event to ensure its own extinction.

Polarization of thought, in my opinion, is the beginning of the process.

And the lowly roach will still be here to rule the earth.  :-\

Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 28, 2010, 05:01:13 PM
and because of that our weather pattern has gone to shit?.......c'mon!....the same folks was bitchin about an Ice Age coming because we was depleting our ozone back in the 70's....

If you want an example of why people might call you a liar on this forum, here it is.  Despite the number of times you have been informed that the so-called ice age scare in the 70's was perpetuated by a few rogue scientists and was never accepted by the scientific community at large, you continue to use it as an argument to bolster your ridiculous position.  Citing information you know to be false is lying.

Quote...but this WHOLE, man-made global warming crap is all to push this 'CAP AND TAX' bill and has NOTHING to do with making this world a "cleaner place...

Again, you have been informed of this previously but it you ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda.  Cap and trade is not a new idea or practice; it was originally pioneered by George H.W. Bush and was directly responsible for reducing acid rain by 50% in the 1990's.  It is an absolutely proven strategy both from an environmental and cost-effective standpoint.

Quote from: LOsborne on July 29, 2010, 08:09:40 AM
You seem to have a real antipathy toward college degrees, troll. Why is that? Intelligence doesn't guarantee a college education to anyone. Only money does that. Look at GW Bush -- he has a history degree from Yale! And an MBA from Harvard!

Intelligence can help you get a college degree, but money will get you one with no intelligence. Would you want Bush, with his MBA running your company?

This is the guy that ran Arbusto and Spectrum 7 oil companies into bankruptcy, then sank Harken Energy by engaging in insider trading to buy the Texas Rangers. So I don't believe we can call him a business wizard.

You be the judge of how much history he knows.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

  Lolly, I do have a antipathy against college degrees.  There the ones who are running the damn show.  They the ones to get the first chance at the good jobs and their the ones that are f**king up this country now.

  My problem with it is, I worked for these dumbasses with degrees and I was supposed to follow their "SuperVision".

  I had a dumbass punk O'Neal a #1 graduate engineer from Purdue.  Straight out of college, his first job.  He gave me a job he wanted done, I told him that it would work and explained in detail why it would work.  He stood up on his toes, because he had to, look me in the eye and said.  " ------ my name, "Your the finest example of an uneducated hourly worker I have ever seen and if you ever for for me again, I'll be your worse nightmare."   He's talking to a skilled tradesman with 25  year of experience.

   Ha, Ha, I shoved that little statement up his regal ass, when I went to salary labor relations with that threat.  This boy could have fu#ked up my job.  I myself and a whole lot of skilled trades were turned down for supervision jobs because we didn't have a degree.  I had one friend that had just plain natural mechanical ability, I think he could have fixed a broken heart if given enough money.  They turned him down for supervision in the rehab crib where we rebuilt the big, bad machines and hires some ***** from Purdue, what a joke.  You could not believe the total dumbasses Ford hired that had a degree.

  I have no problem with good smart college people, I worked with a lot of them.  I am still, at 72 trying it figure out how 4  years of college make some people superior who has not been to college.

  I have sure been around one hell of a lot of college people who think that.  It just oooooooozzes out of them.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 28, 2010, 09:27:04 PM
I see "fit" as being a combination of things including intellect. I don't buy that strength trumps smarts.

Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2010, 10:45:47 PM
Actually, evolution is concerned with adaptability.  Survival of the most adaptable.  In harsh times where food is scarce, it might pay to be a scrawny lil' 'effer that doesn't require too many calories to get by.  :yes: ;D

Case in point to justify this reasoning ....

When modern man first moved into Europe, they encountered the much stronger and fitter Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Yet it was modern man who prevailed.

Quote from: me on July 29, 2010, 08:49:22 AM
And the lowly roach will still be here to rule the earth.  :-\

  I know you read that, so did I.  With him will be be germs, viruses and the weeds.

Quote from: Olias on July 29, 2010, 08:59:51 AM


Case in point to justify this reasoning ....

When modern man first moved into Europe, they encountered the much stronger and fitter Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Yet it was modern man who prevailed.

  Aah, the modern man,  the one who defeated the Neanderthals.  The same little horny bastards that interbred with them.  The Neanderthals had one handicap that they could not over come, God did it to them.  A small brain cavity, they didn,t have the bigger brain to really put up a fight, and they lasted a good long time when they were out bred and mixed.  Numbers do have power.

Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2010, 09:17:08 AM
  Aah, the modern man,  the one who defeated the Neanderthals.  The same little horny bastards that interbred with them.  The Neanderthals had one handicap that they could not over come, God did it to them.  A small brain cavity, they didn,t have the bigger brain to really put up a fight, and they lasted a good long time when they were out bred and mixed.  Numbers do have power.

So you agree?

Quote from: Olias on July 29, 2010, 09:53:41 AM
So you agree?

  To a point, the the matter of one upsmanship.  If Hitler had, had the resources of the United States and the with the German engineers and scientist, we would be speaking German.

Troll if you don't like smart people and you don't like poor people, who do you like?

Quote from: kimmi on July 29, 2010, 02:13:46 PM
Troll if you don't like smart people and you don't like poor people, who do you like?

  There you go again Me, oh I sorry, Kimmi,  a dumb question out of a smart mind.  Read back 7 posting from this one and read what I have to say about smart people.

  The people I dislike are stupid people with college degrees who get the first chance at good jobs be cause of that degree.  Like Brownie, "Good job Brownie" said by George W. about the dumbass in the Katrina disaster.  College degree, no brains.  Tony Hayward of BP, college degree, no brains in drilling for oil or safety.  Knowing how to make money and cut corners.  But not smart enough to know when to stop cutting corners and stop making stupid mistakes.

  And the people I absolutely hate, are authority figures that abuse that authority to gain more power and money for themselves.  Show me a authority figure and I'll show you a liar.  That's is a fact.

  Hey, what's up.  I waiting for some more criticism.  Criticism for my racist views.  Criticism for my smart people feelings.  Criticism of my feeling of college educated people with degrees.  Criticism of my feeling on authority figures.

  Oh, one more thing I might be criticized for.  The white race here in the United States is now a minority.  We now have more Latinos than blacks and with the other races they have the white race out numbered.  How?  They out bred us.  The same thing would happen in Israel and Palestine if the two people were to be made into one country.  What do you think would happen to the Jews when they took power.  I don't think it would be good for the Jews.

  Come on, let's have more intelligent criticism.  What your coming up with isn't making sense.

^ So?
Why should anyone care about race?

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 29, 2010, 09:11:45 PM
^ So?
Why should anyone care about race?

  "Me" said I was making racist remarks and you said the the smart would beat the strong.

  Hell, just read the posts about what I said and the answer I received.

Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2010, 09:35:56 PM
 

  "Me" said I was making racist remarks and you said the the smart would beat the strong.

  Hell, just read the posts about what I said and the answer I received.

There are plenty of educated idiots; bush (w, shrub, et al) had degrees from yale and harvard and was the dumbest president that ever held the office (orifice).

Quote from: dan foster on July 31, 2010, 10:10:34 PM
There are plenty of educated idiots; bush (w, shrub, et al) had degrees from yale and harvard and was the dumbest president that ever held the office (orifice).

No, that would have been Carter. 

Quote from: me on August 01, 2010, 02:16:45 AM
No, that would have been Carter.

   Carter would not appeared bad if it wasn't for Paul Volcker raising interest 29%, the way he did.

  If George W. would have had Volcker instead of Greenspan.   He would have been a one term president.  Greenspan keep lowering the interest, keeping the Republicans looking good.  He knew he was doing wrong.  He admitted that, after he retired.

  This lowering of the interest rates lead to the realestate bubble burst and the robbing of the American middle class.

  I just have to laugh when I think of all the dumbasses that voted for George W.  twice.  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  As the young people would say to day.  "That's just plain sick". :sick: :puke:

Russians are not used to heat waves. When the high temperatures that have overwhelmed Russia over the past six weeks first arrived in June, some 1,200 Russians drowned at the country's beaches. "The majority of those who drowned were drunk," the Emergencies Ministry concluded in mid-July, citing the Russian habit of taking vodka to cool off by the sea. But while overconsumption of vodka is a familiar scourge in Russia, extreme heat is not, and as the worst heat wave on record spawns wildfires that are destroying entire villages, Russian officials have made what for them is a startling admission: global warming is very real.
At a meeting of international sporting officials in Moscow on July 30, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that in 14 regions of the country, "practically everything is burning. The weather is anomalously hot." Then, as TV cameras zoomed in on the perspiration shining on his forehead, Medvedev announced, "What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate.". . .


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008081,00.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008081,00.html?hpt=T2)

Well. . . if the Russians are waking up to the fact, how long do you think it is going to take the rest of the world???

Would that be why it was just cooler than normal in northern Cal last week?  Global warming I mean.

I know this'll be difficult for you to wrap you little brain around but sometimes the effects of global warming cause lower than usual temperatures from cooler water resulting from ice melt off in the arctic.

Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
I know this'll be difficult for you to wrap you little brain around but sometimes the effects of global warming cause lower than usual temperatures from cooler water resulting from ice melt off in the arctic.

Wonder what caused the ice age....must have been pretty warm in some places according to that line of thinking. 

Quote from: me on August 03, 2010, 05:09:05 PM
Wonder what caused the ice age....must have been pretty warm in some places according to that line of thinking.

You really should have paid a bit more attention in Earth Science. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on August 03, 2010, 06:00:53 PM
You really should have paid a bit more attention in Earth Science. . .

Probably dinosaur dung pollutin' the atmosphere.  I know it couldn't have just been a cycle of the weather 'cause that don't happen. 

Quote from: me on August 03, 2010, 07:59:46 PM
Probably dinosaur dung pollutin' the atmosphere.  I know it couldn't have just been a cycle of the weather 'cause that don't happen.

Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth's radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth's orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the long- wave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in green- house gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents. All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes.
Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regu- lar cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles (Figure 1). These cycles change the amount of solar radiation received at each latitude in each season (but hardly affect the global annual mean), and they can be calculated with astronomical precision. There is still some discussion about how exactly this starts and ends ice ages, but many studies suggest that the amount of sum- mer sunshine on northern continents is crucial: if it drops below a critical value, snow from the past winter does not melt away in summer and an ice sheet starts to grow as more and more snow accumulates. Climate model simulations confirm that an Ice Age can indeed be started in this way, while simple conceptual models have been used to successfully 'hindcast' the onset of past glacia- tions based on the orbital changes. The next large reduction in northern summer insolation, similar to those that started past Ice Ages, is due to begin in 30,000 years.
Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon di- oxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold gla- cial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years,
FAQ 6.1, Figure 1. Schematic of the Earth's orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that drive the ice age cycles. 'T' denotes changes in the tilt (or obliquity) of the Earth's axis, 'E' denotes changes in the eccentricity of the orbit (due to variations in the minor axis of the ellipse), and 'P' denotes precession, that is, changes in the direction of the axis tilt at a given point of the orbit. Source: Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber (2006).
most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model sim- ulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.
During the last ice age, over 20 abrupt and dramatic climate shifts occurred that are particularly prominent in records around the northern Atlantic (see Section 6.4). These differ from the gla- cial-interglacial cycles in that they probably do not involve large changes in global mean temperature: changes are not synchro- nous in Greenland and Antarctica, and they are in the opposite direction in the South and North Atlantic. This means that a major change in global radiation balance would not have been needed to cause these shifts; a redistribution of heat within the climate system would have sufficed. There is indeed strong evidence that changes in ocean circulation and heat transport can explain many features of these abrupt events; sediment data and model simula- tions show that some of these changes could have been triggered by instabilities in the ice sheets surrounding the Atlantic at the time, and the associated freshwater release into the ocean.
Much warmer times have also occurred in climate history – during most of the past 500 million years, Earth was probably completely free of ice sheets (geologists can tell from the marks ice leaves on rock), unlike today, when Greenland and Antarc- tica are ice-covered. Data on greenhouse gas abundances going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarc- tic ice cores, are still rather uncertain, but analysis of geological
(continued). . .

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatcause.pdf (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatcause.pdf)

(CNN) -- A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland, according to scientists in the U.S.
The 260 square-kilometer (100 square miles) ice island separated from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland early on Thursday, researchers based at the University of Delaware said.
The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962 and amounts to a quarter of the Petermann 70-kilometer floating ice shelf, according to research leader Andreas Muenchow. . .

. . .Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, according to a study published in 2009.. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/07/greenland.ice.island/index.html?hpt=T1 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/07/greenland.ice.island/index.html?hpt=T1)

Naw. . . its not gettin warmer!  :rolleyes:

Wonder if you will be thinking about Al Gore when you are frying in your house like a piece of bacon???? :angel:

Environmentalists say.... :rolleyes:

well of course they do.... :rolleyes:   are these the same Environmentalist who admittedly changed the data to support the increase in our climate over the years?... :razz:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22624

I think there is becoming some strong evidence that suggests that Al Gore is a flake....not just a pervert....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 07, 2010, 05:21:58 PMEnvironmentalists say.... :rolleyes: well of course they do.... :rolleyes: are these the same Environmentalist who admittedly changed the data to support the increase in our climate over the years?... :razz: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22624 I think there is becoming some strong evidence that suggests that Al Gore is a flake....not just a pervert....

  More bullshit slander, Gore has been totally cleared of that sex charge.  Gore a flake, I would chose him to guard my back and for my best interest than you. 

  I think there is something to global warming.  It don't take a Electrical engineer to understand.  It just takes someone with common sense.

Quote from: The Troll on August 07, 2010, 07:39:56 PM
  More bullshit slander, Gore has been totally cleared of that sex charge.  Gore a flake, I would chose him to guard my back and for my best interest than you. 

  I think there is something to global warming.  It don't take a Electrical engineer to understand.  It just takes someone with common sense.

I agree with you THERE.......and common sense tells you that this globe has been warming and cooling since it was made by God....and even MORE common sense tells you that, this global warming and cap and tax is ALL about YOUR liberal buddies trying to control it blessed little sheep..... :wink:

and there are thousands of scientist that concur... :yes:

and Gore MIGHT cover your back, but don't let your wife try to massage him....OR well....ya, just might tell her to take a rain check on that request.... ;) :spooked:

;D ;D ;D you are making my side hurt tonight....I'm actually making me laugh too,....that last one was pretty funny....

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 07, 2010, 05:21:58 PM
Environmentalists say.... :rolleyes:

well of course they do.... :rolleyes:   are these the same Environmentalist who admittedly changed the data to support the increase in our climate over the years?... :razz:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22624

I think there is becoming some strong evidence that suggests that Al Gore is a flake....not just a pervert....

You been cherry picking so much you ought to have a truckload by now!  :rolleyes:

Fry, sizzle, snap, crackle, pop!

Quote from: Palehorse on August 07, 2010, 10:00:49 PM
You been cherry picking so much you ought to have a truckload by now!  :rolleyes:

You'd make more headway arguing with a rock.

Quote from: Exterminator on August 08, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
You'd make more headway arguing with a rock.

:yes:

Quote from: Palehorse on August 08, 2010, 04:41:56 PM
:yes:

the bottom line is...........man is not going to fix this problem by trading carbon points and taxing the crap out of industries...this world is not getting hotter because of man.....it is just the way this world works...and those who fall for the "sky is falling" crap are the same ones who think that government has all of our solutions to fixing all of our problems in our lives, and what to just hand over all of the power they can grab to assure it.....that's the nickle tour of my Global Warming BS....

So. . . in your view the FACT that the average temperature on earth is HOTTER than it has ever been in over 2,000 years is meaningless. . .

Russia is burning, and so much of it that they have had to ban all exporting of grains. . . again, meaningless.

1/3 of one of the worlds largest remaining ice shelves just broke off and is headed to sea. . . meaningless.

Sizzle, snap, crackle, pop. . . Fry baby, fry!

I say we stick all the nonbelievers in a pod and send them out to orbit. Let them kill off each other with their toxic lifestyle. Meanwhile, those who care can stay and clean things up.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 08, 2010, 06:19:15 PM
I say we stick all the nonbelievers in a pod and send them out to orbit. Let them kill off each other with their toxic lifestyle. Meanwhile, those who care can stay and clean things up.

That'd just add to the gazillion pieces of space junk out there that we have to track. . . But I like the way you think though!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 08, 2010, 06:19:15 PM
those who care can stay and clean things up.

again who said I don't care?........I'm just not gullible enough to buy into this Al Gore, tax and cap to save the planet crap.....that's all.

and we are not doomed if we don't follow the pervert Al's plan.......he is nothing but a hypocrite, getting richer off of the poor folks and jetting all over the world, getting "massages"....and burning more CO2 than anyone else, but wants the rest of us to drive a battery operated tin can back and forth to work....

Lets get serious about this problem and quit exploiting it and using scare tactics to complete an evil, greedy, power grabbing agenda.... ;)

Henry could be the pod captain ;D

No, it's not man made global warming.  :no:  Can't be.  I can't stand idiots who take that position. 

All one has to bother to do is look and find the information.  Now if you look at the chart, the increase in greenhouse gases occurs after the start of the industrial revolution.  Think that's merely a coincidence? 


(http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg)

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 08, 2010, 06:35:14 PM
Henry could be the pod captain ;D

If that is what it takes to SAVE the planet.....then by all means sign me up....and I will make sure the two of you are safe and sound, to worship Al.....

can I be in charge of something other than a  Pod?

Quote from: Locutus on August 08, 2010, 06:40:27 PM
No, it's not man made global warming.  :no:  Can't be.  I can't stand idiots who take that position. 

All one has to bother to do is look and find the information.  Now if you look at the chart, the increase in greenhouse gases occurs after the start of the industrial revolution.  Think that's merely a coincidence? 


(http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg)

and it cracks me up that there is actually someone who KNEW the CO2 level 650,000 years ago....and even more so that there are people who believe that a chart like the above is even remotely accurate...

and Al Gores "buying Carbon Points, and Taxing Industries out of existence is going to make this a better place for all of us to live?....

like I just said, let get serious about this start doing things that make sense and NOT ruin economies in the process.....then, maybe then, things will start to improve.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 08, 2010, 06:46:14 PM
and it cracks me up that there is actually someone who KNEW the CO2 level 650,000 years ago....and even more so that there are people who believe that a chart like the above is even remotely accurate...

HH, I don't mean to be insulting, but that comment right there just goes to show that you haven't a clue about this subject matter, let alone how scientists make the determinations that they make in producing data such as the above.  :wink:

Go read, educate yourself a bit, and then get back to me.  I'll respect your "opinion" a lot more when it's based on facts and evidence. 

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 08, 2010, 06:19:15 PMI say we stick all the nonbelievers in a pod and send them out to orbit. Let them kill off each other with their toxic lifestyle. Meanwhile, those who care can stay and clean things up.

  I would like a rocket to the sun and give it some more fuel.

Quote from: Locutus on August 08, 2010, 06:50:31 PMHH, I don't mean to be insulting, but that comment right there just goes to show that you haven't a clue about this subject matter, let alone how scientists make the determinations that they make in producing data such as the above. :wink: Go read, educate yourself a bit, and then get back to me. I'll respect your "opinion" a lot more when it's based on facts and evidence.

  Locutus, he sure hasn't heard about the deep ice core they drilled at the North Pole.  Which takes us back thousands and thosands years, inch by inch, giving the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, volcanic activity, and plant life through pollen type and count.  Just like the rings on a tree can tell you how it lived.  He sure isn't the brightess bulb in the package of Science, is he?

You have yet to explain to me how "A" buying up credits from "B" because they don't use their allotment and being allowed to put out the same amount, or more because they bought extra,  of gasses is going to solve a thing.  It will still be the same amount except the rich guy has enough to buy the right to do it and we don't have enough to keep warm because we don't have enough to buy the extra credits to use over the amount allotted to us.   And yes, we will be told how much energy we can use and if you don't think so you'd be wrong.

Quote from: me on August 08, 2010, 07:30:16 PM
You have yet to explain to me how "A" buying up credits from "B" because they don't use their allotment and being allowed to put out the same amount, or more because they bought extra,  of gasses is going to solve a thing.  It will still be the same amount except the rich guy has enough to buy the right to do it and we don't have enough to keep warm because we don't have enough to buy the extra credits to use over the amount allotted to us.   And yes, we will be told how much energy we can use and if you don't think so you'd be wrong.

It's called rationing. No matter how many "players" you have the "pool" is a finite amount. That amount is determined via scientific data that determines the limits. . .

Pretty simple really, if you'd take off those blinders you insist on wearing.

Quote from: The Troll on August 08, 2010, 07:28:38 PM
  Locutus, he sure hasn't heard about the deep ice core they drilled at the North Pole.  Which takes us back thousands and thosands years, inch by inch, giving the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, volcanic activity, and plant life through pollen type and count.  Just like the rings on a tree can tell you how it lived.  He sure isn't the brightess bulb in the package of Science, is he?

Troll, I like HH and have been posting with him for a long time.  He's an affable individual, but it really bothers me when people dismiss things out of hand without even bothering to do a bit of research to see how data, such as depicted in the chart, are gathered.   It would be humorous if it weren't so downright dangerous for all of us.  The sad thing is, it's dangerous for them too, but they don't realize it. 

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 08, 2010, 06:46:14 PM
and it cracks me up that there is actually someone who KNEW the CO2 level 650,000 years ago....and even more so that there are people who believe that a chart like the above is even remotely accurate...

. . .

This whole process has been explained to you in detail elsewhere within this forum. Not only is it validated science but it is factual as well, and is universally accepted world wide by individuals with far more education and experience in the field than everyone else on this forum combined. . .

What cracks me up is how easily you dismiss that which you do not understand. . . THAT is why we are all going to burn, right here on earth and not in hell. . .

Here's more evidence from those damn scientists.  But who cares?  They either don't know what they're talking about or are flat out lying.

(http://i34.tinypic.com/11c63yp.png)

^^  There HH.   That only goes back to 2002.  Maybe that makes it a bit more reliable in your mind.  That is unless you believe they're lying about it.  :rolleyes:

I do realize dangers....and I see a bigger danger by following a "scientific" group that is being funded by a political ideology....there has already been corruption and lying going in that climate group....Al Gore IS, a lying, cheating flake....and for those of you who think that putting your trust into this IPCC...they have admitted to cheating and lying on data, that you guys are relying on to set our standard of living...and that is just bullshit to me...it is all propaganda to get political power....

so I think the blinders is being worn by the folks who has bought into this propaganda...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud)

http://nov55.com/ipcc.html (http://nov55.com/ipcc.html)

Locutus, I appreciate your approach to this, and you kind words....but, I honestly DO, read and I have formulated opinions based on my own research.....not just listening to Rush, like I am always accused of....

I will say this again, I am ALL in favor of becoming less dependent on fossil fuels....and improving our technology to burn these fuels cleaner and more efficiently....

This whole IPCC fraud and Al Gore have caused me to distrust a certain amount of the so-called scientific community....

So in other words, scientists are the same as Mexicans, and middle eastern people huh. . . :rolleyes:

Quote from: Palehorse on August 08, 2010, 08:42:56 PM
So in other words, scientists are the same as Mexicans, and middle eastern people huh. . . :rolleyes:

why do you like taking that knife and twisting it in my back?

Like I said in an earlier post....Too bad those scientists weren't here to prevent the ice age.   :rolleyes:

BTW, HH, in case you haven't heard, the scientists in "climategate" were exonerated.  It's too bad that their minor indiscretion has done so much damage especially when exploited by corporate interests and pounded into the heads of the ignorant masses by the likes of Fox News Channel.   

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 08, 2010, 08:46:06 PM
why do you like taking that knife and twisting it in my back?

I don't and I am not.

As a matter of fact, it has become all but impossible to even talk to you anymore. So, I guess I'll just STFU and read. . .

Quote from: Locutus on August 08, 2010, 08:52:20 PM
BTW, HH, in case you haven't heard, the scientists in "climategate" were exonerated.  It's too bad that their minor indiscretion has done so much damage especially when exploited by corporate interests and pounded into the heads of the ignorant masses by the likes of Fox News Channel.   

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged

exonerated by who?...they admitted to it....they have emails with conclusive evidence of it....who, exactly exonerated them?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 08, 2010, 09:04:34 PM
exonerated by who?...they admitted to it....they have emails with conclusive evidence of it....who, exactly exonerated them?

A six-month investigation into the leaked e-mails that formed the "climategate" scandal has largely exonerated key scientists, including Phil Jones, the former – and now reinstated – director of the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU). The CRU's key findings have a major impact on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in turn influences climate policy on a global scale, including pending cap-and-trade carbon offset legislation in the US. Critics charged that the "climategate" e-mails proved that researchers were gaming the science to win public support for the idea that countries need to act to correct global warming.

In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming. Nevertheless, the impact of the leaked e-mails has been to push scientists toward the realization that talking about punching climate skeptics and being coy about releasing data hardly build public trust in their work.

Here's a link to the entire final report.

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Quote from: me on August 08, 2010, 07:30:16 PMYou have yet to explain to me how "A" buying up credits from "B" because they don't use their allotment and being allowed to put out the same amount, or more because they bought extra, of gasses is going to solve a thing. It will still be the same amount except the rich guy has enough to buy the right to do it and we don't have enough to keep warm because we don't have enough to buy the extra credits to use over the amount allotted to us. And yes, we will be told how much energy we can use and if you don't think so you'd be wrong.

  Damn that an easy one, buying up credits.  That's the the answer.  When the emitter of CO2 finds out how much money they are paying out for credits.  Plus how much more profit they could make, if they did not pollute some much.  Their going to find a new way to save that money and keep that money for their own pockets.

  That's what corporations do.  Producing products at the cheapest price.  Right now there is no reason to quit making CO2.

  Easy wasn't it.   :yes: :biggrin:

Let me ask you this...... Plant life requires CO2 to live so what happens if too much is taken out of the air?  Will plant life start to die out?  Will our air become more polluted than it already is because plants will no longer have the CO2 they need to produce oxygen?  Since when did CO2 become a bad thing?

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 12:36:59 AM
Let me ask you this...... Plant life requires CO2 to live so what happens if too much is taken out of the air?  Will plant life start to die out?  Will our air become more polluted than it already is because plants will no longer have the CO2 they need to produce oxygen?  Since when did CO2 become a bad thing?

^^  Something that nonsensical entered for discussion on this topic clearly shows why Ex would post something like this. -----V

Quote from: Exterminator on August 08, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
You'd make more headway arguing with a rock.

Sad that the clueless seem to think that they aren't. 

Quote from: Locutus on August 09, 2010, 02:01:00 AM
^^  Something that nonsensical entered for discussion on this topic clearly shows why Ex would post something like this. -----V

Sad that the clueless seem to think that they aren't.

Just why is that nonsensical?  Isn't that part of the emissions they're wanting to control?  When they had such a fit over fluorocarbons because it was depleting the ozone layer and it had done irreparable damage already they discovered that the ozone layer repaired itself and that sending rockets into space also put holes into the ozone layer which also repaired themselves.  The point is do they actually know what the effect is going to be if they start messing with things?  Oh ya, they plugged some hypothetical figures into the computer and came up with an answer but there are so many variables how do they know they reached the right conclusion?  What if the other set of scientists are right and it won't make enough difference to even matter?  I have not seen enough proof to convince me that it's real enough get all in a panic over to the extent they are.  I also didn't believe the crap about global cooling in the 70's and as it turned out those scientists weren't right either.  It's not that I'm that smart it's just that I'm hearing too many contradicting studies by other scientists which are just as credible.  Don't start on that "then post it" thing again either because it has been posted ya'll just refused to accept it or consider it.

How would you see enough proof when it's obvious you haven't done the research to know anything about it?

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 12:36:59 AM
Let me ask you this...... Plant life requires CO2 to live so what happens if too much is taken out of the air?  Will plant life start to die out?  Will our air become more polluted than it already is because plants will no longer have the CO2 they need to produce oxygen?  Since when did CO2 become a bad thing?

  "ME", earth has always had to much carbon dioxide (CO2). Earth was almost Oxygen free.  Oxygen breathing animals could not have existed when earth cooled and could support life.  Because all of the oxygen was locked up in water and other material.  Then plants , algae and plankton came along and made oxygen, in other word the oxygen you and I breath today is plant make.  The universe didn't put it here.  Take rust for example, it's iron oxide.  When you mine iron ore, you mine rust.  Oxygen was locked with the iron.  Heat the rust and you split rust into to things, iron and oxygen.

  I don't think you will ever have to worry about running out of CO2.  Especially the way people are cutting down all of the trees and burning oil and coal.  Rotting vegetation and baking a loaf of bread produces CO2.  That's the problem we are producing more CO2 than the plants can use.  There is not enough plants on land and sea to breath in all of the CO2 and make oxygen and lock up the carbon.  Plain and simple.  Supply and demand.  We got more CO2 than the plants demand and we can't work then any harder with more hours in a day or sun shine.

  Let's put it into corporate language.  We have an Jap owned American company producing Crap.  Well the American bought the Crap for awhile and they got tired of all of that Crap, so they quit buying all of that Crap.  But the Jap owners thought that if they made more Crap they could sell more Crap to the American people if they dropped the price of the Crap.  Well they still didn't buy Crap and they made more Crap again and again and again more Crap.  Now the have a country covered with Crap and no where to put the Crap.  This is the same with CO2.

Then the tree huggers that won't let them cut fire breaks out in Cal and other places to keep the wild fires from spreading so rapidly need to be told to bug off and take a chill pill and the people who are stripping the rain forest need stopped.  There are more solutions than taxing the crap out of us and businesses who will just move to a place where they don't have the restrictions and will pollute just as much as ever or even more because there are no restrictions at all.  What can possibly be accomplished by that?  And that crap on only one or two companies being "qualified" to produce acceptable windows and only certain "qualified" people being able to weather strip or insulate a home that's BS. 

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 09:33:48 AM
Then the tree huggers that won't let them cut fire breaks out in Cal and other places to keep the wild fires from spreading so rapidly need to be told to bug off and take a chill pill and the people who are stripping the rain forest need stopped.  There are more solutions than taxing the crap out of us and businesses who will just move to a place where they don't have the restrictions and will pollute just as much as ever or even more because there are no restrictions at all.  What can possibly be accomplished by that?  And that crap on only one or two companies being "qualified" to produce acceptable windows and only certain "qualified" people being able to weather strip or insulate a home that's BS.

  No more science lectures to you from me.  You have got brain lock or the lack of brains to asorb the reality of what is the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle is.

  You are lock into the no tax, no city tax, no county tax, no state tax, no American tax, no health care tax, no Social Security tax, no Medicade tax, no unions, no government, no, no, no, on.  Just like the Republicans in Washington.  I give up on you, you can't see the forest for the rotten tree you're standing behind.

Quote from: The Troll on August 09, 2010, 10:04:34 AM
  No more science lectures to you from me.  You have got brain lock or the lack of brains to asorb the reality of what is the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle is.

  You are lock into the no tax, no city tax, no county tax, no state tax, no American tax, no health care tax, no Social Security tax, no Medicade tax, no unions, no government, no, no, no, on.  Just like the Republicans in Washington.  I give up on you, you can't see the forest for the rotten tree you're standing behind.

Don't need a science lecture from you...I watch the History channel and have the whole set of the Planet Earth series.  I was also watching the things that came out when "global cooling" was the big issue and Mother Nature is going to do what she is going to do no matter what we do with the exception of becoming less of a throw away society and using a little more brains where plant life is concerned as far as logging the forests sensibly to create fire breaks so fires won't spread as rapidly and, like they're doing now with building sites as far as needing to leave so much green areas.  If factories move to the countries which have no controls and produce the same amount, or more, in those countries we can conserve until the cows come home and it just ain't gonna matter 'cause the pollution will still be the same it will just be in another country and we will be paying out the ass and rationed with no jobs because we will have driven them away.  There is less pollution now than there was 20 or 30yrs ago so why burden the factories and population any further with crap and tax? 

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
Don't need a science lecture from you...I watch the History channel and have the whole set of the Planet Earth series.  I was also watching the things that came out when "global cooling" was the big issue and Mother Nature is going to do what she is going to do no matter what we do with the exception of becoming less of a throw away society and using a little more brains where plant life is concerned as far as logging the forests sensibly to create fire breaks so fires won't spread as rapidly and, like they're doing now with building sites as far as needing to leave so much green areas.  If factories move to the countries which have no controls and produce the same amount, or more, in those countries we can conserve until the cows come home and it just ain't gonna matter 'cause the pollution will still be the same it will just be in another country and we will be paying out the ass and rationed with no jobs because we will have driven them away.  There is less pollution now than there was 20 or 30yrs ago so why burden the factories and population any further with crap and tax?

That perspective is exactly why nothing is going to be done until we all fry! And then it will be too late. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on August 09, 2010, 04:38:41 PM
That perspective is exactly why nothing is going to be done until we all fry! And then it will be too late. . .

Just exchange the work freeze for fry and you have the 70's all over again.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 05:43:20 PM
Just exchange the work freeze for fry and you have the 70's all over again.   :rolleyes:

Tell that to the Russians. . . :rolleyes:

Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. ith the hottest year on record still under way this very year). Unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India and this year Russia is enduring the hottest summer ever, which is causing wildfires to burn out of  control. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CKeyyLWwraMCFdRU2god6w005w (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CKeyyLWwraMCFdRU2god6w005w)

Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:


Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 12:36:59 AM
Let me ask you this...... Plant life requires CO2 to live so what happens if too much is taken out of the air?  Will plant life start to die out?  Will our air become more polluted than it already is because plants will no longer have the CO2 they need to produce oxygen?  Since when did CO2 become a bad thing?

  If you know all bout the oxygen/CO2 cycle because you have watch all of those science show.  Why did you ask such a stupid quesion like you asked above.

  Now, I know you want me to call you names, like stupid, fool, asshole, dumbass, know it all, idiot and several name someone who might be telling the truth about about you.  But today I won't lower myself to such a Republican thing, a thing of calling you stupid, fool, asshole, dumbass, know it all, idiot.  I let your enemies do that.  Because I   :love:  you.

  If I did that you would accuse me on attacking the poster and not the question.  Oh no, I wouldn't do that to you, :kissalive:      :kiss:        :flwr:

Quote from: The Troll on August 09, 2010, 06:07:50 PM
  If you know all bout the oxygen/CO2 cycle because you have watch all of those science show.  Why did you ask such a stupid quesion like you asked above.

  Now, I know you want me to call you names, like stupid, fool, asshole, dumbass, know it all, idiot and several name someone who might be telling the truth about about you.  But today I won't lower myself to such a Republican thing, a thing of calling you stupid, fool, asshole, dumbass, know it all, idiot.  I let your enemies do that.  Because I   :love:  you.

  If I did that you would accuse me on attacking the poster and not the question.  Oh no, I wouldn't do that to you, :kissalive:      :kiss:        :flwr:

Plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen, they need CO2, we need oxygen.....fair trade.   How is taxing everyone, raising utility rates, and trading fake carbon credits going to solve anything?  The forests will continue to burn because the tree huggers won't let them be logged to make fire breaks and the factories will be in other countries putting out even more pollution than they would be here because there are no restrictions at all.  The jobs will be gone and no one will be able to afford to do the "certified green" repairs to their homes because no one will be working or if they are they will be paying out the wazoo for living expenses and won't have the extra money to spend.   

Quote from: me on August 09, 2010, 06:34:45 PM
Plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen, they need CO2, we need oxygen.....fair trade.   How is taxing everyone, raising utility rates, and trading fake carbon credits going to solve anything?  The forests will continue to burn because the tree huggers won't let them be logged to make fire breaks and the factories will be in other countries putting out even more pollution than they would be here because there are no restrictions at all.  The jobs will be gone and no one will be able to afford to do the "certified green" repairs to their homes because no one will be working or if they are they will be paying out the wazoo for living expenses and won't have the extra money to spend.

Quote from: Palehorse on August 09, 2010, 06:03:00 PM
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. ith the hottest year on record still under way this very year). Unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India and this year Russia is enduring the hottest summer ever, which is causing wildfires to burn out of  control. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CKeyyLWwraMCFdRU2god6w005w (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CKeyyLWwraMCFdRU2god6w005w)

Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:


Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

And yet. . . it is getting hotter. . . Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.