http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm)
Just to pick things up a tad.....evidence is coming more and more prominent that global warming is natural and not caused By human activity.....
It has become such a political issue....that is why, I am not quick to jump on the bandwagon either way....though I tend to side with the natural than the man made...
10 years to save the planet...http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007050028,00.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007050028,00.html)
It is the kooks like Leonardo Di Caprio and hollywood buddies, who want to save the world...saying things like "If water levels continue to rise at this rate, my house in New York will be underwater, and I'll have to get a gondola to get around. It's frightening."...in my opinon, this is a politically motivated fear tactic to scare people into voting a particular way.....
and articles like this:
Climate change means hunger and thirst for billions: report
Billions of people will suffer water shortages and the number of hungry will grow by hundreds of millions by 2080 as global temperatures rise, scientists warn in a new report.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/30/070130081454.ieaxdzu8.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/30/070130081454.ieaxdzu8.html)
I don't know about you guys, but the weathermen that I listen to can hardly get tomorrows forcast right...let alone 2080!...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 30, 2007, 12:09:42 PM
...in my opinon, this is a politically motivated fear tactic to scare people into voting a particular way.....
did (9/11) you (9/11) just (9/11) say (9/11) that (9/11)?
Quote from: awol on January 30, 2007, 12:43:24 PM
did (9/11) you (9/11) just (9/11) say (9/11) that (9/11)?
okay ha ha.. ;D..here is the big difference......................I'm right and your wrong...........see? :yes: :razz:
jerry fletcher..... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 30, 2007, 12:02:56 PM
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm)
Just to pick things up a tad.....evidence is coming more and more prominent that global warming is natural and not caused By human activity.....
It has become such a political issue....that is why, I am not quick to jump on the bandwagon either way....though I tend to side with the natural than the man made...
You were just trying to draw me in to the Hawk's nest...weren't you. :razz:
Henry, you're only partially right. Obviously, the earth's natural process does contribute, but based on your premise the growth in industry, agriculture, transportation, and population has had NO impact on this process at all. Seriously, you can't believe that.
Quote from: MsMojo on January 31, 2007, 12:27:04 AM
You were just trying to draw me in to the Hawk's nest...weren't you. :razz:
Henry, you're only partially right. Obviously, the earth's natural process does contribute, but based on your premise the growth in industry, agriculture, transportation, and population has had NO impact on this process at all. Seriously, you can't believe that.
I'm not saying that it does not, but not to the extent that we need to bankrupt our economy, and scream the sky is falling.....I, absolutely believe we need to be wise about this, but, we need to weed out the politics first. If we react too fast, that could wreck our economy, and I realize if it is as bad as 'some' claim, we may need to react faster....but not the knee jerk reaction that some want us to do....
and YES, you fell into my nest....about time... ;)
Henry,
I don't follow your logic. Scientific studies have proven the impact and the advanced rate of global warming due to increased pollutants such as C02, methane, etc., This is caused by burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Increased production of cattle for consumption and constant building contribute to the deforestation. How many strip malls, Walmarts, 7-11's and cardboard housing developments do we really need?
As the population continues to grow, we continue to use and some use it as if there is NO end, which unfortunately is foolish. Cars which get better gas mileage, mass transit, alternative and cleaner fuel sources, reforestation - are a few simple preventative measures. I don't understand how you can equate taking preventative measures and using the Earth wisely as "bankrupting" the economy. I also don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to do everything possible to preserve what we have now rather than wait until global warming is in such an advanced state that it could be irreversible.
I think the government should take this more seriously. As for politics? Who cares. The bigger picture is what's important.
Quote from: MsMojo on January 31, 2007, 07:52:48 AM
Henry,
I don't follow your logic...
thats cuz he's using a strawman argument. he can't argue against your real position (using resourses more conservatively, and finding alternate sorces) so he procedes against a position he can win against (bankrupting the economy).
recognizing these is the first step to clerifying your position.
Quote from: awol on January 31, 2007, 08:59:28 AM
thats cuz he's using a strawman argument. he can't argue against your real position (using resourses more conservatively, and finding alternate sorces) so he procedes against a position he can win against (bankrupting the economy).
recognizing these is the first step to clerifying your position.
get off of the strawman theory poopiehead....Bankrupting the eoconomy is a real concern....This president HAS called for increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels (such as: corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen) by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 ... nearly five times the 2012 target now in law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use. This does not undermind the free trade market to keep it competitive,........We ARE undergoing several steps to reduce CO emmisions and are leading Technology and Research to become more efficient in fuels....
MsMojo, I agree that MOST scientist claim the advancement of Global Warming is caused by man....but I truely feel that it is HYPED up more for political gains than it really is....Much of the Global Warming IS a Natural process, along with Man it is a problem....and we need to handle it in a way that does not wreck us economicly. I stand strongly with the conservative approach to this.
Why do right wingers deny global warming? I would think that you guys would be at the forefront of any fight to protect the Earth.
Quote from: Gryphon on January 31, 2007, 09:54:36 AM
Why do right wingers deny global warming? I would think that you guys would be at the forefront of any fight to protect the Earth.
WE ARE NOT DENYING GLOBAL WARMING!! G....I'm just saying that it is not the AL GORE doomsday crap....We absolutly have to be in the forefront of protecting the Earth, but, realizing that much of this IS natural and not ALL man-made...and to becareful on regulating emmissions from companies to harshly that It will cause economic damage to the United States and the World....I think this President is doing a great job at implementing stratigies for our future....and not jumping on this Kyoto bandwagon is a wise desicion....
whats more important, the Earths economy or the Earth itself? Surely you realize that our presence on the planet is hastening global warming?
Your facts are still off Henry.
1. "Much" of the greenhouse gases that increase global warming is caused by man-made processes. Left alone, with no inhabitants, the process would still occur, but not at a "Much" slower rate.
2. I'm still not following how conservation and preservation of the Earth is damaging the economy. If you want to talk about damage to the economy then lets start another thread and discuss the damage Bush and Co. has done. That's logically more sound.
3. It is doomsday if not treated seriously and quickly.
Let's take it to a very small scale. Our homes. When you and your wife are home alone, chances are that your home is tidy and clean. Everything is in it's place. The food in the fridge is orderly and there's plenty to eat. Certainly maintaining the house is very easy w/just the two of you. Enter children, guests, etc. No one intends to "trash" the house, but the more people you have "living" in it...the bigger the mess, the consumption and the more difficult it becomes to maintain. What do you do? You establish rules, hand out chores, take preventative measures to keep your home nice, clean and maintained. How does that adversely impact the economy of your home? In actuality, by taking preventative measures, you boost the economy of your home, because you have less waste and less to replace.
See how that analogy could tie in w/the treatment of our planet?
Okay, let me give this analogy thing a try....
Let's say a family of four live in a nice home, and they are expecting twins. To boot mother-in-law is moving in to help with the kids. Uncle Al and Aunt Martha are coming up to spend the summer and they have 3 kids. When they all get there, things begin to get a little crazy. Uncle Al announces to all the kids that if the house does not get cleaned up in the next 2 hours that some of the walls will start collapsing and risk great danger in being smashed by a wall. He then goes to the neighbors house and tells them to not get too many people in their house or wall collapsing will be imminent. Uncle Al decides to travel the neighborhood and shout at the top of his lungs about how dirty houses will collapse walls. Meanwhile back at the ranch, Mom and Dad and the kids all decide to pitch in and try to tidy up and keep things under control. Do a little each day to reduce the "craziness"....Uncle Al now has a movie distributed throughout the town, warning people that if EVERYBODY cannot clean up their house with in a 2 hour period....well, first the paint well start chipping off of the walls and then a chunk of drywall, then ....yes the whole wall will come down...and some of the people in the town decide that Al needs an Academy Award for this proclamation. Then a committee is formed called KYWUTAS (Keep Your Walls Up To Al's Standards) and decide that everybody in the town must vacuum twice a day, and do dishes 6 times a day or do laundry every 4 hours, unless you have a family under 4 then you can sell some of your points to a larger family so they can relax on dish duty....and then and only then can walls stay strong and last forever......the end.
Whatcha think?
I made an analogy to illustrate my point, you went off the deep end. The Earth in my analogy is represented by our individual homes. We're not talking about outer space at this point or even your neighbors house. It's common sense to understand that if we don't conserve our resources they'll run out. It's also common sense to know that the people on the planet have done some damage, simply by surviving. For many years, no on knew the damage that was taking place. Now, we do and it's imperative that we continue to learn about ways to prevent that from happening and to find alternatives to the way that we've been doing things. Otherwise, our home will be destroyed.
Quote from: MsMojo on January 31, 2007, 11:03:47 AM
I made an analogy to illustrate my point, you went off the deep end. The Earth in my analogy is represented by our individual homes. We're not talking about outer space at this point or even your neighbors house. It's common sense to understand that if we don't conserve our resources they'll run out. It's also common sense to know that the people on the planet have done some damage, simply by surviving. For many years, no on knew the damage that was taking place. Now, we do and it's imperative that we continue to learn about ways to prevent that from happening and to find alternatives to the way that we've been doing things. Otherwise, our home will be destroyed.
Okay, I may have went off the deep end a little... :biggrin:....
In all fairness, your point was very well taken....and I really do agree with you about conserving our resources and I know it is imperative to continue to learn more and more about it....................I think, we got to be carefull....and not act too harshly too quickly...I think, it takes a balance of thinking to logicaly work our way through this...
QuoteI'm just saying that it is not the AL GORE doomsday crap
Don't listen to what Al Gore says about human's effect on climate change or any other politician (or Hollywood type) for that matter, if you believe this is a political issue. I believe humans are accelerating climate change, but not because Al Gore told me so.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on January 31, 2007, 02:09:05 PM
Don't listen to what Al Gore says about human's effect on climate change or any other politician (or Hollywood type) for that matter, if you believe this is a political issue. I believe humans are accelerating climate change, but not because Al Gore told me so.
believe me, I do not listen to ANY thing Al Gore has to say.....
Quote from: MsMojo on January 31, 2007, 10:19:14 AM
1. "Much" of the greenhouse gases that increase global warming is caused by man-made processes. Left alone, with no inhabitants, the process would still occur, but not at a "Much" slower rate.
2. I'm still not following how conservation and preservation of the Earth is damaging the economy. If you want to talk about damage to the economy then lets start another thread and discuss the damage Bush and Co. has done. That's logically more sound.
3. It is doomsday if not treated seriously and quickly.
Let's take it to a very small scale. Our homes. When you and your wife are home alone, chances are that your home is tidy and clean. Everything is in it's place. The food in the fridge is orderly and there's plenty to eat. Certainly maintaining the house is very easy w/just the two of you. Enter children, guests, etc. No one intends to "trash" the house, but the more people you have "living" in it...the bigger the mess, the consumption and the more difficult it becomes to maintain. What do you do? You establish rules, hand out chores, take preventative measures to keep your home nice, clean and maintained. How does that adversely impact the economy of your home? In actuality, by taking preventative measures, you boost the economy of your home, because you have less waste and less to replace.
See how that analogy could tie in w/the treatment of our planet?
Hmmmm, MsMojo, I believe that YOUR facts are woefully inaccurate. As I had posted in another thread, I will share again to help get the facts straight: :wink:
1. "One thing that I have noticed that is almost always overlooked by environmentalists and the media, is the largest quantity of greenhouse gas, water vapor!
Water vapor has 78% of the impact on "global warming", yet they always fail to mention that fact. Probably because we have no measurable impact on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and it would show that we are actually insignificant on the impact. We do have an impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gases (even if it is only
3% of that contribution!). BUT, when water vapor is considered into the mix (since it has the largest impact on the environment),
the contribution to the global greenhouse effect by humans, is only 0.28% of the problem!With that in mind, even if the Kyoto Protocols were to be followed to the strictest sense, and we forced a 30% reduction in greenhouse emissions on EVERYONE on the planet (which is not possible unless you are willing to go to war for it),
the impact on the global environment would only improve the conditions by 0.008%! And if you assume that we are so bad in that respect that we cause half of the human impact, that makes it even less at 0.004%! When all of the natural variations in greenhouse gas emission conditions are considered, as well as variations in the sun's environment,
the largest amount we could impact the environment, is far less than the natural fluctuations in the causes of greenhouse gases! In other words, it would cost us ALOT of jobs, ALOT of businesses, and LOTS and LOTS of money, but would have NO impact whatsoever on the problem! Is it really worth that? Let's face the facts, we are NOT as important to this planet as we think we are!
2. How is keeping our country clean while letting the Arab and South American nations rape their resources for our use "conservation and preservation of the Earth "?
3. The evidence in "
1." says otherwise, my friend. :wink:
That being said: let's look at your analogy of "our homes". We work hard and get our house clean so we can be proud of our accomplishments and how clean our house is. But in our desire to keep OUR house clean, we commissioned the next door neighbor to provide us with our food. They go purchase the food from the local store, cook it in their kitchen and mess up alot of their dishes to provide us with our meals at a slightly lower price than it would have cost us. This makes it easy to keep our kitchen clean. But the reason it costs less, is because they don't bother to pay for cleaning or trash removal and they begin piling the trash up in their yard as they now cook the meals for us and them as well. We get rid of our cookware since they are doing all of our cooking and we don;t want to be tempted to dirty up the kitchen. One day they come to us and say that they can't make our meals at that price anymore and then raise the price for making the meals considerably. We get upset at the increase, but since we no longer have any cookware, if we want to eat, we are forced to accept their terms. All the while the pile gets higher in their yard. We could go buy more cookware and do the cooking ourselves, but in doing that, it would mean a larger expense for new cookware, as well as having to deal with cleaning our cookware and kitchen again, not to mention getting the trash properly disposed of after the meals. Now the rest of the neighborhood sees how pretty our yard is, but they also see how trashed the neighbor's yard is. They know that the trash in that yard is half ours, but that's OK to us, because we have our yard clean and that is what we are responsible for. The neighbors are responsible for their yard. Now we know that if we did our own cooking, we would have to pay for trash removal and work harder to keep our yard and house clean. It may be a little more work and a little more expensive to restock the cookware, but at least we aren't contributing to the large pile in the neighbor's yard anymore. Which is really better for the entire neighborhood, letting the neighbor continue to pile up the trash in their yard, or do what we can to prevent adding to their pile? :wink: Something to Consider! :biggrin:
I keep seeing wator vapor mentioned here. This is another viewpoint....
"the atmosphere contains variable amounts of water vapour. Water vapour behaves differently from the greenhouse gases in that water is a liquid, with some vapour associated with it. Depending on the conditions, H2O(l) and H2O(g) are readily interconverted. If human activities such as burning fossil fuels puts H2O(g) into the atmosphere, most of it will condense to H2O(l) and eventually return to Earth as precipitation. So, from this point of view, water is not as much of a greenhouse problem as CO2(g).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A197499 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A197499)
This is the statement from the BBC article you referenced BoD:
"However, one needs to consider what will happen as the Earth continues to warm. Firstly, H2O(g) will evaporate from the oceans, thus accelerating the global warming. On the other hand, droplets of H2O(l) in clouds will tend to block out the Sun, thus causing global cooling. This sort of contradictory effect is one reason why it is so difficult to create an accurate mathematical climate model."
That is a large part of the point I was making before, my friend. :wink: The natural variations which occur in atmospheric water vapor, are much larger than any quantities of greenhouse gases other than water vapor. CO2 contributions made by man, is only 0.28% of the total greenhouse gas problem when water vapor is factored in (as it should be since it has more than 3/4 of the impact on global temperatures). Atmospheric water vapor has natural variations in quantity which are much larger than the total impact of CO2. By taking the largest single factor out of consideration, is the only way that CO2 can look like it matters at all, but in doing that, it is ignoring the largest factor which is outside of our control. How can concentrating on one thing that is statistically insignificant going to have any real impact on the "problem"? That's like trying to bail out a lake with a coffee cup. The natural effects acting on the lake, will have considerably more impact on the lake's level, and the lake will never be emptied by your greatest efforts to empty it with that coffee cup. To attempt to eliminate a "problem" that has such little impact, would be considerably expensive, yet would have NO real impact. If the end result statistically will not change, why spend the money on something that will reap no benefit, when there are alot more things that money could be used for, that WOULD be impacted with the investment. Buy food for the children, or give good teachers the paychecks they deserve. Don't throw it away on something we really cannot change through our greatest efforts. NASA Earth System Science and Data Services has alot of good data on greenhouse gases and their sources.
No Magistrate, my facts are not inaccurate. You've failed to paint a complete picture.
"Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. It is the increase in the amounts of these gases through human activity that causes global warming. Human activity such as land clearing and burning fossil fuels have increased the concentration of these gases. Humans have had most impact on the enhanced greenhouse effect through increases in the amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."
"The difference between the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion is often a source of confusion.
Both are important environmental issues. They are related, but different. Both result from chemicals released into the atmosphere by humans.
The greenhouse effect refers to the ability of some gases, known as the greenhouse gases, to trap heat within the atmosphere. These gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would not be possible. The problem is that we are increasing the greenhouse effect, and this is likely to change the earth's climate.
Ozone depletion refers to the destruction of the ozone layer, the commonly used name for a part of the atmosphere about 20 to 30 kilometres above the earth. The ozone layer prevents the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Exposure to this radiation can cause skin cancer, eye damage and other health problems.
Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons (known as CFCs, and which are also powerful greenhouse gases) and halons. These chemicals destroy atmospheric ozone. Ozone depletion has occurred since the late 1970s and in many parts of the planet more ultraviolet radiation reaches the Earth's surface than in the past.
Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is believed to have caused the upper part of the atmosphere to become cooler. At the Earth's surface, however, pollution has increased the amount of ozone, which is believed to have caused some warming."
This is from the Australian government, but an excellent fact sheet re: Global warming. Co2 is only a portion of the story and even then you're not considering the entire picture.
Human influences on climate
Anthropogenic factors are acts by humans that change the environment and influence climate. The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) which exerts a cooling effect. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture [1] and deforestation also impact climate.
Fossil fuels
Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.
Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming).
Aerosols
Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, are believed to exert a cooling influence; see graph.[2] This, together with natural variability, is believed to account for the relative "plateau" in the graph of 20th century temperatures in the middle of the century.
Land use
Prior to widespread fossil fuel use, humanity's largest impact on local climate is likely to have resulted from land use. Irrigation, deforestation, and agriculture fundamentally change the environment. For example, they change the amount of water going into and out of a given locale. They also may change the local albedo by influencing the ground cover and altering the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the climate of Greece and other Mediterranean countries was permanently changed by widespread deforestation between 700 BC and 0 BC (the wood being used for ship-building, construction and fuel), with the result that the modern climate in the region is significantly hotter and drier, and the species of trees that were used for ship-building in the ancient world can no longer be found in the area.
A controversial hypothesis by William Ruddiman called the early anthropocene hypothesis [2] suggests that the rise of agriculture and the accompanying deforestation led to the increases in carbon dioxide and methane during the period 5000–8000 years ago. These increases, which reversed previous declines, may have been responsible for delaying the onset of the next glacial period, according to Ruddimann's overdue-glaciation hypothesis.
Animal agriculture
According to a 2006 United Nations report, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. In addition to increased CO2 emissions, animal agriculture produces 65% percent of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2)[3].
Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
* Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
I'd like to interject here that this is becoming increasingly difficult since more of our plants are being destroyed in favor of $$- see "deforestation"
* Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
* Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
* Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").
[url=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change%5B/url)
Global Warming...I mean Climate Change is natural. Fire is natural, fossil fuels come from the earth, some humans are natural born pyromaniacs, it's natural to want to burn things sometimes.
But...there are ways to find renewable energy resources (besides the ones we already know about), implement them, and not bankrupt the economy.
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 01, 2007, 09:23:53 AM
Global Warming...I mean Climate Change is natural. Fire is natural, fossil fuels come from the earth, some humans are natural born pyromaniacs, it's natural to want to burn things sometimes.
But...there are ways to find renewable energy resources (besides the ones we already know about), implement them, and not bankrupt the economy.
well said IYT....I agree!!
Quote from: MsMojo on February 01, 2007, 07:21:15 AM
No Magistrate, my facts are not inaccurate. You've failed to paint a complete picture.
:confused: How so, my friend? Isn't water vapor a "greenhouse gas"?
YES, it is! :biggrin: What is the impact of water vapor on global temperature change, as compared to the other "greenhouse gasses"? According to information from the US Department of Energy, the EPA, and the US Energy Information Administration,
water vapor has far and above, the largest impact on global warming. How is the addition of this largest impacting "greenhouse gas" into the formula, a less complete picture than it's convenient omission by your sources? :wink:
Quote from: Magistrate on February 01, 2007, 10:13:25 AM
:confused: How so, my friend? Isn't water vapor a "greenhouse gas"? YES, it is! :biggrin: What is the impact of water vapor on global temperature change, as compared to the other "greenhouse gasses"? According to information from the US Department of Energy, the EPA, and the US Energy Information Administration, water vapor has far and above, the largest impact on global warming. How is the addition of this largest impacting "greenhouse gas" into the formula, a less complete picture than it's convenient omission by your sources? :wink:
Did you even look at the links I provided? One of which is the EPA? My information is accurate. You only provided a very small piece of the total picture.
Perhaps you should take a look a this. Very basic, but accurate. It may help you understand the difference between the green house effect and global warming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6662932/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6662932/)
Here's something else that's worth a read:
WASHINGTON - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/)
Quote from: MsMojo on February 02, 2007, 12:02:54 AM
Did you even look at the links I provided? One of which is the EPA? My information is accurate. You only provided a very small piece of the total picture.
That is twice that you have said that. I'm sorry MsMojo, but I have included ALL greenhouse gases in my comments. I have NOT omitted
the primary greenhouse gas from the formula, as your sources (which I read) DID. How is omitting the primary ingredient in the greenhouse gas picture, "painting a more complete picture", and inclusion of the primary ingredient, only providing "a very small piece of the total picture"???? You have me really confused now. :confused:
The last source that you gave, although simplistic, was PARTIALLY accurate. HOWEVER, you need to pay close attention to the slides my friend! Slide #3 says (I am quoting from the slide):
"About one percent of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases,
primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide."
YET, the only molecule it shows in the graphic is CO2! Why is that MsMojo? Then in slide #4, again no water molecules, ONLY CO2! Why would they not show water vapor in that graphic if it IS the "primary greenhouse gas"? Because WE CANNOT change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but we can CO2!
I do understand the difference between the "Greenhouse Effect" and "global warming". The link you provided states in slide #6 that the "Greenhouse Effect" has an impact on "global warming". I said in my post:
"
What is the impact of water vapor on global temperature change, as compared to the other "greenhouse gasses"? According to information from the US Department of Energy, the EPA, and the US Energy Information Administration, water vapor has far and above, the largest impact on global warming.How does my statement conflict at all with the source that you provided?
The main factor that the advocates for CO2 emission reduction tend to leave out, is that the natural variations in the amount of the PRIMARY greenhouse gas (
water vapor), is far greater than the total amounts of CO2, and the amount that we could realisitically reduce it is insignificant! So if the amount of water vapor can vary more than the amount of CO2, and has the largest effect (according to both YOUR sources and mine), how can CO2 possibly have as much impact as they say it does?
It can't! Even if we could eliminate ALL manmade CO2 emissions, it would still (according to them) only reduce CO2 by 30% which is not even possible to obtain!
Now if CO2 was the primary gas (which it ISN'T), or (at least) was found in quantities that had a larger impact than the natural variations in the primary greenhouse gas (
water vapor), then I would agree with you and them. I would support any efforts to eliminate manmade CO2 emissions. HOWEVER, all of the advocates for taking incredibly large and costly steps to reduce a
statisically insignificant factor in the amount of "Greenhouse Gases" or "global warming", are the ones who fail to paint a complete picture, by omitting the largest impacting greenhouse gas from their picture! If they included water vapor in their reports, they would show the insignificance of CO2 when it is compared to water vapor, and even moreso the manmade portion of that, and would loose their valuable funding for their research. They would be seen as looking at something that is NOT worth the investment or effort (which IMO IT ISN'T! :wink:). But if they can convince others that it has a larger impact than it TRULY does, then they get the MONEY! :biggrin: I find it equally interesting that the source cited for the graphic you linked to, is a
political report, drafted by politicians from the UN, and NOT a report written by climatologists. :wink:
So let's take the reports literally and eliminate EVERY possible way in which we contribute to the "Greenhouse Gas" problem. We would need to eliminate the following:
1. ALL vehicles (including horses, they are livestock and produce methane).
2. ALL coal mining, gas and oil wells (since they are fossil fuels).
3. ALL electrical powerplants (most burn fossil fuels to generate energy, and those that don't use fossil fuels to manufacture the parts for them).
4. ALL fireplaces and wood burners (they burn fossil fuels and reduce the number of trees to remove CO2).
5. ALL metal processing (they use fossil fuels to generate the heat used to refine the metals).
6. ALL livestock (the second largest source of our trouble, Methane).
7. ALL manufacturing (since they rely on fossil fuels to run the plants).
8. ALL fires (source of CO2)
As you can see, that would have a pretty extensive impact on us as a people. Our economy would be gone, as would employment, food, transportation and any ways to stay warm short of wrapping up in the skins of the livestock we kill to reduce Methane emissions). And even after ALL of that, we would have made less impact on the Earth than a cloudy day! Is it really worth it? To do any less would have even less impact, so we must do everything we can! :rolleyes:
I know that all sounds rediculous, but that is what it would take to have any measurable impact. That IS the point I am trying to make. Why concentrate on a leaky faucet inside the house, when a firehose is spraying through the window? It would be no different than ignoring the firehose (water vapor), and fixing the leaky faucet (CO2). It won't change anything, but at least you might get the leak fixed!
Show me how their ignoring water vapor and it's impact, is painting a more complete picture than my including it, when they admit it for themsleves, that water vapor is a "Greenhouse Gas". I am and have been willing to listen. I have read all of your sources as well as others on the subject. All those who make a big deal out of CO2, only do so by omitting water vapor from their results. If they didn't, people would see just how little impact we really have on the planet!
You have not so much as acknowledged water vapor as a "Greenhouse Gas", and have apparently ignored that
fact, so who really is painting an incomplete picture, my friend? If you refuse to even consider the affects and impact of water vapor, as compared to the other "Greenhouse Gases", then we have reached an impass in this discussion.
I haven't ignored anything. I never said that WATER isn't part of the Greenhouse gas make up. However, we're talking about GLOBAL WARMING. Take another look.
The greenhouse house effect is natural, HOWEVER, the process has accelerated by mankind's use of the earth which has INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gases and damage. You seem to be hanging your entire hat on the fact that CO2 is part of the greenhouse gas make up. It's not the total picture. I keep saying it because you refuse to acknowledge it.
1% is a very small percent to be diluted with other gases. While you're paying close attention, perhaps you should continue on through the slide show and take a look at the contributions to the problem of global warming.
So let's take the reports literally and eliminate EVERY possible way in which we contribute to the "Greenhouse Gas" global warming problem. We would need to eliminate the following:
1. ALL vehicles (including horses, they are livestock and produce methane).
2. ALL coal mining, gas and oil wells (since they are fossil fuels).
3. ALL electrical powerplants (most burn fossil fuels to generate energy, and those that don't use fossil fuels to manufacture the parts for them).
4. ALL fireplaces and wood burners (they burn fossil fuels and reduce the number of trees to remove CO2).
5. ALL metal processing (they use fossil fuels to generate the heat used to refine the metals).
6. ALL livestock (the second largest source of our trouble, Methane).
7. ALL manufacturing (since they rely on fossil fuels to run the plants).
8. ALL fires (source of CO2)
BTW, This is simply ridiculous and spin that even Rush Limbaugh couldn't rival. :rolleyes:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/critics_seek_to_deflate_hype_s.php (http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/critics_seek_to_deflate_hype_s.php)
A spokesman for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says a much ballyhooed United Nations report on global warming was not approved by scientists but rather by politically motivated U.N. bureaucrats.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/hurricane_expert_says_global_w.php (http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/hurricane_expert_says_global_w.php)
A man who has been called "the world's foremost hurricane expert" is dismissing a new United Nations report on global warming that implies that fossil fuel emissions are to blame for the purported phenomenon.
A veteran meteorologist says a new United Nations report on global warming is "grossly exaggerated." The report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims global warming is "very likely" caused by human-induced fossil fuel emissions and warns of dire weather conditions to come.
Dr. William Gray is a professor emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, and has been a meteorologist for 53 years. He strongly disagrees with the conclusions of the U.N. report.
"When they come out and say they're 99 percent sure, yeah -- putting out fossil fuels may be warming the globe a little bit," he concedes, "but there's many other natural processes that are altering the globe's temperature, and they don't consider those." Gray relates that approach to "sort of like putting on blinders" and seeing fossil fuels as the only cause for climate change "when there's many other processes doing it."
Gray, who heads the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU, believes rising global temperatures over the last 30 years are due to deep ocean circulation pattern changes, and predicts that in five or ten years, temperatures will be slightly lower than they are now.
The meteorologist says proponents of human-induced global warming have been attempting to send the public into a panic. "The problem with these global models [is that] they're getting grant money and living off this," he states.
"See, if you scare people and this goes out to the general public, you can get research funds and so on to continue this," he continues. "And they've gradually painted themselves into a corner where they've got to claim worse and worse things to keep their funding going."
Dr. Gray, who is currently finalizing a report on Al Gore's global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, says the film is a "gross exaggeration" and contains may factual errors.
The world's leading climate scientists on Friday swept away the last doubts surrounding global warming, saying they were certain human activities were altering the climate and warning severe effects were inevitable unless greenhouse gas emissions were curbed.
The evidence for climate change caused by fossil fuel combustion was "unequivocal", said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body comprising 2,500 climate experts convened by the UN.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
Their report predicted severe heatwaves, droughts, storms and floods resulting from an expected rise of 3 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures by 2100. It will be difficult for governments to ignore because it was agreed by all UN members, including the US and China.
Six years in the making, the report is the most authoritative ever produced on climate change and will form the basis for negotiations on a possible successor to the Kyoto treaty, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: "You can see [from the report] what the costs of inaction are. Everything is [included in the report] by consensus, so the implication is that it has the stamp of acceptance by all governments in the world."
Yvo de Boer, secretary-general of the UN climate change secretariat, said work should now begin on a successor treaty to Kyoto that would include obligations on developed countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions and incentives for poor countries to limit theirs.
Stavros Dimas, the European Union's environment commissioner, called the IPCC's findings "a grim report" and urged governments to agree to the European Commission's proposal of reducing emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.
Jacques Chirac, French president, proposed a new worldwide environmental organisation under the UN, to spearhead action on emissions.
But the report met a cool reception from the US government. Sharon Hays, leader of the US delegation in Paris and deputy director of the White House office of science and technology policy, said: "This summary for policymakers captures and summarises the current state of climate science research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers."
The US is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has rejected the Kyoto treaty.
Achim Steiner, director-general of the UN Environment Programme, said in the light of the report's findings, it would be "irresponsible" to resist or seek to delay actions on mandatory emissions cuts.
MSN (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16939276/)
"Global warming deniers, prominently represented by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), continue to twist the facts to serve their rhetorical needs. For example, yesterday, said senator charged that the media was covering up the fact that the IPCC summary to be released this week "was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats."
This is flat-out false. As my story from yesterday points out, the scientists have the right of refusal to any language changes in said summary that do not reflect the underlying science. And the document is largely being negotiatd by diplomats from the respective countries, not the UN at all.
The good senator also points to a supposed conspiracy that must be behind the decision to publish this summary three months before the first actual scientific document it is based on. Rather, that decision may be based on the tens of thousands of comments from various governments the authors of these consensus reports have received and must address. After all, the process to become an IPCC reviewer is not a difficult one. "
Global Warming Obstructionism (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=global_warming_obstructionism&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)
(http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/visitors/education/climgraph/images/CG_Figure_22.gif)
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association
Carbon Dioxide:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms;
This is the natural part of the process and a small amount
man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.
This is how man increases the level which increases the effect that CO2
Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen during a process called photosynthesis, using both the carbon and part of the oxygen to construct carbohydrates. The resulting gas, oxygen, is released into the atmosphere by plants, which is subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms, forming a cycle.
This is a process that is becoming increasingly fragile due to deforestation
As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight.[4] This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.[5]
Because of the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of up to 6 ppmv (± 3 ppmv), peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest.[citation needed]
Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect.[citation needed] See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent".
Natural CO2 is in small concentrations and when it does it's job it increases the temperature of the Earth. Increased amounts have been proven to accelerate the process. Man through our processes has added to the increase in the amount of this gas. That is documented FACT.
The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[6] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. Around 24 billion tonnes of CO2 are released per year worldwide, equivalent to about 6 billion tonnes of carbon.
In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13%–40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does.[7][8] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks. Not all the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere; some is absorbed in the oceans or biosphere. The ratio of the emitted CO2 to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically 57% over longer (5 year) periods.
The Global Warming Theory (GWT) predicts that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere tend to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus contribute to global warming. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on climate is called the Callendar effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Pollution_and_toxicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Pollution_and_toxicity)
Quote from: MsMojo on February 02, 2007, 10:20:47 PM
(http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/visitors/education/climgraph/images/CG_Figure_22.gif)
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association
Where's the WATER VAPOR? :wink:
This from one source listed (Wikipedia):
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png)
Where's the WATER VAPOR? :wink:
Who's hanging their hat on CO2, my friend?? Has not my point been this entire time, the omission of WATER VAPOR (
which IS the primary greenhouse gas) from all of those sources???? I noticed in your pie chart above, that the primary greenhouse gas of WATER VAPOR, seems to be missing! Why is that? :wink: Let's include it now and see what the pie chart SHOULD REALLY look like!
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/Contributionstogreenhouseeffect.gif)
I'm sorry that it is not a pie chart, but a graph. I think it still makes the POINT more clear. Note the percentage of WATER VAPOR, COMPARED to CO2 and the other gases. :wink:
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/waterpiechart.gif)
Which constitutes 78% of ALL greenhouse gases (as shown in the above graph), yet man has the smallest impact on it at 0.001%!
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/piecharts.gif)
Of the 3.618% of greenhouse gases that is CO2, man can only impact 3.2% of that!
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/Methanepiechart.gif)
Of the 0.36% of greenhouse gases that is Methane, man can only impact 18.3% of that!
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/Nitrouspiechart.gif)
Of the 0.95% of greenhouse gases that is Nitrous, man can only impact 4.933% of that!
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n126/Magistrate_2008/CFCpiechart.gif)
And the largest which we can impact is CFCs! Of the 0.072% of greenhouse gases which is CFCs, man can impact 65.711% of that!
So after doing the math this is what it looks like:
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (
water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
% of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72% 0.28% For the record, I hang my hat on WATER VAPOR (since it is 95% of the problem!). :biggrin:
source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
Quote from: Magistrate on February 03, 2007, 05:52:33 AM
For the record, I hang my hat on WATER VAPOR (since it is 95% of the problem!). :biggrin:
For the record, I'm glad you at least recognize there is a problem. :wink:
As for water vapor, you can be wrong about it's significance if you want to, I don't care. The other gases are emphasized due to the influence humans have on the levels. The levels of which are causing damage to the ozone and increasing the temperature of our earth. Perhaps there are high levels of water vapor, could that be due to the increased melting of the ice caps. :wink: Global warming - that's not a good thing. :wink:
Why Do Human-made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas?" However, just because water vapor is the most important gas in creating the natural greenhouse effect does not mean that human- made greenhouse gases are unimportant. Over the past ten thousand years, the amounts of the various greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere remained relatively stable until a few centuries ago,
when the concentrations of many of these gases began to increase due to industrialization, increasing demand for energy, rising population, and changing land use and human settlement patterns. Accumulations of most of the human-made greenhouse gases are expected to continue to increase, so that, over the next 50 to 100 years, without control measures, they will produce a heat-trapping effect equivalent to more than a doubling of the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.
Increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature. However, as the temperature increases, other aspects of the climate will alter, including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback. "
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html (http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html)
Aside from all of this, I don't understand why anyone would be so adamant about not protecting the Earth. We should do everything we can to preserve the quality of our natural resources. The people who don't want to acknowledge the crisis are the ones that are ensuring that the scientific research and resulting information is clouded w/their economic ruin spin. Think about it, there's money to be made in preserving the earth. An industry can be built around researching and building alternatives. It's just not coal money, oil money, deforestation money. There are people who would sell Earth to the devil just for another barrel of oil. They want to believe that things can go on business as usual so they can continue to rape and damage the Earth.
Quote from: MsMojo on February 03, 2007, 10:17:35 AM
Aside from all of this, I don't understand why anyone would be so adamant about not protecting the Earth.
Talk about SPIN! :rolleyes: All I was doing was pointing out how LITTLE impact that we would have on the "problem", if we did EVERYTHING that we could to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions! Please provide ANY quote from me where I said that we should NOT protect the Earth. Just ONE will do! :rolleyes: You say I am wrong about water vapor's significance, BUT, I'll bet that YOUR lights will still be on this evening, YOUR refrigerator will still be running, and YOUR car will still be used, even though they ALL contribute to the man-made greenhouse gas "problem". Seems pretty hypocritical to me! :biggrin: I am finished with this exchange.
i'm just gonna say this.
citing 'water vapor' as responsible for the vast majority of global warming is like citing 'marriage' as responsible for the vast majority of divorce.
that's all.
carry on.
Quote from: Magistrate on February 03, 2007, 11:20:17 AM
Talk about SPIN! :rolleyes: All I was doing was pointing out how LITTLE impact that we would have on the "problem", if we did EVERYTHING that we could to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions! Please provide ANY quote from me where I said that we should NOT protect the Earth.
To NOT use resources to find alternatives which reduce emissions and to discourage further research and understanding of the problem is is not being environmentally irresponsible. Granted you can't do the research yourself, but you support those that wouldn't take it seriously and that is evident in the SPIN of your posts.
Quote from: Magistrate on February 03, 2007, 11:20:17 AM
You say I am wrong about water vapor's significance,
Not just me, but quoted scientific sources.
Quote from: Magistrate on February 03, 2007, 11:20:17 AM
BUT, I'll bet that YOUR lights will still be on this evening, YOUR refrigerator will still be running, and YOUR car will still be used, even though they ALL contribute to the man-made greenhouse gas "problem". Seems pretty hypocritical to me! :biggrin: I am finished with this exchange.
Of course they will. However, I use energy efficient bulbs and I turn lights off when they're not needed. My car as many of the new models is equipped to reduce the amount of emissions. The point is to reduce as much as possible. To assume that it's all or nothing is ridiculous and yet more SPIN. So the only alternative is to sit in the dark and not breath? Puhleeeze. Change comes with research and awareness. When you have people spreading propganda intended to indicate there isn't a problem then that tends to slow progress. :rolleyes:
But when you got people spreading propaganda intended to indicate that the Earth is going to end, just to speed up something that could wreck the economy....then that is a spin
now i can't get the picture out of my head...
hunchbacked climatologists huddled around a low table in a dark room when (horns sound) henry busts in with a hound dog...
"drat! we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for..."
so i'm gonna ask the obvious question.
why would imperial troops want to slaughter jawas?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2007, 05:11:30 PM
But when you got people spreading propaganda intended to indicate that the Earth is going to end, just to speed up something that could wreck the economy....then that is a spin
What is being spread to wreck the economy?
The facts are that global warming is a problem and can be reduced if it's taken seriously and measures are taken, which won't hurt the economy at all.
Quote from: MsMojo on February 03, 2007, 09:11:48 PM
What is being spread to wreck the economy?
The facts are that global warming is a problem and can be reduced if it's taken seriously and measures are taken, which won't hurt the economy at all.
and who is not taking it seriously.........this admin IS taking steps to help the ecology....He just is not ready to bow down to the UN and Kyoto and let them Tax our butts into oblivion....and force Industries to abide by their set of rules, that they are not willing to impose on everyone.
Quote from: awol on February 03, 2007, 07:02:34 PM
now i can't get the picture out of my head...
hunchbacked climatologists huddled around a low table in a dark room when (horns sound) henry busts in with a hound dog...
"drat! we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for..."
so i'm gonna ask the obvious question.
why would imperial troops want to slaughter jawas?
say what.. :confused:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2007, 09:18:26 PM
and who is not taking it seriously.........this admin IS taking steps to help the ecology....He just is not ready to bow down to the UN and Kyoto and let them Tax our butts into oblivion....and force Industries to abide by their set of rules, that they are not willing to impose on everyone.
I beg to differ...here's an example of how serious Bush and Co. are taking it :rolleyes::
Quote from: Locutus on February 02, 2007, 12:00:27 PM
Here's something else that's worth a read:
WASHINGTON - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2007, 09:19:37 PM
say what.. :confused:
ok. literal it is. why would environmentalists want to destroy the economy?
Quote from: Locutus on February 02, 2007, 12:00:27 PM
Here's something else that's worth a read:
WASHINGTON - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/)
the key word is "investigating".....that is all it takes to make headline news....what are the two "federal agencies"...it is hardball.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
As I stated in the the Thread's Topic....Global Warming is Natural....this is why I believe it to be so....
Quote from: awol on February 03, 2007, 11:27:11 PM
ok. literal it is. why would environmentalists want to destroy the economy?
because they are wacko's??...I don't know....makes you wonder....but, if they would stop and think things through....that is what would happen if they had their way.... :(
how so?
I would think finding different kinds of energy, all that technology would be a big boom for the economy in the long run.
Quote from: Gryphon on February 06, 2007, 11:12:09 AM
how so?
I would think finding different kinds of energy, all that technology would be a big boom for the economy in the long run.
I think you are right, it would, but taxing and regulating the current industries into extinction is not a wise way to go....imo..
The IPCC summary issued a prediction for how much sea level would rise -- by 7 to 23 inches by 2100 -- a big drop from the 20 feet that former Vice President Al Gore warned about in "An Inconvenient Truth." Where's the scorn?.....oh I know, let's give him a "Nobel Peace Prize".....and heck, through in a Oscar while your at it!!!!...this whole thing it beggining to stink...the word "scam" keeps coming to mind...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2007, 09:40:18 AM
The IPCC summary issued a prediction for how much sea level would rise -- by 7 to 23 inches by 2100 -- a big drop from the 20 feet that former Vice President Al Gore warned about in "An Inconvenient Truth." Where's the scorn?.....oh I know, let's give him a "Nobel Peace Prize".....and heck, through in a Oscar while your at it!!!!...this whole thing it beggining to stink...the word "scam" keeps coming to mind...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek)
Inconvenient Kyoto Truthsa good article by George Will.....if you interested.. :)
saw alot of opinions. no new truths.
Quote from: awol on February 08, 2007, 12:48:40 PM
saw alot of opinions. no new truths.
Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this.
...and?
he's pointing out a truth that he would like to be able to dispute, but can't.
the rest of the "global warming" thing is speculation. even on the part of the scientists. best they got is an educated guess. but then, they're pretty smart.
so, he goes on to dispute the extent to which global warming will make the planet uninhabitable. but he offers no evidence of his own. pure (uneducated) speculation.
Quote from: awol on February 08, 2007, 07:25:44 PM
but he offers no evidence of his own. pure (uneducated) speculation.
Unlike Al Gore, right?....he only claims in his movie that the coastal waters will rise 20 feet by 2100.....whoops, his scientist now say it will more than likely be 23" instead......but, 23 inches is almost 20 feet....that was an educated speculation, right? ;)
so, now you know who this guy is on par with.
feel better?
truth be told, i'm pretty much 'with you' on global warming. i believe that the earth has its own defence against temperature.
it gets too hot, the ice melts, the oceans get desalinated to a critical point, the north atlantic flow slows - eventually stops, then it gets cold.
no problem.
doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about polution tho, (you only have to go to l.a. and look at the air to see that) which is a seperate issue to me, but the on the agenda of global warming cassandras.
Quote from: awol on February 08, 2007, 09:42:28 PM
so, now you know who this guy is on par with.
feel better?
truth be told, i'm pretty much 'with you' on global warming. i believe that the earth has its own defence against temperature.
it gets too hot, the ice melts, the oceans get desalinated to a critical point, the north atlantic flow slows - eventually stops, then it gets cold.
no problem.
doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about polution tho, (you only have to go to l.a. and look at the air to see that) which is a seperate issue to me, but the on the agenda of global warming cassandras.
Heck yeah, I agree with you, we need to be accountable for our mess here, that is for sure....and, I think Bush HAS put in some policies and idea's that are working towards that.....
(Eric Cartman voice) I love you guys. :biggrin:
Whatever happend to the Hole in the Ozone Layer that the "Scientist" a few years ago, claimed that was going to be the ruin of this world?
and whatever happened to the "Acid Rain" that was totally ruining our water systems and destroying our agriculture?
just wondering....haven't heard much about these issues since the Global Warming thing came into play...
If you do any reading on global warming (from scientific sources) the hole in the Ozone is still there and getting bigger. Henry, I think it's the total effect of everything that's wearing our home out. You can't point at one single part of the problem and say "oh, that's supposed to be the end of the earth and it didn't happen, so it's not valid". There are several factors which contribute to the entire problem which is a threat to us.
I honestly don't know about acid rain, I know what you're talking about, but haven't encountered it in my reading for a while either.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-08-05.asp (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-08-05.asp)
Earth's Ozone Layer Starting to Heal
The latest measurement of the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere, taken May 6, 2006, shows the hole is smaller than in previous years at this time. (Image courtesy NOAA)
MsMojo, again, I'm all for doing the right thing for our planet, but I truly think that way too many scientist and special lobby groups are plugging "the sky is falling" to keep their industry funded, imo.....
anyway, through this forum, I have read up more and more than I ever normaly would have to form my opinion on this whole global warming escapde....
Quoteand whatever happened to the "Acid Rain"
The hippies collected it in puddles then tripped away up to the sky and are healing our ozone layer. Don't ya see? Besides, whatever happened to Jesus coming back?
Quote from: IYT IYT IYT on February 22, 2007, 09:24:09 AM
The hippies collected it in puddles then tripped away up to the sky and are healing our ozone layer. Don't ya see? Besides, whatever happened to Jesus coming back?
According to Scripture....anytime!! ;) :)
Perhaps thou hast already come?
I imagine it has shrunk some based one efforts to reduce pollution. However, unless we take this seriously and continue our efforts then either it won't completely heal or the process will so slow that all of the other factors involved will get out of control.
It amazes me your mistrust of science. Science exists because of our need to know and understand why things happen. Living on this planet comes with a responsibility to protect and preserve it, if we want our children to be able to live here and their children, etc. It would be fairly selfish of us to go on status quo, considering the evidence that we are destroying the planet with apathy (that covers more than just the environment too, btw) and leave nothing except a huge mess for future generations. We have the knowledge, resources and power to do something about this now. Why not take advantage of them?
Since you're interested, check this out - basic, but kinda interesting:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/ozone/ozone.html
QuoteIt amazes me your mistrust of science.
Probably it's because science doesn't pay the bills...or something.
Quote from: MsMojo on February 22, 2007, 10:08:02 AM
I imagine it has shrunk some based one efforts to reduce pollution. However, unless we take this seriously and continue our efforts then either it won't completely heal or the process will so slow that all of the other factors involved will get out of control.
It amazes me your mistrust of science. Science exists because of our need to know and understand why things happen. Living on this planet comes with a responsibility to protect and preserve it, if we want our children to be able to live here and their children, etc. It would be fairly selfish of us to go on status quo, considering the evidence that we are destroying the planet with apathy (that covers more than just the environment too, btw) and leave nothing except a huge mess for future generations. We have the knowledge, resources and power to do something about this now. Why not take advantage of them?
Since you're interested, check this out - basic, but kinda interesting:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/ozone/ozone.html
maybe it is kind of like the saying politics and religion don't mix....I think 'some' scientist and politics don't mix...cause, money is driving many of these scientist....I think the politicians have an agenda, and is using some scientist and there theories as a means to achieve thier agenda....the sky is falling crap can ruin our economy if we are not careful...that is it for me....Like Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify"...and that is what I'm trying to do..
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21269012-661,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21269012-661,00.html)
Here is an example of 'the sky is falling' ... scare tactics that piss me off...
GLOBAL warming will take a toll on children's health
a 'study' predicts....
Politics don't mix with anything, except alcohol. :biggrin:
Ted Kennedy found that out, eh?
Lets assume for a minute that global warming is an absolute fact. If that were the case...what would it mean? What would we be doing about it? Would it mean different fuels, thoughts toward reusable and renewable materials?
Why wait to do those things? Arent they a good idea anyway? I mean you dont wait to paint your house until the siding is already rotten...why argue about how bad it is, whether its happening or not, and just start taking care of the dang planet?
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 11:15:34 AM
Lets assume for a minute that global warming is an absolute fact. If that were the case...what would it mean? What would we be doing about it? Would it mean different fuels, thoughts toward reusable and renewable materials?
Why wait to do those things? Arent they a good idea anyway? I mean you dont wait to paint your house until the siding is already rotten...why argue about how bad it is, whether its happening or not, and just start taking care of the dang planet?
Because it's is some peoples' contention that this would ruin the world economy, and what's more important, money or a livable environment?
that dog wont hunt for me.
Think of the jobs that would be created with the new technologies and products that would be necessary.
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 11:30:26 AM
that dog wont hunt for me.
Think of the jobs that would be created with the new technologies and products that would be necessary.
I agree, but not the powers that be, the oil industry.
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 11:15:34 AM
Lets assume for a minute that global warming is an absolute fact. If that were the case...what would it mean? What would we be doing about it? Would it mean different fuels, thoughts toward reusable and renewable materials?
Why wait to do those things? Arent they a good idea anyway? I mean you dont wait to paint your house until the siding is already rotten...why argue about how bad it is, whether its happening or not, and just start taking care of the dang planet?
and you don't take the first painter to give you a quote either...okay, maybe not a good analogy............Nobody is saying we don't need different fuels or reusable, renewable materials....we are doing that now...........but, this is not something to slam the brakes on and throw the economy into shambles...just because Al's says the coastline will raise by 20 feet by 2100, then within a few months the scientist are saying it will be more like 23 inches....by 2100........that is the crap we got to get away from or you will never get enough people on board to handle this properly....
ok, how will the economy "be in shambles" what industries would be affected? Do you not see how the jobs lost in industries that pollute could be more than made up for in other areas?
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 12:10:46 PM
ok, how will the economy "be in shambles" what industries would be affected? Do you not see how the jobs lost in industries that pollute could be more than made up for in other areas?
I'm not saying this is the gospil, but here are some predictions from a group who is in favor of doing something along with Kyoto, but not just yet...they feel it needs to be re-evaluated....
Corporate Perspective
Effect of Kyoto Protocol on the American Public Commodity/Issue Effect Overall carbon costs $67 to $347 increase by 2010
Electricity 20 to 86 percent rise by 2010
Coal 153 to 800 percent increase by 2020
Gasoline $.14 to $.66 additional per gallon cost by 2010
United States GDP 21 to 100 billion dollar decrease per year
Jobs 3.5 million additional jobs lost by 2010
Average Family Cost (based on income) $2,700 per family per year lost in buying power and income
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL10/Warming/text.html (http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL10/Warming/text.html)..
source
No, I understand the effects that would be had on coal and oil.
But lets say, instead, we were getting the energy from solar or wind technology. (As an example, not saying thats the answer)
What jobs would be created in those areas? Once the infrastructure was in place, would there be any appreciable difference in what we pay for electricity, etc? For the record, I dont think ole Al is on the mark---hes giving us a worse case scenario. But I do think we need to take very much more seriously our effect on our planet and much more aggressively start exploring alternatives.
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 12:41:33 PM
No, I understand the effects that would be had on coal and oil.
But lets say, instead, we were getting the energy from solar or wind technology. (As an example, not saying thats the answer)
What jobs would be created in those areas? Once the infrastructure was in place, would there be any appreciable difference in what we pay for electricity, etc? For the record, I dont think ole Al is on the mark---hes giving us a worse case scenario. But I do think we need to take very much more seriously our effect on our planet and much more aggressively start exploring alternatives.
I truly do not think anybody is against being aggressive at exploring the alternatives....even the Bush Admin has started several solution and taking steps and has set goals of accomplishing tasks to meet the needs....
I agree, our economy will adapt to the new resources, but it has to be done in a phase and not in a big whirl spin that kyoto had set....
Quote from: Gryphon on February 22, 2007, 12:41:33 PM
For the record, I dont think ole Al is on the mark---hes giving us a worse case scenario.
so let's give the ass a Oscar.....while he flies his private jet all over the world and lives in thee houses, a 10,000 sq.ft 20 room home and a 4,000 sq.ft. home, plus another one in Tenn....but, he want me to use a clothsline to dry my clothes and change all of my light bulbs in my house....
he is so full of crap, I am 100% convinced he is in this for his own personal profit and gain....so he goes out and gives these 'worst' case scenarios to be sure that everybody lines up to be sure to give him a nobel prize award.... :icon_evil:
Here's a task for you...find an organization without an agenda. Any will do. If the agenda will utimately going to give our earth (and us) a future, then what's the problem?
As for global warming effecting children's health...I didn't read the article (I will later), but think about it...it's effecting everyone's health. If it doesn't get better then the negative impact to our health will become greater.
That's common sense. :biggrin:
Quote from: MsMojo on February 22, 2007, 02:36:38 PM
Here's a task for you...find an organization without an agenda. Any will do. If the agenda will utimately going to give our earth (and us) a future, then what's the problem?
As for global warming effecting children's health...I didn't read the article (I will later), but think about it...it's effecting everyone's health. If it doesn't get better then the negative impact to our health will become greater.
That's common sense. :biggrin:
Thank you Thomas Paine. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Henry Hawk posted:
"...so let's give the ass a Oscar..."
Which cheek? Right (conservative)? Left (liberal)? Both?
Does the rest of him get an award, too?
:biggrin: :biggrin:
Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.
Now says:
With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)
Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
What are you gittin' at Henry? :razz:
You know, scientists diagree on everything and blah blah blah, so where's that convenient excuse now, huh Mr. Funnyman...I know a scientist; he says that Enzyte doesn't work because if it did, they wouldn't still be giving them away for free on TV. I know another scientist that has taken Enzyte, and he disagrees (but his wife thinks otherwise). :biggrin:
That many out there want us to jump through hoops and claim the sky is falling, and even give them an Oscar. More and more scientist and evidence is coming out, supporting that this whole, global warming thing is NOT a man-made problem that can be eradicated by cutting CO2 emissions...
don't need to get all cyincal about enzytes or whatever...I'm gitten at exactly what I'm intending too... ;) ;D
Quotedon't need to get all cyincal about enzytes or whatever...I'm gitten at exactly what I'm intending too...
If it really does what it says it does, there would be no need to give them out for free on TV anymore (it's been what, 3-4 years that they've been doing this?). Them pills should be a gold mine, especially in China. ;D
But back to topic, I watched the anti-christ program on the History Channel last night, and even though I consider myself a believer in science, I now believe that science is the anti-christ (nuclear bombs, industrial revolution technologies that pollute the earth, techno music)...so I guess you can call me the Son of Satan. Wait, that wasn't on topic...sorry.
Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming
PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."
(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html)
Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November.
Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html)
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.
Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
Did he see the movie?
QuoteBut those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201208,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201208,00.html)
BTW, I just noticed your title is misleading. Some global warming is natural, but mankind has accelerated the effect. :rolleyes:
man isn't natural? :confused:
Quote from: awol on April 07, 2007, 01:05:36 PM
man isn't natural? :confused:
Com'on :biggrin:
Yes, man is natural, however man is very hard on the planet we live on.
don't get me wrong, i'm all for cleaning up the air, and land and sea. i'm just not happy that it takes calling it "doomsday" to get that done.
Quote from: awol on April 07, 2007, 01:50:43 PM
don't get me wrong, i'm all for cleaning up the air, and land and sea. i'm just not happy that it takes calling it "doomsday" to get that done.
It will be "doomsday" if it isn't taken seriously soon. Unfortunately, the people who have the most influence over every aspect of the issue, haven't taken it as seriously as they should have. For example, cutting the funding on National Parks, lack of funding and or support for alternative energy (yeah Bush talked about it, but that's about it), etc. It's a simple and supportable fact that we can't continue as a plant at the current rate of consumption and expect not to ruin our planet.
QuoteGlobal warming will affect societies around the world through more prolonged droughts, more intense rains and flooding, changes in the timing of seasonal rainfall and snowmelt, and a projected increase in the spread of animal- and insect-borne diseases, scientists say.
Christian Science Monitor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/acritters;_ylt=Al7V4dPy9vs.XwIWk0yOCDqs0NUE)
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews (http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews)
April currently tracking as coldest April in 113 years in USA...
wouldn't it be hilarious if they got the length of the year wrong somehow, and it's actually supposed to be february?
Quote from: awol on April 10, 2007, 10:17:22 PM
wouldn't it be hilarious if they got the length of the year wrong somehow, and it's actually supposed to be february?
you know, I THOUGHT Christmas came awful early last year... ;D
Quote from: MsMojo on April 07, 2007, 02:11:32 PM
Christian Science Monitor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/acritters;_ylt=Al7V4dPy9vs.XwIWk0yOCDqs0NUE)
You didn't even comment on my source. I thought you'd be proud of me, shocked or something. :biggrin:
Quote from: MsMojo on April 10, 2007, 11:01:48 PM
You didn't even comment on my source. I thought you'd be proud of me, shocked or something. :biggrin:
I'm sorry, I, of course, am VERY proud of you....I think, there may be a little 'conservative' kickin at the door, beggin to come out...there deep inside of you... ;D
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070425/global_warming_film.html?.v=1 (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070425/global_warming_film.html?.v=1)
A group of British climate scientists is demanding changes to a skeptical documentary about global warming, saying there are grave errors in the program billed as a response to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
"The fact is that it's a very convincing program, and if you're not very aware of the science you wouldn't necessarily see what the errors are," Ward said. "But the errors are huge. ... Without those errors in, he doesn't have a story."
But the real scientists say that it's scientifically acurate. :yes:
the "real" scientist?... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 09:50:11 AM
the "real" scientist?... ;D
:sarcasm: :biggrin:
I was funning with you, but regardless of the movie. Take Al Gore out of the entire picture. Global Warming is happening at a faster rate than it naturally would. This is largely due to human consumpution, which has steadily increased do to the increase in the population and the need for 1) places to live 2) transportation 3) ignorance about environmental protection measures such as protecting the air and from harsh chemicals 4) Devil-may-care attitude about preserving our Earth leading to deforestation...etc.
Quote from: MsMojo on April 26, 2007, 10:28:11 AM
:sarcasm: :biggrin:
I was funning with you, but regardless of the movie. Take Al Gore out of the entire picture. Global Warming is happening at a faster rate than it naturally would. This is largely due to human consumpution, which has steadily increased do to the increase in the population and the need for 1) places to live 2) transportation 3) ignorance about environmental protection measures such as protecting the air and from harsh chemicals 4) Devil-may-care attitude about preserving our Earth leading to deforestation...etc.
How do you know that it is happening at a faster rate than naturally?....I do not buy any of that....most scientist will agree that, humans have very little to do with it.......global warming IS going to happen no matter what...and at some point in time, global cooling will begin.....
Now with that said, I, and most Conservatives are 100% in favor of ornamental protection and preserving the earth...we need to be aware of our negligence...but, we got to be careful and not do the wrong things just to make some whacko environmentalist happy, we need to be wise about all of this...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 10:56:59 AM....most scientist will agree that, humans have very little to do with it.......global warming IS going to happen no matter what...
i'd like to see yer figures on this.
Quote from: awol on April 26, 2007, 12:47:02 PM
i'd like to see yer figures on this.
So would I and source also, please. :smile:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm)
Here is a pretty good link...shows about 17,000 scientist that are against the man-made global warming therory...
can you prove me wrong?
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1366.htm (http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1366.htm)
In the end, the global warming panic will take its place in the history books next to other environmental chimeras, such as the threat of DDT (but not of pandemic malaria), the peril of nuclear power (but not of coal mining), the brain-curdling effect of cellphones (but not of far more potent sun rays), the menace of powerlines (but not of poverty), the poison of alar (though not of rotten apple juice), the danger of asbestos in walls (but not of fire), the carcinogenic impact of PCBs (but not of carrots, peanut butter, coffee and other items that test more toxic in the same way) and the horror of radon and other sources of low-level radiation (despite its beneficial effect on health through a process called hormesis).
Overall, the situation is simple. Politicized scientists with government grants and dubious computer temperature models persuaded the world's politicians to make pompous fools of themselves in Kyoto. Socialist politicians were happy to join an absurd movement to impose government regulations over the world energy supply and thus over the world economy. The scientific claims and computer models have now blown up in their faces. But rather than admit error they persist in their fear-mongering. When this happened with DDT, hundreds of millions of people died of malaria. They continue to die. How many people would die as a result of an energy clamp on global capitalism?
why is mankind's impact on the world "unnatural"? i've never understood that premise.
wouldn't shock me if henry's last post is right on. wouldn't shock me if that was some corporate shill group of scientists either.
one thing i do know. chaos theory says it is essentially impossible to predict the weather more than a few days ahead, even with satellites and all. so how can there be such confidence in predictions about global climate hundreds of years ahead.
one other i do know. we need to limit television news to no more than 1/2 hour a night for the whole world. that would eliminate 90% of the stridency and fear in human society in about a week. thank you :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 01:03:55 PM
can you prove me wrong?
Yep, you may want to research some of this stuff a lil' further before standing behind it. Even looking at the link and applying critical reading skills, it just doesn't wash. This explains it better than I can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Even had this source been creditable, I'm still not sure that you would have proved that "most" scientists have rebuked the theory behind increased global warming due to humans.
Quote from: bevis on April 26, 2007, 01:53:00 PM
why is mankind's impact on the world "unnatural"? i've never understood that premise.
I'd be interested to know how anyone wouldn't consider emissions from sources such as transportation and factories, "unnatural"? Or the chemicals released into the environment from chemical test sites and dumps aren't "unnatural"? What about considering" deforestation" as a result of the overbuilding of strip malls, housing complexes and whatever else they rob our forests for is that "unnatural"? That's just the tip of the iceberg, and all have been scientifically proven to be a major contributor to global warming. Perhaps you're right. People should watch less TV and read more.
Quote from: MsMojo on April 26, 2007, 01:55:10 PM
Yep, you may want to research some of this stuff a lil' further before standing behind it. Even looking at the link and applying critical reading skills, it just doesn't wash. This explains it better than I can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Even had this source been creditable, I'm still not sure that you would have proved that "most" scientists have rebuked the theory behind increased global warming due to humans.
like wikipedia is a credible source?.. ;D
I am 100% convienced....the Global Warming by man is a scam....period...... ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 01:03:55 PM
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm)
Here is a pretty good link...shows about 17,000 scientist that are against the man-made global warming therory...
can you prove me wrong?
so, you contend that there are fewer than 34,000 scientists in the world?
Quote from: awol on April 26, 2007, 02:58:20 PM
so, you contend that there are fewer than 34,000 scientists in the world?
yes
okay, wiseguy... ;D
maybe I should have stated, a vast majority of scientist from this industry....or whatever, a whole dang bunch of smart dudes say...... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 02:56:11 PM
like wikipedia is a credible source?.. ;D
If you don't think the article on Wikipedia is creditble, do what I did, check the sources cited for the article. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 02:56:11 PM
I am 100% convienced....the Global Warming by man is a scam....period...... ;)
Just because you believe that doesn't make it true and it seems to be premature at best to draw a conclusion without fully researching it beyond what you already think. :wink:
Quote from: MsMojo on April 26, 2007, 03:07:53 PM
If you don't think the article on Wikipedia is creditble, do what I did, check the sources cited for the article. :wink:
Just because you believe that doesn't make it true and it seems to be premature at best to draw a conclusion without fully researching it beyond what you already think. :wink:
with all due respect, I HAVE researched it, and I have seen NOTHING that makes me thing different...
I have become more aware that we need to be more enviro-friendly, and we need alternative fuels...that can be said with urgency...and sincerity.........but to say that if man was to stop everything right now, that would not stop global warming....it would do NO good, at least as far as cooling the climate down.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 26, 2007, 03:16:47 PM
with all due respect, I HAVE researched it, and I have seen NOTHING that makes me thing different...
I have become more aware that we need to be more enviro-friendly, and we need alternative fuels...that can be said with urgency...and sincerity.........but to say that if man was to stop everything right now, that would not stop global warming....it would do NO good, at least as far as cooling the climate down.....
I disagree w/the last statement, but it doesn't matter, we couldn't stop everything anyway. We can slow it down and find better ways and yes it would have an impact, but........................
This past weekend I went to an Earth Fair and the focus seemed to be alternative energy. Maybe not the focus, but a large portion of the fair was devoted to alternative fuels. What an exciting thing that is! Honestly, I didn't fully realize how many alternatives we have. I think I'm most excited about bio-diesel, but that's subject to change.
Quote from: MsMojo on April 26, 2007, 03:41:59 PM
I disagree w/the last statement, but it doesn't matter, we couldn't stop everything anyway. We can slow it down and find better ways and yes it would have an impact, but........................
This past weekend I went to an Earth Fair and the focus seemed to be alternative energy. Maybe not the focus, but a large portion of the fair was devoted to alternative fuels. What an exciting thing that is! Honestly, I didn't fully realize how many alternatives we have. I think I'm most excited about bio-diesel, but that's subject to change.
that IS exciting stuff.....here in hoosier land, we are into the corn and soy products as alternatives....