finally some sense about global warming [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

4gunfun

02-01-2011, 12:14

Did you read the next to the last sentence? Who is ths AFV news outlet? I thought it was proven it is actually Gettin colder the last 8 yrs, and the LIBS HAVE BEEN CAUGHT MANIPULATING THE FACTS!!!!
Senators vow to strip Obama climate power | View Original (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ddc0305146893ec9e9e6796d743e6af 7.d91&show_article=1)
Conservative senators vowed Monday to strip President Barack Obama of his power to regulate greenhouse gases, in a move that would cripple US efforts on climate change if successful.
Eleven Republican senators introduced a bill that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming, without explicit approval by Congress.
Under Obama, the federal agency has steadily increased standards on gas emissions. The Republicans accused Obama of circumventing Congress, where a so-called "cap-and-trade" bill to mandate emission curbs died last year.
"My bill will shrink Washington's job-crushing agenda and grow America's economy," said Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming and skeptic of climate change who is leading the effort.
"I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn't impose cap-and-trade policies in any form."
The Obama administration counters that a shift to green energy would help both the planet and the economy by creating a new source of high-paying jobs.
Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts who led last year's climate bill, hit back that Barrasso's proposal "puts the public health at risk and encourages the outsourcing of American jobs."
Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey accused the Republicans of doing the bidding of industrial emitters, saying: "The health of our children must come before the interests of polluters."
The Republicans swept November elections but the Democratic Party still controls the Senate and the White House, meaning that Obama can veto any effort to roll back powers on emissions.
But the proposal is another sign that it will be virtually impossible for the Democrats to pass legislation on climate change, which failed to pass even when the party controlled the House of Representatives and held a wider majority in the Senate.
The battle in Congress leaves the Obama administration with a delicate task as it tries to persuade China and other growing polluters to agree to a global plan on greenhouse gases.
Obama has pledged that the United States, the second largest emitter, will take action alongside other nations to fight climate change. Last year was the hottest on record and one of the worst in decades for natural disasters, according to scientists.
??????Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

Lex_Luthor

02-01-2011, 12:17

Why are they still pushing global warming agendas after the conspiracy was brought to light that there is no significant evidence supporting their theory? Isn't is closer to call it "global cooling"? WTF?

EDIT: haha beat me to it. ^^

sniper7

02-01-2011, 13:43

they now claim we will see more moisture, and more wicked winters because of global warming...oh wait, now they call it "climate change".

well no fucking shit. climate changes every day, and the seasons continue to happen every year.
more evidence has been shown that the planet will go through warming and cooling stages. lets just hope mother nature isn't ready for menopuase for a long time and has hot flashes that burn the shit out of all of us.

spyder

02-01-2011, 13:45

"Global warming" doesn't just mean the temp. gets warmer. This is why they have actually stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change instead, because it is confusing. The effect of the polar ice caps melting due to increased temp. sets off a chain effect that will have different affects on climate in different places. Here is a link to a fairly simple article explaining climate change done by National Geographic: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html

A quote from the article:
"Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas."

and

"Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.
As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers."

No one is really arguing against the fact the the polar ice is melting because we have satelitte images and on the ground studies where it can easily be seen, yet this one of the things that has a major impact on weather patterns (climate). Also, the more ice melts, the faster the rest will melt because open water reflects less of the sun's energy than ice does, which warms the water and the air above the water, making it harder for new ice to form. New ice does form every winter, but it is less than what melts every summer. They have also found that even satelitte does not show the full extent of the melt because on the ground studies have shown that a lot of what they thought was thick 'multi-year' ice is actually pretty thin ice that will mostly melt during summer.

I just think that if we are (as a nation in general) going to argue about climate change that we need to understand what it actually is. It is a complex system that has a long line of causes and effects. It does not mean that it is getting hotter everywhere as the name 'global warming' implies. It means that our climate is changing in unexpected ways due to events triggered by increased heat trapped by all the crap we have been spewing into our air, not helped by the fact that we have and are cutting down our forests, which trap carbon and release oxygen.(A factor that is not usually discussed.)

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 13:50

It is naive to think that all the shit we pump into the atmosphere is not having an effect.

roberth

02-01-2011, 14:02

It is naive to think that all the shit we pump into the atmosphere is not having an effect.

One volcano puts more stuff into the atmosphere than mankind has to this point in history and beyond.

I think we should take all the climate change idiots and stuff them into Mauna Loa so they do their part to stop climate change.

Marlin

02-01-2011, 14:21

That's what the hole in the ozone over the antartic is for,,,, pressure relief...

[LOL]

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 14:32

One volcano puts more stuff into the atmosphere than mankind has to this point in history and beyond.

I think we should take all the climate change idiots and stuff them into Mauna Loa so they do their part to stop climate change.

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

roberth

02-01-2011, 15:13

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

Not at the moment I don't.

I am going to have to spend some time looking up the claims for mankind's output and volcanic output. I may be wrong.

sniper7

02-01-2011, 16:01

Got a source for that?

Do volcanos cut down the forests that process CO2, too?

watched a show on discovery or history that said the trees in the very north and very south part of the hemisphere put out more oxygen than all humans could use, so I guess that is a good thing with all the deforestation going on.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

factcheck says volcanoes on average don't do as much as humans do.

''150,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 per day at the height of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption''

"But the European Union’s air travel, which was shut down for days during the eruption, accounts for 3 percent (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6195567.stm) of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, which according to the European Environment Agency (http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/PivotApp/pivot.aspx?pivotid=475) was about 4,089 billion tons in 2008"

info from USGS:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

the biggest threat from volcanoes is the massive amount of gasses that come out in large quantities. their relative percentages compared to the air we breathe, even in downtown smog filled cities can be pretty harmful.

Over the last 100 years a lot of really good progress has been made as far as emissions go from airplanes and cars and boats and powerplants etc etc.
but the number of the vehicles and planes and plants in use has also gone up.

unfortunately, that is the way it is. people can bitch and moan and complain all they want. I fly jets, I drive my big 4x4's and ride my 4 wheelers and do what I want to do. I pay for it. I use the technology that is available. until the costs come down and the availability of new technology comes about, ain't shit gonna change.

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 16:07

The important thing is to make further progress. Besides environmental costs, the economic and political costs of using fossil fuels is huge.

I had a discussion with a friend the other day, we could do a lot of damage to the middle east if we can get off oil as quickly as possible. We can also beat out China, who has a huge dependance on oil.

I'm not some drippy hippy saying we need to ban gasoline or something, but in the name of progress and our future it would be a very good idea to be wary of how much we dump into the atmosphere, and work on alternative energy.

spyder

02-01-2011, 16:23

It is naive to think that all the shit we pump into the atmosphere is not having an effect.
I couldn't agree with you more.

weirjf

02-01-2011, 16:57

"Global warming" doesn't just mean the temp. gets warmer. This is why they have actually stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change instead, because it is confusing.

no no no... they said that the overall temperatures of the planet have gone up several degrees and will continue to climb because we are creating unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide which is not allowing heat created by the sun to escape the planet's surface.

Either heat is being trapped on the planet's surface because of our use of fossile fuels or it isn't. It is that wishy-washy "uhh... we said that but we meant this" garbage which shows us that it is utter BS meant to raise taxes and sell carbon credits. Either it is global warming which requires regulation of carbon levels or it is climate change which is a global anomaly or it is global cooling... which lets rip the converters off of our cars because I'm tired of freezing my balls off.

[Tooth]

Elhuero

02-01-2011, 17:01

clean energy is a pipe dream.

oil gives a multiple return on cost and energy spent to create it, and nothing like wind or solar can come close to it.

things like wind and solar and especially ethanol all cost more to create than what they give. it's a losing proposition, and not a viable basis for a profitable company.

but govt wants to shove this losing proposition down our throats and use their endless supply of money (our taxes, our money) to plug the gap and cover the loss.

it's wasteful, expensive and not any better than what we currently have but it "feels" good and it's for the greater good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

and all these yahoos also fail to realize that we get a hell of a lot more from crude oil than just gasoline, and many of those things can't be replaced.

of course we might be closer to some totally green, cheap, renewable energy if the govt hadn't been slashing funding for technology R&D in favor of social programs for the last 30 years.

and never mind the fact that we have the resources to be completely self sufficient.

nope, we need to "go green" by giving up all our green as taxes for nifty shit that they'll say we make too much to qualify for.

weirjf

02-01-2011, 17:04

It is naive to think that all the shit we pump into the atmosphere is not having an effect.

I think that we are fleas on a dog and once the dog has had enough it will shake us free. Volcanos send more "global warming" polutants into the atmosphere than anything else on the planet and they have been doing so since before the industrial age of man.

don't get me wrong, lets clean it up so we're not having to breathe it in and drink it in our water... but clean up the crap for the sake of just cleaning it up... don't do it because its making the planet hotter... no colder... no its just changing weather patterns... no, wait... its just an excuse to make carbon credits to pay for turtle tunnels

funkfool

02-01-2011, 17:13

I thought I'd learned my lesson before... to stay out of these type threads...
(All that about 'being beaten with experience' and that)
But, heck... I guess not...
[RANT ON]

Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv higher than pre-industrial levels.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-23) Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-24) but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks, mainly photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton.

"Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis: figure 6-6" (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm). http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm). Retrieved 1 May 2006.
"The present carbon cycle - Climate Change" (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm). Grida.no. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm). Retrieved 2010-10-16.
That is from THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS THEMSELVES.

Use the brain God gave you...

If natural sources of CO² are 20 TIMES higher than sources due to human activity - and the natural fluxations (sinks and rises) are therefore 20 times higher...

And CO² is not the largest... but the SECOND largest greenhouse gas:

Water Vapor - H2O 36 – 72%
Carbon Dioxide - CO2 - 9 – 26%
Methane - CH4 4 – 9 %
Ozone - O3 3 – 7 %

What should we do?
Oh - yeah...

The GOVERNMENT should spend freaking BILLIONS of the USA's (your) money to forcibly modify human behavior?

The GOVERNMENT should install thermostats in YOUR HOUSE so YOU don't use too much energy?

For a half a degree of temp over a hundred years?

Haven't you seen the proof that plants grow better in a richer CO² environment?
That, my friends is what you call a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship...
Just one of natures little checks and balances that we are just TOO FREAKING SMART TO UNDERSTAND.

One thing these folks never mention is the supporting data that reveals the industrial revolution is directly responsible for them being alive.
Yes - IT IS the reason the expected human life span has increased from ~30 to ~65...
Doubling your expected life span...
gotta stop that...
and while your at it...
Do us all a favor and stop breathing.
[Bang]
Sheeh - normally sane people, hypnotized with this 'climate change' spiel turn their brain directly to the OFF position.

To summarize MY PERSONAL POSITION on this matter:
Yes, humans affect the atmosphere.
Albiet, not in the grandiose way the alarmists would have you think.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? What YOU PERSONALLY DON"T KNOW?!
All the possible negative implications are being blown out of porportion...
For what you ask?
MONEY, YOU FOOLS.
[/RANT OFF]
Ahh...
Breathe in... the fresh air.
Breathe out... the destroyer of worlds.

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 17:29

I've got some source for you:

Fact, greenhouse gasses account for less than 2% of the global climate model, which has not changed. It was the same when I was in school, when you were in school, but it isn't curriculum anymore, because it conflicts with the religion of carbon-cause climate change according to the profit (oop, sorry, prophet) with financial motives, al-gore, and those like him. Data on the other 98% of the climate model isn't even historically available.

Fact, of that 2%, carbon dioxide is a minority contributor. METHANE is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. If you believe CO2 is causing "climate change", then PETA is correct and its actually cows causing it.

Fact: We have less than 40 years of global data that can be considered scientifically accurate, but "climate change" scientists make broad statements on how things have been, or how they will be, based on less than four decades of evidence. This is akin to seeing a single frame of a movie, one sixtieth of a second, and telling everybody what the plot is going to be, and how it ends.

Fact: It's scientifically impossible to determine actual temperature prior to phsyical measurement and recording. All that is possible is "guessing", with HUGE margins of error. Find the 10,000 year temperature graphs that you so diligently base your faith in your religion in. Notice they say accuracy to (1/10th of a degree) or some other load of horse crap. Now, look at scientific charts from other points of view, and notice they have as much as 10 degrees of variation, but show the general peaks and lands and still claim 1/10th of a degree of accuracy. Guess what, both are bullshit. Through all means, they are LUCKY, and I mean LUCKY, if they get a margin of error that's 5-10 degrees. Yet their entire "cooling" and "warming" trends are by the tenth of the degree. Can you not smell the bullshit? And no, I don't mean cavemen didn't have thermometers. I mean the vibration of atoms leaves no record. All they have to go on is barometric pressures in bubbles, size of tree rings, etc. Do you honestly think you can guess the temperature to a tenth of a degree by looking at a flipping tree ring? So, each side (pro global warming, anti global warming) looks at the same set of data, and "interprets" it to the extreme ends of the margin of error to prove a point... they call it valid because its "inside the margin of error" but it is not science. It's perception.

But, I do believe in the free expression of religion, so carry on. Don't try to pretend its anything more than blind faith in a "theory", because the real evidence doesn't exist (and it doesn't exist either way).

And don't call for evidence disproving it as there is no evidence proving it in the first place. The burden of proof rests on the theory, not the status quo. I could make up a theory that three legged aliens live in the core of the earth, are you supposed to believe it with blind faith just cause I said so? Or should I have to prove it before its made into curriculum in the K-12 educational system.

Last fact: Carbon caused "climate change" is an invented assumption that has its roots mostly driven by politics, it demonizes the things that certain people want to be demonized; also people that tend to already dislike those things (factories, oil, etc.) will tend to believe it just for that fact. Instant followers of a religion.

Oh and ETA: Don't make any assumptions as to my bias with things. I actually KNOW a way to get us off oil dependance, but I don't think I'll ever see it in my lifetime, despite how much I'd like to see it realized. The difference is, I want it because its politically and economically beneficial. How would you like to drive across country for $20-$40 instead of $1500 and not have to worry about international issues? This is called intelligence.

Doing something because "herpa derp I'm reducin' emissions" is just peons of a religion.

You didn't link any sources. [ROFL1]

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 17:43

Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that before industrial emissions started atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and stayed between 260 and 280 during the preceding ten thousand years.[34] Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by approximately 35 percent since the 1900s, rising from 280 parts per million by volume to 387 parts per million in 2009. ...

Because of the way air is trapped in ice (pores in the ice close off slowly to form bubbles deep within the firn) and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures represent averages of atmospheric concentrations of up to a few centuries rather than annual or decadal levels.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of most of the greenhouse gases have increased. For example, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 36% to 380 ppmv, or 100 ppmv over modern pre-industrial levels. The first 50 ppmv increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; however the next 50 ppmv increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.[38]

Recent data also shows that the concentration is increasing at a higher rate. In the 1960s, the average annual increase was only 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.

Emissions are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Also, methane degrades into water and CO2 in a relatively short time. Compared to:

Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[61] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.

Believing that we are not having an effect on our planet is just sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"...

funkfool

02-01-2011, 17:53

Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1 -4%.

-------------------
Atmospheric gases are often divided up into the major, constant components and the highly variable components, as listed below:

Constant Components. Proportions remain the same over time and location.
Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Neon, Helium, Krypton 0.0001%

Variable Components. Amounts vary over time and location.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)0.038%
Water vapor (H20)0-4%
Methane (CH4)trace
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)trace
Ozone (O3)trace
Nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N2O)trace

0.039% CO²
Almost four one-hundreths of ONE PERCENT of our 'air'.
Yeah... we're killin' ourselves.

ChunkyMonkey

02-01-2011, 17:55

la la la la la

weirjf

02-01-2011, 18:03

Believing that we are not having an effect on our planet is just sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"...

prove that we are

you can't, which is why the global warming fanatics are chasing their tails. They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" but didn't change their "proof" and "reasoning" so basically we're insulating the planet against natural cooling but it is cooling the planet rather than warming it suddenly or warming some areas and cooling others... Acting like people that don't believe we are having this huge impact on the planet's climate is "sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"" doesn't prove it exists or doesn't exist either.

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 18:23

0.039% CO²
Almost four one-hundreths of ONE PERCENT of our 'air'.
Yeah... we're killin' ourselves.

There's 90,718.474 grams of "stuff" in an average human. What's one gram of arsenic going to do? That's .0000001 percent of a person, what's that going to do?? [ROFL1]

My point is that there has been a dramatic change in the contents of our atmosphere in the last 200 years compared to the previous 2 million. It is a good policy to reduce that change lest we get past the point of no return. Ignoring it is stupid.

prove that we are

you can't, which is why the global warming fanatics are chasing their tails. They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" but didn't change their "proof" and "reasoning" so basically we're insulating the planet against natural cooling but it is cooling the planet rather than warming it suddenly or warming some areas and cooling others... Acting like people that don't believe we are having this huge impact on the planet's climate is "sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"" doesn't prove it exists or doesn't exist either.

You have 15 posts on this forum, I'm not going to do shit. You don't get the basic concept that altering the makeup of the atmosphere can cause changes that we are still studying. You also don't get the basic concept of insulation. Your house is insulated to keep the heat in during the summer, and also to keep the heat out in the summer. Greenhouse gases also reflect the sun's radiation as well as absorb it.

ChunkyMonkey

02-01-2011, 18:26

wow.. co2 to arsenic now eh.

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 18:35

wow.. co2 to arsenic now eh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Because a fraction is a small portion of the whole does not make it less relevant.

ChunkyMonkey

02-01-2011, 18:46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Because a fraction is a small portion of the whole does not make it less relevant.

Yes it is. Small portion of CO2 does not kill, while the other does.

Marlin

02-01-2011, 19:14

Well back in my youth, more or less the same people were certian the "The new ice age" was on it's way. Within 10 years there would be a layer of ice 50' thick from the north pole to the equator.

Didn't happen.

A few years they were back, claiming the hole in the ozone was going to expand. Thus incinerating everything on earth.

Didn't happen.

Then they were sure "The big one" was going to hit the west coast. Making Boulder a ocean front town.

Didn't happen either..

Pardon my skepticism at this point my life. But, with thier track record with the end of the world predictions thus far. I'm not holding my breath on this one either.

BPTactical

02-01-2011, 19:16

I think Al Gore and all of the "Global Warming" douchebags should be forced to shovel all of our driveways and walks tonight at 0300.
Naked.
With no hot chocolate after.

[Tooth]

Global warming myass, it's frickin cold outside!

DeusExMachina

02-01-2011, 19:25

Yes it is. Small portion of CO2 does not kill, while the other does.

Do you know for certain that doubling the amount of CO2 has not and will not have negative ramifications?

And Marlin, I think the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk due to recent efforts. Maybe I'm an optimist.

Aloha_Shooter

02-01-2011, 20:01

"Global warming" doesn't just mean the temp. gets warmer. This is why they have actually stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change instead, because it is confusing.

They started calling it "climate change" because they got caught trying to say the Earth was warming when temperatures have visibly declined.

"Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too.

Nice try. Too bad for you that satellite observations show Antarctica's ice sheet is growing.

No one is really arguing against the fact the the polar ice is melting because we have satelitte images and on the ground studies where it can easily be seen, yet this one of the things that has a major impact on weather patterns (climate).

Arctic polar ice has been melting. Antarctic has been growing.

I just think that if we are (as a nation in general) going to argue about climate change that we need to understand what it actually is. It is a complex system that has a long line of causes and effects. It does not mean that it is getting hotter everywhere as the name 'global warming' implies. It means that our climate is changing in unexpected ways due to events triggered by increased heat trapped by all the crap we have been spewing into our air, not helped by the fact that we have and are cutting down our forests, which trap carbon and release oxygen.(A factor that is not usually discussed.)

I think that if you're going to engage in a discussion like this, you need to understand some basic science. Carbon is not an evil element -- it's the basis of life as we know it. In fact, carbon dioxide promotes plant growth which is the root of most food chains on Earth.

Fact: The Earth has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, than it is today. Beyond the well-documented warm spells of the 1930s and 1910s, the "warming" often cited by unthinking environmentalists is part of several long term cycles including the recovery from a severe local minima during the Little Ice Age. Prior to the decline that resulted in the Little Ice Age, Great Britain and Greenland hosted vineyards (one of the reasons Michael Mann has been using "tricks" to try to "get rid" of the Medieval Warming Period.

Fact: While ten years is a period indicative of weather rather than climate, the General Circulation Models in use at the CRU still fail to predict the last ten years of cooling (if you listen to Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen, this was one of the warmest years on record -- good thing for them they get to cook the books before anyone else can see them!). The GCMs may have been updated this year to account for the feedback mechanism of cloud formation but as of last year they didn't.

Fact: Carbon dioxide isn't even the most powerful greenhouse gas. Water vapor is far more powerful WRT heat retention. Greens target carbon dioxide because it gives them the leverage to control every aspect of an industrial economy.

IMO Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of science.

sniper7

02-01-2011, 20:44

sniper7

02-01-2011, 20:49

sniper7

02-01-2011, 20:52

Emissions are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Also, methane degrades into water and CO2 in a relatively short time. Compared to:

Believing that we are not having an effect on our planet is just sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "la-la-la"...

don't worry, I got it!
[Neene1]

[Tooth]

sniper7

02-01-2011, 20:53

0.039% CO²
Almost four one-hundreths of ONE PERCENT of our 'air'.
Yeah... we're killin' ourselves.

which is a good thing. someone mentioned earlier that it was 9%. um yeah, we would all be toast at that %%.

sniper7

02-01-2011, 20:55

Marlin

02-01-2011, 20:58

send me a PM on jan 1 2013![LOL]

How? we won't be here.. [Tooth]

(yeah, right... how about one 12-22-12?.) [ROFL1]

ChunkyMonkey

02-01-2011, 21:31

Do you know for certain that doubling the amount of CO2 has not and will not have negative ramifications?
.

And obviously you are the genius that will say it will? [ROFL1]

jason303

02-01-2011, 21:42

I don't understand all the science everyone has figured out, but I do understand Al Gore heating and cooling his many houses each 10x at least the size of mine speaks loudly of his motivation, and that drowns out his credibility... assuming he has any.

weirjf

02-01-2011, 23:32

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/01/yet-another-snowstorm-what-about-global-warming/?ncid=webmail

apparently we ARE being watched! these guys are trolling our forums and writing articles about our thoughts!

and right below that "Charlie Sheen Wanted Porn Star to Baby Sit Kids, Porn Star Says (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/01/charlie-sheen-wanted-porn-star-baby-sit-kids-porn-star-says/)"

it derailed me completely

spyder

02-02-2011, 01:29

spyder

02-02-2011, 02:03

They started calling it "climate change" because they got caught trying to say the Earth was warming when temperatures have visibly declined.

I learned back in school that the arguement of global warming was about what the warming affect in the warmer months does to the weather patterns, or climate. There was no mention of "climate change" back then. Also, I don't know where you have been, but it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers. Not new news on that one.

Nice try. Too bad for you that satellite observations show Antarctica's ice sheet is growing.
I would have to say here that you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but if you are going to attack what it is that I said, you should get your info strait. Otherwise, you look like a jack ass. Here is a quote strait from NASA, you know, the people with the satellites lookin down: "Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Arctic polar ice has been melting. Antarctic has been growing.

Again, not to point out that you are wrong, but, you are. They are both melting. Actual scientific data proves this.

I think that if you're going to engage in a discussion like this, you need to understand some basic science. Funny I posted a recent comment about how people shouldn't sound like morons by talking shit. I graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institure with a degree in Biotechnology. You might be right though, maybe that doesn't make me a good candidate to talk about science... Pull your head out. Carbon is not an evil element -- it's the basis of life as we know it. In fact, carbon dioxide promotes plant growth which is the root of most food chains on Earth. Did I say Carbon was evil? I don't remember saying that...

Fact: The Earth has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, than it is today. Fact: Your fact is wrong, don't post ignorant shit that is supposed to be used to debunk someone else or make them look stupid, otherwise, you look like the stupid one. Beyond the well-documented warm spells of the 1930s and 1910s, the "warming" often cited by unthinking environmentalists is part of several long term cycles including the recovery from a severe local minima during the Little Ice Age. Prior to the decline that resulted in the Little Ice Age, Great Britain and Greenland hosted vineyards (one of the reasons Michael Mann has been using "tricks" to try to "get rid" of the Medieval Warming Period.

Fact: While ten years is a period indicative of weather rather than climate, the General Circulation Models in use at the CRU still fail to predict the last ten years of cooling (if you listen to Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen, this was one of the warmest years on record -- good thing for them they get to cook the books before anyone else can see them!). The GCMs may have been updated this year to account for the feedback mechanism of cloud formation but as of last year they didn't.
Really? Where do you get your info from?

Fact: Carbon dioxide isn't even the most powerful greenhouse gas. Didn't say it was. Water vapor is far more powerful WRT heat retention. Greens target carbon dioxide because it gives them the leverage to control every aspect of an industrial economy. Yet another ignorant sentence...

IMO Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of science. and alligators are so angry because they have so many teeth and no tooth brush right? Because, mama said so!
Don't quote me again please unless you are going to try to be a little more intelligent about it. You guys can argue all you want, but if you are going to directly argue against something someone says, do it intelligently. If you have a good arguement, I would like to hear it. Really, I would, I didn't mean to come off with that last part sounding snide.

DOC

02-02-2011, 05:51

We should all remember what they taught us in school about trees eating up the co2 and how its gets absorbed into the Oceans. I don't know what they are teaching the children today but I'm sure the liberal dickheads in school are teaching the young all about the liberal agenda since there are more people going to college to make millions then to teach the young.
http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww165/davidofdenver/gas_prices.jpg
They just hate cars and want to be the only ones that have them. I bet cha.
http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww165/davidofdenver/gore.jpg

Marlin

02-02-2011, 07:04

I'll just leave this here;

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1865.htm

Full in the knowledge that you will believe what you want to believe, and nothing that contradicts that belief will hold any merit in your opinion.

I do feel sorry for you..

DeusExMachina

02-02-2011, 09:11

I don't get some of the arguements and comments made on some of these posts... [ROFL1] For some of you I don't think anyone can change your mind on the topic because you apparently know everything, right? Once again like I see people say all the time, list a source other than some reporter that doesn't know a damn thing saying the same ignorant comment my 5 year old pops off with of "it's cold, so, there is no such thing as global warming/climate change" because that is completely ignorant. You might as well say that global warming/climate change doesn't exist because your mama said so. I could list countless studies done by NASA, Harvard, Stanford, numerous other legit scientific communities and way too many other credible sources that have had actual data on this subject. Like I said though, for many of you it wouldn't matter who or what came up with the data, you would blindly turn your head away and walk off. I guess everyone is out to get your "briliant" minds that don't need any actual information about a subject to know that what you think about it is right. I don't even know why some of you even post in threads like this. Your mind is set, and you just want to argue instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation. Some of you make retarded jack ass comments toward others because of the way they think. What's up with that? Pull your head out and stop trying to be pricks. Most of the time, those that attack others in these forums just sound really immature and stupid. I originally posted in this thread expecting an intellectual discussion, not a bunch of whiney butt hurt people talking about things that they don't appear to actually know anything about till they google it right before they post a comment. As amusing as some of the comments on here are, I would really like to see proof. Not because I don't believe you, well, I guess it is because I don't believe you, but if the actual study or science behind your comment makes more sense than what I have read or believe, I could make up my mind for myself on rather or not to change what it is that I believe in.

I think its because it has become such a partisan issue. Some people are so hard-line on their party that everyone else is wrong, and worse, not even credible. Unless its coming from "their side", its completely wrong or some sort of secret agenda to undermine their way of life. So there is absolutely no way a discussion can take place.

Instead of looking at facts, they look at the people reporting the facts, or the people that agree with one side. Claims that one side is only trying to make a profit seem to forget that the other side stands to make a profit if they get their way, too.

I think this sort of partisan division on important issues is what is destroying this country.

Apply previous statements to: Global warming, gun control, the economy, health care, etc.

BigBear

02-02-2011, 09:29

It has been stated that climate change can take thousands, if not millions of years to come about naturally. The argument is that mankind is speeding up that process. I can sort of understand that thought. However, there is also a caveat inserted into the whole arguement that the world indeed does go through a heating and cooling cycles. Heck we even name periods of time after them, "Ice Age" anyone? These have been proven, time and time again. This is not what people argue about.

The real arguement is whether the amount of "helping along" of this process by mankind is anything to be worried about. I personally think not. But you are welcome to your own observations. It's hard to change people's minds, especially where one is trying to "prove something" that the other person just doesn't care about. Tell a farmer to turn in his dually for a smart car.... ain't going to happen.

TFOGGER

02-02-2011, 10:00

Do you know for certain that doubling the amount of CO2 has not and will not have negative ramifications?

And Marlin, I think the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk due to recent efforts. Maybe I'm an optimist.

Let's take a run at that fiasco, shall we:

The eruption of Mt. St. Helens belched a huge amount of ozone depleting gases into the upper atmosphere. The elimination of R-12 led to its replacement with a vastly more toxic refrigerant, at a cost of BILLIONS to consumers. Ice cores seem to indicate that cyclical thinning of the Antarctic ozone layer has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. So, did we do any good?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being a good steward of this planet, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that exchanging one flawed technology for another is really benefiting anyone other than those selling the technology....

weirjf

02-02-2011, 10:38

I don't get some of the arguements and comments made on some of these posts... [ROFL1] For some of you I don't think anyone can change your mind on the topic because you apparently know everything, right? Once again like I see people say all the time, list a source other than some reporter that doesn't know a damn thing saying the same ignorant comment my 5 year old pops off with of "it's cold, so, there is no such thing as global warming/climate change" because that is completely ignorant. You might as well say that global warming/climate change doesn't exist because your mama said so. I could list countless studies done by NASA, Harvard, Stanford, numerous other legit scientific communities and way too many other credible sources that have had actual data on this subject. Like I said though, for many of you it wouldn't matter who or what came up with the data, you would blindly turn your head away and walk off. I guess everyone is out to get your "briliant" minds that don't need any actual information about a subject to know that what you think about it is right. I don't even know why some of you even post in threads like this. Your mind is set, and you just want to argue instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation. Some of you make retarded jack ass comments toward others because of the way they think. What's up with that? Pull your head out and stop trying to be pricks. Most of the time, those that attack others in these forums just sound really immature and stupid. I originally posted in this thread expecting an intellectual discussion, not a bunch of whiney butt hurt people talking about things that they don't appear to actually know anything about till they google it right before they post a comment. As amusing as some of the comments on here are, I would really like to see proof. Not because I don't believe you, well, I guess it is because I don't believe you, but if the actual study or science behind your comment makes more sense than what I have read or believe, I could make up my mind for myself on rather or not to change what it is that I believe in.

The global warming community lost most people because they were in the streets with "proof" that the overall temperature of the globe was rising because increased carbon emissions were insulating the earth from allowing surface heat to escape. Either it is or it isn't. Then they changed it to "climate change" but didn't change their definition of the cause. Then we add the issues of the strongest cases being full of fictional findings to make their case and the very next year they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change".

The polar ice caps are reducing? The areas south of them are getting record low temperatures. Maybe it is something else? Maybe it is part of the natural flow of climate change that has been going on since the beginning? It doesn't instill confidence in their theories and until they can prove that it is something we are causing and can fix, I can't rationalize throwing the amount money at it that we are. I can't support carbon credits based on it, smart grids planned to be used as a control tool to tax people more rather than just efficient use of electricity.

Global Warming, Climate Change... whatever... same as a gun; how you use it determines on how people are going to perceive it. I see it more as a tool of control and making money than saving the planet.

Marlin

02-02-2011, 11:41

And Marlin, I think the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk due to recent efforts. Maybe I'm an optimist.

You are, It still more or less the same size it was 35 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being a good steward of this planet, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that exchanging one flawed technology for another is really benefiting anyone other than those selling the technology....

This, Prior to schools becoming the left wing indoctrnation centers, I learned that weather was a one day occurance and climate was an average of those one day occurances over a 25 year period. Now when you realize that weather records in thier current form, only go back about 150 years or so, That isn't that much data to be basing some of the GW claims off of. From what I learned the earth has cycles, sometimes it will be warm and dry., and, others it will be cold and wet.

My only real problem with the GW/CC crowd is they have turn it into a way of pushing their agenda. And, just to many of them have been caught fudging the numbers to acheive their goal. Which, to me, seems to be the fleecing of the flock. I can accept CC to a degree, just not the radical degree that they would want me too. Do I think that we, as humankind have an effect on it? Maybe, a small fraction of a fraction, compared to solar flares, and the gravatational pull of the moon.

When Albert the nerd is now running around stating the global warming is causing all the snow, Kind of loses a bunch of credibilty with me.

funkfool

02-02-2011, 12:01

"Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly."

OK... their understanding of the basic propeties of physics are off a bit - just to try to fool the ignorant masses.
Ice floats, even polar ice caps float.
When floating ice melts, it does not change the water level.
Put a block of ice in a glass of water and watch it.
It is called "displacement"... use the brain God gave you... look it up.

Hoosier

02-02-2011, 12:21

OK... their understanding of the basic propeties of physics are off a bit - just to try to fool the ignorant masses.
Ice floats, even polar ice caps float.
When floating ice melts, it does not change the water level.
Put a block of ice in a glass of water and watch it.
It is called "displacement"... use the brain God gave you... look it up.

The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica aren't floating, they're sitting on land, called Greenland and Antarctica.

Mother nature is capable of some surprises still: http://www.livescience.com/environment/early-sunrise-arctic-greenland-110117.html

I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is exactly how much greenhouse gas humans are putting out. In our head, we think of all the people we know, we think of all the places we've been, and that 100 miles of atmosphere above our head the entire time. We think there's no conceivable way humans can affect it. I've heard it said before that a single Volcano eruption puts out more greenhouse gasses than all of humankind...

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

There is of course lots of "information" about the subject online now, and as polarized as the debate has become it's difficult to find unbiased sources. Of course, political rhetoric has entered into the realm of scientific inquiry, so the result is unlikely to be pretty.

H.

funkfool

02-02-2011, 12:36

The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica aren't floating, they're sitting on land, called Greenland and Antarctica.

To make a further clarification about ice caps...ice caps are dome-shaped masses of ice of < 50K sq. km. Ice sheets are >50K sq km. Ice caps and ice sheets exist in Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica. Sea ice is water from the sea that freezes. Sea ice is not the same thing as icebergs. The term "polar ice cap" can include ice caps, ice sheets, and sea ice, although technically, it is only the sea ice portion.
Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_p… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg)

The northern polar ice cap = ~100% floating...

Which ones are growing?

Of course, political rhetoric has entered into the realm of scientific inquiry, so the result is unlikely to be pretty.
H.
+1 Agreed.

DeusExMachina

02-02-2011, 12:43

Can we at least agree that funkfool says "Use the brain god gave you" far too much?

funkfool

02-02-2011, 13:00

Can we at least agree that funkfool says "Use the brain god gave you" far too much?

Yes. noted.
[LOL][Beer][LOL]

spyder

02-02-2011, 13:54

It's actually not 100% floating. It is attached to land masses and resting on parts of the shallower ocean floor. I do understand science, very well in fact and displacement is a very easy concept to get as you know. Unfortunately, if you want to use the whole use your brain comment, I would suggest doing so yourself before attacking what someone else has said. If something is holding itself up, the displacement of the object isn't 100% is it? I will use the glass of ice thing with you also, imagine freezing a toothpick in the cube, and putting the picks on the edges of the glass holding most of the ice out of the water, displacement isn't 100% at that point is it? Can you go under the northern cap? Yep. Can you go around it in a boat? Nope. Why? Because it is attached to land, and below on the continental shelves.

spyder

02-02-2011, 14:00

Now, I didn't post on this to try to be some big advocate for the dumb ass known as Al Gore. That guy is a moron as are most of his supporters. Each side has it's dumb shits. If you are going to base your decision on who is on each side, you really need to look at some of the followers that don't believe that fossile fules are indeed bad for the atmosphere. That said, bringing up morons for each side really doesn't add to the arguement but to the ignorance.

spyder

02-02-2011, 14:03

To make a further clarification about ice caps...ice caps are dome-shaped masses of ice of < 50K sq. km. Ice sheets are >50K sq km. Ice caps and ice sheets exist in Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica. Sea ice is water from the sea that freezes. Sea ice is not the same thing as icebergs. The term "polar ice cap" can include ice caps, ice sheets, and sea ice, although technically, it is only the sea ice portion.
Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_p… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg)

The northern polar ice cap = ~100% floating...

.
Just so you know, wikipedia isn't always correct. Anyone, and I mean anyone can add to wikipedia. Most of its information is written by every day people that think that they know what the truth is.

funkfool

02-02-2011, 14:12

Just used Wikiporkula for general definition...
Just fyi - the tilde (~) expresses approximate.

spyder

02-02-2011, 14:36

I think its because it has become such a partisan issue. Some people are so hard-line on their party that everyone else is wrong, and worse, not even credible. Unless its coming from "their side", its completely wrong or some sort of secret agenda to undermine their way of life. So there is absolutely no way a discussion can take place.
Ya, I think you are correct in this. Even if someone from "their side" agreed with "our side" they would just say that person has been "changed" and then blow off what they are saying.
Instead of looking at facts, they look at the people reporting the facts, or the people that agree with one side. Claims that one side is only trying to make a profit seem to forget that the other side stands to make a profit if they get their way, too.
Their side, if we are apparently taking sides now, has been making a ton of money this entire time and only argues the issue, because they stand to lose even more money.
I think this sort of partisan division on important issues is what is destroying this country.
You know, it's funny, one side says, "hey we will listen to your arguements, state facts and tell us how you reached your decision so we can discuss it" and the other side just says "screw you, you are wrong, we are right, we don't care". Isn't that just funny.
Apply previous statements to: Global warming, gun control, the economy, health care, etc.

cstone

02-02-2011, 15:35

I'm not stipulating to anything.

Rather than get into an argument about whether the climate is changing and/or whether mankind is responsible for that change, I have a sincere question.

Other than not being wasteful, what am I, as the head of my household, supposed to do to keep the earth from burning to a cinder or becoming a huge popsicle?

I don't ask what the US should do, as I do not believe in a collective consciousness and I don't believe the federal government could manage a healthy bowel movement without making a colossal mess.

I don't believe I, or anyone else on this board has any real chance of convincing the Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc... of restraining their use of carbon based fuels. I certainly don't advocate that our society should unilaterally reduce our standard of living while watching those resources be used by others around the world when that use by anyone, anywhere will have the consequences espoused by those who are convinced by the climate change discussion.

Economics seems to drive the choice of fuels used by societies. If I choose to use "renewable" energy rather than fossil fuels, then I should pay for that choice. If I choose to use fossil fuels, then the choice is mine. I make that choice for myself and my family based on cost and my ability to pay for what makes the best sense to me.

Regardless of what you or I believe, I don't have the right to tell you how to live and what you can or can't buy. God help us when the government makes those choices for us because I hope we all can agree, those choices will almost universally be bad.

ChunkyMonkey

02-02-2011, 15:54

Well said, Chuck!

spyder

02-02-2011, 16:10

Funny, the "GW"s What's a GW? here never address my question. I guess if it hits the heart of their theory, it should be convieniently ignored.

We haven't had global weather data collecting abilities since the existence of wide scale weather satellites. Actually, we have, called thermometers, we have had them since the 1700's. Also, people used to write things down on parchment long before then. Less than 40 years of data. You need to catch up on what is actually been happening in the real world before you start to argue. By pure pysics and real science, it's impossible to guess the temperature of anything before recorded measurements beyond a margin of error of many degrees. I agree with you here. Unfortunately the arguement isn't over a few degrees here and there and just the fact that the temp is going up right now. It is a little more in depth than that. We can see major climate changes in the past and the fact that from even the data that we have collected in just the recent past, we can see our impact on the climate as it is now. Yes, we can see that there have been major climate changes in the past, the arguement is that we are speeding the changes up, which, they do have data to support.
We have no data on any level of historical refraction, cloud cover, water vapor concentrations, solar activity, snow cover, etc.
Most of the written data that main stream science has followed has showed the major difference in what has happened in the recorded past to the present. By that, I mean that people have written down the major storms and what the weather was like in the past. We can take that into account. Then there is the scientific data taken since there have been thermometers way back in the 1700's. Now before that everything is based upon "Theory's" which even as a science guy, I don't put too much faith in because a scientific theory is just like believing in a god. It is a faith of sorts and not provable, otherwise it would be known as a fact.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 0.1% (1/1000) to 0.3% (3/1000) of the global climate model. That is it's net effect on our weather. Even if you were right about the ammount in the air, your idea that it will only have a very small effect because of its tiny ammount is complete ignorance. It only takes 300 mg of cyanide to kill a full grown man quickly. So, lets say the unfortunate mand weighs 180 lbs, that is 81646626.6 milligrams compared to just the 300 it would take to kill him. Get how that relates? Small ammount, big consequences? This isn't disputed, though its conveniently ignored now.
I really wish you would list your resources on everything you have to say. Untill then, seriously, it is just your opinion. You want to talk shit to the rest of us who argue against what you believe and want us to list our sources, but you apparently don't have to? No offence, but if you can't debate with the big boys, maybe you should just stay out of it. Or, I guess you can delete all of my stuff like a little child, your call.
Please explain how you can come to a valid scientific conclusion using reasonable scientific method and factual basis that carbon dioxide is the source of "climate change". Been doing that this entire time.http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html I'm all ears. You are only proving that you are in fact, not all ears. Fact of the matter is, if you don't address it, I'll delete the rest of the BS responses. How do you call the responses that have valid evidence BS? Especially when you yourself have not given one shred of evidence? If you ignore the hard question, you have no standing whatsoever. Also please elaborate on why the US needs to expend trillions of dollars in the next coming decade to address this, and how the money will help. With climate change being a real factor, we need to come up with ways to figure it out to bring our influence on the eco system down. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't real. Also, please address why "global warming" is an overall negative change from the status quo. If you are asking that question hypothetically as in, if global warming is real, how is it bad? I would have to ask if you were joking and my second question would be if you actually know anything about what it is that the actual arguement of global waming/climate change is really about.

Also, just so you know, some "big oil" people also believe in the "hype" such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of EXXON Mobile, he has been quoted many times standing behind efforts to reduce carbon emmissions because of global warming and what their product does to further it along. He has been quoted saying:
"We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Mr. Tillerson said during a 50-minute interview last week, pointing to a recent company report that acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures. "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."
Why don't you find real evidence that supports your claims?

spyder

02-02-2011, 16:25

Regardless of what you or I believe, I don't have the right to tell you how to live and what you can or can't buy. God help us when the government makes those choices for us because I hope we all can agree, those choices will almost universally be bad.
What they were originally trying to do was putting out the information of what one choice over the other's impact will have in the long run. Since no one believes what science actually has to say, not too many people have listened to them. The easiest way is this, if you knew that what your neighbor was doing was going to harmfully affect your family, would you say something to him? Do anything about it? Or just let it go? The people that believe in climate change and have the power to go about a change, are trying to "do something about it". However some people believe it is some kind of conspiracy and that all of the crap we pump into the air has absolutely no effect. Science is a lie! A lie I tell you! [ROFL1]

rockhound

02-02-2011, 16:26

i think everyone can agree that we should be good steward of our planet. the point to all this is that bankrupting society to do so is just dumb.

if our govt really wanted to get us off the oil teet they would have switched our vehicle to alcohol years ago when countries like brazil decided to ween themselves from oil dependency.

it is all about the dollar it always has been. the oil companies have too much influence politically

i for one am not willing to trade the oil companies for some new wave of carbon footprint centered agenda from our govt.

as i understand what i have read most of the cars built after 1981 could be easily converted to run on alcohol which would burn cleaner

the big 3 gm, cm. and fm, already produce the alcohol tuned motors for use in other countries. why not here.

Hoosier

02-02-2011, 16:40

if our govt really wanted to get us off the oil teet they would have switched our vehicle to alcohol years ago when countries like brazil decided to ween themselves from oil dependency.

it is all about the dollar it always has been. the oil companies have too much influence politically

i for one am not willing to trade the oil companies for some new wave of carbon footprint centered agenda from our govt.

as i understand what i have read most of the cars built after 1981 could be easily converted to run on alcohol which would burn cleaner

the big 3 gm, cm. and fm, already produce the alcohol tuned motors for use in other countries. why not here.

Yeah, GM's "FlexFuel" is one, I've seen the badges around here and there. Apparently the ethanol setup has a small gasoline tank (2-3 gallon) under the hood, that's used to start the engine on very cold days, then once it's warm kicks over to ethanol. You can run the engine on Ethanol or Petrol, apparently you can even blend in the tank, ie: refill with either one.

It really is all about the money. I'd really like to see a move towards smart new nuclear technologies. Pickens plan for displacing energy use is also clever.

H.

spyder

02-02-2011, 16:54

There is a lot of different technology out there that most of the public doesn't know about. For example, a car that runs off of water: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

cstone

02-02-2011, 16:54

What they were originally trying to do was putting out the information of what one choice over the other's impact will have in the long run. Since no one believes what science actually has to say, not too many people have listened to them. The easiest way is this, if you knew that what your neighbor was doing was going to harmfully affect your family, would you say something to him? Do anything about it? Or just let it go? The people that believe in climate change and have the power to go about a change, are trying to "do something about it". However some people believe it is some kind of conspiracy and that all of the crap we pump into the air has absolutely no effect. Science is a lie! A lie I tell you! [ROFL1]

I don't have any problem with people trying to convince me of what they believe. Sometimes I am swayed and I change my mind and other times I am unconvinced. Best arguments do not always win.

When people begin using the coercive power of government to affect my ability to choose, I can get a little touchy. When you move from providing information to affecting my ability to make my own choices, you have moved from science to politics.

If I believed my neighbor was doing something that would harm my family? A bit too vague for me. Is he sitting in his window with a .308 and a good scope putting a bead on my kids? Is he smoking a cigarette in his garage (second hand smoke). Is he buying Chinese made products from Wal-mart?

Give me information. I will make my own choices.

I believe in science for what it is: A best possible explanation of the material world by observation and experimentation. I also believe that science has limitations and cannot explain all things and that some things in life can only be understood by faith.

spyder

02-02-2011, 16:56

Yeah, GM's "FlexFuel" is one, I've seen the badges around here and there. Apparently the ethanol setup has a small gasoline tank (2-3 gallon) under the hood, that's used to start the engine on very cold days, then once it's warm kicks over to ethanol. You can run the engine on Ethanol or Petrol, apparently you can even blend in the tank, ie: refill with either one.

It really is all about the money. I'd really like to see a move towards smart new nuclear technologies. Pickens plan for displacing energy use is also clever.

H.
The FlexFuel is nice to have, you can buy a kit that replaces some of the hoses, rings, bushing, ect and change over the vehicle you have now to run ethanol. I am not completely sure on what all is needed, I just know that my dealership offered it.

spyder

02-02-2011, 17:02

I don't have any problem with people trying to convince me of what they believe. Sometimes I am swayed and I change my mind and other times I am unconvinced. Best arguments do not always win.

When people begin using the coercive power of government to affect my ability to choose, I can get a little touchy. When you move from providing information to affecting my ability to make my own choices, you have moved from science to politics.

If I believed my neighbor was doing something that would harm my family? A bit too vague for me. Is he sitting in his window with a .308 and a good scope putting a bead on my kids? Is he smoking a cigarette in his garage (second hand smoke). Is he buying Chinese made products from Wal-mart?
You are right, that was a little vague.
Give me information. I will make my own choices.
Say he was still using old methods and washing his back patio, big patio with amonia, and bleach (for some reason, just a "for instance") and your house was down wind.
I believe in science for what it is: A best possible explanation of the material world by observation and experimentation. I also believe that science has limitations and cannot explain all things and that some things in life can only be understood by faith.

cstone

02-02-2011, 17:07

There is a lot of different technology out there that most of the public doesn't know about. For example, a car that runs off of water: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

I would love a water powered car. When will they be available? Last I heard, commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells are at least 10 years off.

The link from Reuters is from 2008. In 2009, the Japanese company Genepax closed their web site. Here is what they posted:

Thank you for visiting our website.

We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems, to mitigate environmental risks such as those posed by global warming.　The systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website.

We express our deep gratitude for the supportive messages we have received. We hope that you will continue to be supportive of efforts to develop cleaner and more environment friendly energies, and we will continue to strive to develop systems to preserve our environment.

February 10th, 2009
Yasuyuki Takahashi
Representative Director
GENEPAX

cstone

02-02-2011, 17:18

I get what you are saying:

"Say he was still using old methods and washing his back patio, big patio with amonia, and bleach (for some reason, just a "for instance") and your house was down wind."

Fortunately for me in that case, if he was dumb enough to make some chlorine gas along with some other very toxic gases, and I'm assuming he is not wearing any type of gas mask, he won't be my neighbor for very long.

This would be a great teaching point for the rest of the neighborhood not to repeat this dive into the shallow end of the pool.

To your point, what would prevent one of my current neighbors from doing this now? If they talked to me about their idea before, I would tell them that it was not a good idea and if they were going to do it anyway, please let me know first so that I can buy some life insurance for his family and then get my family to a safe place before hand.

I could tell the local code enforcement officers or the police, but I wouldn't count on them arriving before he starts as they would probably be more involved in arresting children with airsoft guns.

spyder

02-02-2011, 17:35

cstone

02-02-2011, 18:30

Apparently Mr. Klein has given up any claims to run an engine solely on water for fuel. His current claim is to use the gas he creates with water and electricity to enhance fuel efficiency and decreased emissions. http://hytechapps.com/products.html#Automotive

I am unconvinced that Mr. Klein has an economically feasible alternative fuel which will get millions of Americans back and forth to work every day and save the world from mankind's gluttonous consumption.

I wish him great luck in his future endeavors and also to all those very bright minds working on solving the problems we face.

When a water powered or even a hydrogen fuel cell car becomes available, and it is a better economic choice for me and my family, I will want to buy one. Sadly, I am getting old and I will probably be driving my Toyota Yaris into retirement.

Aloha_Shooter

02-02-2011, 19:37

I learned back in school that the arguement of global warming was about what the warming affect in the warmer months does to the weather patterns, or climate. There was no mention of "climate change" back then. Also, I don't know where you have been, but it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers. Not new news on that one.

It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "Climate: The Counter-Consensus".

I would have to say here that you are wrong. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but if you are going to attack what it is that I said, you should get your info strait. Otherwise, you look like a jack ass. Here is a quote strait from NASA, you know, the people with the satellites lookin down: "Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too."

You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc. Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow.

Again, not to point out that you are wrong, but, you are. They are both melting. Actual scientific data proves this.

Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH.

Funny I posted a recent comment about how people shouldn't sound like morons by talking shit. I graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institure with a degree in Biotechnology. You might be right though, maybe that doesn't make me a good candidate to talk about science... Pull your head out.

You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.

Did I say Carbon was evil? I don't remember saying that...

No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book.

Fact: The Earth has been much warmer in the past, even the recent past, than it is today. Fact: Your fact is wrong, don't post ignorant shit that is supposed to be used to debunk someone else or make them look stupid, otherwise, you look like the stupid one.

Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are SO warm.

You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records? Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout? Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading.

You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.

As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up.

Aloha_Shooter

02-02-2011, 19:47

Here ya go stone, I didn't know the other company went out of business, it is Japan so who knows the real reason why... Anyway, here is an article of a guy here that is using HHO gas. http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/prototype-car-runs-100-miles-on-four-ounces-of-water-as-fuel/ hzJZJjo9MNA&feature=player_embedded#

I can tell you why they went out of business. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Water-powered car indeed -- just how do you propose to get energy out of that water? Electrolysis to change the water into H2 and O2 for combination in a fuel cell will NOT generate more energy than you used. Now, you can TRANSFORM energy -- like using photonic energy to generate electricity from solar cells which is then used to make H2 and O2 instead of burning fossil fuels but you have to do SOMETHING to generate that electricity.

In theory we could get more energy from water by using fusion but we have yet to build a portable fusion generator with energy efficiency greater than 1.0 (or even equalling 1.0). You HAVE heard of Pons and Fleischmann, haven't you?

Fraudsters have been pushing "water-powered cars" since the Oil Crisis of the 70s. They -- like Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" -- haven't held up to scrutiny.

Irving

02-02-2011, 21:06

HHO was debunked before the first time I ever even heard of it. I'll tell you something right now though, I'd rather run out of oil than I would water.

Good luck trying to convince everyone in China to start riding bicycles. ;)

spyder

02-02-2011, 23:44

It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward. Actually, Schmidt is one of the guys who backs NASA and has, and is arguing the exact opposite. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "Climate: The Counter-Consensus".

You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall. I don't know if you listened last time, but I did look at pictures, you know, from those apparent losers at NASA. God, now do morons get jobs like that... You are completely correct, all the information I have seen is completely wrong. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc. Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow. If that last sentence means that you don't know that the oceanic currents are affected by the climate change, you need to stop arguing right now and pick a different subject somewhere else. If I need to explain to you how, this affects it, I mean really? Really? I don't care what major you hold or how long you have worked in any field. Ignorance is ignorance.

Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH. This is where I would have to say that we would compare pictures, yours from the University of Alabama, and the ones I have seen from NASA. I guess that all on why you would want to believe.

You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud. Don't forget about Setphen Hawking, if you want to talk about Physics guys, you can't leave out the guy on the top of the food chain. Who, by the way just happens to support climate change. Of course again, this just all goes with who you choose to believe. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.

No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element. Carbon is not, the gas CO2, is bad in large quantities. The more of it there is, the worse the impact will be. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book. [ROFL1]

Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you. Nope, but, apparently you didn't read what I said earlier, or understand what the arguement of climate change is. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history. HHmmm what was the arguement again, was it that climate changes have never happened? Was it that nothing has ever been different in the past and a climate change will be something new? Um, nope. It was that we are changing it faster with our influence. Keep to the actual arguement. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are SO warm. By the way, making comments like that show how little you must actually know about all of it. You keep to certain points of the climate change arguement and run with it. "Its really cold so climate change must be a fake!" I don't need to tell you comments like that are completely ignorant do I? Or... do I?

You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records? You just don't get the point do you. The climate has changed, yes (have I lost you yet?) it has changed slowly over time (still there?). The arguement is that we are changing it much faster than it would change naturally. Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout? With the few things you have spouted out, it is quite the opposite from what I see. Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading. You remind me in ways of the people that think the moon landing was a hoax. Your arguements are kinda amusing.

You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.

As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently. <-- I still keep to that and you still didn't get what I said earlier. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up. Sad, I exptected someone with a physics degree to have a better understanding of something before he argued.

spyder

02-02-2011, 23:51

HHO was debunked before the first time I ever even heard of it. I'll tell you something right now though, I'd rather run out of oil than I would water. How was HHO debunked again? I could literally send you pictures and info on how to get flamable gas out of water. It isn't hard at all.

Good luck trying to convince everyone in China to start riding bicycles. ;) They are'nt gona start riding bikes, but they are flying through designs on eco friendly cars. They are trying to lead the world in eco friendly cars actually. Here is a small article about it: http://www.eponline.com/Articles/2010/09/17/China-Plans-to-Lead-World-in-Ecofriendly-Cars.aspx (http://www.eponline.com/Articles/2010/09/17/China-Plans-to-Lead-World-in-Ecofriendly-Cars.aspx)

Aloha_Shooter

02-03-2011, 01:25

Since you apparently are so unfamiliar as to not know or recognize that the UAH is one of the leads for analyzing data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on the AQUA satellite (or that Dr. Spencer is in fact the U.S. Science Team Leader for that research), here are some things to keep you busy:

"Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

-- "Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet"
BY D. J. WINGHAM, A. SHEPHERD, A. MUIR AND G. J. MARSHALL
From http://www.goodsearch.com/redirect.aspx?type=1&url=http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

"new data derived from satellite-borne radar sensors show the ice sheet to be growing"
-- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2132

Now, you might argue the two studies above were taken nearly 10 years ago, prior to the GRACE satellite launch but the citations below are more contemporary:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/antarctica-ice-growing-while-arctic-ice-shrinks-100617.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421101629.htm

"While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly."
-- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm

"While sea ice extent has declined dramatically in the Arctic in recent years, it has increased slightly in the Antarctic."
-- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101005141516.htm

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Environment/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms

If you were REALLY arguing intelligently as you claim -- instead of how you're really behaving, you could have argued that Antarctica ice is growing in area but diminishing in thickness -- at which point we could debate whether ice mass or reflective albedo is more important to the AGW thesis. Instead, you resort to the "so's your mother" arguments of "you want to talk shit".

Apparently your reading skills are as bad as your science education since I specifically responded to your statement, "it has also been noted globally that since the mid 90's, the temperature has gone up, in record numbers" that it had been noted by Schmidt. I also referred you to two different sources that refute Schmidt's statements with published charts -- one of whom isn't (in Schmidt's parlance) a "denier". You should (but probably won't) look into how Schmidt's team has been caught "adjusting" historical records (lots of direct evidence -- by comparing data downloaded from GISS years ago and comparing to what were supposed to be the same substation temperature records more recently -- posted at The Air Vent and Climate Audit about a year ago).

You DO understand that Dr. Hawking is a theoretical physicist? I could counter your citation of Hawking with Dr. Freeman Dyson (who also decries the fraud -- and no, he doesn't design or sell vacuum cleaners) but I don't need to since Spencer and Lewis have direct long term experience with measuring and modeling atmospheric physics and global temperatures. In fact, the strongest skeptics of AGW that I've known are geologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists and engineers familiar with statistical processing of large amounts of data. Most of us would have rightfully been fired for playing fast and loose with data the way Mann and Jones did, whether you're talking about splicing temperature records with proxy assessments (Mann's famous hockeystick chart), selectively deleting samples (Yamal tree cores), or misusing the Tiljander samples (they not only used samples which the primary scientist said were unreliable due to contamination but then turned the chart upside down to make a case for AGW).

See, here's the difference between arguing intelligently and just tossing ad hominems. I've given you specific citations and evidentiary samples above instead of just saying "you're a moron, you believe in water engines."

cstone

02-03-2011, 13:30

Wow, way too much science for an old Army Drill Sgt.

Let me rephrase my question, and ask it openly for anyone who is interested in the topic. Based on what you believe to be true, what would you suggest I do to keep the planet from becoming a toasted marshmellow or snowball which no longer supports life?

Whether I agree with the premise of anthropomorphic climate change or not, I do support good stewardship of the gifts I've been given. This planet and it's resources, for ill or good are mankind's responsibility. Some things we have control over, and some we don't. I don't think anyone here is going to suggest that we give up heating our homes in the winter or never using gasoline powered vehicles.

So in your opinion, what is it we should be doing?

spittoon

02-03-2011, 21:39

well if these jack asses want clean power . i say we put all of the solar panel and wind turbine in the city every roof ,park so they have to look at it. have you been in Wyoming lately? they are ever where. i would say drill deep Geo therm o ad turn steam lp turbine there are several place in Colorado. hot sulfur, Idaho springs,glen wood springs. what about where the coal seam fire is basalt, free and shallow and has been burning for years. what really makes me mad there is a lot of stuff we don't know about because they can not control it or tax it[Rant2]it is all about control

ChunkyMonkey

02-04-2011, 00:35

wind turbans

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2564674550_65e18276ab.jpg

Carry on...

funkfool

02-04-2011, 09:11

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2564674550_65e18276ab.jpg

Carry on...
Bwahahah!
[LOL]

cstone

02-04-2011, 09:21

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2564674550_65e18276ab.jpg

Carry on...

It's not everyday you see a member of the Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army!

68Charger

02-04-2011, 09:29

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2564674550_65e18276ab.jpg

Carry on...

no less plausible than the "water powered" crap that Spyder is referencing... next you'll have us looking at perpetual motion machines!

It completely ruins your credibility when you present such nonsense as a "solution", and I can no longer read anything you post about any science and take it seriously. It's like arguing with the spambot that's programmed to post in threads like this...

spittoon

02-04-2011, 10:06

ok i fixed it [Tooth]

spittoon

02-04-2011, 10:12

free power 24-7 and looks100% better http://www.greenhabitatdesign.com/Alternative%20Energy%20Geothermal.gif

henpecked

02-04-2011, 11:29

A red X ?

mikeyman

02-04-2011, 11:32

Blah blah blah... PROOF

http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd136286/pchart1.jpg

henpecked

02-04-2011, 11:35

Pirates on the good ship lollypop?

funkfool

02-04-2011, 11:48

oQkSOcPLfP4

spyder

02-04-2011, 17:46

_O3cNc2JoMA&feature=related
With that, this will be the last time I am gona visit this thread. Anyone can argue anything they want and have the right to believe anyone they want, eveyone knows that. Personally I will follow what makes common sense and has been proven again and again and again. If that means that I am in the same boat as whoever you point out, that is fine. Don't forget to name the worlds smartest and brightest people as the "idiots that believe" though also.

c3d4b2

02-05-2011, 20:34

We have less than 40 years of global data that can be considered scientifically accurateThere seems to be some questions being raised on the accuracy of the data that has been collected.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/

cstone

02-05-2011, 21:23

Chomsky and McGibben???

One is a self described anarchist, libertarian socialist who has an impressive background in linquistics and the other is a "green journalist" with zero scientific education. Chomsky picks on Rush Limbaugh (who I admit has no scientific background), but neither does Chomsky.

Honestly, I find the discussion on this board and by others who have more scientific training more informative than listening to Chomsky, McGibben, or Limbaugh.

I guess I will just continue making the best possible decisions I can based on both the information I have available and within my economic means.

Thanks for the lively discussion.

weirjf

02-05-2011, 22:31

With that, this will be the last time I am gona visit this thread. Anyone can argue anything they want and have the right to believe anyone they want, eveyone knows that. Personally I will follow what makes common sense and has been proven again and again and again. If that means that I am in the same boat as whoever you point out, that is fine. Don't forget to name the worlds smartest and brightest people as the "idiots that believe" though also.

You'll forgive me if I don't bother watching the rest of the rantings of an "Author and Activist"

sounds like an ELF whacko

DOC

02-05-2011, 22:54

Its like believing Al Gore invented the internet? He may have pushed Global Warming hystaria and even made some money of those that believe him but he didn't invent it either. He just showed up to take credit and hope no body finds out he's a fraud as a human being.

DeusExMachina

02-05-2011, 22:56

Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet; Gore actually said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."[250][251] Gore was the original drafter of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, which provided significant funding for supercomputing centers, and this in turn led to upgrades of a major part of the already existing, early 1990s Internet backbone, the NSFNet, and development of NCSA Mosaic, the browser that popularized the World Wide Web; see Al Gore and information technology.

Aloha_Shooter

02-05-2011, 23:28

Noam Chomsky is a raving lunatic -- and I say that with all due respect for his studies in linguistics. He ignores or doesn't know about scientists like Freeman Dyson, Roger Pielke Sr., Roy Spencer, John Christy and the ever growing numbers of scientists rejecting the IPCC AR4 -- including authors and contributors decrying the blatant manipulation, after-the-fact edits and distortions in the report. Even Judith Curry -- who is still a proponent of the AGW hypothesis -- is appalled at how Schmidt, Jones, Mann et al have distorted the scientific process.

By the way, these graphics should help show the dangers of drawing conclusions from poorly chosen time frames:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_SST_2002_thru_Jan_2011.gif

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif

If you look at the period 2002-2009, you see a distinct if small decline in the slope. Look at the period 1993-2010 and it's just a blip in a steady upward slope. From 1979-2010, the slope is still upward but not as dramatic.

A simple analogy is to Friday's temperatures. If I measure from Tuesday or Wednesday, we had a dramatic warming. If I measure from a week prior, things cooled down quite a bit. All of which points to the old saw about the last 1, 10, 40 years being weather while the last 1000, 4000, 10000 years is climate.

Now look at one of the original paleo-climate reconstructions:

http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/lambh23.jpg

You can see here that we have a LOT of room to grow before even nearing the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (when grapes grew in Greenland). You also see that the recent warming 1) looks to be part of a natural cycle with the last maxima around AD 1150-1200 and the minima around AD 1650. By the way, notice the little hump at the end? That's the little warming of the 1930s followed by a later small cool period (which is why AGW proponents often like to baseline to around 1970).

This German page expands on the MWP to show it was a global phenomenon (contrary to Schmidt and Mann's latest attempts to rewrite history by calling it a regional phenomena):

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

The link is an interactive graphic that shows scientific studies and reconstructions from all over the world. Click on a reference and it will take you to the original report.

See also http://www.co2science.org/index.php where you can get another interactive map of studies at http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html.

This graphic shows how Antarctica has THICKENED in recent years:

http://www.biocab.org/Antarctic_Recovery_English_op_800x600.jpg

while this one purports to demonstrate that tropospheric temperatures are linked more strongly with solar activity than CO2:

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Flares_TT_CO2_05_op_784x588.jpg

I happen to agree with the above thesis since we literally SAW the Earth's atmosphere warm and expand in 1989 due to 3 near-simultaneous solar flares. The amount of energy contained in those flares -- the energy needed to perturb the Earth's magnetic field and expand the atmosphere -- literally dwarfs any manmade effects. What you can't see in any of those graphs is how CO2 content seems to lag temperature changes (the inverse of the AGW hypothesis) as stated in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/ and this graphic:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

But what you CAN see in this graphic:

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg

is how much warmer AND how much higher CO2 was in the distant past -- not that I'd enjoy things 18 degrees (F) warmer than what we get today but life DID go on.

To answer the old Army SFC, don't worry, be happy. Worry more about sustainable energy because dependence on Mideast Oil is a national security issue and how burning fossil fuels can affect the local environment like increased mercury content in fish. Environmental activists protested the dolphin slaughter in Taiji, Japan (see "The Cove") for a long time but what seems to have really swayed some of the Japanese has been the threat of mercury poisoning from dolphin meat. Personally, I just can't see killing and eating Flipper but 2000 ppm (versus the FDA "safe" certification of 0.4 ppm) might make you think twice even if you look at Flipper like I look at Elsie the cow.

Worry about local pollution, excessive and unnecessary use of plastic packaging, overfishing of sea stocks and future supply of potable water. All those are very real issues and ones we can do something about because the human effects in these cases are indisputable.