PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



iroquoisman24
04-24-2007, 08:48 AM
Has anyone seen the HBO special on global warming..if not you all should watch it, it deeply disturbed me to see how much we are destroying our planet. within the next couple lifetimes our world is with out a doubt going to change in ALOT of ways for the worst. We may lose our change of seasons!!! There may not be a future for disc golf because there may not be one at all. I was never one to be earth concious but just as fast as we have made civilazation what it is today is the same rate of speed we are destroying our planet...within a couple hundred years. That to me is very scary, especialy for our future generations to come...

Daniel
04-24-2007, 08:52 AM
Don't believe the hype! :o :wink: :wink:

martin
04-24-2007, 09:40 AM
you should check out "an inconvenient truth" - the al gore movie

there is a lot of hype - but at the same time a lot of truth that shouldn't be dismissed and forgotten -

disc golf is a great sport though for the environment - minimal impact - in most cases the grass is not being soaked in pesticides and fertilizer - trees need to be there or really whats the point -

we all our stewards of the land and we all play our part in the now and for the future

Swoop
04-24-2007, 11:46 AM
OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE JUST FINE...GOD WILL DECIDE WHEN TO CALL US HOME...NOT MAN OR HIS CORRUPTIVENESS...ALL IN THE LORD'S GOOD TIME, SO RELAX AND ENJOY LIFE!

Daniel
04-24-2007, 11:48 AM
I do believe that we should take care of what we have--what I'm in disbelief of is the fact that any "warming" is caused by humans. Look back historically (and pre-) and see how the sun's cycles (~11 years) coincide with warming and cooling. It's almost perfect how they intersect. Seems more than just a coincidence...

Also, follow the money in the global warming movement and you'll be surprised where it leads...

captain plastic
04-24-2007, 11:57 AM
Saying humans have not impacted the earth is far from true.
Maybe we have not caused the earth to heat up - yeah - i could believe that. I don't but I could.

What about the worlds drinking water, high cancer zones, the ever shrinking "blue zones" (google this to understand) they are basically former zones of longevity and health.

We are polluting the human gene strain with vaccinations, over medicating, fake lawns, etc.

In my opinion the human race was stronger 30 - 50 years ago. We live longer now sure but at what cost. Living with Chemo therapy for 10 years is not progress. Why is the cancer there in the first place?

Allergies, headaches, stress and pollution. YUCK!

kyfanbigblue
04-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Go to wikipedia and type in global cooling. In the 70's, scientists were convinced that we (the earth) would one day experience another ice age because the earth's temperature had been dropping for like 30 years straight.

I believe that we have to take care of what we have, but I do have a hard time believing that the people have caused the earth to heat up. I think it may just be a cycle the world goes through every x number of years.

captain plastic
04-24-2007, 04:54 PM
it's really not the earth i am worried about. sounds silly but it will still circle the sun with us or without us.

it's us i am worried about. we pollute our food, water and air for corporate greed. always taking the easy way out.
we all need to work a little harder. not for us but for our greatest of grandchildren. depending on what you believe - you could be saving it for yourself

Daniel
04-24-2007, 05:25 PM
Saying humans have not impacted the earth is far from true.

In my opinion the human race was stronger 30 - 50 years ago. We live longer now sure but at what cost. Living with Chemo therapy for 10 years is not progress. Why is the cancer there in the first place?

I didn't say that humans have not impacted the earth...What I said was that humans couldn't possibly have caused any warming the earth is experiencing. Any major volcano eruption (say, Mt Pinnatubo in ~1990) put more CO2 and SO2 (acid rain) in the atmosphere in one eruption than what man has done since civilization! That is a proven fact! So, how much impact does an SUV really have on "greenhouse gases?"

Yes, I do believe that additives in foods and pesticides are harming us. However, we are seeing more and more diseases (like cancer and alzheimer's) because we are saving more kids who would not have made it past childhood 50-100 years ago. It is proven that those who start out with big problems tend to develop other, bigger problems as older adults.

martin
04-24-2007, 05:25 PM
just watched a documentary entitled "who killed the electric car"


interesting movie that documents the rise and fall of the electric car in the early 90's and how its exisistance was ultimately erased - as well as how far behind in fuel effiency american automakers are vs. foreign and how we are losing the battle here in the US to pursue hydrogen rather then alternative fuel sources

climate studies indicate the earth endures heating and cooling periods - but recent studies also indicate that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere - which are a major cause of "global warming" - are higher then ever recorded - and these high levels are heavily due to our usage of fossil fuels

iroquoisman24
04-24-2007, 05:40 PM
Well it really doesn't matter what anyone beleives. We are causing this through industrialization "factories", and from the emitions from our cars, it is fact and numbers don't lie, the question is are we so dependant on this industrial way of life that we have made it to late to do anything about
it.

Daniel
04-24-2007, 06:54 PM
Mother nature is much more powerful than any group of humans put together. Period. Anything else is simply egotistical.

Just remember this--follow the money and you'll be surprised what you find. This is true with the electric car, "global warming," the downplay of hydrogen cells/zero point energy/etc., etc., etc.

Daniel
04-24-2007, 06:59 PM
I have seen that documentary, Martin. If I had the money, I would seriously consider the new Lotus-designed electric sports car that is to debut soon...so I'm not a complete environmentally incorrect SMURF! :D

Still, just keep in mind that one volcanic eruption can spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of man's contributions, COMBINED.

Dick Stout
04-24-2007, 07:15 PM
Daniel, can you please provide a link to something that backs up your assertion that one volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than all human human activity throughout history? Thanks.

Airborne
04-24-2007, 08:14 PM
Google search "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Google video and it will explain the distorted "facts" that idiot Al Gore is trying to pass off on those not willing to seek the real truth on their own. Termites put more Methane gas in the atmosphere than Man. Get a grip!

Daniel
04-24-2007, 08:20 PM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

Off the cuff, these are the two I could find...

The latter of these two articles points out that humans have a greater impact than volcanoes which, of course, I do not agree with. That statement actually contradicts earlier statements in the article, so how valid this piece is remains to be seen.

I was originally taught this in High School by my environmentalist chemistry teacher back in 1991, so finding the original author is, well, going to be pretty tough to do. I actually think she may have shown us a NOVA special on it...hmm...

Daniel
04-24-2007, 08:23 PM
Also--why in the good Lord's name would anyone believe anything scientific backed by a politician? ANY politician? Or, for that matter, Hollywood types? What do either know about science? NOTHING.

captain plastic
04-24-2007, 11:33 PM
Termites really put out methane gas. WoW!
Must suck to eat wood all day.

I drive an S.U.V. to the course. What are you gonna do?
We all drive cars. I think the recent "green" push is a wake up call.
Maybe with 6 billion of us we should slow down consumption just a little bit.
All they are asking is you to do is recycle and unplug your cell phone charger when not in use.

About people being stronger back in the day and more sickness right now. I see your point. Very macro. Way to heavy for a disc golf discusion board.

By the way I am ready for a good time this weekend in Lexington. WOO HOO

Daniel
04-25-2007, 06:36 AM
Yeah, I'm ready for a good time in Lex too! Woot woot!

My wife and I recylce a whole bunch and we take the bus to work and school 3-4x per week. We're doing our part! :wink:

(Sorry for the heaviness about getting sick and all...being in nursing school does that to a person...) :D

jeremy
04-25-2007, 09:33 AM
Here's what gets me. The polar ice cap and the glaciers are floating. Therefore they already displace the amount of water that they would add to the oceans if they melted. If the ice is floating, it will displace an amount of water that equals the weight of the ice. Once melted, it will NOT cause the level to change. The level will REMAIN the same. So...the melting of glaciers and ice caps would not cause floods in New York or anywhere else for that matter.

It would not change the overall weight of the earth either due to the fact that it would just turn from solid to liquid and still be contained within the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore it would not change the rotation of the Earth.

How it would change the oceans chemically...I don't know. Adding that much fresh water to the oceans may impact them in someway...I'm not sure. I'm not even sure how much of the ice cap and glaciers is fresh waters vs. how much is salt water. I know there has been fresh water raining on the oceans for atleast 7,000+ years and here hasn't been any problems. (Please note the "+" if you don't agree with the teachings of the Bible). Well atleast since the days of Noah

Will we run out of fossil fuels? Well...we could. I work in the oil refining industry and there are plants that do NOT produce anymore and we've only been refining fossil fuels for about one hundred years. So yeah, we could run out. But we will make something else that can internally combust in your engines. Don't worry. :)

Just my thoughts and opinions.

d.word
04-25-2007, 11:02 AM
So there is no land under the ice in Antarctica?? I thought it was a continent and therefore had land under neath. I also believe that there is land under glaciers...at least the glaciers I have been on.....

martin
04-25-2007, 01:15 PM
the ice melt that can occurs is made up of ice that floats on the water as well as ice on land

the north pole is floating ice - which is now melting every year only to refreeze in the winter - at times this ice cap remains solid


antartica and greenland are both sites of land based ice - this ice upon melting and entering the oceans will have some effect on the ocean chemistry - could potentially cool the oceans - as well as raise them - this rising is due to the fact that land based ice is not already displacing the ocean as floating ice does

my best experience of watching the demise of the glaciers has been up in Glacier National Park - just within the year i was there as well as looking at photos of the recent past - the glaciers are quickly withering away

some of the most important glaciers that we don't usually even think about are those that through there slow melt release fresh water for the billions of people residing below the great mountains of the world -

i believe the worst of this "global warming" idea are the harmful impacts that can endanger freshwater supplies and damage food production as well as increase the potential of high powered storms unleashed on the 3rd world

jeremy
04-25-2007, 01:57 PM
So there is no land under the ice in Antarctica?? I thought it was a continent and therefore had land under neath. I also believe that there is land under glaciers...at least the glaciers I have been on.....

I'm not speaking of Antarctica.

I've always thought that the glaciers that they are concerned with were floating.

Daniel
04-25-2007, 02:13 PM
Martin,

Could you see that there are potential other causes to this warming? There have been many cycles in temperature in the earth's past. In fact, I was up in Glacier Nat'l Park in 1993 in August and the glaciers were HUGE. In fact, they (at that time) had to re-survey the Going-to-the-Sun-Road after each winter. (Many winters would deposit up to 80' of snow on the road [As told to myself by park rangers on a guided trip.].)

Now think about our weather locally. It has not been anywhere as severe as it was back in the 90's. How much severe weather has there been in the past 2 or 3 springs? Relatively very, very little.

Weather is an average. By definition, there must be pertubations around this average. Personally, I think this is what we are seeing now.

Dick Stout
04-25-2007, 03:00 PM
Jeremy, the ice on Antarctica is relevant to your argument about rising seas, as is the ice on Greenland and northern Canada. While rising seas will be a catastrophic development, an even bigger problem caused by global melting will be the impact on global weather patterns. There is pervasive scientific agreement that global weather is strongly influenced by the existence of ice at both polar ends of the globe. What there is disagreement about is how will the weather change as a result of global melting. No one can predict this accurately, although there is some convincing evidence that the changes will be bad. I don't want to argue this point though, other than to say that I believe that it is definitely a bad idea for humanity to alter the amazing and marvelous climate regulation system that God put in place. No, global warming doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus is coming back tomorrow, but the existing evidence of global warming and the predictions of famine and drought are wholly consistent with biblical stories of suffering and tribulation that befell societies and civilizations that rejected God. The lord commands us to be good stewards of the earth, and humanity will suffer greatly if we do not follow this command.

Daniel, thanks for posting those two articles. I agree that the first on is not on point, (whether a single volcanic eruption emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than do human-caused CO2 emissions). It's also dated. The second article is better, but it doesn't support your argument. In fact, it says that the emissions from volcanoes are sulfer dioxide, not carbon dioxide. The best part of that article is the graph that illustrates the rise in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution, showing that it is humans that are causing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn causes the green house effect that is global warming.

I also don't agree with your assertion that the proponents of global warming are acting out of greed and a desire for profit. If anything, the monied interests are on the other side of the argument. Industries that make profit of the burning of fossil fuels stand to lose everything, that is why they are against doing anything about global warming, it will destroy their industry. They are the greedy ones, because they are making money by destroying the global climate.

Finally, your most recent argument that the variability of the weather is evidence that global warming is not happening is incorrect, as shown by the graph I alluded to above in the 2nd report you posted. Rising CO2 levels (the cause of global warming) is directly correlated to human-caused CO2 emissions. Furthermore, most scientific evidence shows that we live in a region where global climate change will have less of an effect on our regional climate than in other places, at least initially. The costs of global warming will initially be born by disadvantaged individuals in the poorer parts of the globe, such as sub-saharan Africa.

If you want to do some research into the best scientific information available on this topic I suggest you look at the following source.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

iceman
04-25-2007, 04:47 PM
I'm concerned but not suprised with the above mentioned input. Global warning? Brandon you are just stirring up shit again. You dont know anything about it so why the concern.

The fact is right in your face. Look at the lay of the land. Anywhere. Do you really believe you are the cause of this new problem. I know I'm not. Only commies want to control what we think, say and do.

Take a couple coarses of higher learning before you begin believing what you saw on the idotbox. Global Warming is a buzz word for the commy left propaganda machine. Please dont fall into there merciless trap.

Over & Out

Daniel
04-25-2007, 04:53 PM
I also don't agree with your assertion that the proponents of global warming are acting out of greed and a desire for profit. If anything, the monied interests are on the other side of the argument. Industries that make profit of the burning of fossil fuels stand to lose everything, that is why they are against doing anything about global warming, it will destroy their industry. They are the greedy ones, because they are making money by destroying the global climate.

Finally, your most recent argument that the variability of the weather is evidence that global warming is not happening is incorrect, as shown by the graph I alluded to above in the 2nd report you posted. Rising CO2 levels (the cause of global warming) is directly correlated to human-caused CO2 emissions. Furthermore, most scientific evidence shows that we live in a region where global climate change will have less of an effect on our regional climate than in other places, at least initially. The costs of global warming will initially be born by disadvantaged individuals in the poorer parts of the globe, such as sub-saharan Africa.

Dick,

I did not assert that the proponents of GW are in it for greed or money. What I truly believe is that it is a purely political agenda. George Soros (of Moveon.org fame) is one of the financial backers of this movement. Tell me that he is not political. Now on the other hand I do agree that there is abundant greed on the corporate side of things. This I do not dispute. However, like I said, if you follow the money that backs the GW movement, then I believe you will find a political agenda behind this entire "debate."

To the contrary, Dick, the variability of the weather has little correlation to GW. If there is a direct correlation between GW and, say, major hurricanes, then why was 2006 one of the calmest years on record? Why was it so much less than 2005? Wasn't 2006 claimed to be one of the (or the) hottest year on record? Hmm...

If Sub-sarahan Africa will bear the initial brunt of GW, then why was everyone screaming about Katrina, Ivan, etc, in 2005 being caused by GW? Why is ANY severe weather outbreak here talked about in terms of GW? It follows from your argument that it shouldn't...

How do you explain any historical trends that correlate directly to solar sunspot cycles?

Check this link out for a better argument on the subject...

http://www.sosforests.com/?p=457

captain plastic
04-25-2007, 05:04 PM
Anyone play disc golf today?

Interesting reading here. Reducing emissions would be nice.

iroquoisman24
04-25-2007, 06:13 PM
No i'm not stirring up shit, just concerned for my great grand kids.
I understand that you can't beleive everything on the tv but scientists are
pretty beleivable people. I heard alot of disturbing things that got my attention, I didn't want a huge debate just interested in others opinions.

jeremy
04-25-2007, 07:14 PM
I think it's good, clean discussion. Let's keep the language PG please. There are kids that get on the board.

Daniel
04-25-2007, 07:54 PM
The main thing that disturbs me the most is that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the premise of man-made GW, but they are shouted down as "disbelievers." Anytime that happens, science cannot be fully fleshed out.

Where the #@#% is every one for leagues? There were three (3) of us out there tonight. Kinda pathetic.

iceman
04-25-2007, 09:40 PM
I was there at 6pm sharp. I was told that a few earlybirds had to get going so that was that. A couple of us were there 5 minutes after to play. But as you may now have learned, traffic goes at its own pace. Sorry to have missed the meaningful teeoff time. I'll try to do better next time.

Anyway, I am now a LDGC member. Have been for years. But now its bonified. The prez was there keeping cadiance.

As far as the the Global Warming issue, "Us as free people can let the elitetists seize control of our daily comming and goings, or we can resist. This Global Warming "farst" is their current ploy to devide and conquer us free peoples of the world. As for me, "I'll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers". Until then the hell with'em. And may they be rundown by a SUV.

04-26-2007, 11:14 AM
:shock: :?: :?: :cry: :cry:

captain plastic
04-26-2007, 01:45 PM
:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

This is not our first rodeo. We as humans have been ravaging our mother forever. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
It is only human to think we don't have a part in this. I only wish my brain worked that way, then I wouldn't have to worry much.

Enjoy your time on earth. Cars pollute, pesticides kill more than just bugs, meat is slowing giving lots of us cancer, Dow Chemical makes A LOT OF MONEY, and I still miss 20 footers. WTF is going on!!!!!

Larry
04-26-2007, 05:55 PM
Good post Sam. Thats it in a nutshell. Anyone seen "The Day After Tomorrow"? Good flick, with what I feel are real concequences. Yeah, it's Hollywood, but you could find lots of reasoning in the script.

Airborne
04-26-2007, 06:33 PM
You might want to check and see how much science is in that film. It's pure fiction ment to sell tickets and help push a political agenda. Look past the hype and check on the true science and make up your own mind.

Daniel
04-26-2007, 08:22 PM
The same people that wrote that movie (Whitley Streiber and Art Bell) were the same ones predicting the horrific hurricane season of 2006 that was, well, a flop. And this prediction was based on their "science"...

(Yes, when I can't sleep at night, I do listen to Art Bell's program and have heard these two discuss this very subject.)

captain plastic
04-27-2007, 01:53 AM
What about 2005 hurricane season?

That one hurt.

Daniel
04-27-2007, 07:01 AM
The 1933 one hurt even worse... :shock:

The point is the predictions using their "science" were completely wrong.

martin
04-27-2007, 08:54 AM
out of curiousity what is hurt even worse?

there were more storms named in 05 vs 33 - but this was probably due to a lack of sophisticated satillite coverage -

got some of this info from that wikipedia site

fatalities

1933 - 632+
2005 - 2280

cost

1933 - 85.4 million (33 USD) - 1.3 billion (06 USD)
2005 - 128 billion (05 USD) - 132.6 billion (06 USD)

1933 - 21 storms - 10 hurricanes - 5 catagory 3+
2005 - 28 storms - 15 hurricanes - 7 catagory 3+

1933 - total of seven storms forming during the month of August alone. This record was later tied by the 1995 season and ultimately broken by the 2004 season with its eight August storms

whatever the case hurricanes and tropical storms grow in strength as they cross over warmer waters - (a factor in the strengthening of Katrina) - and for anyone who has ever been in the gulf during the summer that water is like a hot tub -

the oceans are warming - perhaps due natural global climate flux - but quite possibly also due to human influence

martin
04-27-2007, 09:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

check out this link - i'm not going to vouch entirely for it so you all are on your own on this one -

but check out that graphs along the right side-

CO2 increase since industrial revolution

global surface temps anomaly's since 1850

to name a few

these posts have been great - i love to hear opposing views - this is one of those issues that most folks tend to be on one end of the fence or the other on - so keep it up

Daniel
04-27-2007, 09:10 AM
Wikipedia is NOT peer reviewed and is not a reliable source of information... :o

Daniel
04-27-2007, 09:16 AM
When I said "1933 hurt worse" I was referring to Sammy's statement that 2005's hurricane season "hurt."

The average gulf water temp in 2005 was much higher (I think 1-2 degrees F) than in 2006. That in itself could explain the "blip" that was the 2005 hurricane season. If this was due to GW, then one would expect to see a steady increase in water temps between 2003-2006, correct? That wasn't the case...

jeremy
04-27-2007, 11:36 AM
I think terrorist sent the hurricaines in 2005. :lol:

Daniel
04-27-2007, 11:37 AM
I thought it was President Bush?? Maybe he's a terrorist? :lol: :lol: :lol:

jeremy
04-27-2007, 11:40 AM
No...I'm pretty sure George W blamed it on terrorist. Or maybe Saudi Arabia. :lol:

iceman
04-27-2007, 03:40 PM
It was that commy faction "Green Peace" and their leader Al Gore and his cronies.

captain plastic
04-27-2007, 04:13 PM
communist faction "green peace"
Are you nuts?

Why is it that all the old folks are against cleaning up the atmosphere?
We are younger and want clean air.
To the older generation "wake up." You have had your whole life up until now to not care. Caring is not going to be an option if you continue this behavior. Government will be forced to step in. Like they already have in some cities. Not recycling is a crime in some urban areas.

Remember folks re-use in before recycle.

Communist faction "green peace" I am still chuckling about that one.

captain plastic
04-27-2007, 04:14 PM
Re-use is before recycle. I should proof my own stuff!
Happy discing

Airborne
04-27-2007, 06:11 PM
All the "old folks" I know are all for clean air and a clean environment. But, we are also old enough to know when we are being scammed. If you honestly look at the science, there is very little scientific facts to back up man's influence on the Earth's climate. The US does more to clean up after itself than any other country out there, especially China, India or Pakistan. I for one am tired of everybody trying to condemn the US for our lifestyle when we have done more to help other countries help themselves than anybody. If Ol Honest Al Gore really believed in what he is preaching he would do more to tone his own lifestyle down instead of creating his own huge "carbon footprint" in Tenn.

captain plastic
04-27-2007, 06:52 PM
I agree that there is wisdom you have that I will not for many moons.
I don't buy your argument that Al Gore is a bad person. He is waking people up to the powers of respecting mother earth.

martin
04-27-2007, 09:40 PM
i just read an article the other day talking about at gore had redone his 200 year old home and fixed it up so it is running purely on alternative energies -

i find it hard to believe there is no scientific evidence that human impact has had little to do with climate changes -

true the US has done much to help clean up the world - but isn't interesting how far behind we already are

the US is losing the automobile wars - the US for some reason _money most likely_will not sign kyoto, as the rest of the world does - the US pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere then anyone else and we surely have a much smaller population then much of the world -

beyond global warming consider the impacts that humans have had upon the planet - we have caused disasterous droughts, our sheer presence has led to the growing number of extinct species - plant and animal - we have depleted the oceans, we have poisoned the oceans - which have led to the destruction of the coral reefs and could possibly be the cause of deadly red tides - we have mined the earth only to release toxic elements into our rivers - we have done so many detrimental things - yet there is hope

unlike many other species on our planet we can recognize when we are causing harm - this realization is only truly coming to shape our lives over the past 50 years - in many ways our country is much cleaner then is was a 100 years ago - but now we have new polluntants and these polluntants are in greater number as our species continues to thrive

we need not bitch and complain what other countries do - if the US is to prove itself as a leader in world - the american public does need to make some compromises and changes - its not that we live our lives poorly its just that we may have better alternatives

just a question whats this with being scammed? do you think that whatever we do on our planet that our impact is so minimal that it can't affect the world - a scam - this thinking is why folks will just sit around until its too late - do i know whats too late, no i have no idea - but why can't we be proactive for a change

04-27-2007, 10:05 PM
ok i can resist no longer! in order to be scammed, the party doing the scamming has to get something out of it. what are they getting out of it but a better environment for our children! doesnt sound so bad to me! the older gen. doesnt have any thing to lose, they wont be here to witness what theve done, i think that its foolish to think that all the toxins we produce, the tons of garbage, and the chemicals we use to clean our bathrooms, and style our hair, arnt bad for the environment. its our use every thing till its gone, single serving, worry bout it later way of thinking that has, and will continue to change our planet for the worst. but im sure those of you that think nothing is happening, will pile on to there Noah's ARK space ship and move, leaving us to clean up. if you do leave, please take ED the Iceman with you! cause he's liable to live for ever just to piss us off! :wink:

Airborne
04-27-2007, 10:30 PM
Go to Truth or Fiction .com and look under politicians. Check out a post on comparisons of Gores house and Bush's house, you might find it interesting. Also, who do you think owns part of the company that sells "carbon credits " to people to make them feel better about all the energy they use while telling others they need to cut back on their use. Bush was right not to sign Kyoto Treaty, it would drag our economy down to the cellar. You believe what you want to, but I still say Gore is a faker and a two-faced jerk, just like Clinton; both of them.

Airborne
04-27-2007, 10:30 PM
Go to Truth or Fiction .com and look under politicians. Check out a post on comparisons of Gores house and Bush's house, you might find it interesting. Also, who do you think owns part of the company that sells "carbon credits " to people to make them feel better about all the energy they use while telling others they need to cut back on their use. Bush was right not to sign Kyoto Treaty, it would drag our economy down to the cellar. You believe what you want to, but I still say Gore is a faker and a two-faced jerk, just like Clinton; both of them.

Airborne
04-27-2007, 10:30 PM
Go to Truth or Fiction .com and look under politicians. Check out a post on comparisons of Gores house and Bush's house, you might find it interesting. Also, who do you think owns part of the company that sells "carbon credits " to people to make them feel better about all the energy they use while telling others they need to cut back on their use. Bush was right not to sign Kyoto Treaty, it would drag our economy down to the cellar. You believe what you want to, but I still say Gore is a faker and a two-faced jerk, just like Clinton; both of them.

martin
04-27-2007, 11:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/gore.h ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/gore.home.improvement.ap/index.html)

here is the link about the story i mentioned earlier - my apologies his house is not 200 yrs old but a mere 70

read the article or truthorfiction - interesting had no idea - wonder if the article should be updated though?

-just to set anything straight i'm not trying to defend gore or any politicians - they have to prove themselves on their own

iceman
04-28-2007, 01:05 AM
love you man; me, keith richards, and the cockroachs will be having a good old party when the rest of ya young gassers pass out from too much somg and other intoxicates which ya cant handle..

also, green peace aint nothing but a face for the disinfranchanised commies running around the world trying to stick there beaks into anyone elses businesses.

GO CARDS

Drive Long and Prosper

ed-dro "Over & Out"

Daniel
04-30-2007, 12:25 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)

Here's an interesting article about global warming on Mars. What a coincidence, considering that both planets have been experiencing SIMILAR warming trends over the past 30 or so years...hmm... The one scientist proposes dust in the atmosphere causes warming? BS. On earth, dust (ie/ from volcanoes) causes cooling! Physics do not change from one planet to the next! :o

Also, if you want to make this into a "party" thing, why did Clinton not sign Kyoto? It was first signed in the 90's as I recall. I may be wrong, but maybe not.

Those pushing man-made GW have a lot to gain from it--it's called POWER in the form of governmental regulations, etc.

Daniel
05-07-2007, 07:54 AM
Here's another interesting article concerning the "Father of Climatology" and his views on GW, etc...

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Brian
05-17-2007, 02:42 AM
Global warming or not, the impact or footprints we leave on this earth cant always be erased. Anyone ever notice why its usually hotter in urban areas than rural areas, for some reason I have to point to the artificial "atmosphere" that carbon emissions create. I doubt its just from all the people around.

I can see we are leaving this world worse off than we got it. I cant think of a single waterway that doesnt have a fish consumption advisory on it. Im not concerned only about GW but also factory and farm runoff, unnecessary chemicals in our food and the waste that is our automotive industry. Not to mention the unnecessary particulate matter we breathe everyday from coal plants and factories that arent as clean as they could be. There are enough alternative energy options out there our reliance on foreign oil should be greatly reduced.

As far as using North America for the basis of climate change seems a little ridiculous. Its called Global Warming not North American warming. From memory I seem to remember North America having the most violent and changing weather on the planet. Global warming Im not convinced yet, but we could be a cleaner more resourceful people for sure.

Daniel
05-17-2007, 07:40 AM
Amen, Brian!

However, the I think the reason cities tend to be warmer than surrounding areas may be the asphalt & concrete that tends to heat up very quickly...

We have enough oil here in the US to supply us for the next century or two (shale oil in CO + Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), but the politicians and environmentalists will not allow access to it. Thus, they continue our dependence on foreign oil. Even by accessing the shale oil, that 30 year supply would allow us time to develop alternative sources.

captain plastic
05-17-2007, 08:42 AM
I can't believe this thread is still kicking.

Daniel
05-17-2007, 12:56 PM
Why not? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Airborne
05-17-2007, 09:50 PM
According to the UN's own studies, methane gas from cows contribute more to so-called global warming than all cars combined. I think it's funny that they can't tell me for sure what the weather will be a week from now, but they try to tell me what is going to happen 10 or 20 yrs from now. Give me a break!

05-17-2007, 11:53 PM
had a friend who did a paper in school about factory farming and the methane gas that chicken farms produce is crazy!! but they taste sooooo gooooood!! :lol: :cry: :lol: :cry: :lol: :cry:

Brian
05-18-2007, 01:45 AM
Your right about the asphalt and roofing probably being the biggest factor in the "urban heat islands". I still think that extra layer of crap has some impact too, could be wrong though. Kind of like how low clouds in the winter help trap heat but on clear nights the temp drops.

The last people Im going to look to for truth about anything is politicians, whether that be Gore, Bush Sr. or Jr, or Clinton, might as well ask Paris Hilton what she thinks while Im at it. They are all two faced, they tell you what you want to hear to get elected, then pay off the lobbyists who bribed them when in office.

Daniel
06-20-2007, 08:31 PM
Here is yet another good and very articulate article contrary to GW...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

pop
06-29-2007, 02:26 AM
I read that global warming would start the Arctic (northern) polar ice cap to melt which would cause more fresh water in the Arctic and north Atlantic oceans, which would in turn cause the gulf stream to stop working. This would then cause a huge cold snap (ice age) in the eastern Americas.

I have read in other places that we are ending a period of calm and regular weather. The last 200 years was predictable.

Take your pick.

Me - I act locally and pick up the trash that people leave on the course and move on.

07-25-2007, 08:54 AM
http://liveearth.msn.com/le/photos/top1 ... ?GT1=10227 (http://liveearth.msn.com/le/photos/top15religious?GT1=10227)
this was one of the stories on msn this morning. also i wanted to see this thread break a record for replies. :D

TIM ROSE
11-05-2007, 03:10 AM
I do believe that we should take care of what we have--what I'm in disbelief of is the fact that any "warming" is caused by humans. Look back historically (and pre-) and see how the sun's cycles (~11 years) coincide with warming and cooling. It's almost perfect how they intersect. Seems more than just a coincidence...

Also, follow the money in the global warming movement and you'll be surprised where it leads...

If the graph you looked at was anything like the one in the great global warming swindle it was more than likely an outdated graph.The one in the great global warming swindle only shows you to around 1975, coincidently when the tempatures started soaring. Here is a link that shows you a graph showing the relationship between solar radiance and tempature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

As you can see there was a strong link between solar radiance and tempature HISTORICALY, but right now PRESENTLY in the last 3 decades something else is causing the warming. No one is denying there is a link between the sun and climate. Do you think scientist do not measure it , and factor it in there climate models?. Lets look at the facts. 1. green house gases trap in heat. Does anyone disagree with this fact? 2.We know from the artic ice samples that there is a strong correlation between Co2 and temapature. 3. CO2 levels have risen from around 278 at pre indusrtial times to 380 ppm today reaching a level which is 27% higher then anything since anything in the last 650 thousand years! 4. The tempature has sky rocketed the last 3 decades,and solar radiance is not the cause. 5. The extra co2 is man made. How do we know? By measuing the ratio of 2 different isotopes of carbon( C12,and C13). Starting around 1850 (when the industrial revalution began) the atmospheric ratio of 13C to 12C started dropping, This is very telling because fossil fuels happen to have a lower 13C to 12C ratio then the atmosphere.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81



As for following the money i would suggest you quit looking at this as a political thing but as a scientic thing. Follow the science.


I didn't say that humans have not impacted the earth...What I said was that humans couldn't possibly have caused any warming the earth is experiencing. Any major volcano eruption (say, Mt Pinnatubo in ~1990) put more CO2 and SO2 (acid rain) in the atmosphere in one eruption than what man has done since civilization! That is a proven fact! So, how much impact does an SUV really have on "greenhouse gases?"

If that was true do you think scientist would be blaming man made emissions?Volcanoes emit 1 percent of what humans do annually.
70,000 years ago a volcanoe called Toba erupted pumping out 10,000 times as much Co2 as Mt. ST. Helens. At its peak it was producing 1/3 of human daily emissions,a long way from more CO2 then humans have ever since beggining of civilization.

http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=229


I was originally taught this in High School by my environmentalist chemistry teacher back in 1991, so finding the original author is, well, going to be pretty tough to do. I actually think she may have shown us a NOVA special on it...hmm...


Our you basing your argument on something you think you heard 16 years ago? Volcanoes have had huge effects on the climate in the past. For example 250 million years ago at a place called the Siberian traps there was what is called a flood basalt eruption. This eruption spread basaltic lava over an area the size of Europe with a depth of between 400-3000 meters. Over the course of 100,000's of years it definately put out more C02 then humans. Luckily these eruptions are quite rare with only 8 happening in the last 250 million years. I think one of these events might of been what you learned about in school. Only relavance these events have to do with GW today is what happens when large amounts of Co2 enters the atmosphere, and trust me it isn't good. If we reach 1000 PPM of CO2 the ocean could potentially become anoxic(low in oxygen).Warm water doesn't hold as much air in it. These microbes that thrive in the anoxic water produce Hydrogen Sulfide which is toxic. Eventually it can escape into the air and even kill land animals. The dinasaurs might have been killed off in such a event.I seriously doubt we will let GW ever get that out of hand for its not projected to reach 1000 PPM until end of next century, but still we should act now. Just because GW probaly won't ever reach such apocalypic levels doesn't mean we won't have any severe consequences.


http://climatechangenews.blogspot.com/2 ... -deep.html (http://climatechangenews.blogspot.com/2006/10/impact-from-deep.html)



Google search "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Google video and it will explain the distorted "facts" that idiot Al Gore is trying to pass off on those not willing to seek the real truth on their own. Termites put more Methane gas in the atmosphere than Man. Get a grip!


The Great Global Warming Swindle is nothing but BS. Heres a link telling you how they distorted there graph.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

Read about Carl Wunsch who is pursuing legal action because he claims he was misrepresented in the film.He is quoted as saying the film is " grossly distorted", and "as close to pure propaganda since anything since world war 2." How about Professor Smagorinsky who was explaining some of the inadequacies of the the climate models. It sounds fairly convincing if you didn't know that was him speaking in the 1980s! The new climate models have come a long way since. Here is some good rebuttals to the film.

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

http://oneutah.org/2007/03/12/global-wa ... -debunked/ (http://oneutah.org/2007/03/12/global-warming-swindle-debunked/)


Read up about the films director Martin Durkin. I don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone affilliated with the revolutionary communist party ,and the living marxism, do you? There goes Ed's Communist theory.

http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_great_martin_durkin_swindle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur ... n_director (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director))


Here is a link telling you about the false credentials of one of the so called scientist in the movie.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-ad-h ... ad-nauseum (http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-ad-hominems-ad-nauseum)


As for Al Gore if the election wasn't stolen from him we would not be in this mess in Iraq. You should not believe something just because Al Gore said it, but you should not discount it either just because Gore said it. To discount GW just because of political reasons or beliefs would be arrogant, and close minded.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... text_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm)


Actually, humans are responsible for about two-thirds of methane emmissions. Anyway Methane is not that significant of a factor in GW as compared to CO2.It is true that it is a stronger Green house gas then CO2 , but its atmospheric concentrations are to small to have as much of a effect as compared to CO2. Its the CO2 we need to worry about.


Here's what gets me. The polar ice cap and the glaciers are floating. Therefore they already displace the amount of water that they would add to the oceans if they melted. If the ice is floating, it will displace an amount of water that equals the weight of the ice. Once melted, it will NOT cause the level to change. The level will REMAIN the same. So...the melting of glaciers and ice caps would not cause floods in New York or anywhere else for that matter.


First off 60% of sea rise this century is expected to come from thermal expansion of water the other 40% from the glaciers on the land. Water expands as it gets warmer just like mercury does but on a lot smaller scale. second snow , and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. If the polar ice caps melt all that sunlight will be absorbed by the ocean thus increasing sea levels by thermal expansion. IT will also increase the rate of global warming, and devastate the local ecosystem especially since it would warm at a accelerated rate from all the extra sunlight absorbed.



It would not change the overall weight of the earth either due to the fact that it would just turn from solid to liquid and still be contained within the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore it would not change the rotation of the Earth.

IT does not have anything to do with the weight of the Earth.There are many ways in which global warming could alter the Earths rotation.For example it could cause the oceans to expand slightly away from the equator, and toward the poles. If that happens more of the weight of the Earth would be pulled in closer to the Earths axis of rotation therefore because of conservation of angular momentum the Earth would rotate slightly faster. Melting glaciers would work opposite of this effect though. Also while the angular momentum of the Earth as a whole must be conserved the angular momentum of the individual parts may change. For example if the atmosphere speeds up meaning stronger winds blowing to the East then the solid part of Earth's rotation would slightly slow,and vice versa.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=E4337790-E7F2-99DF-3D1E8E32CEBF832A&chanID=sa007

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... eline.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070419_earth_timeline.html)



How it would change the oceans chemically...I don't know. Adding that much fresh water to the oceans may impact them in someway...I'm not sure. I'm not even sure how much of the ice cap and glaciers is fresh waters vs. how much is salt water?

It,s not the extra fresh water, but all of the extra Co2 the ocean is absorbing. CO2 combines with water to form carbonic acid which then gives off hydrogen ions which leads to a change in the oceans pH. This change in the pH can wreck havoc on some sea life.



Go to wikipedia and type in global cooling. In the 70's, scientists were convinced that we (the earth) would one day experience another ice age because the earth's temperature had been dropping for like 30 years straight.

Scientist were never convinced the Earth was cooling. People who make this claim are usually referring to one single study that was done that predicted IF we increased aerosol production 6 to 8 times the then current level that it may have a cooling effect on the climate.That study also strongly underestimated the effect of CO2 which we now know will easily win the tug of war battle against aerosols expecially since we have lowered or aerosol emmissions since and upped or CO2 emmissions. Unlike global warming which has a overwheming scientific consensus that particular study never had wide spread scientific support. All of the hype came from the media, and the study did not predict anything being nothing more then a hypothetical scenario.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)



Here's an interesting article about global warming on Mars. What a coincidence, considering that both planets have been experiencing SIMILAR warming trends over the past 30 or so years...hmm... The one scientist proposes dust in the atmosphere causes warming? BS. On earth, dust (ie/ from volcanoes) causes cooling! Physics do not change from one planet to the next!

This is just like the graph from the great global warming swindle.The odds are at least one other planet would be in a warming phase for some reason, this proves nothing. How about the information the people who say this leave out? For example how about all the rest of the planets? How about the moon?How about Uranus it is cooling? Why would a scientist risk his job and reputation to make up BS? As for the dust it is a little more complicated then that. Volcanoes send dust high in the atmosphere, but dust storms would probaly keep the dust more concentrated near the surface.This could be a possible difference for example did you know that CO2 in the stratosphere while increasing stratosphere tempatures decreases the tempature in the atmosphere? Next is this dust on Mars composed of the same stuff as volcanic dust? The point is there is alot of variables that could make a difference, and the physics do not have to change. Look at moisture here at Earth does it always come down as rain? No it can create fog, snow, hail it can make clouds all without physics changing.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-mars.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm)



The main thing that disturbs me the most is that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the premise of man-made GW, but they are shouted down as "disbelievers." Anytime that happens, science cannot be fully fleshed out.

Actually there isn't many scientist who disagree, the one's that do are usually highered by political organizations, and coporations specifically Exxon Mobil to try to misrepresent data ,and build the illusion that there is not a strong scientific census. On the other hand the
IPCC with 200 delegates coming from over 100 countries that agreed unanamously that GW was caused by man made emissions. Read about Exxon's Global Climate Science Communications Action plan that promised "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom for average citizens, and the media." There idea was to train new scientist who lacked visibility in the climate debate to portray supporters of cutting emisssions as "out of touch with reality." They hired Steven Milloy who headed a organization that was created by Philip Morris to spread disinformation about the health effects of smoking. There is a strong scientific consensus that global warming is man made despite what you say. The main thing that disturbs me that is there is a misinformation campaign going on,and people are falling for it. Anytime that happens informed public debate cannot ensue.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/enti ... nstitute_1 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=george_c._marshall_institute_1)


http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcris ... tanks.html (http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcrisis/greenhouse/tanks.html)


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_releas ... bacco.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/cont ... ScienceTea (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=GlobalClimateScienceTeam&scale=0#GlobalClimateScienceTea)

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipi ... ientID=137 (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=137)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... nt_reports (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=global_warming_tmln&global_warming_tmln_politicization-detailed=global_warming_tmln_government_reports)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 3742.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3143742.shtml)

http://www.enviromentaldefense.org/docu ... eptics.pdf (http://www.enviromentaldefense.org/documents3943_paidskeptics.pdf)

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/cata ... posed.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed.html)



The average gulf water temp in 2005 was much higher (I think 1-2 degrees F) than in 2006. That in itself could explain the "blip" that was the 2005 hurricane season. If this was due to GW, then one would expect to see a steady increase in water temps between 2003-2006, correct? That wasn't the case...


Have you ever heard of El nino? Anyway we are talking about GLOBAL warming. The GLOBAL average sea tempatures did increase 2003-2006. This discussion isn't about weather which is unpredictable, and changes year to year. This discussion is about GLOBAL CLIMATE. GLOBAL CLIMATE is consistent, and does not change unless some driving force such as CO2 increased solar radiance or volcanic dust alters it. In this case it is CO2.


I think it's funny that they can't tell me for sure what the weather will be a week from now, but they try to tell me what is going to happen 10 or 20 yrs from now. Give me a break!

Tell me which is easier predicting the average global tempature tommorrow or the local tempature? How about predicting the tempature a week from now locally versus the average tempature over the next year locally? Predicting weather is like flipping a coin 6 times, and guessing how many times it comes up heads. Climate is like flipping a coin a billion times.



Mother nature is much more powerful than any group of humans put together. Period. Anything else is simply egotistical.


Is it not egotistical to think you Know more then all of the scientist?


Also--why in the good Lord's name would anyone believe anything scientific backed by a politician? ANY politician? Or, for that matter, Hollywood types? What do either know about science? NOTHING.


Its not about what politicians say, but what the scientist say. My side has science on it, and doesn't need Gore in order to be right. The argument from your side comes only from corporations, and politicians. So why do you believe what they say?


Those pushing man-made GW have a lot to gain from it--it's called POWER in the form of governmental regulations, etc.


Are you suggesting that scientist around the whole world are behind a world wide conspiarcay to control CO2 emissions just for the hell of it? What is there to gain from that, and why would scientist participate? I think the REAL conspiracy comes from the likes of Exxon who are trying to undermine the science behind the global warming?


Second, global warming (GW) is simply a THEORY.


You are misusing theory for example many people claim evolution is just a theory. They are wrong however Evolution is a fact. Just look at these antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolutionary theory is the theory explaing the fact of evolution. Another example is gravity. We have gravitational theorys that explain the fact of gravity but no one denies gravity by saying gravity is just a theory. GW is the same way. We have the data that shows the Earth has warmed the last 3 decades so therefore it is a FACT.


Wikipedia is NOT peer reviewed and is not a reliable source of information


Where is your peer reviewed research?Do you know what peer reviewed research is? It means something that comes from a scientific journal. I challenge you to find me some published peer reviewed research from within the last year that refutes GW it should be easy if there are so many scientist who disagree with it. What is your definition of reliable anyway when according to you most scientist are not reliable?

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658(199410)75%3A7%3C1861%3ABGWEAG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1051-0761(199505)5%3A2%3C437%3AFGWATC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k85r2715400870/



The fact is right in your face. Look at the lay of the land. Anywhere. Do you really believe you are the cause of this new problem. I know I'm not. Only commies want to control what we think, say and do.

Take a couple coarses of higher learning before you begin believing what you saw on the idotbox. Global Warming is a buzz word for the commy left propaganda machine. Please dont fall into there merciless trap.



If "only commies want to control what we think, say and do" then what does that make the republicans? Are they not the ones who called people who were wise enough to see through Bush's lies during the run up to the war as unpatriotic,and unamerican.Who is it that is spying on Americans?Who could send you to guantanamo bay without a trial? Who tries to force there religious ideologies on to everyone? Who talks about so called American values as though they have the right to decide what is or is not American?Does decieving people into war not count as controlling what people think? Who tries to block,and downplay government reports that refute there policies? Anyway are you suggesting that all of the scientist world wide are all commies?


You dont know anything about it so why the concern.

No offense intended Ed ,but he seems to know more about it then you. Why don't you use what you learned in your higher courses of learning, and read up on the facts instead of dismissing everything as a commie conspiracy?


The US does more to clean up after itself than any other country out there, especially China, India or Pakistan.


We definitely do better then China environmentally as we should, but I think there is other countries that do better. Personally I think we should be better then just China, India,and Pakistan I think we should be leading the way as #1.



All the "old folks" I know are all for clean air and a clean environment. But, we are also old enough to know when we are being scammed.


Did you "old folks" not get scammed when it came to the Iraq war? Where are the wmd's?


Will we run out of fossil fuels? Well...we could. I work in the oil refining industry and there are plants that do NOT produce anymore and we've only been refining fossil fuels for about one hundred years. So yeah, we could run out. But we will make something else that can internally combust in your engines. Don't worry.


If the government didn't subsidise gas it would probaly help encourage the development of more efficient cars, and potentially new fuel sources. The problem comes if we hit peek oil production before we develop these new technologies. Most peoples cars do not run on alternative energy sources. Another problem is that any other fuel source besides oil would be a energy carrier rather then a fuel source. Hydrogen for example would have to be sourced from water, natural gas or biomass.There would be alot of energy lost in the process.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html


We have enough oil here in the US to supply us for the next century or two (shale oil in CO + Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), but the politicians and environmentalists will not allow access to it. Thus, they continue our dependence on foreign oil. Even by accessing the shale oil, that 30 year supply would allow us time to develop alternative sources.


There is only enough oil in the Alaskan wildlife reserve to last the US 6 months.China's economy is on track to double in 7 years,and at the moment only 3% of chinese have cars,but not for long.The world oil demand is expected to grow 40% in 20 years. If crude oil is anywhere close to peaking do you think we can get enough of this shale oil out fast enough to off set dwindling crude oil supply,and increasing demand. They have also been planning to develop shale oil for 100 years. Nobody has yet to find a economical way to extract the shale oil from the Green River Formation. They are now in the process of experimenting with a new unpoven process that probally won't end up working. The new process is done by heating shale to 700 degrees Fahrenheit for three years, and is very energy inefficient. If it does work they say it would take 20 years to get to its production to only 3 million barrels a day. Today America already uses over 20 million barrels a day.This shale oil also gives off cancer causing carcinogens during the processing of it.Through this process it also gives of 4 times the amount of CO2 as oil. We could do a lot better by doubling the efficiency of cars by building them out of carbon-fiber composites. As for saftey it can absorb 6-12 times as much energy per KG as steel.We could then make these cars four times as efficient as todays cars by making them hybrids, and by making them more aerodynamic.If we started building these today 20 years from now when all of the older cars are off the roads this would be like producing over 10 million barrells of oil a day without any of the negative consequences.At todays oil prices thats worth a billion dollars a day worth of savings. We can save some more by better city planning. More stores closer to home, and better mass transit systems.Oil depletion is a example of not valuing natural capital also known as natural resources. If you catch fish faster then they can repopulate its not going to be good. If you cut down trees faster then they grow its not good. If we lose farmland from global warming, and deplete are oil its not going to be good. We liquidate all of are natural capital, and call it economic gain, but are economy is completely reliant on natural capital. In the past we were able to pump more oil out when we needed it, but soon if we want to continue progress we are going to have to get more out of the oil we use until we can develop alternatives.

http://www.csbj.com/story.cfm?ID=9271


Here is a couple of articles explaing the economical importance of natural capital, and why we should care about the enviroment if we want to keep making strong SUBSTAINABLE LONG LASTING economic gains.

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/sciam-daly5%20copy%201.pdf

http://www.ser.org/content/Naturalcapital.asp


Bush was right not to sign Kyoto Treaty, it would drag our economy down to the cellar.

I don't think Bush has ever been right on anything. During 1977-1985 the US cut oil usage 17% while GDP grew 27%.Dupont recently decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 72% while at the same time increasing production by 30%. So far this has saved them 2 billion dollars in energy savings. It was also estimated that if we sign the Kyoto Treaty that it would only cost us .6percent of GDP which is less then half our annual growth rate. The kicker is that if we don't do anything it would eventually cost us 10% of GDP. You do the math. One major obstacle to better efficiency is that the government heavily subsidises energy. This distortion of the market encouarages waste and inefficiency by artificially lowering the prices of energy.If they stopped these subsidies then measures to prove efficiency would become more competitive,and economical.If there is a economic price to pay for CO2 emissions should companies that emit high amounts of CO2 pay for them are pass the cost on to everyone else? If they don't have to pay the cost then this distorts the market ever further. When it comes to energy its not a free market, but a rigged market. Only if we quit with the subsidies ,and make them pay for the economic cost of there emissions by way of carbon cap and trade can the market manage to find the most efficient solution possible.A carbon tax is also another viable option.Taxes on gas should also be increased to help pay for road maintenance. In Japan where oil is properly taxed they consume half of what we do per capita.This is not the eviroment vs the economy, but the enviroment and economy vs ignorance. The solution to this problem is the same rather you are a enviromentalist,economist, or just concerned with the worlds future,and security. This is one thing we should all agree on.




Good luck with your surgery Daniel.

captain plastic
11-05-2007, 08:11 AM
Holy snikey's Batman!

I didn't read your post. Way too long.

Looks well documented.

11-05-2007, 09:05 AM
Yeah Good Lord!!!!!!!!
If I had an extra two or three hours that would be nice...........
And you all think im long winded!!!!!!


But hey I have yet to post anything on this so here it goes.........

Brian posted something about it isnt called North America Warming its called Global Warming.
Well not entirely true........
I'm pretty sure that all of those Camels in the Middle East aren't the cause, unless of course they just have some really nasty gas. I'm also sure that it isn't the maybe 3000 cars that the entire Middle East owns........
Europe has just about as many cars as us, but they are leaps and bounds ahead of the US as far as eliminating emissions. They started there emissions programs long before we did. In fact most American cities copied there programs. So they aren't contributing to this......
Korea isn't the problem the all ride bikes and rickshaws........
South America isn't causing it they are all to poor to own vehicles.......
They mostly ride Donkeys and such...............
Now take the US for example, just about every American household owns 1 car per person living there. Our greed for status symbols is causing big problems. When there are people out there who own multiple cars and don't even know the first thing about maintaining those vehicles there is where the majority of the problem comes from. People in modern day society think that cars are like Bic Disposable lighters. You just start them till they quit, and than throw them away. If people would spend a little more time maintaining there cars properly this would be a lot less of a problem. Not to mention educate yourself on how to properly maintain your car!!!!!!!! You cant just put gas in it and watch it run. Make sure your tires are properly inflated weekly. Dont run your car on dirty oil for 10,000 miles. Change your air filter, it wasn't designed to go 100,000 miles. Make sure all of your Vacuum lines are properly attached, a small leak can cause serious emissions. Drive 60 instead of 70, 10 mph means twice the gas!!! Find alternate routes to places. Dont just sit at the stop light that keeps you there for 20 minutes when you could have went a different route!!!! Put a bottle of fuel cleaner in your car every 3000 miles. These are all ways to make your car run cleaner and longer!!!!!! If everyone would just add these to your normal routines a lot of the problems would subside.
Now I Drag Race, so in all honesty I contribute as much to the problem as the next guy. On the other hand though it is people like me who Drag Race that is leading the way for new technology to keep emissions down. You can personally thank a drag racer for Turbo's. For those who don't know a turbo is utilizing more air than gas to run your vehicle. It burns cleaner and actually improves gas mileage, plus it adds serious horse power. They are also leading the way for new cleaner burning fuels. The age of bigger is better is just about gone. Not every racer feels the need to have the biggest motor possible. Especially since gas is around $3 per gallon.

Think about this next time you drive and we might all live a little longer!!!!

This is just my 2 cents!!!!!!!!

Daniel
11-05-2007, 09:12 AM
Wait a sec...using Wikipedia, blogs, and USA Today as sources? Um, not very sound...

I'm sorry, but your argument went out the window when you started to say that the '00 election was "stolen" from algore. Exactly how many recounts did you need? If you want to debate GW, then stick to it.

Here's one political question for you--if "Progressives" are so concerned about the environment and CO2 emissions, then why did they and their elected representatives (Democrats) block the creation of any new nuclear energy plants for the past 30 years? The last time I checked, more people were killed by malfunctioning toasters than nuclear plant accidents...

There is a way to look at all of this. These are the same people that claimed in the mid 70's--with the same evidence--that we were going into another ice age. They had the same paranoia about it. It's called chicken little. Ted Danson also famously made a prediction about pollution levels by the late 90's or 2000 that the seas would be dead. Yeah, not the last time I checked. And to top that off, it sounds suspiciously like what one failed presidential candidate said...

You can believe what you want--that's fine by me. Just don't ask me to pay taxes or alter my lifestyle for things that simply aren't happening because of things we do.

Thank you for your thoughts for my surgery.

Daniel
11-05-2007, 09:20 AM
I just saw something in that huge post that made me laugh. Carbon Fiber cars? Are you serious? Do you realize how much that would cost? CF does not bend! It is a VERY fragile material if you hit it perpendicular to the fibers. One small hit, done. It's great for race cars, but passenger cars it just wouldn't work. How would they be insured? Any insurance company would be out of business very, very quickly.

jeremy
11-05-2007, 10:20 AM
Great...now we have more things to argue about...like the age of the earth, evolution....and reliability of Wikipedia.

11-05-2007, 10:34 AM
Funny that you mention that Daniel...........
I laugh my ass off every time I see a Honda Civic riding around with a Carbon Fiber hood and Fenders. Do these idiots know how soft that crap is. Not to mention it does not make your car go faster as most of them would have you believe. Neither do those ignorant wings for that matter, or those stickers! It was designed for the US Military. Yes Race Cars use it simply because it is lighter than sheet metal. However Nascar isn't using a great deal of it because of the impact that those cars are subjected to. Indy and Formula 1 are open wheel racers therefore they don't go slamming each other in the ass 30 times a race. Nor do the bang doors in the turns.
So you are correct in saying that it wouldn't be a smart bet for all the morons on the road. Plus the cost is simply way to much for everyday consumption. Insurance companies would fold after about 10 accidents.
There was a story on 60 Minutes last night about some rich ego maniac named Tom Perkins. He has bought almost as much Carbon Fiber as the US Military. Why? So that he could build the worlds largest Yacht. It has 3, 90 ft tall masts made completely of Carbon Fiber. This boat was just completely ridiculous. Total waste of money in my opinion. Anyhow Carbon Fiber isn't the way to go!!!! Unless you are just a total Gloat and you could care less about all of the people who don't have that kind of money!!!!




Besides why are we discussing this anyway?
Global Warming is not anything new...........
This has happened several times in the Earths history.
It warms and than cools................
Not saying we aren't making things worse with all of our needless waste, just that this has happened before.
Do some research and you will see!!!!!!!!!
It is the Earths natural pattern..................


Id be more worried about all these SUPERBUGS killing us than the Earths climate...........
Stop taking Anti-Biotic's everytime your nose runs............
Quit living in filth, have some pride people!!!!
This is what is going to kill us all!!!!!!!!!

Daniel
11-05-2007, 11:29 AM
Jeremy--I hope you're not serious about the reliability of wikipedia... :shock:

CF is very light and strong--however, only in the direction of the fibers. If you hit any piece perpendicular to those fibers, the strength decreases hugely. Case in point: You know IndyCar's wings? How just the slightest touch can cause them to shatter, yet they can take and generate 3000+ lbs of downforce? That's what I'm talking about. Ask any materials engineer.

jeremy
11-05-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't believe that the earth is millions/billions of years old, I don't believe in evolution (I do believe in adaptation though), and Wikipedia is sometimes helpful but unreliable. I'm still up in the air on GW though. I haven't really formulated an opinion.

And by the way...my farts are very light yet very strong too. :lol:

OneTime
11-05-2007, 12:22 PM
Good Reasoning!

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

This is how I think about it! Seems to be plain old common sense!
Some people say follow the money and you will be surprised what you find, but there is money to be made from both opinions. If you don't believe that money is being made on both sides than you might be thinking too deep into it.

Daniel
11-05-2007, 01:00 PM
Again, if you guys are so concerned about GW, then propose a fund or an "optional tax" or something of the sort and get it started to "defeat" GW. That's great. As long as no impositions or taxes are levied against me, I'm all for it.

11-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Thats whats causing it.......
Its Jeremy's Flatulence........ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I say leave it for our kids to figure out........ :lol: :lol:
Thats what our parents did to us, so we can return the favor...... :lol: :lol:

Seriously though its about 50-50 on this subject........
Guess only time will tell..........

But if you are a Christian and you follow what the Bible says.......
Whats coming isn't Global Warming, its something far worse than that!!!!!!
So draw your own conclusion, either way you cut it there are far more bad days to come!!!!

By the way I hope I didn't offend anyone with the Bible reference :shock:
I know that seems to be a very touchy subject in this day and age(yet one more sign).

SO HERE'S YOUR SIGN :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

TIM ROSE
11-06-2007, 11:51 PM
There is a way to look at all of this. These are the same people that claimed in the mid 70's--with the same evidence--that we were going into another ice age.


Scientist were never convinced the Earth was cooling. People who make this claim are usually referring to one single study that was done that predicted IF we increased aerosol production 6 to 8 times the then current level that it may have a cooling effect on the climate.That study also strongly underestimated the effect of CO2 which we now know will easily win the tug of war battle against aerosols expecially since we have lowered or aerosol emmissions since and upped or CO2 emmissions. Unlike global warming which has a overwheming scientific consensus that particular study never had wide spread scientific support. All of the hype came from the media, and the study did not predict anything being nothing more then a hypothetical scenario.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm



I'm sorry, but your argument went out the window when you started to say that the '00 election was "stolen" from algore. Exactly how many recounts did you need? If you want to debate GW, then stick to it.


Your whole argument went out the window when you claimed that Mt Pinnatubo put out more CO2 then humans have ever. I would take a billion recounts if it would have kept Bush out of office. Anyway you were the one who bought politics in it by saying


I did not assert that the proponents of GW are in it for greed or money. What I truly believe is that it is a purely political agenda. George Soros (of Moveon.org fame) is one of the financial backers of this movement.

Ed was the one that said


Global Warming is a buzz word for the commy left propaganda machine


When Steve called Gore a idiot I was just pointing out that Gore was right about Iraq.



Here's one political question for you--if "Progressives" are so concerned about the environment and CO2 emissions, then why did they and their elected representatives (Democrats) block the creation of any new nuclear energy plants for the past 30 years? The last time I checked, more people were killed by malfunctioning toasters than nuclear plant accidents...



I have no problem with nuclear power plants as long as no government money is given to help build them. As for the democrats I am not really a big fan of most of them either. I only support them because they are not republicans.


I just saw something in that huge post that made me laugh. Carbon Fiber cars? Are you serious? Do you realize how much that would cost? CF does not bend! It is a VERY fragile material if you hit it perpendicular to the fibers. One small hit, done. It's great for race cars, but passenger cars it just wouldn't work. How would they be insured? Any insurance company would be out of business very, very quickly


As for the carbon fiber cars Toyota disagrees with you.

http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshows/14208/toyota-1x-concept.html

If we do not increase efficiency in cars soon oil production probably will not keep up with demand until we can develop alternatives. Do you have any idea what this will do to the economy? It would be more then the insurance companies suffering.



Besides why are we discussing this anyway?
Global Warming is not anything new...........
This has happened several times in the Earths history.
It warms and than cools................
Not saying we aren't making things worse with all of our needless waste, just that this has happened before.
Do some research and you will see!!!!!!!!!
It is the Earths natural pattern..................
Id be more worried about all these SUPERBUGS killing us than the Earths climate

Mass extinctions are also a natural pattern. If thats the way you want to look at it these super bugs are also part of the natural cycle just like the bubonic plague. So why worry?



Again, if you guys are so concerned about GW, then propose a fund or an "optional tax" or something of the sort and get it started to "defeat" GW. That's great. As long as no impositions or taxes are levied against me, I'm all for it.

How would a optional tax stop GW. If there is a cost to pay for your CO2 emissions you should pay for them not everyone else. Don't ask me to pay for your pollution.

TIM ROSE
11-07-2007, 02:26 AM
Here is a study from the journal of environmental geology that says
"Volcanoes are also a major source of carbon dioxide, but their average input to the atmosphere is generally considered minor relative to anthropogenic input"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/

Is this a good enough source for you?

Daniel
11-07-2007, 09:05 AM
Tim,

That is just not right! The climatologists were convinced the next ice age was upon us. Deny it all you want. This GW "science" is the same chicken little-style alarmism. Nothing more.

It was Karakatoa, not Pinnatubo. Also, the studies that are done comparing volcanic emission to anthropogenic emissions are ESTIMATES. Remember--on both sides, scientists are humans and they have agendas. Statistics can be skewed to be used for one's own purposes.

Science with a consensus is not science! Science is debated and very rarely agreed upon. Consensus is for politics.

I wasn't the one that brought politics into this--George Soros was when he started backing the GW movement. This fact you cannot deny.

Gore and Clinton were right about their wanting to invade Iraq in '98? Hmm...sounds similar to the current President...

If you support the government using it's funds to try to "stop GW," then doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical of you to not want governmental funds to build Nuke plants? If you eliminated all coal-fired electric plants and replaced them with Nuke plants, wouldn't this world be a more beautiful place?

People have been crying wolf about running out of oil for years. Has it happened yet? Nope. By the way, who is the mother of invention? Necessity.

The bubonic plague was not a superbug. Superbugs one should be concerned about are VRE, ESBL, and to a lesser extent, MRSA.

Also, don't ask me to pay for your radical, tree-hugging agenda. Thank you.

OneTime
11-07-2007, 02:11 PM
Good Reasoning!

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends

This is how I think about it! Seems to be plain old common sense!
Some people say follow the money and you will be surprised what you find, but there is money to be made from both opinions. If you don't believe that money is being made on both sides than you might be thinking too deep into it.



DID ANYBODY WATCH THIS?

This is not an argument, just merely a way of finding common ground.

Daniel
11-07-2007, 03:30 PM
Actually, I did. I appreciate video. I would much rather take a 'wait and see' approach. Many say we can't afford to, but I just say we can't afford not to. It's more than just an economic impact if we move too quickly. Just my $0.02.

Once I'm back up and at 'em, I really want to see the courses down your way--I've heard a bunch but haven't gotten down there...soon... :D

TIM ROSE
11-08-2007, 12:52 AM
Great video! I am personally 99.9% sure on my position. I understand some people may have some doubts, and some people such as Daniel may not be the most scientifically literate that there is. However, I don't understand how people can place so little value on the scientific community. For the people who are not totally sure, are do not completely understand the science behind it do you not think that the opinions of the scientific community is important enough to warrant action? If the scientist are wrong are economy will recover. If the scientist are right GW could mess with the climate for 100,000's of years. Some of the same same policies to fight GW will also help develop new technology
to help get us off foreign oil. So it also acts as a investment in national security.


That is just not right! ACTUALLY IT IS.



It was Karakatoa, not Pinnatubo. Also, the studies that are done comparing volcanic emission to anthropogenic emissions are ESTIMATES. Remember--on both sides, scientists are humans and they have agendas. Statistics can be skewed to be used for one's own purposes.


That's why it is reviewed before being published. What possible motive does the ENTIRE scientific community have to make this stuff up. If human scientist are so untrustworthy then please enlighten us all about where you get your so called "proved facts" from.


Science with a consensus is not science! Science is debated and very rarely agreed upon. Consensus is for politics.


That's why when there is a consensus it means something. I can't believe you are actually using this as a argument. Seriously, so are you telling me that if less scientist believed in GW you would take it more seriously. Do you think that we should still be arguing over if the Earth is flat or round to?


I wasn't the one that brought politics into this--George Soros was when he started backing the GW movement. This fact you cannot deny.


George Soros, and Al Gore are spreading awareness of GW, and are promoting policies to combat it. What does this have to do with the science of GW? Absolutely nothing thats what. They are totally irrelevant to the science behind GW. Maby if we were disscussing different policies to combat GW then it might have some relevency.


If you support the government using it's funds to try to "stop GW," then doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical of you to not want governmental funds to build Nuke plants? If you eliminated all coal-fired electric plants and replaced them with Nuke plants, wouldn't this world be a more beautiful place?


I didn't say anything about the government using funds to stop GW. A carbon tax or cap and trade system would already benefit nuclear power plants. I just don't want the government playing favorites . What I do want
is a fair playing field, and to let the free market decide.


People have been crying wolf about running out of oil for years. Has it happened yet?

Here is a study by the department of energy

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

The French think so to

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4077802.stm

Chevron even thinks so

http://www.willyoujoinus.com


The bubonic plague was not a superbug

First off , I agree with Russell that anti biotics are over prescribed. Secondly, I never said Bubonic plague was a super bug. I was just stating the fact that there has been untreatable out breaks before. Bubonic plague may not have been anitibiotic resistant like todays super bugs, but that doesn't really matter before antibiotics were discovered. In this regard these super bugs are sort of like taking us back in time before antibiotics.


Also, don't ask me to pay for your radical, tree-hugging agenda. Thank you.


Oh please, are you saying that BP is a tree hugging company to?
I just don't want to pay for your ignorance, and lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts.

Daniel
11-08-2007, 10:24 AM
Yeah, I don't understand scientific concepts at all, except those of physics, chemsitry, and mathematics. (Studied them and have degrees to prove it.)

And you?

Tim, a consensus means that a majority feels that way, not that it is correct. A majority of scientists agreed with Einstein about relativity. But guess what? They were wrong! Scientists wrong? Yep, it can happen, even with GW.

The ENTIRE scientific community does not support GW. There is an ever-increasing number of scientists who dare to speak out and take on the shouters like yourself.

Good try with the earth is flat argument. That's called a straw-man in logic.

Once again, Soros and Gore are promoting GW as a POLITICAL item, not scientific. It it weren't political, why would so many politicians be involved in this? If you can't see that, then you fail to see all angles of this situation.

Obviously now the free market is deciding and people are driving more and more and are using less fuel-efficient vehicles because it is their right in this country to choose to do so. God bless America.

I understand many more scientific, economic, and political concepts than you, as demonstrated by your lack of understanding about the political power grabs that are being made here and around the world in the guise of GW. Also, I wouldn't say that reading the BBC website or other biased sources as education. Education comes from studying facts.

Again, do and believe as you wish--just keep your and the government's hands (in the form of new taxes and regulations for GW) out of my wallet.

Daniel
11-08-2007, 11:32 AM
Here is a presentation to view...it's long, but very informative:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&NR=1
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&NR=1
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

TIM ROSE
11-08-2007, 11:26 PM
Yeah, I don't understand scientific concepts at all, except those of physics, chemsitry, and mathematics. (Studied them and have degrees to prove it.)


Well in that case it mean's either 1. You are knowledgable, but lack sufficient intelligence to make good use of it 2. You are arrogant, close mined, and suffering from a strong confirmation bias, or 3. Paranoid, and delusional about this so called " power grab."


Tim, a consensus means that a majority feels that way, not that it is correct. A majority of scientists agreed with Einstein about relativity. But guess what? They were wrong! Scientists wrong? Yep, it can happen, even with GW.


Do you really want to compare GW to Relativity. Do you think that helps your argument? Einstein's Relativity was a brilliant insight which has been a valuable tool in science, and in helping to understanding this universe. It may not be the whole story , but so what that doesn't mean that there is no truth to be found in it, and that there is nothing to be learned from it. Yes the climate models are not perfect either. Yes there is debate among scientist about the fine details of GW, but almost all scientist do agree GW is happening. The science of climatology will continue to evolve like all other scientific fields, but all we can do is act on the best science we have right now. However the climate models that are being used now have been very accuarate in recreating the climate of the last 100 years. The evidence for GW is sufficient enough to warrant immediate action. Anything else would be wreckless.


The ENTIRE scientific community does not support GW.
Fine just 99.9% of climatologist. Like I said look at who is paying the ones who don't.


Once again, Soros and Gore are promoting GW as a POLITICAL item, not scientific. It it weren't political, why would so many politicians be involved in this?


That's exactly what I said. So why are you using them to try to discredit the SCIENCE of GW. In doing so you are using a straw man argument.
How about that Ted Danson rant you went on? Is that not a straw man argument? I don't remember ever saying anything about Danson.
Refuting Al Gore, Soros are Danson does nothing to disprove GW.


I understand many more scientific, economic, and political concepts than you, as demonstrated by your lack of understanding about the political power grabs that are being made here and around the world in the guise of GW.

Daniel, despite what you believe you don't know everything, and you are not always right. The reason I posted in the first place was because I was tired of your arrogant I know more then everybody attitude. You act like you are so smart while at the same time you make ridiculous claims about Mt. Karakatoa emitting more CO2 then humans ever in one eruption, and you say it is a " proved fact". So please give it a rest.
Anyway, please explain to us all these so called power grabs you have been talking about I for one could use a good laugh.

The Proffesor Bob Carter in that video just happens to be on the payroll of no other then Exxon Mobil. His scientific background has nothing to do with climatology, as his background is really in marine geology. He is also a member of a right-ring think tank the institute of public affairs. He was even offered a 2:1 bet that in 10 years that the tempature would be warmer, but he declined. You were right though sometimes scientist do have a agenda.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs


Again, do and believe as you wish--just keep your and the government's hands (in the form of new taxes and regulations for GW) out of my wallet.


Don't worry Daniel we will be in your wallet very soon.


This debate has started degrading into name calling and insults starting when you called me a radical tree hugger. I am therefore making this my last post before this gets out of hand.

[/b]

Daniel
11-09-2007, 09:19 PM
As I said, Tim, believe what you wish. That's the beauty of America--we are all free to believe what we choose to. I'll be on my side and you will be on yours.

I didn't call you a tree-hugger--I was referring to the position you were taking. Not a shot at you personally.

Sweat
07-20-2009, 05:25 PM
I wonder what ever happend to all that Global warming talk.? I never believed all that AL GORE BULL and thank you GOD for the wonderful COOL weather this summer. Keep on breaking those records. Al Gore give back all that money. :bravo:

Daniel
07-20-2009, 08:25 PM
Amen to that, Sweat. Just goes to show exactly what all this is going for--to line the pockets of people in power and towards a one world government.

Also kinda funny that the congress would invite and then revoke that invitation to someone that would have decimated Algore.

Sunspot
07-22-2009, 12:40 AM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id= (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=)


http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/ ... nsored-epa (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa)


http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

Daniel
07-22-2009, 11:44 AM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=


http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/ ... nsored-epa (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa)


http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

Watch out, Sunspot. You're likely to be villified by pointing out the truth... :roll:

Sweat
07-22-2009, 06:35 PM
It's been quiet on this subject, I expected more input after I posted my quote! Hope I didn't hurt anybody's feeling but the truth does hurt. Never put your trust in scientist they will tell you anything and try to get you to believe it. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather less alone a prediction for years ahead.

Daniel
07-24-2009, 07:09 AM
It's been quiet on this subject, I expected more input after I posted my quote! Hope I didn't hurt anybody's feeling but the truth does hurt. Never put your trust in scientist they will tell you anything and try to get you to believe it. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather less alone a prediction for years ahead.

You can and should believe scientists. The problem comes in when there is politics and money involved with science. That's when things get really screwed up.

The opposition to GW has been slowly growing--once other scientists heard that someone had stood up, others will follow. In the beginning, if you opposed GW, then your career would be destroyed.

If you're interested in hearing a very intelligent presentation on the subject, look up Lord Munkton. He is a British scientist and GW skeptic. VERY informative.

Daniel

Daniel
11-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Looks like someone's been pwned...hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Airborne
11-30-2009, 10:40 PM
With the news out about the exposed emails, I don't see how any thinking person can still believe in their scam. Go to climatedepot.com to read it for yourself. They have been cooking the books for years. Al Gore should be made to give that peace prize back.

chuck
12-01-2009, 02:58 PM
I heard something on the weather channel several months ago (so sorry for not remembering the EXACT details). They were saying that across the US, we had experienced something like 2,400 record highs over the last 10 years. But we had also experienced something like 1,500 record LOWS over the same period. Doesn't sound like an overall warming to me. Just sounds like the weather is just getting more extreme, both ways.

Daniel
12-01-2009, 07:23 PM
I heard something on the weather channel several months ago (so sorry for not remembering the EXACT details). They were saying that across the US, we had experienced something like 2,400 record highs over the last 10 years. But we had also experienced something like 1,500 record LOWS over the same period. Doesn't sound like an overall warming to me. Just sounds like the weather is just getting more extreme, both ways.

Just remember the weather channel is owned by NBC, the ones who turned out the Kleig lights to go "green" for a few minutes on one of their football broadcasts. Posers. :doh: