I already provided the links that show that NOAA and NASA manipulated the data .
|
I already provided the links that show that NOAA and NASA manipulated the data .
They still haven't fully recovered from the Valdez disaster. Been to the gulf lately? What happened to the shrimp industry?
Exactly like the Liberals side of this argument... right?
Is this a debate?, I thought the science was settled?
Let's face it, the environmentalists have always been on the spearpoint of liberal politics, whereelse do the wacho's have to go? but the implementation of change, now there is a whole different debate, personally why do we have to change to industries just as polluting in the manufacturing stages to bring about some mythical change in atmospheric behaviour at great cost to the poor
It's a liberal idea to have companies actually clean up their messes? That's messed up Smoothy.
yes by all means have clean processes and handle waste properly
The canard in the argument is equating C02 as a pollutant . As the links I provided show ,prior to 2000, NASA showed U.S. temperatures cooling since the 1930s, and 1934 much warmer than 1938 .Then, right after 2000, NASA and NOAA manipulated the data ,making the past much colder and the present much warmer. Scalia had the opportunity to roll back this executive power grab . Instead ,by his own admission ,the EPA and the emperor get 83% of the 87% regulatory control of "green house gases " they wanted
What you have is yet another official version of the edited data for Alice Springs. This would be the second version of the "hide the decline" graph that I have seen to date. They are different. Have you the data that was actually altered? The article gives no way of tracing the source of this information.
For all we no the author may have taken a leaf out of the Global Warming Handbook and simply done something like inverted the origin data and called it evidence of hiding the decline.
Man made CO2 as a bi-product of burning fossil fuel IS a pollutant and contains many other pollutants with it. It can kill humans in high concentrations and adversely affects long term, and short term health.
Man made oil spills destroy animals, fish, and birds, and destroy the affected ecosystems for YEARS, and DECADES.
All of this is simple scientific FACTS. You want more? Explain all these sink holes popping up in urban cities. Explain earthquakes around urban populations where they are fracking around fault lines. Dumb greedy humans. What happens to old oil pipelines left buried in the ground?
Go ahead ignore science because you are too busy scheming on the next dollar and selling poison to the rest of the world.
Tom said it right the cunard of CO2 as a pollutant, a lie of gigantic proportions, just as Global Warming was an gigantic lie of Maggie Thatcher. We don't ignore science, Tal, but computer models arn't science, they are pseudo science. Taking readings in heat polluted sites or near volcanos is not science. We have been over this ground, climate change has been happening for eons and there is nothing we can do about it. Stop all CO2 emissions and it will still happen and what will they blame then? High concentrations of CO2 are far beyond atmospheric CO2, so suggesting it is going to kill us is absolute nonsense.
You want to know about sink holes, mining, over population and building in inappropriate sites, failure to supervise building projects
lol Texas has 10,000 injection wells,and some have been in use since the 1930s.But NOW they are causing earthquakes ?
NBC news reports otherwise
Report: No high risk of quakes from 'fracking' - US news - Environment | NBC NewsQuote:
In more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60 of them in the United States. That's compared to a global average of about 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year, said the report, released Friday.Most of those are caused by gas and oil drilling the conventional way, damming rivers, deep injections of wastewater and purposeful flooding.
Only two worldwide instances of shaking — a magnitude 2.8 tremor in Oklahoma and a 2.3 magnitude shaking in England— can be attributed to hydraulic fracturing, a specific method of extracting gas by injection of fluids sometimes called "fracking," the report said. Both were last year.
What you are missing is that horizontal drilling is more effecient and leaves less of a mark on the landscape...not more .
Thank God neither of you runs a darn thing.
I think the Democrat party if they want to be credible... will set an example and reduce their own methane and CO2 emissions to zero first. If that works in a few years... the rest of us will consider other steps.
So now there are republican emissions, and democratic emissions? That's pretty loony even by your standards.
THe fanatic left is pushing this fallicy... Its clear they won't practice what they preach. Like Al Gore... everyone else needs to be living in caves and riding horses, except him.
If they really believe this horse manure... lets see them practice what they preach themselves BEFORE they expect everyone else to do it... and not the other way around
what's loony is thinking you can power a modern economy with windmills and solar panels .
Attachment 46183
CO2 as a pollutant is a marketing ploy and nothing more.
More Evidence CO2 is Not The Problem: Termites Emit Ten Times More CO2 Than HumansQuote:
According to the journal Science, termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
and who do you think is mentally challenged Tal, you seem to be like all the climate change wacho's you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is mentally deficient, however having made a study of the history and arguments I have come to the conclusion there is more deceit than fact being brought forward to justify massive investment in costly renewable projects. In my own country, the massive investment in Solar has succeeded in stopping the building of new base load power stations but has increased electricity costs 100% in the last decade. I ask you, who benefits from such policies? The Chinese manufacturers of solar cells? the poor who pay more for energy?
Al Gore has come out of a long hibernation to stick his beak in where it isn't wanted and guess what he is saying, yes, but not now to an emissions trading scheme, run that by me again, Al Gore is going soft on an ETS
Clive Palmer will help axe carbon tax but courts Al Gore in push for ETS - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
so, of course, it is the old, much vaunted, US line, when everyoneelse does it, but why has this has been, wannabe, poked his nose into our politics, getting a photo op in the great hall of parliament? Did some one sell him a PUP?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 AM. |