 |
That sounds lovely! Have fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I haven't been that far south this year, but I believe that they're not as lucky with rain as we have been. But this video from July 5 this year might be a good indication of how the river is doing!
Looks like it's moving pretty good again, should be a blast. :)
Well, thank goodness anthropogenic global warming is not behind this heat wave.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Carry on.Quote:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
That doesn't mean you can keep polluting the planet. That's like a dog owner telling you the poop in your yard won't hurt anything.
He is right until you step in it.
Hey, shouldn't this be in the "Climate Change " thread? You can't stay in first place like that! Someone may sneak up on you!! :eek::D;)
LOL, really? How many times must I say pollution is a bad thing before you and ex stop putting out that straw man? Oh, and I'm a dog guy, I have 2 beautiful Blue Heelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
We can put it there, too.Quote:
Hey, shouldn't this be in the "Climate Change " thread?
Apparently I can, been there for months with usually about a 10 point lead. :DQuote:
You can't stay in first place like that! Someone may sneak up on you!! :eek::D;)
Nice find, Steve, thanks!
Not buying into this man-made global warming sensation does not necessarily mean that one has a propensity to pollute.
I love the environment and wish to treat it very well, but I have always found Al Gore et al's nonsense to be... well... nonsense.
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by southamerica
Yeah, The Goracle's stuff is nonsense, but it's making him a very wealthy man at least.
Oh horror not another report of an error in the data used in modelling climate effects of CO2. Al Gore will be devistated
Further proof the climate is too complex to be easily modeled | NJ.comQuote:
As I've noted before, there are two debates here:
1: The scientific debate, which is fascinating and will take years to resolve because of the complexity of the question, and
2: The political debate, in which politicians offer up simplistic and poorly thought out approaches, such as cap-and-trade, which is rejected by most economists.
By the way, the funny thing about cap-and-trade is that you can turn the alarmists' arguments back on them. The alarmists love to state that there is a consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming. Well, there's a consensus among economists that cap-and-trade is the wrong way to go about regulating carbon emissions.
The economists agree that, assuming the goal is to reduce carbon emissions for whatever reason, a carbon tax would be a far more efficient means of achieving the same end. And they also agree that if that tax were offset by cuts in the income tax, the effect on the economy would be positive.
Why haven't we seen that idea pushed by the Democrats? Simple. Under such a plan, the Democrats would have to pay their fair share of the cost, just like the Republicans.
The Democrats argue that such a plan would represent a tax break for the rich. It does. But so what? If you're really concerned about the planet, you won't mind charging the middle class and the poor more for their electricity. That's the only practical way to get them to use less.
But that's politics - not science.
As for the science, it is way too early in this debate to base any political action at all on it.
Tom you worry me this idea of a carbon tax is being implemented in Australia under the conditions you suggest. Your politicians might be sensible enough to realise that wealth distribution in the form of taxing corporations to give a tax break to individuals is a stupid idea that will backfire. As present events have demonstrated once you give a tax break you can't take it back. We don't want the poor to use less electricity Tom we want the corporations to use less electricity. This is a mindless debate because it is premissed in a lie. The lie is that man can control weather outcomes by reducing CO2 emissions. So, Tom, as the little red fox and the Australian government spend squillions this week trying to convince a skeptical population that less equals more, keep your eye on this social engineering experiment because there but for the grace of God go you
We in the US are surrounded by this . US airlines are in International Court over EU trying to compel them to comply with EU carbon taxing .
Hey we all have this little problem of the EU pushing airline prices because of the perspective of Carbon Taxes, now in past centuries we would have had a gun boat diplomacy over this issueQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM. |