My methodology is spot on accurate... but then, you are part of the crowd that believes the end justifies the means...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
My methodology is spot on accurate... but then, you are part of the crowd that believes the end justifies the means...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What I don't get is ex can believe in evolution but he can't believe that the Earth can have naturally occurring cycles of heat and cold with a narrow range. Don't you understand what we are are talking about here, 1 degree Celsius, it's not something your body can detect, you need an instrument to know it has happened
The same people think Obama is the smartest man to ever be president... and that he has never done anything wrong.
That's why they don't "get it".
Well I sure some of your early presidents were smarter, but smart doesn't cut it unless all your team are smart too. What BO suffers from is a lack of smart opponents
I'm absolutely certain MOST of them were smarter. And except for Jimmy Carter they were all better leaders (Jimmy Carter was still a better man in his youth) BO lacks a cabinet that has a clue... the man has such an inferiority complex... he only wants people around him that are dumber than he is... and for those of use on this side of the planet... its painfully obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, clete:
Oh, I do... But, when you throw tons and tons of trash into the air every day for years and years, it DOES effect the "natural" cycles...Quote:
what I don't get is ex can believe in evolution but he can't believe that the Earth can have naturally occurring cycles of heat and cold with a narrow range.
How can you talk about "natural" cycles, and IGNORE that?
Excon
Because Ex I don't believe CO2 is trash, now if you want to talk CFC which just might be the cause of some atmospheric problems I can understand that some cycles might be affected. But let us ask ourselves who benefits from using CFCQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:
Ok, we might be getting somewhere... Do we have a linguistics problem here, or scientific one??Quote:
Because Ex I don't believe CO2 is trash,
Let's try this.. If I started calling CO2 a wonder gas instead of trash, would you agree that MAN is causing wonder gas to rise in our atmosphere?? Or you deny that burning stuff RELEASES wonder gas into the sky, and once there, wonder gas causes the earth to warm??
I'm just trying to figure out if it's the word you don't understand, or the science?
Excon
AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year lowQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
And for good measure...
A Sigh of Relief for the White House on Fracking
A new comprehensive study concludes the process at the heart of the nation's energy boom doesn't significantly contribute to global warming.
Hello again, Steve:
Couple things...Quote:
AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
The author offers NO PROOF of the above claim, and WRITES about what government officials say, but offers no links... He's also politically INVESTED in fracking by his other writings..
Nonetheless, that doesn't disqualify what he says.
What disqualifies what he says, is that he makes NO mention of the fact that fracking has its OWN problems with pollution. It REEKS of one way reporting... I expect it here, but not from AP.
That's NOT to say that our trend toward natural gas isn't good. It MIGHT be... But, one way reporting like this DOESN'T convince me.
Excon
Sort of like we are supposed to TRUST Obama and the Democrats are really trying to help us despite a complete lack of evidence to back that up? And lots of evidence to the contrary?
You know ex, before the internet there were no links, reporters just cited their sources, and the sources were all cited.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The first one on CO2 emissions being at a 20 year low:
You remember Michael Mann of "hide the decline" fame? You know it had to irk him to acknowledge the drop in emissions.Quote:
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels.
The 2nd, on fracking, linked to the report by "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science." I guess you didn't actually look that deep did you? Not to mention the fact that the National Journal is hardly a right-wing blog.
And in further developments, leaked info on the latest IPCC report points to yet another 'miscalculation' (i.e. more wrong computer models). Instead of the dire predictions from 2007, the report supposedly will say the rise in temps is not going to be so extreme, will likely result in no economic or ecological damage and could possible result in a net benefit for us humans.
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming
But I have no expectations that this will matter to you true believers, it goes against your dogma.
Hello again, Steve:
I call it science - not dogma. Plus, it just makes sense to me..Quote:
it goes against your dogma.
You can't throw your trash on the ground because there's negative consequences. You can't throw it in the ocean because there's negative consequences.. What makes you think you can throw it into the air and everything will be fine?
Excon
When you ignore the evidence that contradicts your sermon, it's dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So don't ignore the fact that things are actually being done to clean up the air, water, and land. That's not a sermon, or dogma, but positive action to correct a problem.
You know faith without works and all. Pray but get busy. Talk is easy and cheap. Accomplishes little by itself.
Um, I'm the one whose been pointing out the good news. It's never enough for you guys because the results are not what matters, it's the policies you want to force on us in spite of the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
About time someone came clean. So much for the science now we have to deal with the religion of climate changeQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We readjust expectations and course correct with the new data that suggest we are on a good path. You still have to collect the data.
WE used to call "readjust expectations" flip flopping just a few years ago.
How can you co from proclaiming the Polar icecaps going to disappear due to global warming... to we have more Polar Ice than ever recorded in history due to global warming? In one breath?
I'm wondering when the projections of the onset of another ice age will reemerge
I think the entire Global Warming cult is bipolar.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well done smoothy
I assume that after all this good news you'll "readjust" your agenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
So, NOBODY wants to tell me why it's OK to throw your trash into the air?? It's OK if you want to call it CO2 instead of trash... I like wondergas myself. But, it's doing the same thing no matter what you call it.
Do you DENY that CO2, I mean wondergas, in the atmosphere warms the planet? Do you DENY that burning fossile fuels PRODUCE CO2?
Nobody, huh? You just want to call names, don't you?
excon
I've said this for a long time... let the democrats curtail their OWN CO2 emmissions first... and if it works then we will consider it.
But since Al Gore the Founder of this Cult doesn't care (based on his own actions)... why should we.
Ex you've been sticking with this same line for years even though no one here that I know of is arguing on behalf of pollution.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
speech the point is it isn't pollution, that is a very dumb expression of policy. If you want to regulate emissions of certain gasses, fine, but don't define a natural substance as pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not the same as Sulphur Dioxide although they may be produced by similar processes. Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow, Sulphur Dioxide kills plantsQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I know this, but ex insists on calling it "trash." I keep suggesting that if he wants to do his part he should stop breathing but so far he resists that kind of commitment.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Are you two saying that the stuff that belches from factories is good for you and the plants? Go ahead, put your petunias in a room filled with emissions and see what happens to you and the petunia.
Emission are not natural, they are man made and a bi product of burning fossil fuels. You both flunk elementary science classes I see.
Nature balances, humans do NOT.
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
*The debate at the bottom is some fascinating stuff, and also the data from the studies on the side links. Like this one.Quote:
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
CAIT 2.0: WRI's climate data explorer GHG Emissions Excluding LUCF&indicator=Total GHG Emissions Including LUCF&year=2010&sortIdx=&sortDir=&chartType=#
Oxygen is the essential component of all breathing gases.
The air we inhale is roughly composed of (by volume):
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
0.96% argon
0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases
The permanent gases in gas we exhale are 4% to 5% by volume more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% by volume less oxygen than was inhaled. This expired air typically composed of:
78% nitrogen
13.6% - 16% Oxygen
4% - 5.3% Carbon dioxide
1% Argon and other gases
If plants cannot replace the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and oceans cannot absorb it, you will suffocate if not for mother natures own way of cleaning the atmosphere. Storms.
And there are those who want to tell us there is no intelligent design, what I am saying to you there is a difference between a confined space and open atmosphere, we are talking about small concentrations of CO2 400 parts per million not the 20% oxygen represents.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Have you seen China lately? The visibility is almost nil where there industry is concentrated. 400 parts per million is a danger to certain humans when the temperature is a 100+ for extended periods or why issue health alerts to the population?
No big deal huh? What's a few deaths among billions.
Hey... if you are allergic to green and want to pave everything over like the city dwellers do... they should learn to breath less as a result. They don't own any property or plants that put out oxygen.. they are 100% CO2 generators and that needs to stop. THey are using more than their fair share of the planets oxygen.
We should get rid of all the city dwellers then... have the EPA do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
this is nothing new it is a few years since I have been to China but even then I didn't see the sun for any of the time I was there and I travelled extensively. That is not CO2 pollution it is photochemical smog caused by transferring western industry to China.Quote:
you seen China lately?
Yes smoothy we need to stop the growth of cities without consideration of proper balance. Who invented the skyscraper and wall to wall concrete I wonder seems there are a lot of bad ideas in the name of progress. How do we do this? Population control. It was tried very unsuccessfully in China so I expect we will have to allow nature to do it for us
We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...
Seems to me such Ideas have been tried, but perhaps a licence to procreate would not be a bad idea as would compulsory birth control if you cannot find somethingelse for those dumb kids to do. It might give a new meaning to the term marriageQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Smoothy I don't agree with the idea of sterilizing people on the basis of IQ but you could impose severe fines for breaking birth control laws and having a child under a certain age.
I think we would be better off if we didn't have coed schooling, at least there would be less opportunity for contact and more likelihood of concentration on lessons. So strict segregation of the sexes, if we can ban alcohol until 21 we can ban sex too
I said that tongue in cheek because the Left here do everything to encourage teen sex... free condoms etc and keeping everything from the parents...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You don't have to encourage a teen to have sex. You do have to encourage them to use a condom.
Handing them condoms and birth control pill and telling them have at it... it will be our secret is encouraging them. And explains why HPV is epidemic in the young today.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 AM. |