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?
here we are happily debating what to do about the irregularities of a system said to be caused by human intervention when another branch of science tells us this system should not exist anyway
What is the point? The scientists at the Hadron Collider have just disappeared up their own fundamental oriface or the scientific equivalent of it and if you follow a logical conclusion from that all efforts are futile. If you are a figment of someone's imagination it is no wonder that you cannot grasp the simple truth of climate change, it cannot be happening becuase it isn't there
It's okay. Nothing really matters. We don't actually
exist, anyway. Or so the Higgs Boson particle suggests | News.com.au
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! The lunatic fring left will decide its because we have been sucking too many solar rays out of the sky with solar cells and make them illegal, because they will believe they can influence the sun too.
Turns out there are a few Republicans who want to do something about climate change | Grist
Quote:
Here's a helpful reminder that not all Republicans oppose climate action. Former EPA administrators who served under Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush I and II spoke out on Wednesday in support of federal efforts to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. They appeared at a Senate hearing organized by Democrats to discuss EPA's recently proposed power-plant rules.
What will they do in a solar minimum when the sun don't shine, perhaps it is that our sun is further along in its life cycle thatn we have been led to believeQuote:
The lunatic fringe left will decide its because we have been sucking too many solar rays out of the sky with solar cells and make them illegal, because they will believe they can influence the sun too.
Love it ;now Tal is carrying water for a multinational corporatist who's company has many lobbyist roaming the halls of Capitol Hill . The truth is that Page knows that if there is warming ,man made or not ,that the agricultural belt will just shift north and Cargill will carry on.
Gotta love the liberal logic . Change the climate of the entire world on our own? No problem!Build a fence and secure our borders? Impossible!
Now that's a strange remark because down here south of the equater we are expecting the northern agricultural zone to become a food bowl and you think your southern agricultural zone will become more arid, I'm not sure exactly how that works, deserts git bigger and there is more rain somewhere. I think it's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good and that goes for climate change tooQuote:
Love it . The truth is that Page knows that if there is warming ,man made or not ,that the agricultural belt will just shift north and Cargill will carry on.
So the repubs of past administrations are part of the liberal plot? The nerve of those RINO'S!
No It's just that consensus you have been searching for
uh yeah . Christie Witless is a perfect example of that . Except for Reagan ,all the Repub Presidents that these administrators worked for were /are perfectly happy with big government (Nixon being the worse. He's the one that created the EPA in the 1st place ) .Quote:
So the repubs of past administrations are part of the liberal plot? The nerve of those RINO'S
You live so much in history, as though nothing good has happened in the last thirty years
Reagan's term was good .
yes but beyond that.....WHAT? I can hear a song in the background, it's getting loader.....memories, memories
Shouldn't those links go on the thread about the oil pipeline, Tal?
he thinks oil is about climate, as in burning it
Fight climate change by building away from sea: Rupert Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch proposes a more pragmatic approach to climate change, don't build on the beach. He suggests what we all know, taking on a more expensive energy regime is madness since we really cannot make that difference we are looking for. Now I know we are going to get howls of throwing garbage in the air, but reality says we know it is coming so do positive things to mitigate the effects and windmills arn't the answer. So this attitude actually acknowledges that certain parts of the world are going to be lost no matter what we do and no agony aunts are going to change that
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM. |