Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You can claim that man made the temperature rise. Same collection METHOD, different CONDITION, for comparison. You can't ignore your own observation of the difference between a location with man, and without.

Your methodology is flawed. Temperature over time is what changes water to steam, and more heat changes it to a GAS, still water, but the components have been broken down and separated and just as heat changes water, it changes CHEMICAL composition.

I guess you never look at the air quality reports on your local weather station either. Then you would know the differences in highly industrial areas and very low industrial areas. Rural, and urban. Hell don't you remember during the Olympics in China they had to shut down the industries to clear the air of pollutants? They wanted to hide how NASTY it was.

How do you ignore that data?

---

My methodology is spot on accurate... but then, you are part of the crowd that believes the end justifies the means...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Hello again, clete:

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.

---

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...

How can you talk about "natural" cycles, and IGNORE that?

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:
Oh, I do... But, when you throw tons and tons of trash into the air each and every day for years and years, it DOES effect the "natural" cycles...

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 CFC

Hello again, clete:

Quote:

---

Because Ex I don't believe CO2 is trash,

---

Ok, we might be getting somewhere... Do we have a linguistics problem here, or scientific one??

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:
Ok, we might be getting somewhere... Do we have a linguistics problem here, or scientific one???

Ok, you don't like the word "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, 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 low

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:

Quote:

---

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

---

Couple things...

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
Couple things...

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

---

You know ex, before the internet there were no links, reporters just cited their sources, and the sources were all cited.

The first one on CO2 emissions being at a 20 year low:

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.

---

You remember Michael Mann of "hide the decline" fame? You know it had to irk him to acknowledge the drop in emissions.

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:

Quote:

---

it goes against your dogma.

---

I call it science - not dogma. Plus, it just makes sense to me..

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
I call it science - not dogma. Plus, it just makes sense to me..

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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 speechlesstx

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.

---

About time someone came clean. So much for the science now we have to deal with the religion of climate change

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.