Global Warming
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,337
Likes: 158
From: DFW
A quick interjection in the arguement. I agree there isnt really major evidence to support either claim that it is us causing it, of if its even really happening. :
And second, im not watchin 1.5 hours of that video
-Patrick
And second, im not watchin 1.5 hours of that video
-Patrick
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
I must be worse than Hitler to the environmental whackos. I drive a pickup truck, commute to school and work alone in it, I work for an airline, have a wood burning fireplace, the snowmobile is a two-stroke, and my home isnt "energy efficient"
Funny, I sleep just fine at night
Almost forgot to add, I also hunt and fish.
Funny, I sleep just fine at night
Almost forgot to add, I also hunt and fish.
Last edited by 89Lariat; Mar 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Originally Posted by Bighersh
The point was (and he talks about using common sense) things become clear as time passes. Remember reading how naysayers assumed man would never achieve powered flight? (Tell that to Orville & Wilbur). There's no way to go faster than the speed of sound, right? (Wrong) No one should ever need more than 640 Kb of storage space. (Wrong). We learn as we go...
A few things...
I too think man's role is minimal, but- 99 cents isn't a dollar until someone adds a penny.
Maybe we can't stop it... So??? If chances were you couldn't stop your truck before it went off a cliff, would you say "F-it" and press the accellerator, or would you stomp on the brakes?
Damn right- you'd at least try to stop. Especially if jumping from the truck would kill you.
Trying, shows common sense.
Not trying, shows a lack of common sense.
A few things...
- I never said what I said about "cigaretes/coffin nails" were facts. But, even with the warning on the pack since 1965, people still smoke.
- I'm playing Devil's advocate, mostly- but do believe research needs to continue
- I don't know if we're contributing to global warming or not.
- You don't know if we're contributing to global warming or not.
- We're all just guessing.
- Common sense? How is that measured, and what yardstick are we using?
- Disagreement doesn't make anyone stupid.
- We don't know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa- how does anyone "know" how hot the world was in 1600?
- It's all guessing... Best guess..
- Not agreeing with one's logic, doesn't make someone else unreasonable.
- At least we're not arguing here, about the honor, or lack thereof, of loving your truck and eating Top Ramen.
I too think man's role is minimal, but- 99 cents isn't a dollar until someone adds a penny.
Maybe we can't stop it... So??? If chances were you couldn't stop your truck before it went off a cliff, would you say "F-it" and press the accellerator, or would you stomp on the brakes?
Damn right- you'd at least try to stop. Especially if jumping from the truck would kill you.
Trying, shows common sense.
Not trying, shows a lack of common sense.
I have read most of what you suggest. I am no scientist and niether are you. But think about it.... who pays the scientists? It is in there best interest to come to conclusions that favor what pays them. The system is tainted and subject to corruption. Fact is that the study of anything of earth is done from a timeframe of less than 50-75 years with any accuracy at all. 50-75 years out of 6,000- 4 billion years is a VERY SMALL SAMPLE!! This is where common sense comes in. Your welcome to go green if you want. Nobody here likes pollution. Every one wants clean air and water. If you want to put a catalitic converter on your *** to negate methane emisions, go for it. Just don't make me do it. In my opinion this whole thing about man caused global warming is a total farce and power grab. Period. Algore has even said it was ok for him to stretch the truth in is rediculus mockumentary because scaring people into action is what it will take for us to act. What a papa figure he is!! NOT!!
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in the Kootenays
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/gerhard.cfm
and the Government of Canada's own environmental site tells us that snowpack in BC is 101-150% of normal. Not a single region of BC has less than 100% normal snowpack. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/rfc/river_f...t/bulletin.htm
but when listening to the media go on and on about rising temperatures and one of the warmest winters on record you would think there's no snow at all this year. Funny how it's actually more than normal.
and the Government of Canada's own environmental site tells us that snowpack in BC is 101-150% of normal. Not a single region of BC has less than 100% normal snowpack. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/rfc/river_f...t/bulletin.htm
but when listening to the media go on and on about rising temperatures and one of the warmest winters on record you would think there's no snow at all this year. Funny how it's actually more than normal.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Larry227
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/gerhard.cfm
and the Government of Canada's own environmental site tells us that snowpack in BC is 101-150% of normal. Not a single region of BC has less than 100% normal snowpack. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/rfc/river_f...t/bulletin.htm
but when listening to the media go on and on about rising temperatures and one of the warmest winters on record you would think there's no snow at all this year. Funny how it's actually more than normal.
and the Government of Canada's own environmental site tells us that snowpack in BC is 101-150% of normal. Not a single region of BC has less than 100% normal snowpack. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/rfc/river_f...t/bulletin.htm
but when listening to the media go on and on about rising temperatures and one of the warmest winters on record you would think there's no snow at all this year. Funny how it's actually more than normal.
. On the prairies we had one of the coldest stretches of temps in a long time. Couple days of record lows.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
Bhibbs-- I have a question about your report. It says it has the corrections as of Feb 2007. You are saying that Reagan was part of the leadership authorizing it. Reagan was out of office in 1988, this report is dated 2007. That is almost 20 years not the 10 you have stated several times. Either you are mistaken or intentionally misleading in your arguments. Either way, I doubt Reagan had anything to do with the current report. It was/is probably ordered by people who are not the best of friends to the US so they are doing what they can to help makes us feel bad. Can you say the FRENCH.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Bhibbs-- I have a question about your report. It says it has the corrections as of Feb 2007. You are saying that Reagan was part of the leadership authorizing it. Reagan was out of office in 1988, this report is dated 2007. That is almost 20 years not the 10 you have stated several times. Either you are mistaken or intentionally misleading in your arguments. Either way, I doubt Reagan had anything to do with the current report. It was/is probably ordered by people who are not the best of friends to the US so they are doing what they can to help makes us feel bad. Can you say the FRENCH.
I'm sorry, you're correct. Close to 20 Years! The report was started in 1988. This is an Ongoing study that is continually updating as more and more research is done on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change
The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be 'alarmist.' Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act.
I'm sorry, you're correct. Close to 20 Years! The report was started in 1988. This is an Ongoing study that is continually updating as more and more research is done on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change
The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be 'alarmist.' Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
Well, since the debate is still going, here's another rock in the pond...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/...arbon_china_dc
By Emma Graham-Harrison and Gerard Wynn
2 hours, 1 minute ago
BEIJING/LONDON (Reuters) - China is on course to overtake the United States this year as the world's biggest carbon emitter, estimates based on Chinese energy data show, potentially pressuring Beijing to take more action on climate change.
China's emissions rose by some 10 percent in 2005, a senior U.S. scientist estimated, while Beijing data shows fuel consumption rose more than 9 percent in 2006, suggesting China would easily outstrip the U.S. this year, long before forecasts.
Taking the top spot would focus pressure on China to do more to brake emissions as part of world talks on extending the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming beyond 2012...
Thirty five developed nations have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto and they want others -- especially the United States and China -- to do more.
"It looks likely to me that China will pass the United States this year," said Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which supplies data to governments, researchers and non-governmental organizations worldwide.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas for heat, power and transport. Most scientists say it is a key contributor to global warming.
Marland used fossil fuel consumption data from oil company BP to calculate China's CO2 emissions in 2005 at 5.3 billion tonnes, versus 5.9 billion for the U.S., with respective growth in 2005 of 10.5 percent and less than 0.1 percent.
China's growth has been fueled largely by burning coal, and it is still building new power plants at an unprecedented rate. Last year alone it added around 100 gigawatts of new generators, approaching France's entire capacity, most of them coal-burning.
A United Nations panel of climate scientists predicted last month a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by 1.8 to 4.0 Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century, blaming mankind's emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.
****************************************
Like I said, everyone is guessing... The jury is still out, and a verdict will probably never be reached.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled, umm, whatever it is that's going on here...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/...arbon_china_dc
By Emma Graham-Harrison and Gerard Wynn
2 hours, 1 minute ago
BEIJING/LONDON (Reuters) - China is on course to overtake the United States this year as the world's biggest carbon emitter, estimates based on Chinese energy data show, potentially pressuring Beijing to take more action on climate change.
China's emissions rose by some 10 percent in 2005, a senior U.S. scientist estimated, while Beijing data shows fuel consumption rose more than 9 percent in 2006, suggesting China would easily outstrip the U.S. this year, long before forecasts.
Taking the top spot would focus pressure on China to do more to brake emissions as part of world talks on extending the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming beyond 2012...
Thirty five developed nations have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto and they want others -- especially the United States and China -- to do more.
"It looks likely to me that China will pass the United States this year," said Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which supplies data to governments, researchers and non-governmental organizations worldwide.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas for heat, power and transport. Most scientists say it is a key contributor to global warming.
Marland used fossil fuel consumption data from oil company BP to calculate China's CO2 emissions in 2005 at 5.3 billion tonnes, versus 5.9 billion for the U.S., with respective growth in 2005 of 10.5 percent and less than 0.1 percent.
China's growth has been fueled largely by burning coal, and it is still building new power plants at an unprecedented rate. Last year alone it added around 100 gigawatts of new generators, approaching France's entire capacity, most of them coal-burning.
A United Nations panel of climate scientists predicted last month a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by 1.8 to 4.0 Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century, blaming mankind's emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.
****************************************
Like I said, everyone is guessing... The jury is still out, and a verdict will probably never be reached.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled, umm, whatever it is that's going on here...
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Here is an interesting global warming test for all you people who think we are going to burn up the earth. I doubt it will change your minds.. but it is belivable to me... and most sane people.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
Well, I only answered the first four questions..
Unless I overlooked it, I didn't see how many questions there were, and I have real homework to do- so I won't ***** around with this too long...
I'll say this one last time.
Whether we have the power to affect some of the "potential" causes for GW, or not- scientists don't know for sure, so we don't know for sure whether GW is something being helped along by man or not.
I don't see the harm in continuing the research.
------------
OK, I went back and looked, it's only 10, I'll finish it...
Originally Posted by geograft.com
That is correct!
You are pretty good. Are you a climatologist?
You are pretty good. Are you a climatologist?
I'll say this one last time.
Whether we have the power to affect some of the "potential" causes for GW, or not- scientists don't know for sure, so we don't know for sure whether GW is something being helped along by man or not.
I don't see the harm in continuing the research.
------------
OK, I went back and looked, it's only 10, I'll finish it...
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
Damn... Missed 2... 
( 80 )
A lower score than I'm accusomed to, but at least it's a passing grade.
We still need to do the research.
( 80 ) - The one about measuring the temperature.
- And what ever #5 was.
A lower score than I'm accusomed to, but at least it's a passing grade.
We still need to do the research.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
sure.. research all you want. I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is the knee jerk reaction to questionable science. And the call to do all these drastic measures that need research all there own. It is a power grab and nothing more. A power grab to control our every behavior. It is total BS at this point. As for not taking the whole test because you have real homework to do... how about having an open mind and looking at the whole test. Or are you afraid your mind might question what you believe to be true? Most of us doubters have listened to the hype that algore put out. It didn't convince us and we look to other sources. And the other sources make a lot more sense.