For the global warming denial crowd

[Torplexed]

After looking at this picture aren't you just wracked with guilt? AWWWWwww. :p Poor Snowteddy

http://neptoon.homestead.com/PolarBear.jpg

[Jimbuna]

At the rate mankind is going that'll soon be a picture of a dissapearing island rather than a piece of ice :hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, I feel sorry for Snowteddy, but I like my car...

Decisions, decisions...:hmm:

[Skybird]

"Private Property"

[Sailor Steve]

"Aww, go climb a..."

[Weigh-Man]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?

[The WosMan]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

You beat me to it.

[Torplexed]

He'd probably swim better if he didn't have a bellyful of cute baby harp seals. Can't have everything. :arrgh!:

[The WosMan]

All that blubber probably makes him float better. Natures lifepreserver.

[Chock]

Actually, while it is true polar bears are good swimmers, young polar bears are not as resilient when it comes to swimming long distances, which they are having to do more and more as the ice floes break up due to global warming. Many more of them are dying because of this than used to be the case. Wouldn't surprise me if what the picture showed was one suffering from exhaustion after having been on a long trek with its mum for food and trying to recover on whatever 'land' was available.

Enjoy your 4x4.

:D Chock

[August]

Actually, while it is true polar bears are good swimmers, young polar bears are not as resilient when it comes to swimming long distances, which they are having to do more and more as the ice floes break up due to global warming. Many more of them are dying because of this than used to be the case. Wouldn't surprise me if what the picture showed was one suffering from exhaustion after having been on a long trek with its mum for food and trying to recover on whatever 'land' was available.

Enjoy your 4x4.

:D Chock
Thank you I will. A polar bear skin rug would be cool too. :p

[Sea Demon]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?

I think this is one slide Al Gore "Inconveniently" left out of his presentation. :)

[baggygreen]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?
I think this is one slide Al Gore "Inconveniently" left out of his presentation. :)Aint that the truth ;)

:rotfl:

[August]

"4 BC Birth of Christ"?

Are they being redundant or are they kind of shaky with that whole BC/AD thang?

[Reaves]

"4 BC Birth of Christ"?

Are they being redundant or are they kind of shaky with that whole BC/AD thang?


Didn't you know he lied about his age in order to skip conscription into the roman army?

:hmm:

[Peto]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?

I think this is one slide Al Gore "Inconveniently" left out of his presentation. :)

Here's a stick of dynamite. I'll light it :yep:.

There hasn't been a tremendous amount of eruptions lately so--who wants to place bets on where the next one will be?

;)

[Sea Demon]

Here's a stick of dynamite. I'll light it :yep:.

There hasn't been a tremendous amount of eruptions lately so--who wants to place bets on where the next one will be?

;)

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/eruptionlist.cfm

Actually, there were quite a few in 2006. And there are a few out there that are continuous.

[Peto]

I know Indonesia has been getting worked pretty good. I'm keeping my eye on Yellowstone at the moment ;).

That's a great website! Thank You! I've had the pleasure of visiting Mt Etna in the past--Quite a show.

Peto

[TarJak]

"4 BC Birth of Christ"?

Are they being redundant or are they kind of shaky with that whole BC/AD thang?

The explanation is here: http://www.gotquestions.org/BC-AD.html

[Umfuld]

"Anyone see a pattern here?"

Yup. People from both sides exchanging information provided by people they know nothing about involving scientific methods they know nothing about.

Like that chart - does anyone here know what data they base their figures on from times when there are no records? Do you know if these methods are at all reliable?

Because if not, it has no more value than one I could draw up for you in MSPaint right now.
And if what I chose to put on my pretty colored graph backed up what you believed I'm sure you'd present it to people as fact.

Again, both sides do this, imo.


But I've always had a hard time figuring out why anyone would be pro-pollution.

It's just such an odd stance to take

[Oberon]

I'm keeping my eye on Yellowstone at the moment

That'd certainly cause a dip in global temperatures... :rotfl:

[STEED]

We are slowly coming coming out of the ice age still.

[Peto]

But I've always had a hard time figuring out why anyone would be pro-pollution.

It's just such an odd stance to take

That's an easy one to answer. Because being pro-pollution requires no effort ;).

[waste gate]

But I've always had a hard time figuring out why anyone would be pro-pollution.

It's just such an odd stance to take

That's an easy one to answer. Because being pro-pollution requires no effort ;).

If it were pro or anti pollution it would be an easy decision. The inconveniant truth is that it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with money, eg how do carbon credits curb pollution.


Can one pay his/her way out of destroying the planet?

[Peto]

I agree 100% :up:. The cost of doing nothing could well be greater than the cost of change.

[Sea Demon]

But I've always had a hard time figuring out why anyone would be pro-pollution.

It's just such an odd stance to take

That's an easy one to answer. Because being pro-pollution requires no effort ;).

Wastegate is right. Nobody is "pro-pollution" ....as was said. But many people question the movement that is blaming mankind for temperature fluctuations, which nature has already shown to be naturally occuring even without SUV's, jet aircraft and such. This is a movement that wants humanity to take drastic action without truly understanding what they themselves are seeing. And they have been wrong about these naturally occuring changes for over 40 years now. The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account. And in the same vein as you, I can just as easily say that I couldn't understand how people are against a decent standard of living, travel, and electronic goods (such as your little desktop computer). They all require oil, or electricity. Even if battery powered on your laptop, raw materials are still used to manufacture the stuff. That creates emissions....right? And oil is used to deliver it to your door. But still that's not the main point. The deal is, many believe that technology, and ecology can coexist. Capitalism can also coexist with ecology. There are rational movements afoot to create cleaner cars, and better/cleaner methods of manufacturing. I applaud those efforts. But I still see the draconian measures of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. to be absolutely unecessary, and potentially harmful.

[Peto]

And I also agree with you. There are way too many people on the extremes regarding this problem. I think we need to do something in case that our activities are causing harm though. I also believe action can be taken that make sense and can lead us to being less dependant for our power.

I have a couple friends in different households who have managed to remove themselves from the power grid by haressing both solar and wind to more than meet their power needs. However, doing that was far from free and it will take time to break even.

The technology is there and the more we work with it, the more affordable it will become. However, the financial aspect of doing so can upset many other delicate global balancing acts as well (political, governmental et al).

It is definitely an interesting period to be living in. It's also rather frightening in many ways. Caution is required on many levels...

[August]

I agree 100% :up:. The cost of doing nothing could well be greater than the cost of change.
That would depend on what those changes are I would think.

[Fish]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?

I think this is one slide Al Gore "Inconveniently" left out of his presentation. :)

The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.

If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm (http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm) and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=92074

[Sea Demon]

[quote]The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.

..........................


Come on Fish. Who the H.E. double hockey sticks is this guy??? Looks like just an average run of the mill forum poster on another board. Other than he's a spinal cord researcher. I guess that makes him a climate expert if he says what you want to hear..right? You can't be serious.

At any rate, even this guy displays a different graph showing temperature and CO2 cycles extending back 400,000 years. These of which shows cyclical patterns of CO2 and temperature changes rising and falling through time. So he seems a bit confused as to what he's trying to display. He kind of proves the assertion that mankind is not the likely culprit in current warming trends. And I'm sure that wasn't his goal.

[Sea Demon]

Oh yeah. On another good note, looks like many of the younger crowd ain't buying the global warming fraud either. What a relief.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312603,00.html

[Letum]

I have a good background in geology and I know that the box in the bottom left of the
pic is nothing short of ridiculous!
The sun irradiates at a near constant level, what ever happens on earth, and volcanoes erupt regardless of how much the sun irradiates.


However, back on topic:

I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon.

However, I think we should act as if it where by cutting CO2 emissions etc.
Why?
Well:

1) I could be wrong.
Many people with my level of intelligence and knowledge about the subject think I am wrong
and many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than me think I am wrong.
Until the case is closed, I could be wrong.

2)a If I am wrong and we don't act, then we potentially have a lot to lose.
2)b If I am right and we do act, then we won't lose as much.

3) Scenario 2b is preferable to 2a
So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.

[Fish]

I have a good background in geology and I know that the box in the bottom left of the
pic is nothing short of ridiculous!
The sun irradiates at a near constant level, what ever happens on earth, and volcanoes erupt regardless of how much the sun irradiates.


However, back on topic:

I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon.

However, I think we should act as if it where by cutting CO2 emissions etc.
Why?
Well:

1) I could be wrong.
Many people with my level of intelligence and knowledge about the subject think I am wrong
and many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than me think I am wrong.
Until the case is closed, I could be wrong.

2)a If I am wrong and we don't act, then we potentially have a lot to lose.
2)b If I am right and we do act, then we won't lose as much.

3) Scenario 2b is preferable to 2a
So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.

I am in your boat for the moment.

Hope you let me stay. :yep:

[waste gate]

The U.N. is calling for more propaganda from the media, in order to push the American people toward acceptance of the alarmist view and higher energy taxes and the increased foreign aid that would result. It just so happens this would also result in more money flowing into the coffers of the U.N. at a time when the world body has already been found guilty of exaggerating the AIDS problem to generate more funds for itself.
Its answer ― and this is actually spelled out in the report ― is that too much "editorial balance" in the media has prevented "informed debate" about the need for "urgent action" in the form of higher taxes on energy.


http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov28.world.government/index.html

What do you think is meant by too much 'editorial balance'?

[Peto]

The U.N. is calling for more propaganda from the media, in order to push the American people toward acceptance of the alarmist view and higher energy taxes and the increased foreign aid that would result. It just so happens this would also result in more money flowing into the coffers of the U.N. at a time when the world body has already been found guilty of exaggerating the AIDS problem to generate more funds for itself.
Its answer ― and this is actually spelled out in the report ― is that too much "editorial balance" in the media has prevented "informed debate" about the need for "urgent action" in the form of higher taxes on energy.


http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov28.world.government/index.html

What do you think is meant by too much 'editorial balance'?

Sorry--I think Cliff needs to back to school. His quotes are seperated which means they could easily be taken from completely different parts of "the report" (as he endlessly refers to it). Give me a lengthy report, allow me the freedom to hand-pick half sentence bits and I could also make it say whatever I wanted it to.

I don't disagree with the debate regarding global warming. Still, I am firmly in agreement with Letum's post. Cliff is just as much a sensaltionalist as anyone on the extreme left.

Not trying to be nasty. I just have enough experience with "reports" to know how easy it is to misreport them...

[Sea Demon]

I have a good background in geology and I know that the box in the bottom left of the
pic is nothing short of ridiculous!
The sun irradiates at a near constant level, what ever happens on earth, and volcanoes erupt regardless of how much the sun irradiates.


However, back on topic:

I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon.

However, I think we should act as if it where by cutting CO2 emissions etc.
Why?
Well:

1) I could be wrong.
Many people with my level of intelligence and knowledge about the subject think I am wrong
and many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than me think I am wrong.
Until the case is closed, I could be wrong.


I am in your boat for the moment.

Hope you let me stay. :yep:

The funny thing is, I'm for cleaner methods of energy and manufacturing processes where we can get it. I hope for more companies/organizations to do more research into this area. But I'm not for the draconian "kyoto" solutions. Which of course are an extreme answer for an undefined problem/question. And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions" would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix. Just out of curiousity, were the both of you saying the same thing about "let's do something just in case" in regards to the WMD in Iraq? Although WMD was only a part of why we're in Iraq, the voices that call for "let's do something just in case of global warming" demanded absolute and total proof of Saddam's WMD programs before the USA could take action. Which there was more proof of Saddam having WMD then there is proof of man-made global warming. Just ask the Kurds and the Iranians. I don't want to go off topic, but I'm curious.

So while we pursue cleaner methods of manufacture, energy, travel, etc. it will be a gradual process. I'm very glad that most people are not demanding this type of radical and unecessary change. And we probably will not eliminate the burning of fossil fuels for a long time to come. And when you look at the UN, and certain global climate agreements, with it's punitive aspects, controls, and exemptions for some, one has to ponder the agenda. When one see's that the true water carriers of that movement do not practice what they preach...one has to wonder what are their motivations. And sometimes, you just have to look at the world around you and observe.

[Sea Demon]

Most Americans yawn at man-made global warming. This piece is interesting...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010913

It has been 40 years since the first Earth Day and their reports of "impending" doom to go with it. Looks like the public ain't all that gullible anymore.

[waste gate]

Not trying to be nasty. I just have enough experience with "reports" to know how easy it is to misreport them...

Then I assume you don't accept any analysis of any report regardless of the source.

[Peto]

:lol: Nothing written by lawyers especially!!!

[Stealth Hunter]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?

I think this is one slide Al Gore "Inconveniently" left out of his presentation. :)

More "CONVENIENTLY" because that's not a 2000-2010 forecast/history graph.

Temperatures are up, that's a fact. The scientists are saying it, the government is saying it, but you're not saying it.

Why the denial? Can't we both take responsibility for what we've partially caused?

[Letum]

were [...] you saying the same thing about "let's do something just in case" in regards to the WMD in Iraq?


No, and I don't wear a anti-venom mask in case I am attacked by giant spiders "just in case".

Risk asessment is about assesing risk from informed, transparant, inderpendant and
respected sources with acsess to primary information.

In the Iraq/WMD case, there where no sources that fitted all the criteria.

In the case of GL there are groups on both sides of the fence with that criteria

[Sea Demon]

More "CONVENIENTLY" because that's not a 2000-2010 forecast/history graph.

Temperatures are up, that's a fact. The scientists are saying it, the government is saying it, but you're not saying it.

Why the denial? Can't we both take responsibility for what we've partially caused?

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.

[August]

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.

But not with 6 billion people on the planet, which i have come to believe is the true source of human caused global warming.

[Sea Demon]

No, and I don't wear a anti-venom mask in case I am attacked by giant spiders "just in case".

Risk asessment is about assesing risk from informed, transparant, inderpendant and
respected sources with acsess to primary information.

In the Iraq/WMD case, there where no sources that fitted all the criteria.

In the case of GL there are groups on both sides of the fence with that criteria

Sure there was. And there was many intelligence agencies around the world that were saying Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program among others. There was more consensus on that, than mankind is causing his own demise by driving automobiles. And there was some proof as there was at least some dead Iranian and Kurdish bodies to prove that there was one type of WMD that Saddam used. Therefore it's kind of weird that the voices that are saying "let's do something just in case of global warming" were calling for total proof of Saddam's weapons programs, and are currently rapping the American and British govt's for not having it before invading. It's inconsistent, and quite hypocritical. But at any rate, it's of no issue. National governments, including the USA do not seem like they are going to take the draconian "kyoto"" route. It looks like we're not going to "do something just in case". Kyoto is dead.

[Sea Demon]

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.
But not with 6 billion people on the planet, which i have come to believe is the true source of human caused global warming.
Are you suggesting a China like "one child" policy?? With 6 Billion people, we still account for a very small C02 percentage in total. And why were we seeing hotter temperatures in the early 1930's than now?

[Letum]

No, and I don't wear a anti-venom mask in case I am attacked by giant spiders "just in case".

Risk asessment is about assesing risk from informed, transparant, inderpendant and
respected sources with acsess to primary information.

In the Iraq/WMD case, there where no sources that fitted all the criteria.

In the case of GL there are groups on both sides of the fence with that criteria
Sure there was. And there was many intelligence agencies around the world that were saying Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program among others. There was more consensus on that, than mankind is causing his own demise by driving automobiles. And there was some proof as there was at least some dead Iranian and Kurdish bodies to prove that there was one type of WMD that Saddam used. Therefore it's kind of weird that the voices that are saying "let's do something just in case of global warming" were calling for total proof of Saddam's weapons programs, and are currently rapping the American and British govt's for not having it before invading. It's inconsistent, and quite hypocritical. But at any rate, it's of no issue. National governments, including the USA do not seem like they are going to take the draconian "kyoto"" route. It looks like we're not going to "do something just in case". Kyoto is dead.

Intelligence agencies do not usually fit the "transparent" criteria. They are certainly not open to any kind of peer review of their method of sources.
Most other claims lacked primary sources, which isn't surprising now.

[TteFAboB]

I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon.

However, I think we should act as if it where by cutting CO2 emissions etc.
Why?
Well:

1) I could be wrong.
Many people with my level of intelligence and knowledge about the subject think I am wrong
and many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than me think I am wrong.
Until the case is closed, I could be wrong.

You have left out the people with your level of intelligence and knowledge that think you are right, and the many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than you who also think that you're right. All things being equal and relative, the people with your level of intelligence or greater who think that you are wrong should find themselves in the same position, having to admit that in your turn it is you that think that they're wrong and that therefore they could be wrong, until the case is closed.

2)a If I am wrong and we don't act, then we potentially have a lot to lose.
2)b If I am right and we do act, then we won't lose as much.

3) Scenario 2b is preferable to 2a
So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.

2)c If you are wrong and we do act, then we won't loose as much either.
2)d If you are right and we do not act, then we incurred no loss at all.

3) Scenario 2d is preferable to 2b, 2c and 2a.

You have left out these two alternatives, including the most preferable outcome of all.

So, even though I don't think that you've deliberately withheld information twice with the purpose of attempting to cunningly persuade, the rational course of action is to act as if you did.

[Sea Demon]

Intelligence agencies do not usually fit the "transparent" criteria. They are certainly not open to any kind of peer review of their method of sources.
Most other claims lacked primary sources, which isn't surprising now.

Splitting hairs. Intel works differently than academia, research, and other organizations. But there is information collection and dissemination which is the key here. And there is an apparent believed danger from WMD and man-made global warming. Peer review from academia is a narrow requirement and irrelevant when dealing with threats of any kind. If you want total proof from one type of danger before taking action, why not the other? Believe me, I know why the global warming alarmists split hairs here. It's also another reason why they're hard to take seriously.

[Sea Demon]

3) Scenario 2b is preferable to 2a
So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.
2)c If you are wrong and we do act, then we won't loose as much either.
2)d If you are right and we do not act, then we incurred no loss at all.

3) Scenario 2d is preferable to 2b, 2c and 2a.

You have left out these two alternatives, including the most preferable outcome of all.

Yeah. OK. We've all seen the guy with glasses on the youtube video that tries this approach to reason. And it is a weak argument whether your talking about global warming, or if you're talking about any other potential "danger". It's just another "let's take action just in case" argument.

This statement is most odd

So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.

So even if I think Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, even though they say they are close, the rational thing to do is act as though they do. Let's bomb them into oblivion just in case.

Geez, I have a headache, maybe it's a brain tumor......The rational thing to do is treat it like it is. Let's have brain surgery and find out.....just in case.

People are telling me that we're at peak oil. The rational thing to do is go the grocery store chains and clean them out. Horde everything I have, build a bomb shelter and lock myself up there......just in case.

This global warming stuff has made people nuts.

[moose1am]

I would encourage anyone and everyone to buy a fuel cell powered car.

We have submarines powered by Fuel Cells and this crowd should know about submarines.

You would think that if a county like Germany (very smart engineers) put their faith in fuel cells then it's a good idea.

And generally speaking people are not shooting at your automobile like they will be at a submarine.

Fuel cells are the future power source for the world IMHO.

Thank god Polar Bears can Swim. But they can't catch seals easily without the frozen ice on the oceans up north. Seals won't need breathing holes in the summer months if the ice keeps melting like it has been lately.

Remember that it only takes a few more calories of energy to turn ice into water. That's why it's critical to control the global warming. A one degree increase in average global temperature will mean a much higher increase in temperatures at the poles. To get a higher average the extremes have to get much warmer.

No breathing holes means the seals can't be so easily caught by the bears and the bears will starve to death. One the other side it won't be so cold up there and the bears won't have to eat as many seals to stay warm. :)

[August]

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.
But not with 6 billion people on the planet, which i have come to believe is the true source of human caused global warming.
Are you suggesting a China like "one child" policy?? With 6 Billion people, we still account for a very small C02 percentage in total. And why were we seeing hotter temperatures in the early 1930's than now?

I'm not suggesting anything except that more people = more pollution. Whatever percentage of global warming is caused by human beings that has to increase as you increase population.

[moose1am]

Yea but seals are better swimmers and will escape from the polar bear if all the ice melts. It's only because the seals have to come up though breathing holes in the ICE that the bears can catch them. Still they fail to catch their dinner 9 times out of 10. Without ice and breathing holes there will be no seal dinners.

Beside we are smart enough to develop better energy source than burning Coal which is just the remnants of old forest that died along with the dinosaurs. It took 60 million to 120 million years to make that dirty coal and oil and natural gas. And we are using it far faster than it's being made. It will run out someday.

It's stupid to burn coal and oil and poison ourselves when we can use solar energy to make hydrogen fuel for fuel cells. We deserve to have a clean planet.

[bradclark1]

The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account.
And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions" would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.

Well, you can't argue with someone of that mentality can you. Fighting pollution will cause more harm then good. Good grief!
What unforseen poblems would dropping pollution cause?

[moose1am]

Yep the guy that invented the thermometer lived 2500 years Before Christ was born. LOL

What a joke!

And they invented paper to record all those Pre BC temperatures. The Chinese didn't invent Paper the Cave Men Did! Yea right!

You guys remind me of the Creationist who said that Noah put T Rex on his ark. LOL

[Sea Demon]

The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account. And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions" would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.
Well, you can't argue with someone of that mentality can you. Fighting pollution will cause more harm then good. Good grief!

Ah. There you are. Of course, you're twisting the argument again. And not very skillfully either. This ain't about fighting pollution. That's something we can all agree on. Less pollution and cleaner energy is good. But the drastric changes in kyoto, the exemptions for some in climate agreements, the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm. And the total remanufacturing of entire sectors of the economies of the world to effect new changes could be drastic and harmful if done incorrectly and poorly planned. If you can't see how, that's your problem.

[Sea Demon]

I'm not suggesting anything except that more people = more pollution. Whatever percentage of global warming is caused by human beings that has to increase as you increase population.
OK. That's reasonable. And I can agree with that.

[Sea Demon]

Yep the guy that invented the thermometer lived 2500 years Before Christ was born. LOL

What a joke!

And they invented paper to record all those Pre BC temperatures. The Chinese didn't invent Paper the Cave Men Did! Yea right!

You guys remind me of the Creationist who said that Noah put T Rex on his ark. LOL

How about 100 years ago? 40? We've seen warming and cooling trends throughout the 20th century. There were warmer temperatures earlier last century without the mass transit of today.

[moose1am]

It's about the money.

Lots of folks will deny the existence of global warming because they are afraid it will cost this country a lot of money to fix the problem

But I think we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We can save a lot of money by going away from fossil fuels in the future.

The real problem as I see it is who's going to pay or loose money when we start to eliminate carbon based fuels from our economy.

The big looser will be the oil companies and the coal companies who stand to loose Trillions of dollars. They are the ones that have more to loose than anyone else.

And if we convert to hydrogen fuels the Chinese and Indian's will surely follow in our path.

Right now the Chinese are building more coal fired power plants every day. There is a limit to how much CO2 and air pollution the world can take.

Any treaty that tries to limit the amount of CO2 that the US had to cut will have to do the same thing with China and there other countries.

But the USA has more to loose because we consume so much coal and oil right now. More than almost any other country in the world. And our population is much less than Chinas or India's.

We want to maintain our quality of life and keep the status quo.

But we won't be able to do that without a fight sooner or later. Look at the middle east right now?

It's interesting that just last night I watched the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" which was about the 1st or 2nd crusade where Saladin Defeated the Knight's Templers and finally took back the Holly Land. That area of the world has always been a hot bed. And I find it ironic that most of the world's oil resource are in the middle east!

[micky1up]

i dont doubt that global warming is here all i doubt is that we( humans) are the cause of it the signs of global warming on mars for instance the shrinking polar ice caps .its amazing that the whole global warming thing came around at the same time we lost a big fear that controlled post ww2 europe the cold war, i find it no co incidence that one fear has been replaced by another one

[Letum]

we can all agree on. Less pollution and cleaner energy is good.
I don't agree with that at all.

It's not a good thing in it's self.

It is far better to generate 20% more economic development at the cost of 50% more
pollution because pollution is inevitably going to rise with the rise in population, but
the rise of the development to cope with that pollution it is not inevitable.

If the planet is going to get poluted one day what ever we do, then delaying it will deny us the development to cope with it to some extent.

[Sea Demon]

2007 cools.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm

This goes against the grain......doesn't it.

[waste gate]

It's about the money.

But I think we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We can save a lot of money by going away from fossil fuels in the future.

The real problem as I see it is who's going to pay or loose money when we start to eliminate carbon based fuels from our economy.

The big looser will be the oil companies and the coal companies who stand to loose Trillions of dollars. They are the ones that have more to loose than anyone else.!


Who do think makeup those oil and coal companies? People, ordinary folks who are trying to make a living and support their families. Whenever I hear or read about the big companies being evil I get a shiver. What will we do with all those displaced workers when we dump the oil and coal industries? If you think the ME is unstable now how chaotic do you think it will become without the sale of their only natural resource.

The cost will be far more than the downfall of 'the great satan'.

[bradclark1]

Ah. There you are. Of course, you're twisting the argument again. And not very skillfully either. This ain't about fighting pollution. That's something we can all agree on. Less pollution and cleaner energy is good. But the drastric changes in kyoto, the exemptions for some in climate agreements, the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm. And the total remanufacturing of entire sectors of the economies of the world to effect new changes could be drastic and harmful if done incorrectly and poorly planned. If you can't see how, that's your problem.
I'm not twisting anything. I quoted you verbatim, twice in fact, and took what you said at face value. The countries exempted (China, India)is until 2012 because they are concidered third world in industry. It's better to exempt for some years than them say they aren't going to adhere at all. We can't threaten to invade if they don't comply. For us to use country exemption as a reason to ignore greenhouse gases is absurd to the Nth degree. We don't agree so we aren't going to do anything? Thats uttter BS. To say let industry regulate themselves is absurd. They won't spend a penny unless they have to and they haven't. If the protocol is deemed too expensive, fine make your own plan with realistic goals. We have done nothing whatsoever since Bush to cut greenhouse gases. Political stupidity. Johnny won't play right now so we won't either at all! Yeah, thats beginning to fix the problem.
2007 cools.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm
This goes against the grain......doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. Read past the first two words of the title.

[bradclark1]

the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm.
I don't see how filtering greenhouse gases can harm and nobody has said we should drop all petroleum products within such and such years. Filter, clean up and research would be the way to go. We aren't doing squat.

[waste gate]

the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm.
I don't see how filtering greenhouse gases can harm and nobody has said we should drop all petroleum products within such and such years. Filter, clean up and research would be the way to go. We aren't doing squat.

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.

[Sea Demon]

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted you verbatim, twice in fact, and took what you said at face value. The countries exempted (China, India)is until 2012 because they are concidered third world in industry. It's better to exempt for some years than them say they aren't going to adhere at all. We can't threaten to invade if they don't comply. For us to use country exemption as a reason to ignore greenhouse gases is absurd to the Nth degree. We don't agree so we aren't going to do anything? Thats uttter BS. To say let industry regulate themselves is absurd. They won't spend a penny unless they have to and they haven't. If the protocol is deemed too expensive, fine make your own plan with realistic goals. We have done nothing whatsoever since Bush to cut greenhouse gases. Political stupidity. Johnny won't play right now so we won't either at all! Yeah, thats beginning to fix the problem.
2007 cools.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm
This goes against the grain......doesn't it.
No, it doesn't. Read past the first two words of the title.
You haven't taken anything verbatim. You have taken things I've said, and assigned your own meaning to it, to try and make a weak case. That you've done successfully. I really don't think you understand the article as presented. Nor does it look like you understand what trends are, and how forecasts are made. And the significance of a reversal of a trend. Especially where one was not expected. It doesn't bode well for you if you're trying to sell man-made global warming. We are not getting the warming that was expected. In fact, it is cooler. And these people that do the presenting of this data, can't figure out where we are. And it's no surprise.

And yes, the exemptions are ridiculous. China is building more and more coal burning and other pollution heavy manufacturing plants. Why not start them from scratch. This is why I say, you don't understand the associated costs, and seem to have the mindset for poor planning. Many in the man-made global warming movement have the same one dimensional thinking and myopic viewpoints regarding the impacts of what they want. India does not do any better. So, according to you, we let them build their dirty industries then destroy them over time. How much time? What impacts to the pollution totals will that add to. Your explanation is ardently ludicrous, and completely illogical if you believe the things you do. But this is not the only reason we ignore Kyoto. Kyoto and other climate agreements are ridiculous for other reasons as well. Cleaner and better technologies are on the way. We are doing something. But it's not the radical and draconian "burn down the barn" way that you warming cultists want. I am glad to see you coming around though. At least you seem to admit in your last post here that we cannot get by without fossil fuel consumption. And we won't for a long time to come. Maybe you realized from the other thread that you burn it, you use it, you need groceries, you want a computer, you drive a car, and you're willing to face facts somewhat. I don't see any harm in reducing pollutants either. But you need to give the alarmism a rest. It just ain't catchin' on.

[Sea Demon]

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.
Amen to that!

[bradclark1]

You haven't taken anything verbatim. You have taken things
I've said, and assigned your own meaning to it, to try and make a weak case.

Statement 1: The actions they want us to take may actually cause many
unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account.
Statement 2: And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions"
would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.
How can I assign a meaning to make a case on these? It's you making these
odd comments. If thats not what you are saying then why say it? Just to hear
yourself?
I really don't think you understand the article as presented. Nor
does it look like you understand what trends are, and how forecasts are
made. And the significance of a reversal of a trend. Especially where one
was not expected.
You don't understand past the first two words of the title. Forget about
presentation. I'll settle for you reading the first sentence.
This year is set to be the sixth warmest since records began 150
years ago, cooler than earlier predicted which means a slight respite for
European ski resorts or bears trying to hibernate. "2007 will likely be near
equal with 2006, so joint sixth warmest year," .......................
Jones predicted that 2007 would be beaten by 1998, warmest ahead of 2005,
2003, 2002 and 2004. The U.S. space agency NASA says that 2005 was
fractionally warmer than 1998.............................Eleven of the 12
years from 1995 to 2006 were among the 12 warmest years on record, it says.

Where do you get a reversal in trend from that? What, if each consecutive
year isn't hotter then the last it is a reversal in trend? How many millions
of years old is Earth? That one year can mark a reversal? Please try to
think a little harder.
And yes, the exemptions are ridiculous. China is building more and
more coal burning and other pollution heavy manufacturing plants. Why not
start them from scratch. This is why I say, you don't understand the
associated costs, and seem to have the mindset for poor planning.
And how would we force them? Lets hear a solution. I'm not idiotic enough to
think we can force them. Associated costs? Go to Beijing, talk to them about associated costs, planning and what, threaten to invade? Get a grip on reality.
So, according to you, we let them build their dirty industries then
destroy them over time. How much time? What impacts to the pollution totals will that add to. Your explanation is ardently ludicrous, and completely illogical if you believe the things you do.
No. It's according to the UN, China and India. Again, how are you going to
make them? I gave no explanation I gave you the facts as they are. I have
zip power over the U.N., China nor India. I'm flattered that you think I do.
So according to you simple logic that gives the U.S. reason to disregard
controlling our own emissions? Sounds like the logic of a K grader.
But this is not the only reason we ignore Kyoto. Kyoto and other
climate agreements are ridiculous for other reasons as well. Cleaner and
better technologies are on the way. What other reasons? OK this is your chance to teach me something. What cleaner and better technologies are on the way? That gives us the excuse to disregard our responsibilities until these technologies hit the street? I think not. Thats a juvenile line of thought.
I am glad to see you coming around though. At least you seem to admit in your last post here that we cannot get by without fossil fuel
consumption.
I haven't read anything where anybody says we can get by without fossil
fuels on this list or the news networks. Thats your imagination overworking
again. What I have written is that alternatives have to be found. I don't think I attached a complete by 2008 date or anything.
Maybe you realized from the other thread that you burn it, you use
it, you need groceries, you want a computer, you drive a car, and you're
willing to face facts somewhat.
One of the main problems with your kind of logic is that you can't see past
"You are all black or you are all white" Your simple reasoning can't get past if you are green you should drive a mule and generate power by squirrels on treadmills or something stupid like that. I can only shake my head.

[bradclark1]

the total and rapid conversions to new and untested sources of energy, etc. may do some harm.
I don't see how filtering greenhouse gases can harm and nobody has said we should drop all petroleum products within such and such years. Filter, clean up and research would be the way to go. We aren't doing squat.

Since we aren't doing squat we might as well abolish the EPA.
They enforce the laws. The EPA doesn't have the power for those decisions. That power comes from the capital.

[Sea Demon]

You don't understand past the first two words of the title. Forget about
presentation. I'll settle for you reading the first sentence....
Where do you get a reversal in trend from that? What, if each consecutive
year isn't hotter then the last it is a reversal in trend? How many millions
of years old is Earth? That one year can mark a reversal? Please try to
think a little harder.

Where do you get that it means thermal runaway. If anything, it shows that there is variation in temperature that is seemingly impossible to predict. And yes, it is a reversal of what many in that movement say. In that global temperature rise is directly related in magnitude to C02 emissions, and is cumulative. This article goes against that grain. You still do not understand the implications of what they reported. And just because there have been recent warmer years, doesn't mean it will increase that way to infinitum. Year 2007 shows that. Unfortunately, you are too dense to see it. You want to be told we're going to die, and nobody's going to get in your way of creating a mindset of doom for yourself or give you hope in anyway. Facts be damned. That is crazy. The article doesn't say anything that supports your "man-made global warming...we're all going to die" positions...although I admit, you can twist it that way as you seem to do. But it clearly shows that these people cannot trend, track, forecast what things will be like in 20 years or more out. And the people of 35 years ago who thought we were all going to freeze to death made all the same mistakes. If you wish to be gullible and accept their gloom and doom without question or reason...feel free.

No. It's according to the UN, China and India. Again, how are you going to
make them? I gave no explanation I gave you the facts as they are. I have
zip power over the U.N., China nor India. I'm flattered that you think I do.
So according to you simple logic that gives the U.S. reason to disregard
controlling our own emissions? Sounds like the logic of a K grader.

That's the rub isn't it. The UN and climate agreements in general basically say that they're exempt from the get go. They do not even address the point. And that makes me wonder why it's necessary in the first place. If they won't participate fully, then screw the agreements. We should go about our own business in this matter, which is what we're doing now. We did the right thing by ignoring Kyoto. It wasn't my logic to say we should control or not control our emissions based on what China does. But if they build agreements which punish us, while at the same time letting other nations with huge pollution problems and a large manufacturing capacity get away with murder, then yes, we should not enter into that harmful agreement. Seems you don't care much about the USA and it's own interests when entering into agreements. And you have absolutely no power over the unelected, unaccountable UN. It's a shame that too many people put so much faith in that corrupt organization and their agreements to begin with.


I haven't read anything where anybody says we can get by without fossil
fuels on this list or the news networks. Thats your imagination overworking
again. What I have written is that alternatives have to be found. I don't think I attached a complete by 2008 date or anything.

Well I'm glad to see you say that. Congratulations. Finally. I've been trying to get you to admit this for two threads and you finally got here.


One of the main problems with your kind of logic is that you can't see past
"You are all black or you are all white" Your simple reasoning can't get past if you are green you should drive a mule and generate power by squirrels on treadmills or something stupid like that. I can only shake my head.

OK. Then one must ask why all the noise by those in the man-made global warming movement? I mean, if cars are the problem, do you advocate that we stop driving? If not, why? They pollute, right? And there are millions on the road, right? So not driving so much maybe? Who would enforce that and how? What about jet aircraft? Shall we mandate that people travel less? Give everybody a Soviet style travel voucher of sorts? Should everyone be forced to dump their current automobiles and buy hybrids? What logic do you have? Other than your generic "we need to seek alternatives"? What alternatives? Nuclear plants? Geothermal? Solar cells across every major city? Who will pay for all this stuff? What if there are problems implementing the stuff? How will we scrap the old stuff? Won't the manufacture of all this new alternative technology create tons of more emissions? If done as quick as many in the warming movement want, it's quite obvious it will. You talk of timeframes. Are you looking at 50 - 100 years to change and transition to a fully renewable society? 20 years? 10 years? 5? The problem is, you can't see some of the progress that has been made, because you are one of these alarmists. It's all or nothing for you. And you simply cannot see it.

[Sea Demon]

post deleted

[bradclark1]

You still do not understand the implications of what they reported. And just because there have been recent warmer years, doesn't mean it will increase that way to infinitum.
The only thing I can tell you is reread the article and at least try to comprehend what it says. You have a bad habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignore everything else. If it's too hard for you I'll try and make it simple enough for even you to hopefully understand.
If they won't participate fully, then screw the agreements. We should go about our own business in this matter, which is what we're doing now.
Oh thats a real adult way of dealing with it.
But if they build agreements which punish us, while at the same time letting other nations with huge pollution problems and a large manufacturing capacity get away with murder, then yes, we should not enter into that harmful agreement.
We don't have to go by that agreement. Their is absoulutely nothing that stops us from using a formula that suits the U.S.. We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?
Seems you don't care much about the USA and it's own interests when entering into agreements.
Let me say this for what the fourth time? Nothing stops the U.S. from designing its own program and implementing it. Stupidly putting our head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Get over your Johnny won't play mentality and at least attempt to think like an adult. Because I'm not as ignorant as you I don't care for the U.S.? I don't think so. I believe in doing our bit.
OK. Then one must ask why all the noise by those in the man-made global warming movement? I mean, if cars are the problem, do you advocate that we stop driving? If not, why? They pollute, right? And there are millions on the road, right? So not driving so much maybe? Who would enforce that and how? What about jet aircraft? Shall we mandate that people travel less? Give everybody a Soviet style travel voucher of sorts? Should everyone be forced to dump their current automobiles and buy hybrids? What logic do you have? Other than your generic "we need to seek alternatives"? What alternatives? Nuclear plants? Geothermal? Solar cells across every major city? Who will pay for all this stuff?
When at a loss revert to stupid comments huh.

[August]

We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

Wait a second Brad. Maybe we haven't done much in the last seven years but in the 40 years prior to that we did an awful lot. We've instituted hundreds of anti pollution schemes from catalytic convertors to restricting industrial smokestack emissions and wastewater and we did it long before anyone even heard of global warming.

So saying we've done "zip, nothing and nada" is a bit misleading dontcha think?

[Sea Demon]

The only thing I can tell you is reread the article and at least try to comprehend what it says. You have a bad habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignore everything else. If it's too hard for you I'll try and make it simple enough for even you to hopefully understand.

Don't need to. You obviously misunderstand why I posted the article. And what the significance is. The man-made warming cult is shown to be completely wrong in it when they have been saying for years now that warming is directly increasing with the magnitude of C02 emissions and the cumulative aspects of it. And 2007 proved that wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if 2008 has another surprise for them. This is a cooler year and it wasn't supposed to be. Kind of like the "hurricanes increase with global warming" nonsense that was proven erroneous for the past two years. The funny thing is you only like the parsed parts that say what you like, but those ignore the main point. These other parts of the article of course try to explain it away without trying to lose credibility. And it doesn't work. Unless you're gullible that is. At some point even you have to open your eyes and put everything in focus.

Oh thats a real adult way of dealing with it.

No. That's the realistic way of dealing with it. We should not allow an unelected body design an agreement which punishes us, while at the same time allowing a free for all for those who are major polluters on the other end of the spectrum. That's just common sense and looking out for one's own interests. It's not my fault if you have no love, patriotism, common sense, or feeling of national survival in your heart.

We don't have to go by that agreement. Their is absoulutely nothing that stops us from using a formula that suits the U.S.. We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

I got news for you brad. China isn't going to play even after 2012. Nor is India or Russia for that matter. You are foolish if you think they will. And we are already going by our own agreement. And have blown Kyoto out of the water. And that's the good news. But, we have done much as August pointed out. You refuse to see any of it. You completely cover your eyes to it like a small child throwing a temper tantrum because nobody listens to you. The only juvenile here is you.

Let me say this for what the fourth time? Nothing stops the U.S. from designing its own program and implementing it. Stupidly putting our head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. Get over your Johnny won't play mentality and at least attempt to think like an adult. Because I'm not as ignorant as you I don't care for the U.S.? I don't think so. I believe in doing our bit.

We are doing as much as we can. But we are not going to destroy ourselves implementing a rash series of things that if poorly planned or implemented too quickly could have adverse consequences. This is why I'm glad you have zero power here. And nobody is really listening to you. As we go into the future, there will be more hybrid automobiles on the road, there will be cleaner ways to produce energy in our homes, and we will find better ways to renew our raw materials. Those things are happening now. But we are doing it at a pace that will not be harmful. We need to test these methods. What are they're drawbacks? Over time, do we see breakdowns? How are we going to fund it? Are there other adverse aspects that may come about by using these methods? etc. etc. etc. Anybody with any credentialing of any kind should know better. That's why I question the motives of many in the warming movement that claim to be experts.

When at a loss revert to stupid comments huh.

Uh. No. Those are questions. And you are afraid of questions, obviously. And you always run away from such questions. And it's no surprise. Like when I asked about you directly in the other thread. And what you do other than sit around here and complain all day. What do you do for the movement? Directly? Do you drive less? Have you abandoned unecessary driving altogether? Have you bought a hybrid? Do you try to grow some of your own food? Do you take the bus? Have you abandoned air travel unless absolutely necessary? Do you avoid completely Target and Walmart? Do you limit your computer usage? Really easy stuff here. If you believe so much in this stuff, these actions would seem quite necessary. Are you nothing but "doom and gloom" around your kids/grandkids? Or do you provide them any hope? Do you even let them know there is a future? Or do you just push doomsday on them? How miserable for them if you do. You defaulted on many other questions I had in the other thread that shows your total inconsistencies. Like I said before, questions are not stupid. Of course you say they are, because you don't want to answer them. Yet, they are very relevant in scope here. And the fact that you seem to have such an irrational fear of them says alot.

[Jimbuna]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8396/icontennisbg0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img231/3134/popcorn3dv3.gif

[bradclark1]

You obviously misunderstand why I posted the article. And what the significance is.
Oh now I misunderstand why you posted that article. Whats to misunderstand? What you did is read the first two words of the title and think you had something you can wave around. Maybe you can understand this. Try real hard now. This year is cooler then what they thought it was going to be but it is the sixth hottest year since they've kept records which is 150 years. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
No. That's the realistic way of dealing with it. We should not allow an unelected body design an agreement which punishes us, while at the same time allowing a free for all for those who are major polluters on the other end of the spectrum. That's just common sense and looking out for one's own interests. It's not my fault if you have no love, patriotism, common sense, or feeling of national survival in your heart. So your answer is to disregard CO2 because others have? Sounds seven year old to me.
I got news for you brad. China isn't going to play even after 2012. Nor is India or Russia for that matter. You are foolish if you think they will. And we are already going by our own agreement. And have blown Kyoto out of the water. And that's the good news. But, we have done much as August pointed out. You refuse to see any of it. You completely cover your eyes to it like a small child throwing a temper tantrum because nobody listens to you. The only juvenile here is you.
Now you're a fortune teller? Whats our own agreement? Oh you don't know! So why are you saying we are blowing Kyoto out of the water? Kyoto doesn't even matter. We as a nation need to guide ourselves and do whats right. Forget Kyoto. You are only arguing with yourself over it. Bush has tried rolling back every major initiative since he's been in office. The courts have forced him to comply and some are still pending. What new initiatives have come about the last seven years? I'm not talking about the last forty years. Lowering pollutants is an ongoing struggle. When a president rolls back, blocks or goes dead in the water it increases pollutants. Saying industry can regulate themselves is like an tobacco company saying smoking doesn't cause cancer.
We are doing as much as we can. But we are not going to destroy ourselves implementing a rash series of things that if poorly planned or implemented too quickly could have adverse consequences. I really wish you would tell us what this rash series of things is and what the adverse consequences would be. I've asked you that before and for some reason you don't answer. There is no rash series. Clinton's smoke stack mercury and auto emissions are due. It happens in numbers of years not next week. The supreme court blocked Bush from rolling back the mercury emissions in smoke stacks. A number of states are suing the government over the attempted block and weakening of auto emissions. Might just be me but I don't see that as forward thinking when the government is attempting to roll back every major initiative that comes due.
Uh. No. Those are questions.
Uh. No Its stupidity.
You defaulted on many other questions I had in the other thread that shows your total inconsistencies.
Lets get this straight. You hold all the high cards on not answering. You can't even show me any defaults. In fact I'll settle for just one. Remember you are going to look even more idiotic if you can't.
In fact I wouldn't mind you just saying what these extreme problems are.
Statement 1: The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account.
Statement 2: And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions"
would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.

[bradclark1]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8396/icontennisbg0.gif (http://imageshack.us)


I know. Don't you love it. Someone has to supply the entertainment.

[Jimbuna]

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8396/icontennisbg0.gif (http://imageshack.us)


I know. Don't you love it. Someone has to supply the entertainment.

LMAO :rotfl:

;) :up:

[bradclark1]

We have done zip, nothing, nada to control our own emissions in the last seven years. The worlds third highest pollutant just ignores the problem because China isn't playing until 2012. Why do I feel we are acting like seven year olds?

Wait a second Brad. Maybe we haven't done much in the last seven years but in the 40 years prior to that we did an awful lot. We've instituted hundreds of anti pollution schemes from catalytic convertors to restricting industrial smokestack emissions and wastewater and we did it long before anyone even heard of global warming.

So saying we've done "zip, nothing and nada" is a bit misleading dontcha think?
Thats why I specified the last seven years. When an administration blocks, rolls back and disregards the problem only adds to the problem. I believe there are something like 93(?) coal fired power-plants in the process of being built in this country. This administration was doing everything in it's power to roll back smoke stack emissions control. Thats not exactly being proactive. Technology in this field is driven by time-frames and standards. Industry won't voluntarily set itself goals to achieve it's up to the government to set and enforce the goals. They don't it's compounding the problem.

[Sea Demon]

Oh now I misunderstand why you posted that article. Whats to misunderstand? What you did is read the first two words of the title and think you had something you can wave around. Maybe you can understand this. Try real hard now. This year is cooler then what they thought it was going to be but it is the sixth hottest year since they've kept records which is 150 years. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Actually no. I read the whole thing. You need to read and comprehend what you're reading. You do not have a scientific background I take it. So it's hard for you to interpret the data that anybody brings to the table. You need them to spell it out for you. It's not my fault if you can't understand what they're saying. You even sloppily, and unknowingly admit the case yourself above, even though you've convinced yourself of doom and gloom. That truly is ignorant on your part. Yes, it is a reversal than what they thought. And it goes against everything the man-made movement tells us about emissions, and their cumulative results. So what will next year bring? 7th hottest? Eighth? Do you know? Do they? Guess what? They don't. And you give unsupported faith in a movement that cannot prove, track, forecast anything. What do you have to say about those who told us that warming is related to increased hurrican activity, yet the hurricanes never arrived. And you say we're causing irreparable harm. But cannot substantiate if the warming is natural or man-made. Your evidence has fallen into the basement.

So your answer is to disregard CO2 because others have? Sounds seven year old to me.
Dude, you seriously need reading comprehension exercises. I seriously think you don't know how to read a sentence, and comprehend what you're reading.:lol:

Now you're a fortune teller? Whats our own agreement? Oh you don't know! So why are you saying we are blowing Kyoto out of the water? Kyoto doesn't even matter. We as a nation need to guide ourselves and do whats right. Forget Kyoto. You are only arguing with yourself over it. Bush has tried rolling back every major initiative since he's been in office. The courts have forced him to comply and some are still pending. What new initiatives have come about the last seven years? I'm not talking about the last forty years. Lowering pollutants is an ongoing struggle. When a president rolls back, blocks or goes dead in the water it increases pollutants. Saying industry can regulate themselves is like an tobacco company saying smoking doesn't cause cancer.

I should have put the word agreement in quotes. We don't have a "written agreement" right now, nor do we need one. Kyoto does matter as it was an attempt to force an international agreement down our throats, that was clearly harmful to our interests, would have accomplished nothing, and would have allowed major polluting nations (other than the West) to continue polluting without a means of real enforcement whatsoever. I'm glad the Bush administration removed our signature from it. It was the right thing to do. But the facts are, steps are being taken to reduce pollutants. You want massive government regulation it seems. You want to take steps that could be destructive to industry, the economy as a whole, and our way of life. For something that cannot be proven in any way. If you want to reduce pollution that's one thing. But to remove the economic engine from our nation to make the kooks in the warming movement happy.....forget it. It's their prerogative to prove man-made global warming. And they are failing. And the data from the above articel does them absolutely no good. It's a shame you willfully blind yourself to data that shows something positive.


I really wish you would tell us what this rash series of things is and what the adverse consequences would be. I've asked you that before and for some reason you don't answer. There is no rash series. Clinton's smoke stack mercury and auto emissions are due. It happens in numbers of years not next week. The supreme court blocked Bush from rolling back the mercury emissions in smoke stacks. A number of states are suing the government over the attempted block and weakening of auto emissions. Might just be me but I don't see that as forward thinking when the government is attempting to roll back every major initiative that comes due.

Just ask the man-made warming movement what they want to do and that will clue you in. We simply cannot afford those things so rapidly. Shutting down coal burning plants, reducing oil refinery capacity further, not allowing drilling for our own domestic supply of oil at all, cities transitioned rapidly to alternative sources without testing their impacts etc. etc. etc. How about eliminating old infrastructure over just a few years time, and the bulk manufacturing of newer alternative sources, materials. That will create alot of new emissions very rapidly. And here's something else that you don't want to consider....the costs and who pays. Where are your links to support showing where Bush rejected all this stuff? And do you knwo the reasons behiond them? And I'm not talking about letting DailyKos or the disgusting Democratic Underground do your thinking for you.

Uh. No Its stupidity.

You believe questions are stupidity. That's your choice. But you lose all credibility when you come in here on your high horse telling everybody else how they should live, what the country should do, and then you cannot or will not provide a basis of leadership to your cause. These are very easy questions. But I know why you won't answer. Because you cannot. It's because you don't intend to provide any leadership yourself on the issue. I say, live the way and do the things you think everybody else should be doing. You set the example. The major players in the global warming movement, as you and I both know, refuse to practice what they preach. So it's no surprise that you refuse to answer to your own way of life, and your seeming refusal to set an example. The fact you cannot answer any of those questions proves my point. You, like most lefties on this issue, believe you are some sort of special exemption to the rule. Or you believe "we're all in this together". Which blows away your point above about how we shouldn't wait for China to do the right thing before we deal with our own emissions. Seems like I found yet another inconsistency in your logic. Come on brad. Don't wait for us to do what you want. You do the "right" thing and set the example.


Lets get this straight. You hold all the high cards on not answering. You can't even show me any defaults. In fact I'll settle for just one. Remember you are going to look even more idiotic if you can't.
See the last three pages of the Al Gore thread. And you just defaulted on my questions from my last post. Trying to make you see this is like trying to convince a 4 year old of anything. It's like pulling teeth with you....in a humorous way. There was quite a bit that you ran away from in there. And you dodge almost everything else above. Including the data from the article above posted that shows how the man-made movement lost a big one with a cooling trend despite C02 emissions either holding or increasing.

In fact I wouldn't mind you just saying what these extreme problems are.
Statement 1: The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account.
Statement 2: And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions"
would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix.
Already answered above. Your ignorance, blindness, myopia, and lack of reading comprehension skills are no excuse.

[Sea Demon]

Very intersting article I found archived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

And now, in 2007, we see cooler temperatures than what was expected.

[Sea Demon]

And this is something just for a good light-hearted laugh.

Everything is caused by global warming.....:D

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.

But not with 6 billion people running around on the planet, exhausting its resources and having about 2 billion of those 6 billion spurt out CO2 from cars, factories, and other industrial sectors. Why do you continue trying to deny that humans are partially responsible for the Greenhouse Effect and the destruction of humans?

Again, the fact is that temperatures are up. Scientists are saying it, the government is saying it, and the Earth is starting to say it. We're destroying our rain forests and polluting our air and water supplies whilst using them up. It's not right or good for anyone or anything (except those who profit off it, like industrialists, and those who don't give 2 s**ts about the Earth, just getting around with their jobs and daily life).

We don't think ahead to the consequences of such things. That's our problem. We only think at what's going on into the moment and how to fix what's currently happening, not what will be happening 10 or 20 years in the future. People are stupid like that.

[August]

Thats why I specified the last seven years. When an administration blocks, rolls back and disregards the problem only adds to the problem. I believe there are something like 93(?) coal fired power-plants in the process of being built in this country. This administration was doing everything in it's power to roll back smoke stack emissions control. Thats not exactly being proactive. Technology in this field is driven by time-frames and standards. Industry won't voluntarily set itself goals to achieve it's up to the government to set and enforce the goals. They don't it's compounding the problem.
Oh teh ebil Bush administration again. Who will you Democrats blame for everything when he's out of office? :p

Seriously I suppose we could adopt the Californian model and pile enough expensive regulations on the power industry to stop all new construction, and thereby vastly increase our energy problem, but in spite of the administration obstructionism you claim we still apparently have had significant reductions in acid rain and other related power plant pollution:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/7DD93D7C91184DAE8525739500546121

Also those coal power plants aren't as bad as you imply they are:

http://www.physorg.com/news108658274.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Another damn Bush lover!:stare:

Seriously, the man's an idiot. What's he done for us that's so great? Everyone tells me he's the best president we've ever had, so tell me, FOR ONCE, what makes him so great?

[August]

Another damn Bush lover!:stare:

Seriously, the man's an idiot. What's he done for us that's so great? Everyone tells me he's the best president we've ever had, so tell me, FOR ONCE, what makes him so great?

I've never said he was the best president we've ever had. I do believe however he's a better president than either of the last two Dem candidates would have been.

[Sea Demon]

Another damn Bush lover!:stare:

Seriously, the man's an idiot. What's he done for us that's so great? Everyone tells me he's the best president we've ever had, so tell me, FOR ONCE, what makes him so great?
I got a tax cut, Islamic terrorism is no longer being swept under the rug, and Chinese companies are sanctioned rather than just being given wholesale space technologies. No he's not the greatest President ever. Far from it actually. In many ways, a disappointment. But what have the Democrats given us? As a matter of fact, this failed Democrat Congress has been nothing but a waste of time. They have accomplished nothing. And let's not get started on their "support" for our deployed military with their disgusting and demoralizing statements.

[Sea Demon]

Again, the fact is that temperatures are up. Scientists are saying it, the government is saying it, and the Earth is starting to say it. We're destroying our rain forests and polluting our air and water supplies whilst using them up. It's not right or good for anyone or anything (except those who profit off it, like industrialists, and those who don't give 2 s**ts about the Earth, just getting around with their jobs and daily life).

We don't think ahead to the consequences of such things. That's our problem. We only think at what's going on into the moment and how to fix what's currently happening, not what will be happening 10 or 20 years in the future. People are stupid like that.
I can agree with the 6 billion people causing more pollution. But I guess you haven't seen that 2007 was cooler despite the emissions. And the fact that we had warming trends before we had all this industralization of today. And cooling in the 70's which caused the same type of hysteria. I hope we reduce pollution for all it's worth to you. And there are efforts to do that. There are many who think industry and ecology can co-exist with one another. The thing is, we have to make it work. The nutty cultists in Al Gore's movement do not think we can. While I think it is wise to find cleaner energy, better ways to renew resources, and better/cleaner ways to manufacure, we shouldn't destroy society to build Al Gore's vision. That would also be very stupid, despite the inability for some to see the potential damaging consequences to that end. We need to prove methods, techniques, and technologies before introduced on a mass scale. So far, I see a gradual change and that's good. But don't expect fossil fuels to entirely disappear or the USA to involve itself in Kyoto agreements in the near term.

[Sea Demon]

Another damn Bush lover!:stare:

Seriously, the man's an idiot. What's he done for us that's so great? Everyone tells me he's the best president we've ever had, so tell me, FOR ONCE, what makes him so great?
I've never said he was the best president we've ever had. I do believe however he's a better president than either of the last two Dem candidates would have been.

I agree totally. In addition the Democrats don't have anybody running now for 08' who would be better than Bush.

[Stealth Hunter]

I got a tax cut, Islamic terrorism is no longer being swept under the rug, and Chinese companies are sanctioned rather than just being given wholesale space technologies. No he's not the greatest President ever. Far from it actually. In many ways, a disappointment. But what have the Democrats given us? As a matter of fact, this failed Democrat Congress has been nothing but a waste of time. They have accomplished nothing. And let's not get started on their "support" for our deployed military with their disgusting and demoralizing statements.

That's funny because I haven't gotten a tax cut, Islamic terrorism has made all Muslims and Islamics into stereotypes, and the Chinese are still producing crap with lead in them.

For instance, I bought a brand new microwave last week and put it up. I tried it out on some taco shells (made in China, as the box said), and the thing starts flickering, and the taco shells burst into flames, one thing that happens when metal is inside a microwave. Had my neighbor dissect it, and the actual machine is fine, no troubles there, so it must have been what's in the shells that I was about to eat...

Failed Democrat Congress? Clearly, sir, you don't know how much of a failure the Republicans were during Bush's presidential reign in 2000-2004. Lets see what we've gotten ourselves into:

-A war that's cost over 3,000 lives and 25,000 limbs AND 360,000 dead civilians.
-An unstable stock market that requires money from the government to be added to the equation (Bush added an addition $400 billion to it about two months ago).
-Possibly World War III with Iran and Russia (their alliance with each other...).
-Severe inflation in the country.
-Outrageous insurance and real estate prices.

The Democrats have just taken control of Congress. It's only been a few months. You can't suddenly make everything that's wrong with this country (a lot) go away overnight. It takes time and cooperation, something I've not seen out of the Republicans in Congress towards the Democrats.

They don't care about the people, they just care about their ridiculous pay and their 70-day vacations. The whole lot of them is corrupt (Demo, Repub, and Independent). We should remove them all and start over.

And we shouldn't even be in Iraq. The Republicans are the ones who went along with it (just saying we should), and Bush never even had his demand to go to war approved by Congress, something which is QUITE illegal and should have earned him an immediate impeachment trial.

Saddam had the situation under control in Iraq. Looking at 2004-Bush and 2007-Bush tells us that. He's contradicted his own statements more than the number killed during the Inquisition.

He said that we should remove Saddam in 2004 because he wasn't doing an adequate job as their leader AND he was in possession of WMD's. No WMD's were found, and 2007-Bush says we have to stay in Iraq because the terrorists will take over.

So we've removed the guy from power who had everything under control so we can come in and be forced to stay to keep it that way? Brilliant logic, Mr. Bush, brilliant logic! Indeed, you probably think me sarcastic on that, but no, I'm very serious. He's basically gotten us into a situation where we HAVE to stay in Iraq for political and economic reasons.

So tell me, Demon, why do you think he's more capable than our Democrats in the last two elections?

[Torplexed]

Geez...this thread has gotten tedious. ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS POST A FUNNY PICTURE.

Serves me right. :p

[Stealth Hunter]

This thread's gotten into a debate/war...

http://www.avalon5.com/images/flamewar.jpg

[Torplexed]

This thread's gotten into a debate/war...

Yup. And I'm gonna go feed myself to a polar bear.

[Stealth Hunter]

Join your Iranian SubSimmer against the Sea Demon!

[Torplexed]

Join your Iranian SubSimmer against the Sea Demon!
Nope. I'm gonna keep my cool. Besides that bear owes me a coke.

http://socialmarketing.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/coke_polar_bear.jpg

[Sea Demon]

So tell me, Demon, why do you think he's more capable than our Democrats in the last two elections?

Well, for one, he knows where he stands on issues. You've got to at least admit he will tell you where he stands. John Kerry couldn't figure out where he was on any issue. You can't elect someone like that. And Al Gore IMO would have continued the "gifts" to China, and probably would have continued on like Clinton pretending that radical Islamists don't pose a national security risk. I do agree with you that we should get chinese made stuff out of our country. But is that entirely up to Bush? I mean he can sign something into law like a tariff on imported goods, or some other protectionist measure. But can he force American manufacturers to set up shop back here in America? The answer is no. I do think the public (free market if you will) is putting alot of recent pressure to do just that. I just hope they listen.

Failed Democrat Congress? Clearly, sir, you don't know how much of a failure the Republicans were during Bush's presidential reign in 2000-2004. Lets see what we've gotten ourselves into:

-A war that's cost over 3,000 lives and 25,000 limbs AND 360,000 dead civilians.
-An unstable stock market that requires money from the government to be added to the equation (Bush added an addition $400 billion to it about two months ago).
-Possibly World War III with Iran and Russia (their alliance with each other...).
-Severe inflation in the country.
-Outrageous insurance and real estate prices.

The Democrats have just taken control of Congress. It's only been a few months. You can't suddenly make everything that's wrong with this country (a lot) go away overnight. It takes time and cooperation, something I've not seen out of the Republicans in Congress towards the Democrats.

What have the Democrats actually accomplished? The problem with them is that they've tried to railroad things that we as a nation are doing, and they themselves have voted for. That sir, is the problem. We are at war....get over it. The troops are in the field. Don't demoralize them by comparing them to Nazi's...Dick Durbin. Don't demoralize them by saying they are killing Iraqi civilians in cold blood....John Murtha. And then find out that wasn't true. Don't demoralize them by saying the "war is lost"...Harry Reid. You get the drift. Personally for these infractions, they deserve to be gone. If you want to get rid of the whole lot and start fresh, I wouldn't fight you on that at all. :up: But this nutty Democrat party has to go.

As far as a tax cut, I needed it as I get hit by that darn AMT. It helped me and my family financially. And I did add it to my own investment portfolio. I don't know whether or not if you can see how people doing stuff like that actually helps the economy.

[Sea Demon]

Geez...this thread has gotten tedious. ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS POST A FUNNY PICTURE.

Serves me right. :p
Please do another one. It might be a refreshing change. :)

[Sea Demon]

Join your Iranian SubSimmer against the Sea Demon!

:rotfl:Nice.

[Stealth Hunter]

You've got your thick mind made up, so I'm done wasting my time on you.

Oh, and if you join, you'll get 5 free cookies, a teddy bear, and a statue that depicts Martha confessing to Mrs. Garret that the poem she "composed" for advanced writing class was actually a plagiarized work from Emily Dickinson.

[Sea Demon]

You've got your thick mind made up, so I'm done wasting my time on you.

Oh, and if you join, you'll get 5 free cookies, a teddy bear, and a statue that depicts Martha confessing to Mrs. Garret that the poem she "composed" for advanced writing class was actually a plagiarized work from Emily Dickinson.

I could say the same "thick mind" comment back in your direction. But I don't wish to insult you in reverse. But just look at the statements made from these people. It's not made up.....it's what they said. And they have nothing on record to show that they are a worthy congress. I'm willing to listen to other points of view. But don't get insulted if I question your beliefs in return. I have nothing against you, sir.

[Stealth Hunter]

And I wouldn't be suprised of it, juding by your debate methods.:shifty:

So I'm done.

[Sea Demon]

And I wouldn't be suprised of it, juding by your debate methods.:shifty:

So I'm done.

Well, the funny thing is you're the one that threw an insult at me. Not the other way around. But seriously though, I don't take it personally.

[August]

That's funny because I haven't gotten a tax cut
Then you aren't a US taxpayer. If you are then assuming you are too young to have made any money before this year you will still be getting a Bush tax cut when you pay your 2007 taxes.

Islamic terrorism has made all Muslims and Islamics into stereotypes

And that is Bush's fault how?

and the Chinese are still producing crap with lead in them.

For instance, I bought a brand new microwave last week and put it up. I tried it out on some taco shells (made in China, as the box said), and the thing starts flickering, and the taco shells burst into flames, one thing that happens when metal is inside a microwave. Had my neighbor dissect it, and the actual machine is fine, no troubles there, so it must have been what's in the shells that I was about to eat...

I agree that the Chinese produce crap but, sorry, :lol: your story sounds like a load of bovine feces. Flaming tacos? really... :roll:

-An unstable stock market that requires money from the government to be added to the equation (Bush added an addition $400 billion to it about two months ago).

Wrong. The United States CONGRESS holds the nations purse strings and controls the issue of money, not the Administration. Civics 101 man.

-Possibly World War III with Iran and Russia (their alliance with each other...).

Meh, this is nothing compared to the old days. I was born in 1959. You want to contemplate the possibilty of WW3 try experiencing air raid drills in grade school. Try seeing fallout shelters in peoples back yards. "Remember kids if you see a bright flash, stop, drop and cover!" Try standing on the edge of the actual Iron Curtain as a young Army private in the late 1970's and looking across the barbed wire and minefields at a powerful and modern equipped enemy army that outnumbered you so badly it would take the use of nukes to stop them if the decided to attack like everyone expected them to at any moment.

-Severe inflation in the country.

Inflation is not severe at all and certainly nothing compared to what we had during the Carter administration but inflation is hardly the presidents fault.

-Outrageous insurance and real estate prices.

Again all this is Bush's fault how?

The Democrats have just taken control of Congress. It's only been a few months. You can't suddenly make everything that's wrong with this country (a lot) go away overnight. It takes time and cooperation, something I've not seen out of the Republicans in Congress towards the Democrats.

Cooperation a very two way street and the Democrats have been in power for a year now. Instead of trying to work with the administration or the other side of the aisle at all, they have spent that time doing what they can to further polarize this country when they ain't badmouthing our our own service people.

They don't care about the people, they just care about their ridiculous pay and their 70-day vacations. The whole lot of them is corrupt (Demo, Repub, and Independent). We should remove them all and start over.

Depends on what you mean by start over but yeah i'd also like to see a big congressional shakeup.

And we shouldn't even be in Iraq. The Republicans are the ones who went along with it (just saying we should), and Bush never even had his demand to go to war approved by Congress, something which is QUITE illegal and should have earned him an immediate impeachment trial.

Wrong again. The US Congress voted for this war. Where do you hear this junk?

Saddam had the situation under control in Iraq.

Hitler had the situation under control in Germany as well. Your point?

He said that we should remove Saddam in 2004 because he wasn't doing an adequate job as their leader AND he was in possession of WMD's. No WMD's were found, and 2007-Bush says we have to stay in Iraq because the terrorists will take over.

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was a die hard enemy of this country who would have done everything he could to hurt us and had the oil money to do it with once we pulled our boot off his neck. He repeatedly violated the Gulf war cease fire agreement for 12 YEARS by firing on our forces patrolling the UN no fly zone almost on a daily basis when he wasn't massacring Kurds and Shias or threatening to use the WMD he did his best to convince the entire world he had. That's like telling a cop you have illegal guns and drugs at your house and complaining when they subsequently raid it but don't find any.

Members of Congress from both US parties as well as the previous administration repeatedly said ever since the Gulf war ended that he was a huge danger to this country and needed to be taken out. Just because certain democrats have selective amnesia now doesn't change that.

If anything that tendancy toward amnesia proves to me that while he is certainly no Teddy Roosevelt, Bush was the best choice available at the time.

[micky1up]

i will state one fact in the 40 odd years of conflict in northern ireland do you know how many IRA major weapons caches were found a massive 2 thats a country 40 times smaller than iraq , just becasue we didnt find them doesnt mean they were not there


and this lame arguement about permission that the US president needs,he has to ask congress thats why hes not the most powerful man in the world the leader of the chiniese republic needs to ask no-one to go to war

[Mush Martin]

Whats the problem, Polar bears are good swimmers.

:yep:

Also

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/Weigh-Man/GTEMPS.gif

Anyone see a pattern here?


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Nice hit.

[bradclark1]

Actually no. I read the whole thing.
BS. You read it when I showed you that as normal you had read just part and come out looking the fool. Show me in that article that backs you up. If not you have nothing to say. None of your babble. Put up or shut-up.
Dude, you seriously need reading comprehension exercises. I seriously think you don't know how to read a sentence, and comprehend what you're reading.
Yeah. must have.
I should have put the word agreement in quotes. We don't have a "written agreement" right now, nor do we need one. Kyoto does matter as it was an attempt to force an international agreement down our throats, that was clearly harmful to our interests, would have accomplished nothing, and would have allowed major polluting nations (other than the West) to continue polluting without a means of real enforcement whatsoever.
Make up your mind! First we have one then we don't because we don't need one. Then something we are ignoring matters because it was an attempt to ram an agreement! If we are are ignoring it why does it matter? Notice a trend here? You babble.
For something that cannot be proven in any way.........It's their prerogative to prove man-made global warming.
Come again?
These are the major U.S. scientific organizations that believe man is responsible for accelerating global warming.
US National Academy of Science
National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Research Council
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (Split)
really wish you would tell us what this rash series of things is and what the adverse consequences would be. I've asked you that before and for some reason you don't answer.
Just ask the man-made warming movement what they want to do and that will clue you in.
You're the one that talked rash series! See! You can't even answer because you just babble. Clue yourself in would be a good idea!
We simply cannot afford those things so rapidly. Shutting down coal burning plants, reducing oil refinery capacity further, not allowing drilling for our own domestic supply of oil at all, cities transitioned rapidly to alternative sources without testing their impacts etc. etc. etc.
Where do you get rapidly from? I haven't seen anything that talks about rapidly shutting any coal-burners down, nor reducing oil refinery capacity I've heard about cleaning the coal burners up. I've heard about wanting the government to push for tougher emissions and research to replace fossil fuels. What rapid alternative sources and their impacts? There aren't any.
But you lose all credibility when you come in here on your high horse telling everybody else how they should live
You're babbling again. Where on earth have I told anyone how to live? I don't think so.
It's because you don't intend to provide any leadership yourself on the issue.
I'll tell you what. You provide leadership for the Gorephobiacs and I'll provide leadership to the earth warmers. Let me know when you want to start.
You, like most lefties on this issue Wrong! Most lefties know that riding a mule isn't going to fix the problem. Most lefties know that it takes government forced changes in technologies to make the transition. Oh yeah, I smoke too.
See the last three pages of the Al Gore thread. And you just defaulted on my questions from my last post.
No. I want everyone to see these many questions I missed. I want everyone to see what I was running away from. Seeing as you know them it shouldn't be a prob em in producing them should there.
Show what I'm dodging so you can rub my face in it. Or are you just babbling again?
Already answered above. Your ignorance, blindness, myopia, and lack of reading comprehension skills are no excuse.
Why don't you humor me and show me?

[Sea Demon]

BS. You read it when I showed you that as normal you had read just part and come out looking the fool. Show me in that article that backs you up. If not you have nothing to say. None of your babble. Put up or shut-up.
Please stop appearing as a lunatic. It's very easy if you know how to read a sentence and comprehend it. Maybe you don't understand the beginning premise of the global warming movement. That temperature increases are directly related in magnitude with CO2 emissions. And the accumulation directly correlating to higher average temperatures over time. If you don't get it...it's OK. Live in your fantasy world. But you look like the idiot for continuing to live in the closet on the issue. You want doom and gloom? Take it..it's yours.:lol: Wallow in ignorance and blind faith in your cult.

While the internet articles at "greenie sites" , Al Gore, and warming cultists at the National Academy are selling you junk, the data doesn't support you. Nor does any current trends. The article doesn't spell it out for you. But I wouldn't expect it to. It actually takes some thinking on the part of the reader. The fact that they spend the next few paragraphs trying feebly to explain it away should clue you in. And it doesn't eliminate the fact that it goes against one of the major sacraments of what CO2, emissions, and warming have been rolled into. And the supposed alarm it should be causing. And the movements past portrayals of doom, where this article pretty much shows there is none. This article shows that these people don't have anything figured out.


Yeah. must have.
Looks like you lost your train of thought during your current insane rant.

Make up your mind! First we have one then we don't becuse we don't need one. Then something we are ignoring matters because it was an attempt to ram an agreement! If we are are ignoring it why does it matter? Notice a trend here? You babble so much you trip yourself up.
What seems like babbling to you is actually someone trying to explain something to a 4 year old mind that hasn't learned how to comprehend a sentence, doesn't know how to analyze scientific data or an article outlining the subject matter, and consistently fails to logically see the inconsistent drivel of their own posts. The punitive agreements on the international scale would be harmful because it is selective. And doesn't accomplish the things that they say is necessary. There is a "free for all" for some, and selective punishment for us. That doesn't tell you what we should do internally on our own accord. Maybe you can read that last couple of sentences, and comprehend the actual meaning this time around.

Come again?
These are the major U.S. scientific organizations that believe man is responsible for accelerating global warming.
US National Academy of Science
National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Research Council
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (Split)
Boy you sure have blind faith in these "experts" that have told us that the impending hurricanes that never showed are the results of global warming. These same people have been telling us for decades of acid rain death, ocean depletions, ice ages, etc. and have been wrong everytime for over 40 years of climate fear mongering. These organizations have also told us that CO2 emissions are directly related to higher temperatures in magnitude and scope, yet we see a cooler year despite increased emission outputs. You have become a denier in reality despite evidence against your contrarian apocalyptic viewpoints. You are desperate to sell man-made warming. And you look looney doing it. What are you? A carbon credit salesman like Al Gore? :lol:

Blind faith as yours, without thinking or analyzing on your part shows me you are incapable of understanding the true nature of global warming itself. You don't understand the reversal of trends, because you obviously don't even understand the issue on the front side of the equation. To you, the only reality is "man is destroying himself". You will only listen to the people that think humanity has that much power to effect that much change. Even though the world around you doesn't show that if you would open your eyes. And for some looney reason, you reject voices of reason, hope, common sense, and observation. You even reject voices calling for cleaner energy and manufacturing methods unless done on whatever time table is putting your knickers in a bunch. Because people call for it to be done correctly, gradually to see if things can work, and reasonably to reduce unforeseen problems. To you, those things are unreasonable. Despite alot of evidence to the contrary, you wallow and spin. You won't be happy unless you're miserable. And it's you're problem. The way I outlined it should be done, is how it's being done now.


You're the one that talked rash series! See! You can't even answer because you just babble. Clue yourself in would be a good idea!

HAHA. Get a grip. You're going to blow a gasket for nothing.

I answered in that thread a couple of pages back. Either you didn't read it, or you don't know how to read. Please, I'm not going to type it over for you as you are completely wasting your own time. Your evidence of doom is inconclusive junk science. The fact that the people in that article try to quibble it away doesn't help you. They tried to do the same with the hurricanes. They are moving away from the term "global warming" now and using the word "climate change" so they can change their position once again. Why don't you quit your own babbling, get your head out of the sand, learn how to comprehend a sentence, learn what your global warming cult believes, and see how data in the real world conflicts with it. You may also want to review the last 40 years of climate history and see how the things these people have been saying have proven erroneous. And lastly, why don't you go rent Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" again and have yourself a jolly good time. Gore only uses what you want to see, and there is no voice of dissent there.


Where do you get rapidly from? I haven't seen anything that talks about rapidly shutting any coalburners down, nor reducing oil refinery capacity I've heard about cleaning the coal burners up. I've heard about wanting the goverment to push for tougher emissions and research to replace fossil fuels. What rapid alternative sources and their impacts? There aren't any.
Then you aren't paying attention to your own people. Maybe that's why you can't see how truly off balance they are.

You're babbleing again. Where on earth have I told anyone how to live? I don't think so.
So you are a warming true believer, but you don't think people should change how they live? *gasp* That's a new one. How are we going to accomplish all those things the warming movement wants unless people change (drastically) the way they live? hmmm? Don't start backtracking here. So should people not do anything? Status quo? Everybody go out and buy a Hummer? Or not?

I I'll tell you what. You provide leadership for the Gorephobiacs and I'll provide leadership to the earth warmers. Let me know when you want to start.
Already started. Many threads ago. The only thing is, I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor do I claim "leadership" in anything. I just expect that if you're trying to prove your assertions on man-made warming, the onus is on you to prove it. Especially after 40 years of failure on your movements part to get anything right. Up to and including the last two years of hurricane season and 2007 in total. And current evidence to show that the forecasts and trends they see are often quite wrong. And their main premise on temperature, CO2 totals, and their cumulative aspects has fallen in the toilet. Somebody please flush.

Plus I don't think you understood the "leadership" I was talking about. The leadership I was referring to was you, a man-made warming believer, living the lifestyle of change that the eco's want to enact on everybody. Leading by example if you will. What lifestyle changes have you, bradclark1, made to be more like what the movement wants from you? Are your own lifestyle choices enough? Are you making major sacrifices like taking the bus everywhere? Do you ride a bike instead of your car to local places? Have you shunned Walmart and Target stores for good? Are you even researching growing some of your own vegetables to reduce your own "carbon footprint" from the grocery store? That's the leadership I was referring to. Please read slowly, and try to understand at least one paragraph this time around.


No. I want everyone to see these many questions I missed. I want everyone to see what I was running away from. Seeing as you know them it shouldn't be a probem in producing them should there.
Show what I'm dodging so you can rub my face in it. Or are you just babbling again?
Why don't you humor me and show me?
I will not. Because you are trying the tried and true tactic of attempting to waste my time. Anybody with half a brain and the ability to read can go to the Al Gore thread and the other page on this one and see where you said that the questions I posed to you were "stupid". And they can read the questions themselves, and see that you answered none of them. Either you're using that tactic, or you've got some screws loose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, you are trying to waste my time. You may say they are stupid "comments" as you put it, but they are very relevant to someone who believes in this movement. So much in fact to ignore reality. You want to believe that man is killing the planet. And we're screwed? That's fine. Enjoy your depression and your lack of hope. Too bad it's for squat.

[Sea Demon]

Another reason why the "global warming" label is slowly being reverted to the "climate change" label. It's getting downright cold out there. We're approaching winter....and.....Surprise.... it's getting cold.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0

[Sea Demon]

Say it isn't so....:)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071201/D8T8ULN00.html

Snow and Ice hitting the Midwest. Des Moines Airport closes.

[Jimbuna]

http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img524/478/killswordduelingji4.gif

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img223/820/popcorn3yv1.gif

[bradclark1]

The fact that they spend the next few paragraphs trying feebly to explain it away should clue you in.
Oh here we go. You finally realize you can't show anything in the article so now it's it's feeble. So now I expect you to shut up seeing as you couldn't put up.
Looks like you lost your train of thought during your current insane rant. Funny how when you are made to look the fool it's an insane rant uh.
Boy you sure have blind faith in these "experts" that have told us that the impending hurricanes that never showed are the results of global warming. These same people have been telling us for decades of acid rain death, ocean depletions, ice ages, etc. and have been wrong everytime for over 40 years of climate fear mongering. These organizations have also told us that CO2 emissions are directly related to higher temperatures in magnitude and scope, yet we see a cooler year despite increased emission outputs. You have become a denier in reality despite evidence against your contrarian apocalyptic viewpoints. You are desperate to sell man-made warming. And you look looney doing it. What are you? A carbon credit salesman like Al Gore?
Mmm. Every major scientific organization in the U.S. are wrong and you are right. The federal government is wrong and you are right? Forgive me from falling on the floor laughing. You are looking dumber and dumber the further down we get. Can you show just one major scientific organization that disagrees?
Blind faith as yours, without thinking or analyzing on your partI seem to remember you bemoaning the fact that I was researching and giving you all these links to read so you could educate yourself. You supply nothing but single individuals who were financed by oil companies. I still remember the one that disagreed that second hand smoke is unhealthy.
HAHA. Get a grip. You're going to blow a gasket for nothing.
I answered in that thread a couple of pages back. Either you didn't read it, or you don't know how to read. Please, I'm not going to type it over for you as you are completely wasting your own time.
Thought so. I'm going to educate some more. Have you heard of quotes or cut and paste? Read up on it and try it sometime.
You may also want to review the last 40 years of climate history and see how the things these people have been saying have proven erroneous. I'm going to make this an easy answer. Never in our history has the scientific community of the world come together of this magnitude to press one theory.
Then you aren't paying attention to your own people. Maybe that's why you can't see how truly off balance they are.
My own people? You are the only person on this earth that made this statement and seeing as you can't even answer yourself proves you just babble to hear yourself. The only person you are trying to BS is you.
Plus I don't think you understood the "leadership" I was talking about.No what you think is in your own mind. Get a grip on reality will you.
I will not. Because you are trying the tried and true tactic of attempting to waste my time. Anybody with half a brain and the ability to read can go to the Al Gore thread and the other page on this one and see where you said that the questions I posed to you were "stupid". And they can read the questions themselves, and see that you answered none of them. Either you're using that tactic, or you've got some screws loose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, you are trying to waste my time. You may say they are stupid "comments" as you put it, but they are very relevant to someone who believes in this movement. So much in fact to ignore reality. You want to believe that man is killing the planet. And we're screwed? That's fine. Enjoy your depression and your lack of hope. Too bad it's for squat.
What I did was give you the rope to hang me. I gave you the chance to show I was an idiot. You couldn't do it. Why? Because you can't.
I think this thread shows what you are. It isn't worth anybodies time debating this topic with you any further.

[Sea Demon]

Oh here we go. You finally realize you can't show anything in the article so now it's it's feeble. So now I expect you to shut up seeing as you couldn't put up.

I've put up so many times it's getting old. You have not addressed the main point. And cannot analyze how the main premise of man-made global warming is not looking very credible at this point. Run away again brad. It's easy to do what you do and just ignore the main premise of your own movement, so the data that slams the door shut on it is of no value to you. That is ignorant on your part. But feel free to continue to wallow in it. It doesn't strengthen your case in any way.

Funny how when you are made to look the fool it's an insane rant uh.

Yes. It seems that is all you are capable of. You don't address questions, you don't analyze any data, and you don't make any observations other than....."the National Academy says it's true...so it must be". Despite they, and other climate hysterics, they have been wrong about every major disaster scenario they've brought up for more than 40 years. Perhaps you still have not researched any climate scenario's of the last 40 years and seen where they have been wrong. Completely. Perhaps you never will because you're afraid of what you may find if you have to think for yourself. It will still show your complete ignorance on the matter at hand. So just continue on with your childish ranting, and your little man complex. And continue using big tough words like "babbling", "ranting", "you're stupid", etc. and continue not to address any points being made or observed. But it's you turning into a cartoon character here. And I can't help you there. You're doing a bang up job yourself.

Mmm. Every major scientific organization in the U.S. are wrong and you are right. The federal government is wrong and you are right?

Can you show just one major scientific organization that disagrees?

Can you show me where one of these organizations have been proven correct in their observations. You don't think they have agenda's? :lol: Please brad. Especially now as we see cooler temperatures despite increased or steady CO2 emissions? The thing is, I think you understand somewhere that CO2 does cause greenhouse effect. Therefore in your mind, any output by man is destroying the planet. You don't understand how little we put out on a whole. You just grab on to the "doomsday" cult stories floating out on the web by these people. BTW, speaking of these poeople, do you think their message will change in the future? I know it will, and you will probably grab on to whatever doomsday scenario you can find to make yourself miserable with. Even now we hear "climate change" instead of "global warming". Scientific organizations are good. And I'm sure they have done research in the field. But when they themselves see results different than what they predict in their modelling, and then ignore it....you've got to ask why.

Just out of curiousity, what credentialing do you have that makes you believe anything they say is true? Do you only believe them because they wear a badge that shows they come from a research institute? Do you think that everyone within them is in lockstep belief? Do you know where alot of their own funding comes from?

I seem to remember you bemoaning the fact that I was researching and giving you all these links to read so you could educate yourself.

You gave me nutjob links the entire way. And each one was saying things that goes against what is now being observed in the real world. Your links are becoming more obsolete by the day.

Thought so. I'm going to educate some more. Have you heard of quotes or cut and paste? Read up on it and try it sometime.

Yes. That's all you do. You merely use someone else's thinking and opinion to try and sustain your belief in this false junk science. On the other end of it, I'm not going to do your work for you. Simply go back to the Al Gore thread, three pages back on this one, and look at the posts above. It's not that difficult. I really want to see if you can do it.

I'm going to make this an easy answer. Never in our history has the scientific community of the world come together of this magnitude to press one theory.

And the theory is not working out. The theory of cumulative and sustained CO2 emissions of man causing uncontrolled runaway thermal conditions in the atmosphere has pretty much fallen on it's face. I'm actually surprised they started with that premise considering that there was a major cooling trend in the 1960's that coincided with the largest expansion of CO2 emissions growth in the 20th century. I do question this part of the scientific community. There are others within the scientific community who disagree. Of course we find that eventually you will get a nice little Wiki article written about you if you disagree with the "man-made movement", so the small minds can continue to be fooled. Because they make no observations of their own, and only sit in front of a computer all day looking for bogus links.

My own people? You are the only person on this earth that made this statement and seeing as you can't even answer yourself proves you just babble to hear yourself. The only person you are trying to BS is you.

It's been answered, and I will not retype it. Seriously, if you can't research a simple thread in a forum, how do you expect to really understand something as complex as meteorology, and weather trends. This is too easy.

No what you think is in your own mind. Get a grip on reality will you.


Funny how you dodged every question in my last post as well. Leadership is impossible without leading by example. If you cannot provide that leadership, then you have no right to shoot your mouth off. It's really that simple. It's not my fault that you do not understand the concept of leadership, and how to influence people to your side of thinking. In fact, with your nuttiness on this single issue, you make me even more skeptical with every post you make. I'm sure I'm not the only one you have done this to.

So why can't you provide any leaderhsip on the issue? Seriously, what actions are you taking to reduce your own "carbon footprint"? Uh-oh. More questions. Actually they are a couple of the same ones. I don't really expect you to lead by example. Your major water carriers do not after all. Maybe that's the leaderrship you follow yourself. Shoot your mouth off, and do nothing. In a way, that makes you pretty harmless.


What I did was give you the rope to hang me. I gave you the chance to show I was an idiot. You couldn't do it. Why? Because you can't.
I think this thread shows what you are. It isn't worth anybodies time debating this topic with you any further.

You've hung yourself. I didn't need to show you as an idiot. You are doing that yourself in every post you make. You've actually made it easy for me, as you haven't even got past my post of three pages back. You merely come into the post, refuse to answer, refuse to actually debate anything. You babble along argumentatively, then accuse others of babbling. You level the term of "stupidity", then address nothing when it's shoved in your face. And then act like it never was. You do nothing but take blind faith in organizations with an agenda, push doomsday, and cannot even understand the significance of something when it shows a complete reversal of what your links have been telling you. You claim to want cleaner energy and such, and have not done any research that shows progress, and refuse to see it when it's pointed out. And you don';t answer to your own lifestyle choices. You get mad at people even as they call for cleaner sources of energy, because things aren't framed the way you like. And you cannot see how remanufacturing on a mass scale and reverting totally to new alternative sources may need testing and evaluation before implemented. The government see's it. Because that's how it's being done. Maybe your nutty sources haven't. No brad, you're hanging yourself.:yep:

[Fish]

Say it isn't so....:)



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071201/D8T8ULN00.html

Snow and Ice hitting the Midwest. Des Moines Airport closes.


Europe's warmest autumn in 500 years. :smug:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061204/full/news061204-2.html


Autumn 2006 extraordinarily mild in a large part of Europe.

http://www.knmi.nl/VinkCMS/news_detail.jsp?id=35431

[Sea Demon]

Say it isn't so....:)




http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071201/D8T8ULN00.html

Snow and Ice hitting the Midwest. Des Moines Airport closes.


Europe's warmest autumn in 500 years. :smug:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061204/full/news061204-2.html


Autumn 2006 extraordinarily mild in a large part of Europe.

http://www.knmi.nl/VinkCMS/news_detail.jsp?id=35431

Very interesting, Fish. And worthy of consideration. But I do find this rather interesting as well from your second link. It only addresses whether or not there are other mitigating factors which caused the warming trend on your part of the world. And whether or not this is from natural variation, or something else. I'm still curious as to what your winter months will look like. Seeing as how we are showing milder temperatures across the board here. And throughout the year 2007 as a whole.

The occurrence of these weather patterns was still a very unusual event, which is expected to occur by chance no more than once every 200 to 500 years. Investigations are under way to see which factors contributed to the high temperature, and whether these are related to global warming or indeed a pure coincidence.

[bradclark1]

Oh teh ebil Bush administration again. Who will you Democrats blame for everything when he's out of office?
Well I guess I should have said the person sitting at the big desk in that big white house in Washington DC. Which actually the buck stops there put power is in the VP's zone of responsibility.
Seriously I suppose we could adopt the Californian model and pile enough expensive regulations on the power industry to stop all new construction, and thereby vastly increase our energy problem, but in spite of the administration obstructionism you claim we still apparently have had significant reductions in acid rain and other related power plant pollution:

Seriously I suppose we could adopt a well thought out plan that all sides could agree on economocally. Which more or less means a mediater makes a decision and forces it through the EPA. But, the EPA is a political position at the top.
"Section 202 of the Clean Air Act empowers the federal government to regulate "any air pollutant" that may "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." In 1998, during Clinton's presidency, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that the CAA gave it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. In 1999, environmentalist groups petitioned the agency to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars and trucks, because they contribute to global warming. But in 2003, now under the Bush administration, the EPA denied this request, arguing, among other things, that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases because they aren't "air pollutants" as defined by the statute. The EPA also said it wouldn't regulate CO2 emissions because of the "scientific uncertainty" of their effect on climate change."
December 5 is supposed to be some major energy legislation coming up.
If it passes it will probably be a good step in the right direction. If it passes.
This month Ten Midwestern leaders signed the Midwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. States signing the accord were Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana*, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, Ohio*, South Dakota*, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba (*Denotes observer states whatever that means). The accord pledges the states to set emissions reductions targets and timeframes and calls for the establishment of a regional cap-and-trade system. The Midwest stands to gain over 289,000 new manufacturing jobs if it makes a commitment to renewable energy.
"An internal EPA memo calculated the levels of reductions that could be achieved just by enforcing the current Clean Air Act already on the books. The emissions reductions under the President's plan are not nearly as stringent. It will:
Take longer than current law. The administration plan sets a pollution cap that does not take full effect until 2018, allowing plants to take longer to adopt pollution controls that are ready and available today for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury.

Be weaker than current law. Even once fully enforced, the Bush administration plan lets power plants emit more of the smog, soot, and mercury contamination than enforcing current law.

Could allow some power plants actually increase their emissions of toxic mercury. Instead of imposing a strict cap on the amount of mercury emissions allowed from each power plant unit, the administration plan lets plants buy and sell mercury trading credits – which many critics see as a problem because of toxic hotspots.
In the past, when old, dirty power plants made major modifications that substantially increased the plant's air pollution, the law required that pollution controls had to be upgraded. However, under the Bush administration's changes to a key Clean Air Act program called "New Source Review," these old dirty plants can be almost completely rebuilt without ever having to install modern pollution equipment. That means not only that there is more power plant pollution in the air today, but that power plants will be able to continue to pollute unchecked far into the future.
The Bush administration has pushed through two rounds of weakening changes to the provision that could let these oldest and dirtiest plants off the hook. The first round changes, which significantly weaken the provision, became law on December 31st, 2002. The second round, which effectively eliminate the provision, were put forward in October 2003 but were stayed by the DC Circuit Court on Christmas Eve, 2003 as likely violating the Clean Air Act. The court's decision effectively blocks the most egregious rollbacks, for now.
Thats this I assume:
2002: NSR Rollback Initiative
On Dec. 31, exactly 32 years after President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into law, the Bush administration announces significant rollbacks to New Source Review pollution control provisions. Highlights:
1. New rules will allow virtually all pollution increases from old, high-polluting sources to go unregulated. EPA will allow companies to avoid updating emission controls if their plant’s equipment has been reviewed at any time within the past decade, and the measures used to calculate emissions levels will be reconfigured.
2. The review process built into NSR will be drastically scaled back. Until now, when facilities wanted to expand their production, thereby increasing their emissions, they would have to apply for permission and undergo EPA scrutiny and public comment. The rollback will do away with this requirement. Communities will now not know when a nearby power plant is increasing the amount of pollutants pumped into their backyards. The new regulations are slated to go into effect in March 2003.
2003: Senate Rolls Back NSR
An attempt by Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) to postpone a rollback of the New Source Review rules is defeated in the Senate (46-50) during amendment votes on the 2003 budget bill; a competing amendment by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) wins (51-46), clearing the way for the Clean Air Act rollback.
So! Go figure.
I have learned a lot in the last few days researching this stuff and notice that it's mostly states banding together or getting aggressive independently as nothing but rollbacks or attempted rollbacks is coming down from the fed.

Edit: Regards acid rain: Thats from legislation in the 1990's
Regards coal plants: Thats good or could it be better? I don't really know.

[Sea Demon]

Interesting story here. Thought some here might find it intriguing as well. And not very surprising considering the ice storms, record snowfalls in the East, etc. we're seeing.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb


Even some in the media establishment seem to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists......Washington Post Staff writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, ..climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking".....Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bites the dust".


This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany (http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html),Brazil (http://www.metsul.com/blog/), the Netherlands (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.klimaatnieuws.nl/200701/groep_wetenschappers_mens_niet_schuldig.php&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPeter%2BBloemers%2BVolkskrant%26num%3 D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.micro), Russia (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html), New Zealand (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/) and France (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/20070314.FIG000000106_climat_polemique_entre_acade miciens.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFluteau%2Ballegre%26num%3D100%26hl%3D en%26rls%3Dcom.m), nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360)) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. And much more in here......


And looky here.
Global cooling?!? Say it ain't so.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

This is all good news. Record low temps all over the world. Despite increased CO2 emissions. I'm sure we'll be seeing many more stories like this as the years go on.

[Letum]

Peaks and troughs do not show trends.

[Sea Demon]

From the article above.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

[Letum]

I suppose that is why "global climate change" is preferd by many.

[Sea Demon]

I suppose that is why "global climate change" is preferd by many.
Precisely! :D It is preferred that way for now. The terms are constantly changing, as theories are proven bogus. That is definitely part of the sham.

[micky1up]

ive no doubt that the world is heating up all i doubt is that is exclusivley a human problem

[Chock]

Well I wish it would hurry up and globally warm my fecking house up! I'm freezing my ass off here.

:D Chock

[August]

From the Boston Globe of all places!

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

[Torplexed]

Teddy-thread.....you're back from the dead! :p

[August]

Teddy-thread.....you're back from the dead! :p

I try not to create new threads when the old one is still unlocked. :lol:

[Torplexed]

'Teddy-thread.....you're back from the dead! :p
I try not to create new threads when the old one is still unlocked. :lol:

I don't mind. Aside from the one about video cards this is my longest-lived thread yet. :rock:

[Tchocky]

Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.

I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from. Let's take his opening paragraph.
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold. Notice how he leaves the UK temperature predictions alone for the rest of the article. Why would he do that?
Because 2007 was the second warmest year ever recorded in the UK - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7169690.stm

Global warming is an unfortunate phrase, climate change is more accurate. Weather has always been innately variable. Which is why cold records continue to be set.

Who is he quoting here anyway, that big chuck missing from the quote interested me.
the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,"
Hmph, these guys were in that "documentary" The great Global Warming Swindle, look it up in your own time.
This chunk of a George Monbiot article devoted to the documentary tells us a little about these scientists' history. They have been proven wrong on this a couple of times
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).

argh, it's late
*blinks*

[August]

Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.

I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from.

"Where these guys are coming from"? Dude, it's the Boston Globe!

[Tchocky]

Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.

I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from.
"Where these guys are coming from"? Dude, it's the Boston Globe!
Ah, but look.

Jeff Jacoby's column has been published on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) since 1994, when he was hired as a counterweight to the paper's liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal) columnists; from 1987 to 1994, he was chief editorial writer for the conservative Boston Herald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Herald).

(by the by, this kind of mouthpiece-balancing irritates me. oh well, it sells papers)

[August]

Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.

I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from.
"Where these guys are coming from"? Dude, it's the Boston Globe! Ah, but look.

Jeff Jacoby's column has been published on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) since 1994, when he was hired as a counterweight to the paper's liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal) columnists; from 1987 to 1994, he was chief editorial writer for the conservative Boston Herald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Herald).
(by the by, this kind of mouthpiece-balancing irritates me. oh well, it sells papers)
Tchocky, I grew up in Massachusetts and have been reading the Boston Globe for, heck, it must be close to 40 years now. Believe me when i say that the Globe is so liberal (How liberal are they August?) Michael Moore could serve as their conservative counterweight. It's gotten even worse since they were bought out by the New York Times...

[Peto]

Interesting note on climate change: Tornado in Wisconsin today.

Discussing the issue with someone I know he said, "There is no proof that climate change is man made."

My Answer: "So..?"

Him: "Why should we bother doing anything about it?"

My response: "Pretend your house is in a forest. A thunderstorm comes along with a lot of lightning. A fire starts and is moving slowly toward your home. Do you drive around to where the fire started to see if it was arson or lightning? Or do you try to put the fire out before it consumes your house?"

His response: "Well, it's not America's fault."

My response: "I'll bring the marshmellows."

He wasn't happy but I was :lol:!

[CDR Resser]

You assume that we can do something about it. The best information that I read indicates that the recent warming (the last 400 years or so) is probably due to increased solar storm activity.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

[Peto]

Well--about the worst thing that can happen by "trying" to do something about is cleaner power and less dependance on foreign sources for that power. I don't consider that to be a losing situation.

Respectfully Back!!!

EDIT: I do not assume we can do anything about the climate change I believe is happening. But I do know we can try...

[Sea Demon]

Well--about the worst thing that can happen by "trying" to do something about is cleaner power and less dependance on foreign sources for that power. I don't consider that to be a losing situation.


Nothing wrong with cleaner sources of energy. I just despise how the age old "fear mongering" junk science continually comes into play decade after decade to try and change people's behavior. I find it amazing how grown adults can actually fall for this crap when these scare theories are always proven incorrect,or as overhyped garbage. Man-made global warming as a working theory is dying, if not already dead. It's like Y2K. Remember that nonsense? Only the individuals who are surprised that it's hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and less extreme in between keep this crap going. Most of these people don't even understand how little we put out compared to all greenhouse emissions in total. Some of the ones I've discussed these issues with don't even realize that water vapor is the largest contributor to greenhouse effect. CO2 is 3% of the total, and we are only 3% of that 3%. Which means our output is 0.1-0.12% of the total. Yet, these people claim that's throwing the entire eco-system out of whack. :doh: Even when natural CO2 levels continually fluctuate as well. Utter Fools. They basically claim humanity is killing itself by driving, travelling, flying, buying groceries, using household electricity, etc. In selling this "global warming" snake oil junk science, these people are actually hurting their own cause of a cleaner environment. And it's been proven that the industrial world just isn't going to do what they recommend, nor is it necessary. I'm glad those 400 scientists came out last month and told the Senate that Gore was full of bunk. He is. And I loved how Gore used the old, worthless, and tired argument of the "Exxon-mobile funding". Of course those charges fell flat. :LOL: What a loser.

BTW, it's freezing where I'm at here in California. I had a 1/2 inch thick ice plate on my windshield 2 mornings ago. But surprise....it's winter. *GASP* I guess only a man-made warming cultist would be shocked that it's cold in the winter. And I'm sure thery'll be shocked in July when temperatures are at 100 degrees F. LOL.

[Stealth Hunter]

Part of global warming is Earth, part of it is man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQG_s3K3p5g

[Peto]

Part of global warming is Earth, part of it is man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQG_s3K3p5g

My thoughts exactly. And I don't want for this to happen to me: One day, things do get really bad--Really Bad--and I look back and say, "I was wrong to do nothing." Peto is due to be off the power grid in about 3 years (I hope). Solar and Wind with starage batteries. I have a couple friends who already are and they don't suffer a bit (on runs his recording studio without external power). The more people who do that, the cheaper and better the technology becomes. And the cost is compensated by not having those monthly energy bills.

I've tried, but I just can't find a downside to "trying" to find cleaner energy sources. If I'm wrong? I'm still off the grid ;)!

@ Sea_Demon: (respectfully) Most of the people I know that were scared of Y2K (I wasn't one of them) are now the ones saying that Climate Change (it's NOT Global Warming!!!) is a bunch of crap. And Ice Storms in california? Ice flooded area in Arizona? Tornado in Wisconsin in January? If that doesn't indicate a change in climate--well--it does. And I ain't scared. Life will be what it will. I also won't look back one day and say. "I wish I had done something." Even if it doesn't make a difference I'll be able to say, "I tried."

That's the least I can do for my grandchildren.

[Sea Demon]

Part of global warming is Earth, part of it is man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQG_s3K3p5g

Man's part is not devastating. The large contributor to greenhouse effect is water vapor. And natural CO2 dwarfs our own emissions by far. Man's output is totally dwarfed by both of those.

The thing that get's me scratching my head is that there are many people in the enviro-movement/global warming movement who promote vehicles that create water vapor as a byproduct. i.e. fuel cells. Go figure. :hmm: I can already see the hysteria once we turn ourselves over to fuel cell cars that we're creating too much water vapor. Sometimes I think these warming cultists are just looking for something to believe in. Even if it's nonsense. And they want the cycle of complaining to continue above all. Global warming junk science is :dead: . It's cold now, and it'll get hot in the summer. Ad nauseum. Get over it.

[Sea Demon]

My thoughts exactly. And I don't want for this to happen to me: One day, things do get really bad--Really Bad--and I look back and say, "I was wrong to do nothing." Peto is due to be off the power grid in about 3 years (I hope). Solar and Wind with starage batteries. I have a couple friends who already are and they don't suffer a bit (on runs his recording studio without external power). The more people who do that, the cheaper and better the technology becomes. And the cost is compensated by not having those monthly energy bills.

I've tried, but I just can't find a downside to "trying" to find cleaner energy sources. If I'm wrong? I'm still off the grid ;)!

Good luck. I can at least respect you because you practice what you preach. Most of the warming fanatics don't.

[Peto]

Good luck. I can at least respect you because you practice what you preach. Most of the warming fanatics don't.

Thank You Very Much! I do appreciate that! And--I hope I'm wrong!!! :yep:

[Tchocky]

Ah, the old "it was cold today" argument.

I love going through these articles and finding out where these guys are coming from.
"Where these guys are coming from"? Dude, it's the Boston Globe! Ah, but look.

Jeff Jacoby's column has been published on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) since 1994, when he was hired as a counterweight to the paper's liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal) columnists; from 1987 to 1994, he was chief editorial writer for the conservative Boston Herald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Herald).
(by the by, this kind of mouthpiece-balancing irritates me. oh well, it sells papers)
Tchocky, I grew up in Massachusetts and have been reading the Boston Globe for, heck, it must be close to 40 years now. Believe me when i say that the Globe is so liberal (How liberal are they August?) Michael Moore could serve as their conservative counterweight. It's gotten even worse since they were bought out by the New York Times...
I used to live in Boston myself, never liked the Globe very much. The Herald had better writing and broke stories faster.
I think Jacoby is taking this line because he's seen as the conservative guy on the op-ed page, therefore he takes positions he may not believe in fully. I say trhis because the article is such a mash-up of overused arguments, I've read this a hundred times before in different papers.

[Skybird]

The truth of religous fundamentalism: it cannot be what should not be. In the end it is another way to say: "f#ck off, I don't want to change myself." This religion is easy and knows only two commandements: 1. you should mistake climatic micro-cycles and macro-cycles every single day, and believe that both are one and the same. 2. For not having to change yourself you shall believe that man has nothing to do with anything.

:dead: The sweetness of innocence.

[bradclark1]

We are going through a heat wave this week here so global warming must be happening. Getting close to sixty. :)

[bradclark1]

Global warming junk science is :dead:
What scientific organization backs that up Sea Demon? Oh! None!

[Sea Demon]

Global warming junk science is :dead: What scientific organization backs that up Sea Demon? Oh! None!
Here comes the little man complex again. :lol: Actually there were 400 scientists that recently told the Senate just that in not so many words. And there are many more than that. Global Warming as a working theory is dying. Given time, your "sources" will eventually change their minds as well. They might someday realize that being hot in the summer, and cold in the winter really isn't such an anomaly after all. And is part of this years cycle, last years cycle, the year before's cycle, ad nauseum. It will happen again next year. And weather patterns have never been consistent, even before the Industrial Revolution. Most sane people realize this. I'm amazed we're at the point where scientists actually have to go to the Senate to tell them that because of misinformed lefty voters. But we are at the point where the dumb masses will believe anything they read on the Internet. This despite the failings of those who push those theories to prove them. And despite the premises of those same theories to continually hold any water whatsoever. Such as increased and sustained CO2 levels yielding continued and sustained increasing warming trends. i.e. CO2 increases from man causes increased warming. Well, CO2 emissions are increasing worldwide, yet there is no atmospheric thermal runaway as predicted. There is record cold in many areas. Of course you and other cultists refuse to see it, lest your doom cult be exposed as the fraud that it is. That whole theory fell on it's face hard. Why do you suppose that Gore won't debate anybody on the issue? Huh? At any rate, continue to believe your nonsense. It's simply a waste to those of us in the real world who seek real data, and understanding of scientific trends. And question inconsistincies and innacurate forecasts and trends. Not agendas via Internet articles like you seem to crave for personal consumption. And you still don't get it. Nobody will effect the radical changes you seek. Just ain't gonna happen. You lost before you began. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, rather than allowing these "organizations" to think for you. Their data becomes more obsolete each and every day.

[bradclark1]

I'm amazed we're at the point where scientists actually have to go to the Senate to tell them that because of misinformed lefty voters.
If that isn't gross stupidity I don't know what is. Thats your whole theory isn't it? Lefty voters are thermal warming so righties must be anti-thermal. I knew you were a political fanatic but I just didn't think you were that warped.
It's simply a waste to those of us in the real world who seek real data, and understanding of scientific trends.
Which scientific organization again? Or is that based on your 400 phantom scientists?
Why don't you try thinking for yourself, rather than allowing these "organizations" to think for you.
Mmm. Thousands of scientists whose main function in life has been understanding climate versus "You know there is no global warming because you took organic chemistry in school and have a pilots license". Forgive me that I believe the scientific organizations. Unlike you I don't have a pilots license and know everything so I'll trust the people that are qualified to make such jugements.

[Sea Demon]

If that isn't gross stupidity I don't know what is. Thats your whole theory isn't it? Lefty voters are thermal warming so righties must be anti-thermal. I knew you were a political fanatic but I just didn't think you were that warped.

Simply put little man, most warming fanatics lean left. That's pretty much par for the course. I don't talk to many people on the right that buy your weather fantasies of death. The good news is that people on the left are at least beginning to question these notions now. You are dwelling on obsolescence.

Which scientific organization again? Or is that based on your 400 phantom scientists?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

I think they know a heck of alot more than you. And their own findings actually correlate to the weather conditions we see in the real world today. When those things happen, they're worth listening to. At this point though, I don't expect any objectivity from you. You seemingly aren't happy unless you're pimping for Al Gore. I wonder why he won't debate his theories with anyone. Do you know why?


Mmm. Thousands of scientists whose main function in life has been understanding climate versus "You know there is no global warming because you took organic chemistry in school and have a pilots license". Forgive me that I believe the scientific organizations. Unlike you I don't have a pilots license and know everything so I'll trust the people that are qualified to make such jugements.
But the thing is, they're wrong on almost everything they predict. They predicted increased hurricane activity for the last two years and struck out both times. They've predicted increased CO2 emissions would dramatically increase warming levels. And we're pretty much seeing that's not true. These people you source don't understand anything it appears. My university education you so happily dismiss did teach me to analyze data properly and question inconsistincies in results. I'm not sure where these "climate scientists" learned their own data analysis skills from. They make ludicrous claims that man's total CO2 oputput of 0.1-0.12% of CO2 totals is bringing dramatic and chaotic climate problems. And we see no such thing. And people like you actually buy their garbage because they're from an organization with a fancy name. How utterly foolish and ignorant. These people could obviously tell you anything and you'd believe it. Wearing a badge that says "National Academy of Science" only impresses me when they view their own data objectively. These people have repeatedly stated almost ridiculously that there is no objections to their theories and a total consensus in their value. That has been proven erroneous as well. If they were objective they might actually note the inconsistincies of their findings, and theories. They don't do that. This big lie you push, ain't cutting the mustard anymore.

[August]

Which scientific organization again? Or is that based on your 400 phantom scientists?

From SDs link:

these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

[bradclark1]

Simply put little man, most warming fanatics lean left. That's pretty much par for the course. I don't talk to many people on the right that buy your weather fantasies of death. The good news is that people on the left are at least beginning to question these notions now. You are dwelling on obsolescence.
I feel sorry for anybody that has to put a political lean in all aspects of their life. One can't help put wonder if the "right" was GL you'd be fanatical
about it then too. Three political references in one global warming paragraph. You're something else.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Blogs
I think they know a heck of alot more than you. And their own findings actually correlate to the weather conditions we see in the real world today. When those things happen, they're worth listening to. At this point though, I don't expect any objectivity from you. You seemingly aren't happy unless you're pimping for Al Gore. I wonder why he won't debate his theories with anyone. Do you know why?
Congradulations! You actually posted a credible link. Remember I'm not you Sea Demon. I'm not afraid to learn if it's credible I'll listen and I'll watch.
You never hear me say anything about Gore unless you bring it up and then most times I'll ignore it. Gore is a spokesman nothing else. I know you have an unhealthful fixation for him but I don't.
Your university education didn't teach you squat about inconsistancies. Thats a joke and a half. All one has to do is go back through your posts with your "anayzing" web links that were thrown back in your face so many times by so many people. I hope my daughter didn't get the same education you did.
Don't be so stupid as to think one article on a 'goverment' website suddenly changes everything. It's something to make note of and keep watching. Remember something, I hope I'm wrong. You hope your right because it's a righty thing. Nothing else. Notice the difference? You are a political in everything. I'm not that infantile.

[bradclark1]

Which scientific organization again? Or is that based on your 400 phantom scientists?

From SDs link:

In a rush aren't you? I read evey link he posts, bogus or otherwise. It's actually a credible link. It's something to watch with interest.

[August]

In a rush aren't you? I read evey link he posts, bogus or otherwise. It's actually a credible link. It's something to watch with interest.

Yeah you're right, my apologies.

[Sea Demon]

[I feel sorry for anybody that has to put a political lean in all aspects of their life. One can't help put wonder if the "right" was GL you'd be fanatical
about it then too. Three political references in one global warming paragraph. You're something else.

blah, blah, blah....whine..whine...whine.....quibble...quibble ..quibble...


Congradulations! You actually posted a credible link.

There simply is no political context there. Other than to point out that most people who believe this nonsense quite often are Dem's. What's the matter...upset that it's the truth that it's largely lefties who wear the tin foil? I think it's quite relevant as we have two sides that are vying to run the country. Your warming proponent side, I believe, will take us down a path that would be detrimental, risky, and unecessary to a large extent. I don't want the political side that pushes faulty theories with fraudulent and costly "fixes" to get elected. As much as we can prevent that from happening, I like to point it out. And I will continue to do so. Get over it. I find it funny that you try to blur the lines of your own political slant.

And I also love your back peddling. All you've done on this thread and the Al Gore thread is pimp for the man-made warming theories and have done nothing but deny reality. You have been faced with questions you cannot answer, faulty data from your "sources" that you cannot answer for, and blatant hypocrisy from the proponents of your movement you have tried to excuse but cannot. You have not answered any of my previous questions, and have run away from every single thread topic once they get asked of you. But yet, you come back eventually with a seeming, yet feeble attempt to try and convince people of your fantasies, and people are now moving away from these theories. I even see that you are making a desperate yet anemic attempt to support it now. Nothing has changed, but your positions are getting harder and harder to explain and defend. And they will get more difficult in the future. Why? Because you have bought fallacious theories wholesale without any thinking or rationalizations on your part. You have basically given your thinking responsibilities over to a science academy with a nice sounding name. Their data is wrong, yet you unwaveringly continue to support their theories. There are many scientists from many credible organizations that are pointing out what I'm saying right here. But you shut your ears to them, and bury your head in quicksand because you want to believe in your movement. Where I come from that's plain stupid, and politically slanted. Now you are left to do nothing but back-peddle. Your bogus links have been lying to you. Perhaps you can get off your rump, look at the world around you, listen to all points of view, actually try and interpret the data, question the inconsistincies, and bad data, and dig yourself out of your hole.


BTW, I find this statement from you and your use of this emoticon just plain weird:

We are going through a heat wave this week here so global warming must be happening. Getting close to sixty. :)

A smiley face when trying to convince people of your disaster scenario???? Odd.

In the interest of reality, here's a news story of interest. Snow in Mexico? Can you say, natural temperature variation? How could this be?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_cold_weather;_ylt=AjbZmCooqFMmyDU7TSwHe.Zva A8F

And this. Despite increases in CO2 output overall, slightly cooler 2008. :D (note: I can do the smiley emoticon as it's good news for humanity)

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqeTAmS2lN1AY5-wJ4OmHAYGbvPg

For your own consumption, yes I'm aware of what it says on paragraph #1. :roll: Please actually interpret what they're saying and how it relates to the premises of the man-made theories regarding CO2 emissions. This really isn't that hard.

Do you even know how much CO2 we emit compared to the total of greenhouse gases? Anyway, I'm enjoying your impotence on this subject matter. Many holes in man-made warming theories abound. And alot more people speaking out on behalf of common sense, reason, and good old fashion data analysis. But I will say your persistence here to prove this junk is quite ......well.....interesting.........

[August]

Geez SD stop with the insults. Brad doesn't deserve such treatment and they do nothing to support your argument.

[Sea Demon]

A little something else I just found. More voices saying :down: on man-made warming.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.


In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.


Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952.

[Sea Demon]

Geez SD stop with the insults. Brad doesn't deserve such treatment and they do nothing to support your argument.

You're right. But I wonder if you've noticed the less than flattering comments that have been directed my way. Especially on this particular topic. But I do agree with you on principle.

[bradclark1]

Sea Demon. Stop being so ignorant. You are babbling again and obviously didn't read my last post. Disengage your mouth and engage your eyes and brain.

[bradclark1]

Geez SD stop with the insults. Brad doesn't deserve such treatment and they do nothing to support your argument.
Thank you August but it honestly doesn't bother me. It's part of the fun with him. Like I've said before, someone has to supply the entertainment and he is entertainment.

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon. Stop being so ignorant. You are babbling again and obviously didn't read my last post. Disengage your mouth and engage your eyes and brain.

Case and point, August. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

Geez SD stop with the insults. Brad doesn't deserve such treatment and they do nothing to support your argument.
Thank you August but it honestly doesn't bother me. It's part of the fun with him. Like I've said before, someone has to supply the entertainment and he is entertainment.

And another! :lol: Utterly amazing.

[bradclark1]

Sea Demon. Stop being so ignorant. You are babbling again and obviously didn't read my last post. Disengage your mouth and engage your eyes and brain.

Case and point, August. :lol:
Think so? Read my last post then your last post.

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon. Stop being so ignorant. You are babbling again and obviously didn't read my last post. Disengage your mouth and engage your eyes and brain.

Case and point, August. :lol:
Think so? Read my last post then your last post.

I won't debate you on the tone of your comments. Please. You crack me up, dude.

[Peto]

You know--whether or not climate change is man-made or not doesn't really matter in the big picture. And the gist of the article written about scientists and the senate seemed to be more about that than whether we're having strange weather patterns. (We are. More tornados in Wisconsin today. 2 days in a row now...)

What is important is:

It is a golden opportunity to scientifically explore and learn more about the world. It's bringing a focus from the scientific community from which much knowledge will emerge.

It creates a platform from which we can put serious developement into renewable energy sources. Being able to rid ourselves of dependance on foreign oil has much more upside than down. And in the quest for knowledge in that direction, unknown scientific discoveries can be made that may open up whole new possibilities for the future. (Enough energy to reach the stars? Who knows?)

When I turn on a light now, I think about it a little more--and am thankful. I also am glad I switched to more energy efficient lights which have actually made a small impact on monthly bill. Instead of driving 3 blocks for a loaf of bread I walk.

And when I wake up to a nice day, I'm that much more grateful. If anyone can find a downside to this--well :hmm:. Climate Change is not about a fight between people. Whether it is real or not, we are all on this planet together. By taking a few simple steps on the cautionary side doesn't hurt. I've met some nice people on my walks to the store.

Climate Change = an Opportunity to become Closer as a race. Fighting about it is pointless. Ridiculing those who practice concern and take energy saving steps is baseless. For me to think less of those who don't believe there is anything to worry about won't make me happier.

It's one world with a lot of people who all have different ideas and opinions. None-the-less, that doesn't mean that we can't make something positive out the situation that will benefit us all.

I recommend starting with a walk ;)!

Respectfully,

Peto

PS: I'd much rather see the world's science community working on alternative energy sources than a more powerfull weapons platform. Fighting gets us nothing. Ask my son.

[August]

Fighting gets us nothing. Ask my son.

We might but he doesn't post here. ;)

But I must disagree with your sentiment. We can argue over what is and what isn't but there are indeed some things in life worth fighting for, and I think your son would agree.

[bradclark1]

Sea Demon. Stop being so ignorant. You are babbling again and obviously didn't read my last post. Disengage your mouth and engage your eyes and brain.

Case and point, August. :lol:
Think so? Read my last post then your last post.

I won't debate you on the tone of your comments. Please. You crack me up, dude.
You still don't get it. I could care less about attempted insults. You just make yourself look sillier and it's part of the game. I acknowledged those comments from the scientists and said that it bears watching. I also said that I hope I'm wrong about GW. The problem or the entertainment is, depending on how you want to look at it is that you can't see past your illogical political fanaticism. You are like a horse with blinders on.

[Peto]

Fighting gets us nothing. Ask my son.

We might but he doesn't post here. ;)

But I must disagree with your sentiment. We can argue over what is and what isn't but there are indeed some things in life worth fighting for, and I think your son would agree.

My son is in Iraq right now or I'd get him to post for you August ;). And he sure agrees with me that things like Climate Change aren't worth fighting about. Maybe a good "discussion" or two :lol: but not fighting.

Cheers!

:up:

[Sea Demon]

You still don't get it. I could care less about attempted insults. You just make yourself look sillier and it's part of the game. I acknowledged those comments from the scientists and said that it bears watching. I also said that I hope I'm wrong about GW. The problem or the entertainment is, depending on how you want to look at it is that you can't see past your illogical political fanaticism. You are like a horse with blinders on.

Oh, I don't care either. Insults here mean nothing. If you can't see that alot of "Global Warming" is political, then you aren't paying attention. And there are two sides to it, and I want the people who buy it, want to enact punitive yet selective agreements (like Kyoto) on us to lose. I like common sense pollution controls. But I don't like the fear mongering to sell it. Especially with something as fallacious as man-made "Global Warming". And I did read your last comments on the matter. It is a capitulation of sorts on your part. I understand that. Up to now, you have been unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with your doomsday view and have tried to act as though the folks at the National Academy have total and complete consensus. Which they don't. That has always been completely false. And you have no choice now as you see there are disagreeing voices. Educated ones. Alot of them in fact.

And we're seeing innacurate data regarding man-made theories are abundant as well. We're seeing weather doing things which shouldn't happen, if the National Academy and Mr. Gore were correct. They're not. Up to now, in your arguments, nobody has been allowed to question the validity of these false premises, inconsistent scientific theories, and grossly innacurate forecasts. You've thrown pages and pages of temper tantrums and accomplished nothing. You've made me more skeptical. Fanaticism will do that. I'm sure I'm not alone. And the onus is on you to prove your assertions. Up till now, you have not been willing to even question the premises of their theories regarding man-made increased and sustained CO2 emissions resulting directly in higher global temperatures. And over time, runaway thermal conditions. And you have never even shown an understanding of what you know about atmospheric sciences. Instead you have been all about letting the voices you like (doomsday ones) heavily influence your thinking. Do you even know the composition of greenhouse gases and their cumulative totals? Do you know how man-made emissions tie into it and what their totals are? Do you really think natural emissions are a constant? Do you believe solar radiation and output is a constant? How do you explain global warming on a few of the other planets in our solar system? I know you despise questions, and like others in that movement, refuse to answer any of them. But if you're trying to prove theories of doom, it's up to you to prove it. And when your source's data is erroneous, the source loses credibility. That's how it works. Not "I'll throw out contrived theories, you prove me wrong". That's not how it works. Don't throw a temper tantrum. Prove your arguments. Answer questions. And above all, be ready to lead by example. None of these requirements have been met. Proving the theories have been tried, but the data shows inconsistincies. Don't get mad at me, get mad at your sources for being in error, get mad at nature for not cooperating with you, and get mad at atmospheric scientists who disagree and speak out. Until then, you're going to keep pi##ing in the wind to no avail.

[Tchocky]

Wah. These threads melt into each other, can't help but feel I've read it all before.

Up to now, you have been unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with your doomsday view and have tried to act as though the folks at the National Academy have total and complete consensus. Which they don't. That has always been completely false. And you have no choice now as you see there are disagreeing voices. Educated ones. Alot of them in fact.
Read mookiemookie here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=677211&postcount=80)

I'm loving the tone, by the way. I'm glad you're willing to listen (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=677205&postcount=79) to disagreement, unlike that nasty bradclark.


You posted an article entitled "Year of global cooling" on the previous page. Written by a chap called David Deming who works for the National Center for Policy Analysis.
The article itself the usual "it was cold today, obviously the earth is cooling" rubbish that Jeff Jacoby's article (posted by August) promoted, although Jacoby was a lot more even-handed and accessible, at least to me. I had a poke around on the internet and discovered that those Jacoby quoted in the article have been proven *wrong* many times before.
Nevermind the arguments of the WPost article, lets investigate this National Center for Policy Analysis. It's a conservative think-tank, which automatically sets off alarm bells: I'm weary of politically-minded institutions positing theories on science. Reminds me of Fred Thompson.
Anyway, where do they get their money?
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DaimlerChrysler_Corporation_Fund&action=edit)
El Paso Energy Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=El_Paso_Energy_Foundation&action=edit)
ExxonMobil Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_Foundation)OH yes, and the Koch Foundation donated. That sounds charitable. Where do they get money from?

Funding for the foundations (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundations_and_Funders) comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries), the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. ... Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion."
Quelle surprise.

[bradclark1]

It is a capitulation of sorts on your part. I understand that. Up to now, you have been unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with your doomsday view and have tried to act as though the folks at the National Academy have total and complete consensus.
You are so deep in your us vs. them, win vs. loose mentality I almost feel sorry for you. I have always been willing to listen, thats why I always research your finding and came to the conclusions that they were mostly garbage as I and many others have pointed out numerous time to you. Don't be so up on yourself that the one article changes the world. I said it bears looking at and tracking. Take at face value, nothing less and nothing more.

[Sea Demon]

I have always been willing to listen, thats why I always research your finding and came to the conclusions that they were mostly garbage as I and many others have pointed out numerous time to you. Don't be so up on yourself that the one article changes the world. I said it bears looking at and tracking. Take at face value, nothing less and nothing more.

Uh, yeah. You have never even been able to answer any questions to explain your beliefs. You have never answered any questions which pertain to your commitments to live up to your beliefs. You haven't answered any questions to explain the hypocrisy of actions taken by the major water carriers of this stuff. And you've never demonstrated any knowledge on your part of how the GW "science" actually works, therefore would not be able to see how inconsistent it all is. In the Al Gore thread this pretty much started because you were unwilling to see or acknowledge that there are voices in dissent and there is no consensus as some of your sources assuredly claim. At this point, this is major back-peddling on your part. This is the first post you've actually done that shows any kind of semi-open-mindedness. Before this, it's pretty much been blind faith, and temper tantrums because not everyone agrees with you. And that it is wise to question data which is erroneous, and question theories when the results predicted in them show innacuracies. Even if that data and those forecasts come from organizations like the National Academy, they are not infallible. We're at a point now where more people are just pointing that out.

[bradclark1]

:lol: Yeah, okay Sea Demon. Whatever you say.

[Sea Demon]

:lol: Yeah, okay Sea Demon. Whatever you say.

Nice try. ;)

[Peto]

I have always been willing to listen, thats why I always research your finding and came to the conclusions that they were mostly garbage as I and many others have pointed out numerous time to you. Don't be so up on yourself that the one article changes the world. I said it bears looking at and tracking. Take at face value, nothing less and nothing more.

This is the first post you've actually done that shows any kind of semi-open-mindedness.

Semi-open-mindedness is much more than I can say for your posts. I take it you have a lot of stock in the big energy companies? It's the only thing that can really explain what I see as someone defending his position out of fear of change.

[Sea Demon]

Semi-open-mindedness is much more than I can say for your posts. I take it you have a lot of stock in the big energy companies? It's the only thing that can really explain what I see as someone defending his position out of fear of change.
What do you mean? The very roots of this was the question of whether or not there are dissenting voices to the theories or total and complete consensus of "man-made global warming". I have only wished to show that there are dissenting voices, reasonable ones at that, and that there are flaws in the global warming theories being pushed. By the way, the onus to prove those theories are on the individuals espousing them in the first place. Not the other way around. I have always sought for those who push these theories to prove them. And they continually come up well short of the mark. And it always seems to turn into "I'll throw out the theories, you prove me wrong" with them. And in the real world, that's not how it works. You bet, I'm unreasonable about allowing flawed theories without any type of challenges. Especially when advocating potentially damaging "fixes", if you can even call them that. I'm not talking about what you do Peto. Like getting off the grid, reducing your personal energy consumption, advocating less pollution and such. I'm for those things myself, and consider myself someone who seeks less pollution and better methods of manufacturing. I'm talking about the Kyoto garbage here and things like that. I have no fear of change as you say. But here, the change is only so necessary as to improve quality and standards. Reducing pollution is a necessary goal as well. You won't get me to argue that. But the change sought by Kyoto, at that level, is selective, punitive, and it has been admitted by many scientist who push warming theories themselves to be futile. Yet, many others are "full speed ahead" on it. There could be many problems retooling economically to support all these newer alternative sources of energy. And it may bring unforeseen problems if grids are replaced too quickly without testing them, seeing how they perform, analyze their drawbacks, and analyze any other potential unforeseen impacts. And if reverting your economy to sustain alot of this new stuff, what do you do with your old infrastructure? Throw it all in a landfill? What about those impacts to environmental degradation? How about costs to do all this and who pays? If mass producing new infrastructure you have to create emissions, right? Alot of them in fact. In other words, there are alot more things to consider than just "full speed ahead". That kind of change is not feasible. And that is what I seek to dissuade. It is this lack of thought from the warming movement that I challenge.

[Peto]

Semi-open-mindedness is much more than I can say for your posts. I take it you have a lot of stock in the big energy companies? It's the only thing that can really explain what I see as someone defending his position out of fear of change.
What do you mean? The very roots of this was the question of whether or not there are dissenting voices to the theories or total and complete consensus of "man-made global warming". I have only wished to show that there are dissenting voices, reasonable ones at that, and that there are flaws in the global warming theories being pushed. By the way, the onus to prove those theories are on the individuals espousing them in the first place. Not the other way around. I have always sought for those who push these theories to prove them. And they continually come up well short of the mark. And it always seems to turn into "I'll throw out the theories, you prove me wrong" with them. And in the real world, that's not how it works. You bet, I'm unreasonable about allowing flawed theories without any type of challenges. Especially when advocating potentially damaging "fixes", if you can even call them that. I'm not talking about what you do Peto. Like getting off the grid, reducing your personal energy consumption, advocating less pollution and such. I'm for those things myself, and consider myself someone who seeks less pollution and better methods of manufacturing. I'm talking about the Kyoto garbage here and things like that. I have no fear of change as you say. But here, the change is only so necessary as to improve quality and standards. Reducing pollution is a necessary goal as well. You won't get me to argue that. But the change sought by Kyoto, at that level, is selective, punitive, and it has been admitted by many scientist who push warming theories themselves to be futile. Yet, many others are "full speed ahead" on it. There could be many problems retooling economically to support all these newer alternative sources of energy. And it may bring unforeseen problems if grids are replaced too quickly without testing them, seeing how they perform, analyze their drawbacks, and analyze any other potential unforeseen impacts. And if reverting your economy to sustain alot of this new stuff, what do you do with your old infrastructure? Throw it all in a landfill? What about those impacts to environmental degradation? How about costs to do all this and who pays? If mass producing new infrastructure you have to create emissions, right? Alot of them in fact. In other words, there are alot more things to consider than just "full speed ahead". That kind of change is not feasible. And that is what I seek to dissuade. It is this lack of thought from the warming movement that I challenge.

Alright SD--I'll back off and give you this round ;). I just like to stir the pot a little and your answer does make sense. And I agree that we don't really have enough information to be able to place Climate Change squarely on man. There is not enough precedent with solid scientific data to make any assumptions of any kind.

I just though you were still going after bradclark1 a bit hard after he had acknowledged the info you had brought forth as something to look into and consider. So I threw a firecracker into the barrel. And I respect your response!

:up: