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.
Yeah. must have.
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.
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)
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!
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.
You're babbling again. Where on earth have I told anyone how to live? I don't think so.
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.
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.
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?
Why don't you humor me and show me?

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.


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

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.

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.


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.


Then you aren't paying attention to your own people. Maybe that's why you can't see how truly off balance they are.

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?

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.


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.

http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img524...duelingji4.gif

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img223...opcorn3yv1.gif

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.
Funny how when you are made to look the fool it's an insane rant uh.
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?
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 supply nothing but single individuals who were financed by oil companies. I still remember the one that disagreed that second hand smoke is unhealthy.
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.
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.
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.
No what you think is in your own mind. Get a grip on reality will you.
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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:

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

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0612...s061204-2.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.

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 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.

Peaks and troughs do not show trends.

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.