Still believe in Global Warming? This should fix that.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

-S

Conspiracy theory? I think you listen to Jerry Falwell too much.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

How ironic. This sounds very much like the kind of flawed argument that some would use such as in China and India except that it is Amercia and the West trying to keep them down and stop them from dominating. I don't buy it. Pure poppycock.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You are a bit hard headed aren't you? You claim no one supports him - only 31K scientists do.

-S

"for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming.""

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

How ironic. This sounds very much like the kind of flawed argument that some would use such as in China and India except that it is Amercia and the West trying to keep them down and stop them from dominating. I don't buy it. Pure poppycock.

You got it wrong. Its for UN control. You cap energy use, and you cap growth. That is the problem here. Then you must go to the UN to ask for an increase in hydrocarbon use, and the world body will then decide if it's OK.

Does that put it into perspective?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

"for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming.""

WRONG! The term and all papers associated with it have one thing as its main message - Human Caused Global Warming. This is regardless what the petition says.

More FUD out of you, but what can one expect when an individual is so brainwashed?

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking the individual and the petition site when what you should be attacking is the data presented.

Lost argument is why.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

WRONG! The term and all papers associated with it have one thing as its main message - Human Caused Global Warming. This is regardless what the petition says.

More FUD out of you, but what can one expect when an individual is so brainwashed?

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking the individual and the petition site when what you should be attacking is the data presented.

Lost argument is why.

-S

WRONG what they signed was they didn't believe "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere".
I'll tell you what. You give a good enough reason of why he manipulated the hurricane data and why he claims 31,000 people of science signed the petition when both claims are bs and why you think it's okay and I'll give thought to reading more. Do you think thats why he has no peers at his side. Don't say 31,000 agree because all those names are signing on the petition which no one of note signed and their was no way to verify any of the signers as scientists. All groups that did sample names found major problems.

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Haven't heard anything from this one have we. I wonder why? I'll give you one guess.

In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition. As with the earlier version, it contained a six-paragraph covering note from Frederick Seitz along with a reply card and a supporting article. The text of the reply card is identical to the previous petition. Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February, 2008.

If the individual is a wonk guess what? His information is a wonk. That is why nobody is supporting him or his data.

[SUBMAN1]

Again you are twisting the facts. There are two petitions. One initial, and now it is being done again. Again, scientists are signing it like mad. So maybe you simply have your facts wrong.

And, the petition thread is in another thread by the way. This thread seeks to analyze the facts based on the video and paper as presented in the first post in this thread.

Have you found an inaccuracy in the data? This is what we are after here. So far, not one post you have posted goes after the data. It goes on attacks of the man who wrote the data.

You know they say an argument is lost the moment one attacks the man presenting it and not the data. Get used to it already. Not sure why you keep harping on the same crap - it means nothing as compared to reality and what is presented here in this thread. If the guy is such a whack job as you say, it should be easy to discredit his work. :p

-S

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You got it wrong. Its for UN control. You cap energy use, and you cap growth. That is the problem here. Then you must go to the UN to ask for an increase in hydrocarbon use, and the world body will then decide if it's OK.

Does that put it into perspective?

-S

Why are you so scared of the UN all of a sudden? IIRC the US never gave a shi* for the UN if it was against her interests. You are a veto power, forgot that already?
By the way, why do you think the UN would give you an impossible task?
The UN is more than a few countries like Venezuela that wants to see the US down. We here in Europe (and we are UN members too, so we have our share in deciding what to do) have no interest in cutting your economical growth since you are one of our greatest economical partners (low business with USA means a lot less money in our banks...). So we are interested in that you are reducing your pollution without loosing your economical power. I think you are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto. I never heard any other country talking about power cuts and moving back to the stone age.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Why are you so scared of the UN all of a sudden? IIRC the US never gave a shi* for the UN if it was against her interests. You are a veto power, forgot that already?
By the way, why do you think the UN would give you an impossible task?
The UN is more than a few countries like Venezuela that wants to see the US down. We here in Europe (and we are UN members too, so we have our share in deciding what to do) have no interest in cutting your economical growth since you are one of our greatest economical partners (low business with USA means a lot less money in our banks...). So we are interested in that you are reducing your pollution without loosing your economical power. I think you are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto. I never heard any other country talking about power cuts and moving back to the stone age.

The Kyoto agreement doesn't even allow for the US to maintain it's current levels of hydrocarbon use. It is almost as its specifically designed to not affect anyone but the USA.

And how is this not control by the UN? The US can Veto things before they are in place, but can they Veto something after it has been put in place? i think not.

Anyway, the main stab from the UN is the folowing:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis.

That means the UN could conrol US economic output by putting restrictions on energy use.

And, it's not to say that they aren't trying it already. This bill is based on the kyoto agreement:

http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/amendment.pdf

Do you realize that this bill would not only raise the price of gas through the roof, but that it would cost the US millions of jobs??? To the tune of $1.2 Trillion!!! Now, maybe I'm a goof at math, but I think $1.2 Trillion of the US's 13 Trillion yearly GDP is pretty good chunk!

Crazy.

And you wonder why this stuff is scaring me? It's like a knife in the back of my country. What needs to happen is the technology needs to be made, and then used, not that you cut off current technology and make a mad dash to make new technology. It doesn't work like that.

-S

[FIREWALL]

I live in So California so it's hard to tell if there's Global Warming.

It's alway's warm here.:p

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I live in So California so it's hard to tell if there's Global Warming.

It's alway's warm here.:p

I don't want to hear it! Crud! Where is my summer? Woke up this morning and the house was 57 F!!!! 40 something outside! You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now, except that you live in California, I mean, Kalifornia, I mean, Mexifornia! :p

I NEED SOME SUN!!!! Cloudy about about 55 F outside right now!

-S

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't want to hear it! Crud! Where is my summer? Woke up this morning and the house was 57 F!!!! 40 something outside! You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now, except that you live in California, I mean, Kalifornia, I mean, Mexifornia! :p

I NEED SOME SUN!!!! Cloudy about about 55 F outside right now!

-S

I'll PM you 2hrs worth

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I'll PM you 2hrs worth

If anyone cares - he did.

Good for you man. At least someone is getting some sun. I'll just live through you for the time being.

-S

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The Kyoto agreement doesn't even allow for the US to maintain it's current levels of hydrocarbon use.

It does for no one as far as I know. We have to reduce our use of it as well.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It is almost as its specifically designed to not affect anyone but the USA.

How is that possible? I thought Kyoto demanded the same percentage of carbon reduction by all the big industrialized countries. So we're sitting in the same boat. All of our car manufacturers have to build cleaner cars with less gas consumption for example. Not too easy for cars like Porsche and Audi are building.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And how is this not control by the UN? The US can Veto things before they are in place, but can they Veto something after it has been put in place? i think not.

What would happen if the US simply decided at some level that they don't want Kyoto? I think you would just stop following it. I don't think your government would blow up your country for a piece of paper of an organization that has no real power (who is supposed to enforce Kyoto if you should decide to quit?).
Besides, as I already mentioned Europe wouldn't give you impossible tasks since we are depending on your economy (that's why everyone her is eager to see Bush jr. go, this guy has really wrecked your country).

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Anyway, the main stab from the UN is the folowing:

That means the UN could conrol US economic output by putting restrictions on energy use.

Again, who would be interested in destroying your economy? Globalization means, if your country goes to hell so does Europe (more or less). And I don't think Japan would be that happy about that either.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And, it's not to say that they aren't trying it already. This bill is based on the kyoto agreement:

http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/amendment.pdf

I'll be writing some tests next week in university, so I hope you'll forgive me for not having time to read the 492 pages....

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Do you realize that this bill would not only raise the price of gas through the roof, but that it would cost the US millions of jobs??? To the tune of $1.2 Trillion!!! Now, maybe I'm a goof at math, but I think $1.2 Trillion of the US's 13 Trillion yearly GDP is pretty good chunk!

Well, the price of gas will raise through the roof anyway. It's just a matter of time. Why you would loose jobs is beyond me, here in Germany we created new jobs to build all the new technology for the future. If something new is demanded than people are needed to develop and build it.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And you wonder why this stuff is scaring me? It's like a knife in the back of my country. What needs to happen is the technology needs to be made, and then used, not that you cut off current technology and make a mad dash to make new technology. It doesn't work like that.
-S

Well, the technology is often available. But without pressure no one uses it, and since no one uses it, it stays expensive because of the small production numbers. With increasing production numbers the price will drop.
No one said it will be for free, but the costs can be handled (at least here in Europe).
And look, Germany is about 1.5 times as big as Texas (IIRC) , yet we have plenty of energy intensive industry (we have 8 big car manufacturers:Porsche, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Audi, Ford Europe, Toyota Europe; steel works [I've got one right next door]; wharfs etc...) so if we can manage to reduce our CO2 output without committing suicide then I wonder why a country with about as much industry would fall apart by doing the same.:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

It does for no one as far as I know. We have to reduce our use of it as well.

Maybe, but since we are more reliant on it than anyone else in the entire world, it affects us 10 fold. In Europe, you can get places without a car. Try that in America! Everything is so spread out, it's an impossibility!

How is that possible? I thought Kyoto demanded the same percentage of carbon reduction by all the big industrialized countries. So we're sitting in the same boat....

Because our reliance on it is so much greater than yours. See the above post.

What would happen if the US simply decided at some level that they don't want Kyoto? I think you would just stop following it. I don't think your government would blow up your country for a piece of paper of an organization that has no real power (who is supposed to enforce Kyoto if you should decide to quit?).
Besides, as I already mentioned Europe wouldn't give you impossible tasks since we are depending on your economy (that's why everyone her is eager to see Bush jr. go, this guy has really wrecked your country).

Because it would be called by the world as an illegal act and fuel resentment worldwide for America more than there already is. It's a no win situation for us over here. It has not one single positive thing that flows form it. Some people point out that we get hybrid cars, but how many know what kind of extra damage nickle does to the envorinment? Or the hazardous waste created by the batteries? Way worse than the benefits of the car itself.

Again, who would be interested in destroying your economy? Globalization means, if your country goes to hell so does Europe (more or less). And I don't think Japan would be that happy about that either.

Has nothing to do with that. It puts a cap on growth, so as to bring the rest of the world up with the US, or the US down on the level with the rest of the world. To cap it, is to forget ever seeing 4% growth in this country as has been the norm for so long. Lucky if you get 1%.

I'll be writing some tests next week in university, so I hope you'll forgive me for not having time to read the 492 pages....

It says a lot. i suggest you take the time since it will answer a ton of questions for you.

Well, the price of gas will raise through the roof anyway. It's just a matter of time. Why you would loose jobs is beyond me, here in Germany we created new jobs to build all the new technology for the future. If something new is demanded than people are needed to develop and build it.

The only way to devlope and build it is to use energy in mnay forms. Just where is that going to come from?

Well, the technology is often available. But without pressure no one uses it, and since no one uses it, it stays expensive because of the small production numbers. With increasing production numbers the price will drop.
No one said it will be for free, but the costs can be handled (at least here in Europe).
And look, Germany is about 1.5 times as big as Texas (IIRC) , yet we have plenty of energy intensive industry (we have 8 big car manufacturers:Porsche, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Audi, Ford Europe, Toyota Europe; steel works [I've got one right next door]; wharfs etc...) so if we can manage to reduce our CO2 output without committing suicide then I wonder why a country with about as much industry would fall apart by doing the same.:hmm:

I'll close with this - the reason no one is using it is because there is no benefit to stopping what they are using now. So what if you have an inefficient car? Gas in the USA can keep at it's current levels alone from refining coal to gas for 250 years! This doesn't include our oil shale deposits, our tar sand deposits, our resources in oil in the Gulf, in Alaska, off the Atlantic, none of it. We have so much access to energy, there is no way oil should be as high as it is unless America is planning on draining Saudi Arabia and that's its sole mission right now! America could become energy independant from the rest of the world easily for over 300 years with our resources that we own alone.

Now the real issue - so what about the Kyoto agreement? So what if we release hydrocarbons? It is adding benefit without one single negative! If you watch the video in the first post - human caused global warming is not occuring. The paper further backs up the data, and there are actual benefits such as increased plant growth and increased animal life!

So why should we change our habits for a hypothesis that has been proved wrong on many fronts? Maybe someone can answer this for me, but this is my problem with this human caused global warming thing. If anyone bothered to check, if you average our temps of today, we are below average if you look at the data going back 3000 years.

-S