or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › As the World Rots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

As the World Rots - Page 3

post #81 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So Jamac's contention is that the earth and life on it survived country sized volcanic eruptions and massive asteroid impacts, but somehow us driving around in cars will kill the planet and end all life on it.

Nick

That's pretty much the stance of anyone who really believes the Teh Global Warming's doomsday scenarios. We couldn't impact the climate like that if we tried.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's pretty much the stance of anyone who really believes the Teh Global Warming's doomsday scenarios. We couldn't impact the climate like that if we tried.

I'd have to agree that global warming will not/has not reached apocalyptic scale. But it isn't to hard to get the best minds together and find alternative resources for energy and production of materials. It seems that this won't happen because of the "why ruin a good thing" mentality of business and the arguing of the rest as to whether it IS worth it or not, given the information at hand (on either side).

So if "Teh Global Warming" isn't around the corner, there is plenty of time to change things for the future. We just can't go on using the same materials and resources without killing each other, "Teh Global Warming" or not.
post #83 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I am not making money of Global Warming. I am making money of energy.

That is an interesting idea, but as I posted above, not an option for most people. I researched some manufacturers online, price estimates I've seen are around $13,000 per 100sq ft. of solar tiles.

Like all technology, I'm sure the prices will come down with demand, and better production, but right now I'm going to give it a wait and see.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #84 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So Jamac's contention is that the earth and life on it survived country sized volcanic eruptions and massive asteroid impacts, but somehow us driving around in cars will kill the planet and end all life on it.

Nick

This is not my contention that's just fact. Loosing 97% of land animals is bad. Recovery was also somewhat long around: several million years.

Let's scale this to our impact which is maybe 5% - 10% of a catastrophic event that will eliminate about 5%- 10% of all land creatures (i.e. 600,000,000 people). The earth will mostly be unusable swamp that'll smell like Liebermann's breath. If you like NY in August you will be a happy man even happier if you like the Bayou.
This will bring insects the size of hawks spreading malaria faster than Apple sells the iPhone.

It will ONLY take about 200,000 years or about 1,000,000 human generations to recover.... I know it is hard for you to imagine anything past your own puny lifespan. And really who cares what happens a 100 years from now.

Keep on stinking boy!
post #85 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

That is an interesting idea, but as I posted above, not an option for most people. I researched some manufacturers online, price estimates I've seen are around $13,000 per 100sq ft. of solar tiles.

Like all technology, I'm sure the prices will come down with demand, and better production, but right now I'm going to give it a wait and see.

I have 18 BP 165 Watt panels on my house with a factory warranty of 25 years!

The panels installed in the 60s are still working. Yes you may say making panels will pollute and I am sure it does but once they are made they'll make juice for a very long time.
post #86 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I have 18 BP 165 Watt panels on my house with a factory warranty of 25 years!

The panels installed in the 60s are still working. Yes you may say making panels will pollute and I am sure it does but once they are made they'll make juice for a very long time.

I'm not arguing that they aren't effective or reliable, just that they are prohibitively expensive right now.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #87 of 132
Toshiba Invents 100x Smaller (Micro) Nuclear Reactor

Quote:
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

Yay Japan! Meh.
post #88 of 132
Quote:

Interesting technology. Fiction becomes reality!

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #89 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Toshiba Invents 100x Smaller (Micro) Nuclear Reactor



Yay Japan! Meh.

I'm curious to know what the initial capital cost of this device will be. How much will it cost to gain 5 cents per kwh?
post #90 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm curious to know what the initial capital cost of this device will be. How much will it cost to gain 5 cents per kwh?

Here's a PDF of Toshiba's liquid-sodium-cooled 10MW(e) micro nuclear reactor for Galena, Alaska (page 79).

I've heard that if this type of portable reactor (there are multiple manufacturers developing these units - ranging from kW to MW outputs) becomes more popular the stigma of nuclear power will diminish. The biggest bottleneck blocking nuclear power right now is public image.

Cost may also be a factor...but again..if there's demand...
post #91 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

I'm not arguing that they aren't effective or reliable, just that they are prohibitively expensive right now.

All home improvements are money pits.

Here's another start up company to look into...

Start-Up Sells Solar Panels at Lower-Than-Usual Cost

Quote:
Nanosolar, a heavily financed Silicon Valley start-up whose backers include Googles co-founders, plans to announce Tuesday that it has begun selling its innovative solar panels, which are made using a technique that is being held out as the future of solar power manufacturing.

Quote:
Nanosolars founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

With a $1-per-watt panel, he said, it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.
post #92 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'd have to agree that global warming will not/has not reached apocalyptic scale. But it isn't to hard to get the best minds together and find alternative resources for energy and production of materials. It seems that this won't happen because of the "why ruin a good thing" mentality of business and the arguing of the rest as to whether it IS worth it or not, given the information at hand (on either side).

So if "Teh Global Warming" isn't around the corner, there is plenty of time to change things for the future. We just can't go on using the same materials and resources without killing each other, "Teh Global Warming" or not.

It won't happen because there are too many people that don't share that goal. This is about what it's always about...money and power. Oh, and let's not forget punishing the United States of Consumer...I mean, America. There are so many groups and individuals using Teh Global Warming for other reasons, from wacko-lefty environmentalists, to power-seeking politicians, to moron celebrities supporting the cause de jour to feed their personal ego and relieve their self-loathing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This is not my contention that's just fact. Loosing 97% of land animals is bad. Recovery was also somewhat long around: several million years.

Let's scale this to our impact which is maybe 5% - 10% of a catastrophic event that will eliminate about 5%- 10% of all land creatures (i.e. 600,000,000 people). The earth will mostly be unusable swamp that'll smell like Liebermann's breath. If you like NY in August you will be a happy man even happier if you like the Bayou.
This will bring insects the size of hawks spreading malaria faster than Apple sells the iPhone.

It will ONLY take about 200,000 years or about 1,000,000 human generations to recover.... I know it is hard for you to imagine anything past your own puny lifespan. And really who cares what happens a 100 years from now.

Keep on stinking boy!

I love how you literally just pulled that out of your ass. You have zero evidence to support that statement, and your extrapolations about the death toll are wholly absurd.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


I love how you literally just pulled that out of your ass. You have zero evidence to support that statement, and your extrapolations about the death toll are wholly absurd.

FACT1:
It will take 100,000 years to eliminate current increased CO2 levels if we immediately stop adding CO2. (Source: scientific American).
FACT2:
The earth atmosphere took a not accurately known time to recover from the Indian eruptions plus the meteor strike in the Yucatan but estimates are around 2 - 3 mill years. (Source The History Channel How the earth was made)
FACT3:
The Siberian magma plume increased the CO2 levels to a point that brought on a run away greenhouse affect in just a few years. the result was massive amounts of moisture in the atmosphere which caused most of the earth to turn into swampland. (Source The History Channel How the earth was made)

Indeed my extrapolation may not be accurate but if you take your nose to them you will find that they don't smell to bad either.
post #94 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

FACT1:
It will take 100,000 years to eliminate current increased CO2 levels if we immediately stop adding CO2. (Source: scientific American).
FACT2:
The earth atmosphere took a not accurately known time to recover from the Indian eruptions plus the meteor strike in the Yucatan but estimates are around 2 - 3 mill years. (Source The History Channel How the earth was made)
FACT3:
The Siberian magma plume increased the CO2 levels to a point that brought on a run away greenhouse affect in just a few years. the result was massive amounts of moisture in the atmosphere which caused most of the earth to turn into swampland. (Source The History Channel How the earth was made)

Indeed my extrapolation may not be accurate but if you take your nose to them you will find that they don't smell to bad either.

Dude, you are mofo crazy. We are not going to contribute that kind of C02 to the atmosphere. We simply don't have the ability. We could try to do it and still not contributed 1/100,000th of that amount. Please. Your doomsday predictions are absolutely laughable. Your "figures" don't just smell bad, they smell like old man-ass.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 132
Just thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #96 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude, you are mofo crazy. We are not going to contribute that kind of C02 to the atmosphere. We simply don't have the ability. We could try to do it and still not contributed 1/100,000th of that amount. Please. Your doomsday predictions are absolutely laughable. Your "figures" don't just smell bad, they smell like old man-ass.

Since you know better please quote your sources. (Washington Times = MAD magazine) Oklahoma is home to a lot of nice people who do believe god will save us. They also are know to marry their cousins.

These are not my predictions. These are simple facts of chemistry/history/geology.

We have contributed more CO2 to the atmosphere in 100 years than all mankind combined in the previous 50,000 years. (Ice core samples 100% document this). And these did not come from your fridge. maybe instead of the Simpson you should try and watch a few science shows. Instead of MAD magazine you should maybe read some more informative literature.
post #97 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Just thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage

If by "interested" you mean "slack jawed that even such a reflexive right-wing shill operation as the Moony owned Washington Times would bother to publish such an incoherent little burble", then, sure.

Sentence for sentence, I defy anyone to explain what this guy's point is, beyond "global warming is stupid."

Which, unfortunately, characterizes a great deal of the anti-global warming rhetoric I run across, here and everywhere.

If the argument for skepticism is so compelling, why is it so often presented without even the pretense of logic?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #98 of 132
post #99 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Just thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage

Ok, when you have a lot of ice on top of a landmass, and then you put it in the ocean, it makes the ocean colder... just like putting ice cubes in a drink. Colder oceans makes sections of colder air gradiented in with the warmer air, caused by global warming. The warm air evaporates water, while the other areas of colder air makes it snow and rain ice(freezing rain) more. It's not that difficult to understand.
Serving humanity one sarcastic comment at a time.
Reply
Serving humanity one sarcastic comment at a time.
Reply
post #100 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmarksdale View Post

Ok, when you have a lot of ice on top of a landmass, and then you put it in the ocean, it makes the ocean colder... just like putting ice cubes in a drink. Colder oceans makes sections of colder air gradiented in with the warmer air, caused by global warming. The warm air evaporates water, while the other areas of colder air makes it snow and rain ice(freezing rain) more. It's not that difficult to understand.

One would think it isn't....
post #101 of 132
Thread Starter 
For some people, it is convenient to NOT understand.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #102 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Since you know better please quote your sources. (Washington Times = MAD magazine) Oklahoma is home to a lot of nice people who do believe god will save us. They also are know to marry their cousins.

These are not my predictions. These are simple facts of chemistry/history/geology.

We have contributed more CO2 to the atmosphere in 100 years than all mankind combined in the previous 50,000 years. (Ice core samples 100% document this). And these did not come from your fridge. maybe instead of the Simpson you should try and watch a few science shows. Instead of MAD magazine you should maybe read some more informative literature.

So? You're still missing the point. We're not able to contribute enough to influence global climate. It's like saying one got a 1000% raise when one only makes $5.00 a week to begin with. Therefore, he can afford a new car! That's pretty much the line of logic you're following.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #103 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If by "interested" you mean "slack jawed that even such a reflexive right-wing shill operation as the Moony owned Washington Times would bother to publish such an incoherent little burble", then, sure.

Sentence for sentence, I defy anyone to explain what this guy's point is, beyond "global warming is stupid."

Which, unfortunately, characterizes a great deal of the anti-global warming rhetoric I run across, here and everywhere.

If the argument for skepticism is so compelling, why is it so often presented without even the pretense of logic?

I never claimed it was an objective source. I said it was interesting. Of course, if you're convinced that Teh Global Warming is real, there is nothing interesting to you...other than articles titled "The Word Is Going To End Unless We All Drive Hybrids and Stop Eating Meat."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 132
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #105 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh you know what guys...my bad. I mean, GW is "settled science" and every scientist worth his salt agrees.

Sigh - this is the same old and tired propaganda that gets regurgitated over and over by those with a vested interest in denial of climate change.

Interesting list of scientists in that "Report" - funny how it only includes TWO Americans, isn't it?

Let's take a closer look at a couple of "scientists" named by the Republican Report:

Vincent Gray - New Zealand - listed in the Minority Member report as
"IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001"

A "climate researcher"? REALLY?

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
Quote:
A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.

Gray and the NRSP
Listed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.

And... look at his photo.... why is it that all of these climate change "scientist" skeptics are all at least 80 years old?


Next up - one of the two Americans on the list, David Wojick.

He's listed in the Minority Report as
"Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University"

Not exactly a climate scientist either, is he? But at least he looks like he's only in his 70s....

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1115
Quote:
David Wojick -Coal Industry Consultant

Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

Wojick was a "scientific advisor" for a now-defunct industry front group called the Greening Earth Society, created by the Western Fuels Association, a large US coal industry association.

In his role as a "policy analyist," Wojick's client list includes: AES Corporation, one of the largest electrical generation companies, with much of that in the form of coal, and Allegheny Energy, a company that generates 95% of its power from coal.

Wojick was a columnist for the Electricity Daily, a now-defunct electrical industry trade magazine.

Wojick is listed as contributing editor to Environment and Climate News, a publication of the Heartland Institute, a US think tank at the forefront of the attack on climate change science. Heartland has received over half a million in funding from ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world.

It seems we're always hearing from the same group of "scientists" speaking out as "skeptics" on MMGW who have been directly paid by coal and oil companies.

They are also mostly very OLD, retired or semi-retired, and are not actively engaged in climate research of any kind.

You are free to draw your own conclusions as to their motives and credibility.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #106 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh you know what guys...my bad. I mean, GW is "settled science" and every scientist worth his salt agrees.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh you know what guys...my bad. I mean, GW is "settled science" and every scientist worth his salt agrees.


If that is an actual Senate site, they need to work on their writing skills big-time.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #108 of 132
Thread Starter 
For all of those who think man cannot influence the environment:

Visit any major city and enjoy the smog.


Take time to enjoy the latest oil spill.





Visit your local forest, but don't be surprised that there aren't many leaves.


Or don't be surprised if you can't find a virgin forest.


Or even visit your local church and enjoy the bad skin on the statues.


Take a vacation to Chernobyl.


Drink the water and eat the local fish and end up like this.


Go fishing in Australia, but don't expect to find the local fish as many have been eradicated by the ones imported from Britain for fishing fun. Many others are extinct due to human activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_o...d_conservation

Oops! The AAAS seems to think that we have a problem: man's impact on the environment is a "threat to society", and they represent quite a few more than the 400 scientists linked to above.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

No. Man has no impact on the environment. Stupid for some people to think he does.

The economy is what is important.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #109 of 132
Thread Starter 
Inhofe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Political_views

- One of the most conservative of all congressmen
- cites the Bible when making policy statements
- didn't get a college degree until the ripe age of 38
- spent two years in the army and reached the rank of... get this, E-4
- opposes helping students with loans
- wanted to make English the national language of the US and stop language support to speakers of other languages

"He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[11] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[12]"

"Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle.[20] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[21]"

He's also a homophobe.

Not exactly the sharpest cookie in the pot, if you know what I mean.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #110 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

For all of those who think man cannot influence the environment.....



That's what that is right there: A gigantic straw man. Of course man can influence the environment. Jesus. Perhaps you could stick to what was actually claimed next time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Inhofe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Political_views

- One of the most conservative of all congressmen
- cites the Bible when making policy statements
- didn't get a college degree until the ripe age of 38
- spent two years in the army and reached the rank of... get this, E-4
- opposes helping students with loans
- wanted to make English the national language of the US and stop language support to speakers of other languages

"He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[11] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[12]"

"Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle.[20] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[21]"

He's also a homophobe.

Not exactly the sharpest cookie in the pot, if you know what I mean.


Standard playbook of Teh Global Warming theory supporters, page 1: Attack all critics of Teh Global Warming personally and without mercy. All scientists who claim it's not true are either 1) Stupid 2) Paid by Exxon-Mobile or 3) Not really scientists. All politicians who are skeptical are 1) Not accepting "reality" or 2) They hate the planet or 3) They're just whores who are out to destroy the environment at all costs. And what about regular J6Ps that are skeptical? Well they are the worst of all! They just can't UNDERSTAND...I mean, the evidence is OVER-FUCKING-WHELMING!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 132
Thread Starter 
Sad that the Ignore listing does not extend to mails about postings..

So, if we can influence the environment, then is it not plausible that we may be able to wreck the environment? Throw it out of balance at one place and that in turn starts a domino effect? Can anyone say for certain that this does not or will not happen? I have said it before: if we act and it turns out we were wrong, we will have lost little, but if we sit on our butts and turn out to have been wrong, then we will have a major problem and that simply is not a risk I think we should take.

Nobody is coming to Inhofe's assistance... and I get a strong feeling that my link above was not read...

From the link to the AAAS::
"The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is
time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all
levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this
to future generations."
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #113 of 132
Thread Starter 
Linky to NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q1

- Greenhouse gas levels are increasing due to human activity.

I like this part: "There is no scientific debate on this point."

- The climate is warming.

- Sea levels are rising faster now than over a hundred years ago.

And I will quote as this is a US government document:

"The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).

Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics.

Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat."



Looks like they think man is impacting the environment in a big way, too.

Might want to do some reading here, too:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Enjoy.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #114 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Sad that the Ignore listing does not extend to mails about postings..

Yeah, why debate when you can ignore.

Quote:

So, if we can influence the environment, then is it not plausible that we may be able to wreck the environment?

That depends on what you mean exactly. If you mean "alter the entire climate pattern of the Earth, then no. Not without a nuclear winter or other similar event.

Quote:
Throw it out of balance at one place and that in turn starts a domino effect? Can anyone say for certain that this does not or will not happen? I have said it before: if we act and it turns out we were wrong, we will have lost little, but if we sit on our butts and turn out to have been wrong, then we will have a major problem and that simply is not a risk I think we should take.

I disagree. We could do serious damage to our economy, wasting billions of dollars on a problem without fixing it, and then realizing it never existed in the first place. And guess you will pay the bill? Hint: It won't be China or Russia. It will be the United States.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Linky to NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q1

- Greenhouse gas levels are increasing due to human activity.

I like this part: "There is no scientific debate on this point."

No, there isn't any debate. But the question is do those greenhouse gases actually have the effect you claim?

Quote:

- The climate is warming.

Now on this point there is a LOT of debate. Tons, in fact.

Quote:

- Sea levels are rising faster now than over a hundred years ago.

So?

Quote:
And I will quote as this is a US government document:

"The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).

Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics.

Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat."



Looks like they think man is impacting the environment in a big way, too.

Might want to do some reading here, too:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Enjoy.


Let me put this simply: The IPCC is bullshit. There. Now, have a nice day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #115 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Let me put this simply: The IPCC is bullshit. There. Now, have a nice day.

Because they have an opinion that differs from yours?

What was that you said above about playbooks?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #116 of 132
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Now on this point there is a LOT of debate. Tons, in fact.


Again I will quote from NOAA:

"Is the climate warming?
Yes."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #117 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me put this simple-mindedly: The IPCC is bullshit. There. Now, have a nice day.

There - Fixed That For You.

Now, have a nice day.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #118 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



That's what that is right there: A gigantic straw man.

Yes, you're ABSOLUTELY right, Inhofe is a GIGANTIC strawman!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Standard playbook of Teh Global Warming theory supporters, page 1: Attack all critics of Teh Global Warming personally and without mercy. All scientists who claim it's not true are either 1) Stupid 2) Paid by Exxon-Mobile or 3) Not really scientists. All politicians who are skeptical are 1) Not accepting "reality" or 2) They hate the planet or 3) They're just whores who are out to destroy the environment at all costs. And what about regular J6Ps that are skeptical? Well they are the worst of all! They just can't UNDERSTAND...I mean, the evidence is OVER-FUCKING-WHELMING!

The standard playbook for AGW is called SCIENCE, you know objective empirical data and theoretical models.

The standard playbook of the GW Nihilists (GWN) isn't called science, it's called pseudoscience, similar to a belief system like astrology with the ANCIENTS holding on to their age old beliefs, in their vein attempts to ignore the ever strengthening scientific basis for AGW, as reflected in the peer review scientific literature, the IPCC reports, and ever increasing objective database of climate change.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We could do serious damage to our economy, wasting billions of dollars on a problem without fixing it, and then realizing it never existed in the first place. And guess you will pay the bill? Hint: It won't be China or Russia. It will be the United States.

You're wasting several magnitudes of more money dictating freedom in Iraq and all youre getting for that is a fucked economy and fucked reputation that will take several generations to fix if not a century. You dont seem to be too worried about spending that money and fucking your grandchildren over and you're getting nothing out of it.

Well thats what it would appear on first glance, but then we know you're getting personal satisfaction out of it, so that makes it alright.

Now lets suppose that money you've wasted trying to secure a supply of oil was spent on R&D in hydrogen energy. For if all the trillions of $ you are wasting on securing oil and killing muslims, had been spent on developing the infrastructure of a hydrogen based economy from when the war started, you would now be rolling out the first groundwork of the hydrogen economy.

And before long, we wouldn't need the oil we went over to secure. We wouldn't need to spend billions supporting the fascist governments of the ME, like Saudi, we wouldn't need to have bases all over the ME costing us billions every year, so we wouldn't have tewwowists wunning amok - and even better we would be world leaders in the latest technology, which we could export all over the world for a profit because sooner or later, everone is going to run out of oil, and we all need energy.

China is going to kick our asses. They aren't stupid like we are, they will reach a critical state in their economy, realise that fossil fuels are hampering their economic growth and will become the world leaders in the hydrogen economy and you will be sucking chinese balls for breakfast.

You're a fool, and a very short sighted, simple minded one at that.

[edit] US going bankrupt. When we needed a nuclear bomb, we devoted every expense to it, and it was made from scratch in 4 years. Great achievements are attainable - not that im suggesting a bomb is a great achievement, but in principle if we need something urgently, it can be done. The 2.76 TRILLION $ spent on this war, could have created the hydrogen economy and a nicer cleaner world with no killing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › As the World Rots