Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 338 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1966
...and the bartender says, "What's that?"

Maybe I've posted on this thread before, I don't know.

Maybe climate change is caused by the activiites of men. Can you really trust scientists, SpaceBro? You have to look at how they get paid.

So, scientists say that climate change is man-made and real. We have to cut CO2 emmissions. So, what does mankind do? They come up with a carbon tax, possibly the world's first international tax. Who profits?

Maybe climate change is real and man-made. It doesn't matter, though, because it's too late in the first place, and men are not ever going to give up their big jet airplanes and gas-guzzling tanks.

So, the whole goddamn argument is moot. It's a possible looming disaster that government has used to extract even more wool from sheep. It doesn't matter if it's real or who caused it. The bigger problem is overpopulation. Nothing sensible can be done about that, either, because men are not going to stop fucking.

'...the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas" - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3631
I agree completely well said!

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3353
Location: Between the Badges
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
NOT go to OISM.org,, click on petition project.

Well, I checked out that site for a bit. I won't disparage their entire scientific process because it seems at least some of these people believe in connecting the dots that rationalize their premise. But, I find it unconvincing in some ways and lacking in others.
If you look around, there are several sites that discount the signers, whether by them being double-counted, added against their knowledge or lack of related scientific background. For example a Phd in Marketing doesn't exactly convince me on global warming.
I noticed that at times, they use US data where World data would be more appropriate, ya know, GLOBAL warming.
I didn't like how they relied alot on the "6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use", using it as a fact, when it is an interpretation.
Statements like the following are wrong in several ways:
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. They take their interpretations as fact, then say that short term data can be balanced against an unknown. Its not really even honest.
Then there is their theory that if it gets too hot, we can throw particles up in the air and block out the sun a bit, and it will be inexpensive to boot! Howz that for environmental engineering? Doesn't exactly seem like a reliable process to me.
On an ancillary note, I didn't notice any comments on reduction of permafrost, which I consider to be a harbinger of global warming. But, I get their perspective, that the planet is supposed to be warming as a comeback from the last Little Ice Age. While it certainly might be true, unless one specializes in fortunetelling I don't see how it can get past the hypothesis stage. I don't see them predicting how long it will take to get as warm as they expect it to, just that we are still in it.
Imo, the best science is that which goes where the data leads rather than where the hypothesis leads.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4925
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA, for somebody who appears to mistrust his fellow-human beings to such a large degree (and possibly justifiably so), you appear to place in an immense trust in the products that your fellow-human beings are producing...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
OISM.org is not devoted to climate change deniers, this is the U of Oregon. Joe Bastardi, works for accuweather, check these opinions you might be enlightened. The EPA and the dept of ag in the usa are corrupt. have a nice day. I doubt you know it all on any subject especially greenhouse gasses.. It is a sad day when folks think they have every thing figured out, I am willing to admit my opinion on the subject could be incorrect, but good science says different. I am also surprised that Al gore and his ilk that are so worried about greenhouse gasses pollute more than the average and justify it by paying so called carbon credits, how fucking arrogant to think that after millions and millions of years that now in a hundred years man has done irreparable damage to the atmosphere.


Getting a bit testy, Bravo? No need to. I don't profess to "know it all" on anything, let alone climate science. I'm glad you're willing to admit that your opinion might be incorrect, because I am of mine also. But I'll believe the overwhelming view of the people who've done (and are doing) the research...climate scientists.

By the way, I visited the oism.org website you suggested and it has nothing to do with the University of Oregon. From Sourcewatch.org...The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

Also, I don't don't think it's arrogant to believe that the atmosphere has been damaged over the past hundred years more so than before. Carbon emissions were a small fraction back then to what they are now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
pedro2 wrote:
If wind, water, solar and geo thermal were all better , wouldn't we be using them more ??

Are they better economically ? NO.
Better maintenance wise ? No .
A better payback job wise ? No

We get more bang from our buck with petroleum and natural gases.


That's because the use of oil, gas and coal does not include the true costs to the environment of using these resources. That's what a carbon tax is all about...putting a price on carbon so that the true cost for polluting the planet is factored in. This will encourage the resource industries to find cleaner and better ways of producing the energy we need. Renewable energy sources will then become a competitive alternative. A carbon tax would be more appropriately called a pollution tax, because that's what it is. A tax on industries which produce high greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, they will pass a portion of this onto the rest of us clowns, but they will also be looking for cheaper alternatives.

Quote:
My question on the 97% of scientists that are in agreement ... What KIND of scientists are these people ?

2nd question .... Are they getting paid and , if so , by who ?

As was stated earlier , If I went to college and spent 200k to learn about the climate , only to find that there wasn't much work in that field , UNLESS , I could secure a grant that would study and secure a FAVORABLE result for the people funding my project , I would have wasted 200k .


They are climate scientists, pedro. Do they get paid...I guess so. Most people expect to be paid for the work they do. They probably get paid by their employer, whoever that is in each case.

I really don't understand how so many people, and climate change skeptics in particular, will readily disparage a whole profession (scientists) as being only in it for the money and being dishonest with their findings, just because it doesn't fit with what they'd like to believe. Sure there will be both good and bad in all professions, but the scientist mob as a whole seems to get a bigger bagging than anyone else these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
OK then just one of you geniuses explain why you so called experts said we were heading for an ice age in the 70's


Hey Bravo, been doing some more research, as you helpfully suggested. Found the following snippet regarding the issue above...

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
"

Have a nice day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 7051
Location: exile
Uncle Bernie wrote:
I really don't understand how so many people, and climate change skeptics in particular, will readily disparage a whole profession (scientists) as being only in it for the money and being dishonest with their findings, just because it doesn't fit with what they'd like to believe. Sure there will be both good and bad in all professions, but the scientist mob as a whole seems to get a bigger bagging than anyone else these days.
well said, uncle.
some people just want things to stay the way they always have been.
they don't want to have to change their opinion(s) about anything, because it is so much easier to believe what they always have believed in.

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1966
You mean like the scientists that released hundreds of *SPAM* products that turned out to be dangerous? Like the ones who say that the radiation leaking from Fukashima is nothing to worry about? Like the ones that said some impact damage and a little fire can unzip a skyscraper in less than thirty seconds? Twice? Then once more, later the same day?

I trust the scientific method, but it can be and is corrupted sometimes. On the same note...just because they all agree doesn't mean that they're all correct. They look at data, and come to conclusions. Without some form of empirical testing, there's no way they can be absolutely certain.

The climate may be changing, and the cause may be mankind...but if you think that mankind is going to turn around the bad habits and change into a clean being, I think you don't understand human nature. Its too late already. If we all went back to living like cave men right now, we might reverse it...but more and more people enter the world everyday, each and every one a motherfucking shit machine.

Get over it. We killed a planet. If it wasn't this way, it would have been some other way. "Going green" might slow it down a little, but very little indeed. A carbon tax isn't going to do anything but suck money out of the economy.

If you really want to maybe stop what is possibly man-made climate change, you have to stop burning fossil fuels, right now. Not tomorrow, not next year, not in 2020...now. All the shit we do that puts bad gasses into the atmosphere has to stop right now. We all know that ain't gonna happen, so the whole damn subject is a waste of breath. Let the scientists agree so that the politicians can rape us a little more. Men are never going to change their ways enough to make a dent in climate change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1000
Uncle Bernie wrote:
They are climate scientists, pedro. Do they get paid...I guess so. Most people expect to be paid for the work they do. They probably get paid by their employer, whoever that is in each case.

I really don't understand how so many people, and climate change skeptics in particular, will readily disparage a whole profession (scientists) as being only in it for the money and being dishonest with their findings, just because it doesn't fit with what they'd like to believe. Sure there will be both good and bad in all professions, but the scientist mob as a whole seems to get a bigger bagging than anyone else these days.



Once again I ask... WHO are these scientists ?

I did some checking on SpaceBro's 97% of scientists in agreement and found this out.

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified
each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)
for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence
(UE) for ACC.

After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had
a total of 903 names.

We define UE researchers as those who have signed reputable
statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.


After removing duplicate
names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names.


Full story here : http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/ ... pplemental


I'm not a scientist , far from it , BUT , I would rather take the word of a person like this , over someone who might be Only In It For The Money :wink:

Check this guy ... anybody remember those leaked Emails from these ' so called ' scientists ?

Dr. Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg between 1988 to 1996.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW4RWEC7JXo



Had to add this ....

HAPPY 4th Of July to the American members here.... You guys in other countries ... go check out some fireworks if you can ... people like SpaceBro ..... STAY HOME AND DO NOT LIGHT ANY FIREWORKS..... don't want to be part of the problem , do ya ? :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Sarcasm duly noted pedro2.

As I stated earlier, the agreeing of the 97% of world scientists coincide with the exact same data produced by the following groups:

-NOAA
-NASA
-EPA
-National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

Sadly, people who deny that human activities are currently the leading cause of global warming will only realise that they were wrong all along only when we have all passed well beyond the point of no return. Even then, I have my doubts that any them will admit to being wrong as most likely, they will simply pass on the blame to those who are idealogically different.

Also, lighting off firworks once or twice a year for several minutes isn't like a bunch of smokestacks dumping tons of dfeadly pollutants into the atmosphere 24 hours a day every day, but yes, sarcasm duly noted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1000
Nice to see ya , Spacer.... hope you enjoyed your holidaze . :wink:

Now , is it 97% of WORLD scientists , or 97 % of AMERICAN scientists ??

From looking at your data , it seems it's AMERICANS .... but , maybe I missed something ?


As for the duplicate names ......? :?


Oh , and here in Cincinasty .... fireworks after every Reds game and also at Kings Island ... I'm sure it's probably that way in most major cities with sports venues or other amusement parks. :wink:


Just one more thing ,, how would you provide electricity for your computer if there weren't any of those pesky smokestacks around in your area ??

Hydro electric is great , but you don't get ALL your energy from it , do you ??

Kinda seems the consumer is to blame for pollution AND wars . :lol:

Ironic , eh ? :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
So you believe that NOAA, NASA, EPA and National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) have it all wrong about human activities effect on global warming pedro2? :?

Also, do you believe that Ozone Action Days are a hoax and all those people who drop dead like flies during them are all just faking it? :?

I agree with your assessment that consumers are a contributing cause of pollution and wars. I also believe that most consumers have a choice on who to do/not do business with in regards to war and pollution, instead of scapegoating, making excuses and/or leaning on their ideologies.

A person doesn't have to be a crazed conspiracy nut to recognise who the forces are behind the anti-global warming propaganda.

Cetainly a worth while debate, but yet again, it comes down to ideology versus proven science, another cause for unneccessary conflict.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Sydney, OZ
pedro2 wrote:
Now , is it 97% of WORLD scientists , or 97 % of AMERICAN scientists ??


It's 97% of working climate scientists world-wide. Spacebro is right...it usually comes down to ideology vs science. The thing I don't understand is why so many otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe all the alternative scenarios, but disregard the work of scientists in the field. I guess the sceptics range of arguments reinforce peoples reluctance to change their lifestyles. Most large nations of the world are turning their attentions to addressing the impacts of climate change. I doubt they'd waste their time with that if they didn't have to, especially with so many on the edge of going down the financial gurgler.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1000
You guys still insist that 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in agreement , but you don't tell WHO these scientists are in the 97% .

This link tells of AMERICAN Scientists ....From 2008 ...http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_wa ... 23_08.html

The IPCC, a scientific organization of the United Nations, doesn’t do any original research, but writes extensive summary reports of the academic literature on climate change.
http://climatesight.org/2011/02/24/clim ... -the-cold/

In this post at The Hockey Schtick, it is pointed out that the 97% statistic is based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were self-selected. There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.

This survey should not be cited as evidence that a consensus exists among climate scientists regarding AGW. This is due to the fact that it does not ask the scientists if human activities are the primary cause of increasing temperatures. The questions asked only pertained to ascertaining whether or not climate scientists agree that the earth has warmed and humans have played any role, and it did a poor job at ascertaining these facts as well. Anyone using this study to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming is ignoring the ambiguous and poor phrasing of this survey questions. The survey does not ask if global warming is primarily driven by human activity, so the survey responses cannot answer this question.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/stu ... is-flawed/

The thing I don't understand is why so many otherwise intelligent people are willing to take flawed science , with a history of payola problems , and are willing to believe mass propaganda.

Back to the original question.... there is little doubt that the earth is warming , as it has done in cycles over billions of years.. BUT ... HOW MUCH CAN BE CONTRIBUTED TO MAN ???


I see these scare tactics as a primary reason to secure FUNDS ..not safety.

You can conserve all you want for a thousand years , and one volcanic explosion will thwart all your conserving in about an hour.

The earth and sun ain't gonna live forever ... why are you planning on it ??

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3631
Climate change is arguably cyclical, warming and cooling of the oceans has a direct correlation to climate; is that due to greenhouse gasses or under sea volcanic action? Check Joe Bastardi, accuweather.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5817
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
pedro2 wrote:
The thing I don't understand is why so many otherwise intelligent people are willing to take flawed science , with a history of payola problems , and are willing to believe mass propaganda.

Back to the original question.... there is little doubt that the earth is warming , as it has done in cycles over billions of years.. BUT ... HOW MUCH CAN BE CONTRIBUTED TO MAN ???


I see these scare tactics as a primary reason to secure FUNDS ..not safety.


This same argument could just as easily be turned around to why so many otherwise intelligent people are willing to take flawed information with a history of payola from energy and related industries funded spin doctors to secure current excessively lucrative monopolies.

To me, it's logical that so much money is pumped into anti-global warming propaganda because renewable/reuseable resources could virtually power humanity for the rest of our existence as a species, thus ending massive profits, price gouging and manipulation that benefit specific industries that are controlled by only a few individuals. If they cut off the competition, they secure their power grab. If a solar panel can produce and store enough energy to power a house without the need for natural gas, coal and nuclear energy for a one time cost, that would collapse an entire industry.

As an analogy, take corporate farms and mega stores (like Walmart). Family farms existed since there was farming, until a small handful of people with obscene amounts of money crushed them forever. Mega stores (like Walmart) did the same thing to smaller family run stores. Crush the competion by offering product at below cost to drive out the competion, secure monopolies, then gouge everybody once they have complete control of all related markets, cutting off any chance of a competetor coming in. Once the price gouging is in place with a cornered market, then manufactured obsolesence comes into play forcing people to by the same cheap crap over and over again that ends up in landfills.

With renewable/reuseable energy sources, the exact opposite would happen. Everyone could potentially live on their own self-sustainable resources and never again have to hand a single dime to the big players, thus making the monopoly oriented corporate model obsolete.

Thats one way how I see it.

With a variety of scientists in a variety of fields from reknowned and proven institutions such as NASA, NOAA, EPA, universities and other worlwide groups which are unanimous about human contribution to global warming, the mega store monopoly corporations are more desparate than ever to protect their profits. Humanity has survived and thrived for tens of thousands of years without nuclear energy, fossil fuels and coal.

There are a number of graghs in the following link that show how the sudden spike of global warming/climate change versus the expansion of modern industry and timelines showing the direct relationship.
http://www.roperld.com/science/GlobalWarmingGraphs.htm

It is all about proven science versus ideology. The global warming issue has become our own modern day flat Earth, anti-Darwin, creationist, turning lead into gold alchemy situation.


edit : click the following link to learn a little something about Joe Bastardi
Joe Bastardi, worst long-range forecaster on Earth, asserts “The coming cooling of the planet overall will return it to where it was in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2418
This thread brought to you by
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3631
SB's link to joe romm is why i do not post links, romm is a climate change nut job blogger, believe him if you want.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3353
Location: Between the Badges
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Climate change is arguably cyclical, warming and cooling of the oceans has a direct correlation to climate; is that due to greenhouse gasses or under sea volcanic action? Check Joe Bastardi, accuweather.

Correlation does not imply causation.

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
SB's link to joe romm is why i do not post links, romm is a climate change nut job blogger, believe him if you want.

Well, if you won't address any links beyond dismissing them out of hand, then all we're left with is "check Joe Bastardi". Check what about JB? Are you a fan of every last thing he's ever said or are there particular things in his analysis that you find convincing? If so, why?

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4925
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
As an utter non-scientist (as indeed most of us seem to be here), I still find it rather interesting that some people here are kind of pulling "experts" to propound their points of view.
As far as I see it, the following objective facts that exist are:
a) There are a lot of human beings and the number has increased in the last 200 years.
b) Industrial revolutions have been occuring all over the world during the last 200 years the result of which has been that an increasing number of cars and factories are producing gases to such a degree that the composition of the gases that make up our atmosphere are being/ have been affected. If a volcano can change the world climate then a billion cars and a million factories will probably change it too.
c) We have been cutting down an awful lot of jungles recently, thus changing the atmosphere.
d) The polar ice caps are melting, so at the poles the temperature is changing there. If they melt, this affects the temperature of the sea and thus the temperatures everywhere.
e) Oil and coal are finite resources that are running out, therefore it would possibly be a good idea if we looked around for alternative energy sources before they run out/become too expensive to use anyway, regardless of whether they're affecting the atmosphere or not. In fact, the countries that make the change first are likely to profit most from the new technologies.
Weather men/women can't even tell me what the weather is now, let alone tomorrow. I trust them even less than climate scientists, in fact I trust French cows more than I trust weather men/women.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: moo
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1966
Are they black and white cows?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:24 am
Posts: 1657
Location: The Dangerous Kitchener
Image

"Les Moo!"

_________________
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro - HST

Miasma!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1000
Great points , Cap , and I won't disagree that man has some crosses to bear because of our quest for a better way of life.

Yes , jungles and forests have been cut , but RePlanting and soil reclimation is also happening , probably faster than a few generations ago.

This doomsday scare tactic is just that. This is a tough OLD OLD world and can adapt itself , much like an evolutionary species can.

We would ALL love to use a different , cleaner and more effective energy source.
Don't you think the ENERGY PRODUCING COMPANIES would love that too ?? Those people and companies are working harder and spending more money on alternatives than any person , or groups of persons , I can think of. How about you ?

I remember back a few years ago when the USA was getting bashed for not signing the Kyoto Treaty. China wouldn't sign either .... That's the primary reason we didn't sign it. Can you blame us ? We can clean up our act ( which we have ) along with 100 other countries , and still have little or no positive impact , simply because the world's leading polluter , China , wipes out any good we do .

The good news is , the world is a LOT cleaner than it was 100 years ago.

Be back later ... gotta go burn my trash :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3631
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Climate change is arguably cyclical, warming and cooling of the oceans has a direct correlation to climate; is that due to greenhouse gasses or under sea volcanic action? Check Joe Bastardi, accuweather.

Correlation does not imply causation.

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
SB's link to joe romm is why i do not post links, romm is a climate change nut job blogger, believe him if you want.

Well, if you won't address any links beyond dismissing them out of hand, then all we're left with is "check Joe Bastardi". Check what about JB? Are you a fan of every last thing he's ever said or are there particular things in his analysis that you find convincing? If so, why?




All SB does is search the net for an opposing opinion then posts the links, I will not play that game ; with the net I can find as many pro bastardi links as he can find to the opposite. That holds for most of the bullshit on this forum.. All I am saying is check out bastardi, HIS history NOT an opinion of some one else or a blogger.. Be real, inform your self ,then post what you think.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 338 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group