Lady.hawke

Climategate

Recommended Posts

the real question is can we wait to find out those questions you are asking. Will waiting be a good thingy or a bad thingy. do you really think our way of life, economy and cultural heritage will be destroyed if we try to not pollute so much? that is like saying obama will take all the guns when he is elected.

 

Again, you're making the straw man argument. Putting ethelyne glycol into rivers is polluting and should be stopped. I don't know that CO2 is a pollutant. Cap and tax is only supposed to reduce the average temp something like 2 tenths over 10 years. And it doesn't even reduce pollution, just the use of carbon. Are you willing to pay so much more for a house, for electric, gas, etc that you have to substantially alter your lifestyle for two-tenths of a degree over ten years, especially when you ask what the avg mean temp should be and the only answer is "lower"?

 

That's like asking a pastor how much to give and his only answer is "more". F that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have 10 minutes to spare, click either the Real Audio or Window's media link to listen to the opening minutes of the show on the Copenhagen Conference. They discuss "Climategate"

The Diane Rehm Show

 

ETA: The Penn State Professor in question, Michael Mann, is a guest on the show.

 

People need to listen to this. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you're making the straw man argument. Putting ethelyne glycol into rivers is polluting and should be stopped. I don't know that CO2 is a pollutant. Cap and tax is only supposed to reduce the average temp something like 2 tenths over 10 years. And it doesn't even reduce pollution, just the use of carbon. Are you willing to pay so much more for a house, for electric, gas, etc that you have to substantially alter your lifestyle for two-tenths of a degree over ten years, especially when you ask what the avg mean temp should be and the only answer is "lower"?

 

That's like asking a pastor how much to give and his only answer is "more". F that.

 

:wacko: And I agree with you and butt picker about real pollutants as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recent industrial age has increased CO2 to staggering levels unlike any seen during pre Neanderthal age to modern time. If Carbon Dioxide triggers global temperatures and sea rise; why does it matter if its defined as a pollutant or not? Sounds like some of us are losing the forest through the trees.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The recent industrial age has increased CO2 to staggering levels unlike any seen during pre Neanderthal age to modern time. If Carbon Dioxide triggers global temperatures and sea rise; why does it matter if its defined as a pollutant or not? Sounds like some of us are losing the forest through the trees.

 

Has the sea level ever been higher? Did we cause it? Speaking of trees, are there more now or a hundred years ago? Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stay classy perchie . . :wacko:

 

Just joking around with ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of trees, are there more now or a hundred years ago? Just asking.

 

I would guess less trees, but doesnt that exacerbate the problem of not enough trees to absorb CO2? :wacko:

 

Perch you REALLY need to watch the movie "The Day after Tomorrow". All will be revealed at the end of the movie . . . . :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Co2 released into the atmosphere in 1982 ? how about in 1997 ?

 

what has happened in last 5 years that makes it seem that we are doing something for the first time when it has been going on for many , many decades

 

Just curious why this did not come up 10 - 15 - 20 years ago when we were in fact spewing alot crap into the atmosphere including aerosol cans ...why was there no noticeable changes on Earth then as compared to now ? or was there but it was kept in the background ?

 

I am seriously asking this question and not stating i do not believe in Global Warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious why this did not come up 10 - 15 - 20 years ago when we were in fact spewing alot crap into the atmosphere including aerosol cans ...why was there no noticeable changes on Earth then as compared to now ? or was there but it was kept in the background ?

 

I am seriously asking this question and not stating i do not believe in Global Warming

CFCs were banned in aerosols and fridges. Why? Because changes were noticeable. Were you asleep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was Co2 released into the atmosphere in 1982 ? how about in 1997 ?

 

what has happened in last 5 years that makes it seem that we are doing something for the first time when it has been going on for many , many decades

 

Just curious why this did not come up 10 - 15 - 20 years ago when we were in fact spewing alot crap into the atmosphere including aerosol cans ...why was there no noticeable changes on Earth then as compared to now ? or was there but it was kept in the background ?

 

I am seriously asking this question and not stating i do not believe in Global Warming

 

It's not what has happened in the last 5 years relative to the past 15-20 years. It's what has happened in the past 100 years relative to the past 400K:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...xide_400kyr.png

 

Has the sea level ever been higher? Did we cause it? Speaking of trees, are there more now or a hundred years ago? Just asking.

 

Everyone knows the answers to these largely irrelevant questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific measurements have shown a definite increase in hot air every time Perch starts talking about politics . . . . :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would guess less trees, but doesnt that exacerbate the problem of not enough trees to absorb CO2? :wacko:

 

Perch you REALLY need to watch the movie "The Day after Tomorrow". All will be revealed at the end of the movie . . . . :D

 

There are actually more trees today than there was 100 years ago. The logging industry plants 3 for every one they cut down. Also younger growing trees scrub more CO2 than older ones. You might also look at the BBC report that stated the warmer temperatures are allowing forest expand in regions that haven't seen trees since the last interglacial period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientific measurements have shown a definite increase in hot air every time Perch starts talking about politics . . . . :wacko:

 

:D

 

He's Rush LImbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Anne Coulter all in one. The ultimate right wing soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The recent industrial age has increased CO2 to staggering levels unlike any seen during pre Neanderthal age to modern time. If Carbon Dioxide triggers global temperatures and sea rise; why does it matter if its defined as a pollutant or not? Sounds like some of us are losing the forest through the trees.

 

And you have data to show the CO2 levels during the Neanderthal age? You and those you follow have no data that matters one twit, a hundred years at most, and I doubt even that much. That time period is a small blip to the life of planet Earth. Nothing worthwhile could be extracted from that minuscule amount of data.

 

More interesting would be to explore how Greenland was named.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you have data to show the CO2 levels during the Neanderthal age? You and those you follow have no data that matters one twit, a hundred years at most, and I doubt even that much. That time period is a small blip to the life of planet Earth. Nothing worthwhile could be extracted from that minuscule amount of data.

Not true. The rate of increase (not the total necessarily but the rate of increase) of CO2 is almost vertical on a graph. Also, the data from thousands and even millions of years ago is being collected. It is a matter of extracting soil and ice samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have 10 minutes to spare, click either the Real Audio or Window's media link to listen to the opening minutes of the show on the Copenhagen Conference. They discuss "Climategate"

The Diane Rehm Show

 

ETA: The Penn State Professor in question, Michael Mann, is a guest on the show.

 

:wacko: also, if you are interested in the facts behind the rod blagojevich scandal, I suggest you listen to

objective assessment. Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is your third conspiracy theory in as many weeks.

 

1. The Obama citizenship conspiracy

2. The government / top brass vengeance on the SEALS conspiracy

3. Climate change is all a scientoliberal conspiracy

 

How do you sleep at night when it's pretty obvious that the Illuminati must be hunkered down in your garden shed waiting to ambush you?

 

Hmmm?

 

1. I detailed a legitimate Constitutional question as to the meaning of "natural born citizen." That is hardly a conspiracy. That's something the Supreme Court needs to clarify. And, it's not going away. If the press was doing its job, you would know that there are many bills in state legislatures requiring the various Secretaries of State to demand proof of eligibility for office in order to be on the ballot.

 

2. Wrong again. I merely reported that it was being discussed. The fact that it is being discussed should be of concern - apparently not you. You would rather attack me.

 

3. You act as if I coined the term, "Climategate," Virtually unreported by the American press, thousands of emails were hacked from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, talking about suppression of data, prevention of opposite views being published, etc. You can Google it. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you have data to show the CO2 levels during the Neanderthal age? You and those you follow have no data that matters one twit, a hundred years at most, and I doubt even that much.

 

You better double check with your super secret sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More interesting would be to explore how Greenland was named.

Um. :wacko:

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but the one you've apparently "explored" is just one of many theories. Greenland was named to thwart/confuse the enemies of the Viking settlers who also inhabited Iceland (which isn't all too icy at all).

 

Yes, the southern portion of Greenland does get "green" in the summer, and could have been even lusher in Medieval times, but there is absolutely no proof.

 

Thank you, drive through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the southern portion of Greenland does get "green" in the summer, and could have been even lusher in Medieval times, but there is absolutely no proof.

 

are you sure about that? and from wikipedia:

Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you sure about that? and from wikipedia:

:wacko:

 

It was still 80-90% ice.

 

And if you re-read what I said, I noted the southern portion of the island is "green" and could have "lushER", which insinuates there is some degree of lushness. C'mon, Az, you're smarter than this.

Edited by darin3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko:

 

It was still 80-90% ice.

 

And if you re-read what I said, I noted the southern portion of the island is "green" and could have "lushER", which insinuates there is some degree of lushness. C'mon, Az, you're smarter than this.

 

there is pretty decisive proof there were year-round settlements with livestock, agriculture, etc. during the medieval period, that then died out as temperatures cooled significantly leading into the "little ice age". for that to be possible, it had to be warmer there than it is now. this is established in historical and archaelogical records, as well as the temperature records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.