Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 It snowed in East Texas yesterday. I've talked to everyone I know, and none of them can remember it snowing this late in the year. But, some scientist says if I don't start driving a compact car instead of an SUV we are going to burn up. that has nothing to do with it... and u know that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 We already have a clean energy source that doesn't rely on the Arabs. But I guess since you enviros won't give up driving and breathing, you aren't going to allow us to build a Freedom Nuclear Reactor in yer backyard either. 8 cents says the same people arguing over global cooling in 1975 are the same that argued over nuclear power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 We already have a clean energy source that doesn't rely on the Arabs. But I guess since you enviros won't give up driving and breathing, you aren't going to allow us to build a Freedom Nuclear Reactor in yer backyard either. 8 cents says the same people arguing over global cooling in 1975 are the same that argued over nuclear power. they can build all they want down south and east ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 We already have a clean energy source that doesn't rely on the Arabs. But I guess since you enviros won't give up driving and breathing, you aren't going to allow us to build a Freedom Nuclear Reactor in yer backyard either. 8 cents says the same people arguing over global cooling in 1975 are the same that argued over nuclear power. I support nuclear power completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 We already have a clean energy source that doesn't rely on the Arabs. But I guess since you enviros won't give up driving and breathing, you aren't going to allow us to build a Freedom Nuclear Reactor in yer backyard either. Nuclear Power is fine. They've made some great advances with that pesky meltdown problem, but I still don't think anyone wants it in their backyard. Are you volunteering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Nuclear Power is fine. They've made some great advances with that pesky meltdown problem, but I still don't think anyone wants it in their backyard. Are you volunteering? Sure. If I can have the first nuclear-powered Corvette also. The point is you know the enviros are the first to line up against nuclear power as well. Please don't deny that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Sure. If I can have the first nuclear-powered Corvette also. The point is you know the enviros are the first to line up against nuclear power as well. Please don't deny that. denied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The point is you know the enviros are the first to line up against nuclear power as well. Please don't deny that. Denied - see post #204 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Sure. If I can have the first nuclear-powered Corvette also. The point is you know the enviros are the first to line up against nuclear power as well. Please don't deny that. Well, sure, some would I expect. They wouldn't be alone. Standing by their side would be everyone worried about local property values, survivors of Three Mile Island, and every oversensitive housewife afraid that Jr. will grow a third eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 that has nothing to do with it... and u know that It's just as strong of an argument against global warming as anything that you've put forth as an argument for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 It's just as strong of an argument against global warming as anything that you've put forth as an argument for it. why should i spend minutes googlen facts that u will say are not true cause some talk radio host told u they were bunk.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 the one thing i do notice with the weather is a slight shift in seasons. it seems to be staying warmer later into the fall and winter months and staying colder later into the spring months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 why should i spend minutes googlen facts that u will say are not true cause some talk radio host told u they were bunk.... I listed numerous sources that are completely credible and provide alternative theories for the rise in global temperatures opposed to man-made causation. Not once have I argued or referenced a source that is radio talk show host. That you jump to that shows how weak your argument is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I listed numerous sources that are completely credible and provide alternative theories for the rise in global temperatures opposed to man-made causation. Not once have I argued or referenced a source that is radio talk show host. That you jump to that shows how weak your argument is. u be right me so sorry and not once did i say some of it is not man made but who's listening and my argument is a strong as yours and i haven't even spewed any facts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 (edited) Here's a couple of points that I'd like answered: Why won't the manistream media provide that there are alternative theories and explain those theories in laic man terms, rather than keep pounding only one theory for the explanation of rises in global temperatures? Solar activity and its impact on the Earth and other planets is something that can be dumbed down easily and is much more closely correlated to the historic rise & fall in global temperatures than CO2 levels. If global warming is indeed due to man's activity on Earth and can be proven as such, why aren't the alternative explanations presented and then dismissed with simple facts that clearly & plainly refute them, rather than relying on a "consensus" that clearly does not exist in the scientific community - as demonstrated here on this thread? Edited April 9, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 and my argument is a strong as yours and i haven't even spewed any facts In your mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Still cold down here today. I wish that global warming would hurry up and kick in. I'm letting my car run all day today in hopes to speed it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Will throwing some Burger King onion rings over the cow fence make them fart more like me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 rather than relying on a "consensus" that clearly does not exist in the scientific community - as demonstrated here on this thread? Are you expecting "consensus" to mean literally everyone? Or will you accept "overwhelming majority"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Are you expecting "consensus" to mean literally everyone? Or will you accept "overwhelming majority"? Is that you answer to my points that I'd like a response to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Is that you answer to my points that I'd like a response to? No, it's a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Uh, oh. Alarmists using fudged data Please read the article above. Particularly damning are these points regarding the chart that shows how high CO2 levels have risen: From a chart on page 43: "Figure 1 AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES The values that G.S. Callendar chose to use are shown encircled. He rejected both higher and lower values, to arrive at a figure that backed up his hypothesis. From page 45: Fudging the CO2 Data Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”;23 (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one. Publications on greenhouse gases in ice often exhibit From Figure 3 on page 45: Figure 3 HOW SELECTION OF ICE CORE DATA SKEWS RESULTS TO MATCH THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY In presenting measurements of CO2 concentrations in the pre-industrial ice core from Byrd Antarctica, Neftel, et al., in 1982 showed maximum values up to 500 ppmv (dots and bars). In 1988, the same authors published measurements for the same section of the Byrd ice core (gray areas), but left off the high readings published previously, reporting a highest concentration of 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory. From page 51, figure 9: Figure 9 ANNUAL CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 FOLLOW TEMPERATURE CHANGES, NOT MAN-MADE EMISSIONS The increases in man-made emissions of CO2 (dotted line) are not coupled to the fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 (thin solid line). Instead, zig-zags of changes in atmospheric CO2, seem to closely follow changes in temperature (heavy solid line). The largest decreases in CO2 occur after volcanic eruptions reach the stratosphere. Volcanic eruptions are noted at top. The source of temporal trends in anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production is taken from Boden, et al., 1990; Andres, et al., 1993. The data for atmospheric CO2 mass increases are calculated from CO2 air concentrations measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and are taken from Boden, et al., 1990; Keeling, et al., 1995. The global surface air temperature is taken from Boden, et al., 1990; Keeling, et al., 1995. From page 52: The data in Figure 9 suggest that CO2 atmospheric mass increases were not related to man-made emissions of this gas, but rather that these increases depended on volcanic eruptions and other causes of natural climatic fluctuations. Fudged data? Used by enviro-nuts to prove their case? Say it isn't so!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 (edited) No, it's a question. Once you answer my questions, I'd be happy your question. Edited April 9, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005) The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 (edited) The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005) The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now. Is there a reason that you don't link your source for this? Post edit: No wonder why you don't link your source: Link to environmentaldefense.org Edited April 9, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.