Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

 

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

:D

 

No wonder why you don't link your source:

 

Link to environmentaldefense.org

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information