T1B

Jerkovich wrote:Geeesss, this board is freaken obnoxious. Lets put this into perspective with some factual scientific data.

this belched more in one day
* Sulfuric acid
* Nitrogen dioxide
* Sulphur dioxide
* Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size.
* Benzene
* Formaldehyde
* Polycyclic hydrocarbons
* so on and so on ......
then man has burnt in the history of fossil fuels.


sorry to pop your bubble, but maybe we need to cap all of the volcano's on earth.

Oh, and I forgot Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

but this is an inconvenient truth.

Much respect to 88 and his Chem degree.

But seriously, I'm going to go with the Nobel prize winner (in a close contest of course).

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ate+change

Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

88 wrote:After looking at years and years of scientific data, the scientists came out with a hurricane forecast for the next six months. And, as future predictions often go, the scientists screwed the pooch.

Dust storms off African coast may have stifled hurricanes this year.

No mention of global warming in this article as it relates to the past hurricane season, nor global warming and the dust storms this year.

The number of Typhoons in the Pacific was up this year because of El Nino (warming of the equatorial Pacific waters).

Mikey wrote:Much respect to 88 and his Chem degree.

But seriously, I'm going to go with the Nobel prize winner (in a close contest of course).

This guy was a close runner up for the Noble prize





But he refused to be a NPR patsy.

mvscal wrote: It's cheaper than bottled water

89cents a gal? Since when?

and not particularly hard to find.

Easier to find than sunlight? Or wind? Or running water? Gawd you are a tard.

88 wrote:If it was too expensive, too hard to find, inefficient and unavailable for sale, the world demand for the stuff would plummet and a more cost effective/cleaner/abundant alternative would be what we'd hitch our horse to.

In a Free Market maybe. You are not stupid enough to try and spin our economy as Free Market are you?

But there are no better alternatives to fossil fuels at present. No other fuel source is as cheap, easy to find and available.

How about clean, safe and owned by us? That is what I thought.

Tard on Counselor.

mvscal wrote: None of which can power a car, truck, train, aircraft or cargo vessel.

Biofuel works just find for most transportation as does sun/wind/hydro generated electricity in small apps, but by all means live in your Racist 19/20th Century world.

Now go fuck yourself you Racist tard.

The recent breakthroughs in electric vehicles are pretty darn impressive, actually. Obviously the way of the future, but the oil industry doesn't want you to think so(even though Big Oil does just fine off the electric industry, too).


And with the possibility of fusion reactors down the road...buh-bye, petroleum.

Jerkovich wrote:

Mikey wrote:Much respect to 88 and his Chem degree.

But seriously, I'm going to go with the Nobel prize winner (in a close contest of course).

This guy was a close runner up for the Noble prize

But he refused to be a NPR patsy.

That's very funny.
Especially since you have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Keep putting your ignorance on public display, though, it's nice to have something to laugh at once in a while.

Dinsdale wrote:The recent breakthroughs in electric vehicles are pretty darn impressive, actually. Obviously the way of the future, but the oil industry doesn't want you to think so(even though Big Oil does just fine off the electric industry, too).


And with the possibility of fusion reactors down the road...buh-bye, petroleum.

Unfortunately probably not in your or my lifetime.

Probably not.

Then again, with technological advances, even the people in charge of building it think there's possibilties of things going a little more quickly than expected...which probably means they'll be behind schedule for most/all of the project.

mvscal wrote: The world economy isn't going to function on your faggot assed, hippy pipe dreams.

A) Tomorrow? No. But it will.
B) Should it/you is the question you Racist tard.

Mikey wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:

Mikey wrote:Much respect to 88 and his Chem degree.

But seriously, I'm going to go with the Nobel prize winner (in a close contest of course).

This guy was a close runner up for the Noble prize

But he refused to be a NPR patsy.

That's very funny.
Especially since you have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Keep putting your ignorance on public display, though, it's nice to have something to laugh at once in a while.

Thanks Mikey, because it is tongue in cheek. The whole debate is laughable, and so are the so called scientist behind it. :wink:

88, are you jerking off again to a picture of Jesus?

Your inane and pathetic attempts to downplay the crises of global warming are typical of a oxycontin-blotto Rusp Limpdick himself.

The "thousands" of scientists whom you claim are on board with questioning the overwhelming evidence concerning our reckless destruction of our planet's delicate ecosystem are the SAME quacks and lunatics who sign on to "Intelligent Design."

Gee....ever wonder why?


What silly cult are YOU a member of?....hmmm?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: The "thousands" of scientists whom you claim are on board with questioning the overwhelming evidence concerning our reckless destruction of our planet's delicate ecosystem are the SAME quacks and lunatics who sign on to "Intelligent Design."

Gee....ever wonder why?


What silly cult are YOU a member of?....hmmm?

How many times have I heard the bleating sheep flock of doom make this assertion? Just the other day I was reading an article by this quack global warming proponent stating that the lack of particulate matter in the atmosphere would cause warming due to the increased sunlight reaching the ground.

SO, what is it? Should we be creating more pollution? even the idiot scientist on the GWI are debating on why global warming is occurring.

So here is a C&P for ya.

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree Fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from ground station readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'
FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.
FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

So, to dispute whack scientists that claim they can state global warming as "fact" based on current science, you post "facts" from some complete fucking nutjob that thinks modern science can tell these things as "fact."

The only "facts" involved, are that the global temperature has gone up(despite the lie posted as "fact" in that article), and there's fucking liars on both sides of the debate.

Oh, and I'd love a link to something credible where it says "hundreds of thousands" of people freeze to death in Europe every winter.

Dimsnale wrote:Oh, and I'd love a link to something credible where it says "hundreds of thousands" of people freeze to death in Europe every winter.

Reading comprehension isn't on of your strong suites? It didn't say people freeze to death, it stated "cold related deaths", which means accidents, illnesses, and yes, I’m sure there is a portion of SPS (sudden Popsicle syndrome).

I love it when you take things out of context and presume that you are right in all instances, it validates my opinion that you are a cretin of shallow conception.

Fair enough.

I suppose influenza is the same as freezing to death, for statistical purposes.

Ohhhhh, OK.


If you die in a car accident in winter, it's because global warming is a good thing. You know...the global warming that the writer of that tripe spends the previous several paragraphs explaining is a myth, but then uses its existence to convince us it's a good thing.


Sorry if I can't take dude too seriously after he's shown such devotion to kicking his own ass.

Jerkovich wrote:Reading comprehension isn't on of your strong suites.

Out of all the sentences to totally dry-fuck....

It's the mating call of the Tard. Run some sort of spelling/grammar/comprehension smack, and completely botch the spelling/grammar/punctuation.


Because that is how they roll.

Classic.

The question here is not whether we're fucking up the planet's ecosystem. No question there. Rather, the real question is what is the INTEREST of these slimey and sleazy LIARS?

Here's some basic info as to the real nature of these global-warming denialists:

Why is there any doubt in the public mind about the reality of climate change? The answer lies in the millions of dollars spent by a shrinking number of industry players to maintain the illusion of "scientific uncertainty." Also to blame is the U.S. press, which has been too lazy to look at the science and too intimidated by the fossil fuel lobby to tell the truth.

Even as villagers in Mozambique buried casualties of the horrendous rains that swamped the country last spring, ExxonMobil declared in an ad on the op-ed page of The New York Times: "Some claim that humans are causing global warming, and they point to storms or floods to say that dangerous impacts are already under way. Yet scientists remain unable to confirm either contention." But that is categorically untrue.

The Greening Earth Society, a creation of the Western Fuels Coal Association, takes a slightly different tack. Citing the opinion of a few "greenhouse skeptics"--most of whom are on its payroll--Western Fuels trumpets the idea that more warming and more carbon dioxide (CO2) is good for us because it will promote plant growth and create a greener, healthier natural world.

They forget to mention that peer-reviewed science indicates the opposite. While enhanced CO2 creates an initial growth spurt in many trees and plants, their growth subsequently flattens and their food and nutrition value plummets. As enhanced carbon dioxide stresses plant metabolisms, they become more prone to disease, insect attacks and fires.

The media, however, continue to report the issue as though the science was still in question, giving the same weight to the "greenhouse skeptics" as they do to mainstream scientists--all in the name of "journalistic balance." Real balance, reflecting the weight of opinion within the scientific community, would accord mainstream scientists about 85 percent of an article and leave a couple of paragraphs to the skeptics. Only recently have journalists begun to dismiss the industry-sponsored naysayers.

Nevertheless, the news media still find it very difficult to cover the biggest story of the century and, perhaps, in modern history, thoroughly and consistently. Asked about this failure, a ranking editor at one network replied, "We did include a line like that once. But we were inundated by calls from the oil lobby warning our top executives that it is scientifically inaccurate to link any one particular storm with global warming." The editor concluded, "Basically, our executives were intimidated by the fossil fuel lobby."

And resistance to the solution is staggering. We need to be generating as much energy from non-carbon sources by the year 2050 as we generate from coal, oil and natural gas today, according to a peer-reviewed article in the journal Nature. That means, say the authors, that we need to begin to move toward a global energy transition within this decade and we need to pursue it "with the urgency of the Manhattan Project," which developed the atomic bomb in less than three years.

A Simple and Inexorable Process

While climate science can be dizzyingly complex, the underlying facts are simple. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. For the last 10,000 years, we enjoyed a constant level of CO2--about 280 parts per million (ppm)--until about 100 years ago, when we began to burn more coal and oil. That 280 has already risen to 360 ppm--a concentration that has not been seen for 400,000 years. It is projected to double to 560 ppm later in this new century, correlating with an increase in the average global temperature of three to seven degrees F. (For perspective, the last Ice Age was only five to nine degrees colder than the current climate.)

Evidence for the build-up of heat-trapping carbon dioxide abounds: The 11 hottest years on record have occurred since 1983; the five hottest consecutive years were 1991 to 1995; 1998 was the hottest year on record; the decade of the 1990s was the hottest at least in this past millennium; and the planet is heating more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. On this point the science is unambiguous: to allow the climate to re-stabilize requires worldwide emissions reductions of 70 percent.

The politics are almost as unambiguous. Last December, Great Britain's chief meteorologist and the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared that the climate situation is now "critical," urging the world to begin now to reduce its use of carbon fuels. The issue of climate change is the subject of serious debate only in the United States. When 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to forge a climate treaty, not one government took issue with the science.

Since then, findings which link the warming to our burning of coal and oil have become so robust that a number of countries are moving toward solutions regardless of what happens in the U.S. The Dutch, for one, are creating a plan to reduce emissions by 80 percent over the next 40 years. Germany is contemplating 50 percent cuts in the future. Britain announced it will cut emissions by 21 percent below 1990 levels in the next 12 years.

The view of the world's business leaders is moving on the same trajectory. A vote by executives of the world's largest corporations, finance ministers and heads of state who attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last February was remarkable. When conference organizers polled participants on which of five different trends were most troubling, the participants overrode the choices and declared climate change to be by far the most threatening issue facing humanity.

Some of the world's largest oil and auto companies also acknowledge the perils of climate change and are positioning themselves for a new non-carbon economy. John Browne, CEO of British Petroleum-Amoco, announced his company is preparing to do $1 billion a year in solar commerce by the decade's end. Shell has created a new core company to produce renewable energy technologies. Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, together with Ballard Power Corporation, have entered a $1 billion joint venture to produce fuel-cell-powered cars in the next three years. And both Honda and Toyota are marketing 60- to 70-mile-per-gallon climate-friendly hybrid cars in the U.S.

A Question of Liability

The strongest corporate concerns about climatic instability come from the world's property insurers. During the 1980s, the insurance industry lost an average of $2 billion a year to damages from droughts, floods, storm surges, sea level rise and other extreme weather events. In the 1990s, it lost an average of $12 billion a year--$89 billion in 1998 alone. "Man-made climate change willÉbring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe losses,'' an official of Munich Reinsurance said recently.

While die-hard elements of the fossil fuel lobby continue to attack the findings of mainstream science, they are becoming increasingly isolated. For years, the Washington, D.C.-based Global Climate Coalition (GCC) waged a campaign against mainstream science. But its corporate membership has hemorrhaged. Since December, the GCC has been abandoned by Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors, the Southern Company and Texaco.

The very few independent scientists who still question whether global warming is caused by human activity focus on discrepancies between temperatures in the upper levels of the atmosphere and on the ground. That doubt was put to rest in January when a panel of the National Academies of Science reported that such differences "in no way invalidates the conclusion that the Earth's temperature is rising."

But the case for climate change rests on a far broader base than computer models and atmospheric dynamics alone. Add the unceasing bombardment of extreme weather events wreaking havoc all over the world.

Take, for example, 1998, which began with a January ice storm that left four million people without power in Quebec and northern New England. For the first time, rainforests in Brazil and Mexico actually caught fire. The summer brought killer heat waves in the Middle East, India and Texas, where residents suffered through a record 29 consecutive triple-digit days. Mexico experienced its worst drought in 70 years.

Last year, 1999, saw a record-setting drought in the Mid-Atlantic states, with declarations of disaster in six. A heat wave in the Midwest and northeastern U.S. claimed 271 lives. Hurricane Floyd visited more than $1 billion in damages on North Carolina. A super-cyclone in eastern India killed 10,000 people. That winter, mudslides and rains in Venezuela claimed 15,000 lives. Unprecedented December windstorms swept northern Europe, causing more than $4 billion in damages. And Boston experienced a record 304 consecutive days with no snow.

Conditions are shifting rapidly, meteorologically and otherwise. Most of the public is now intuitively aware of climate change--and extremely worried about changes in the weather. Growing numbers of corporate leaders are realizing that the remedy--a world-wide transition to renewable and high-efficiency energy sources--would, in fact, create a huge surge of jobs and a dramatic expansion in the total wealth of the global economy. And national as well as grassroots political activists are at last making the climate crisis the focus of campaigns. It is too slow and too small--but it is a beginning. The issue is not whether we will mobilize around the climate crisis, but whether we will do it in time.

So, it's not a "scientific debate" at all, but rather a callous and desperate bid by huge polluting corporations to continue basking in their Free Market/ Deregulation valhalla as provided by fools and lunatics like Reagan and the Chimp.

WW

:bigshocker: to see Let's Turn 3 Next Year chime in with more bullshit.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Even as villagers in Mozambique buried casualties of the horrendous rains that swamped the country last spring, ExxonMobil declared in an ad on the op-ed page of The New York Times: "Some claim that humans are causing global warming, and they point to storms or floods to say that dangerous impacts are already under way. Yet scientists remain unable to confirm either contention." But that is categorically untrue.

OK...before the industrial revolution, there were no weather-related catastrophes.

Oh wait...the worst ones in history were all pre-industrial revolution.

The Greening Earth Society, a creation of the Western Fuels Coal Association, takes a slightly different tack. Citing the opinion of a few "greenhouse skeptics"--most of whom are on its payroll--Western Fuels trumpets the idea that more warming and more carbon dioxide (CO2) is good for us because it will promote plant growth and create a greener, healthier natural world.

They forget to mention that peer-reviewed science indicates the opposite. While enhanced CO2 creates an initial growth spurt in many trees and plants, their growth subsequently flattens and their food and nutrition value plummets. As enhanced carbon dioxide stresses plant metabolisms, they become more prone to disease, insect attacks and fires.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Sin,
Anybody Who Has Ever Grown Weed

While climate science can be dizzyingly complex, the underlying facts are simple. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat.

Yes. Funny they don't mention how the particulate matter from fossil fuels reflects heat.

When 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to forge a climate treaty, not one government took issue with the science.

Well then, maybe the UN/Kyoto folks should have actually made it about reducing CO2 emissions, rather than a stupid debate about how they wanted to split up the USA's money, since all that treaty was was a US dollar cash-grab, and had NOTHING to do with reducing CO2 emissions. The world needs to remember that we got where we are by being smarter than you, and you're going to have to be quite a bit more clever than that if you want to come up with some document that essentially reads "you owe us money, USA!" Like maybe applying the same rules to everyone, perhaps, rather that just make arbitrary rules for the US to follow(paying as we go, of course).

The view of the world's business leaders is moving on the same trajectory. A vote by executives of the world's largest corporations, finance ministers and heads of state who attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last February was remarkable. When conference organizers polled participants on which of five different trends were most troubling, the participants overrode the choices and declared climate change to be by far the most threatening issue facing humanity.

Because those folks are notable for their scientific knowledge, right?

Some of the world's largest oil and auto companies also acknowledge the perils of climate change and are positioning themselves for a new non-carbon economy. John Browne, CEO of British Petroleum-Amoco, announced his company is preparing to do $1 billion a year in solar commerce by the decade's end.

It would be criminally foolish of him/them to not A) Invest in future monopolization, and B) Not cash in on the wave of paranoia, wouldn't it?

Shell has created a new core company to produce renewable energy technologies.

Financed by the American taxpayer.

Follow the money.

Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, together with Ballard Power Corporation, have entered a $1 billion joint venture to produce fuel-cell-powered cars in the next three years.

Well, first off...


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Second...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


Nice to see more articles from people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

As far as fuel-cells....follow the money on that one, big-time.

Where is the hydrogen for those cells coming from again? Did someone make some radical new breakthrough in how to isolate hydrogen, and not tell anybody?

Bulk hydrogen comes from breaking down hydrocarbons. The process generally involves producing a degree of CO2.

Hydrogen fuel cells aren't new, despite whether W calls them "new" or not. And you know, you or I can open a company making hydrogen fuel cells, of any design we wish. Why? Because the patent was issued over 100 years ago. 100 fucking years, and nobody has come up with a decent idea on how to fill them.

But yeah, that sounds like a great way to power the world...if you're a petroleum company.

During the 1980s, the insurance industry lost an average of $2 billion a year to damages from droughts, floods, storm surges, sea level rise and other extreme weather events. In the 1990s, it lost an average of $12 billion a year--$89 billion in 1998 alone.

And back in the 1980's I could buy a cup of coffee for a quarter and a bag of chronic for $20.

Point?

"Man-made climate change willÉbring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe losses,'' an official of Munich Reinsurance said recently.

Yup, corporate board members of insurance companies are also superlative sources of scientific information.

Take, for example, 1998, which began with a January ice storm that left four million people without power in Quebec and northern New England. For the first time, rainforests in Brazil and Mexico actually caught fire. The summer brought killer heat waves in the Middle East, India and Texas, where residents suffered through a record 29 consecutive triple-digit days. Mexico experienced its worst drought in 70 years.

So, it's icy and wet in the winter, and hot in the summer?

Shit, maybe there is something to this bullshit article, after all.

I've started to notice that trend myself -- that it like totally gets hotter in the summer.

I mean, if there was a hurricane in the SE United States, and cyclones in India, that settles it.

Water vapor condenses and falls out of the sky in the form of something called "rain". CO2 doesn't.
Tell me you knew that.

What, do you guys blow sailors for beer money before tottering off to your terminals to tap out the ludicrous gibberish you present here?

Look, you've been POUNDED LIKE A TENT PEG.

You offer no refutation whatever, despite your fatuous juggling of semantics. Like James Inofe, you are a joke. There is no argument, and just as you clowns have regularly marched lock-step with all manner of disasterous and ass-backwards positions (always of a nervous neocon perspective), once again you are left floating dead in the water like a turd.

Wake the fuck up! (what are you so scared of?)

And another thing lost in this whole debate, which I've touched upon before --

If CO2 really is the great evil that's going to burn us all to death...why not at least discuss the issue of cleaning up the oceans? Since that's where the vast majority of CO2 is consumed by organisms that "breath" CO2 and puke up oxygen.

Because that would require countries besides the United States to foot some of the bill, and change their evil ways?

Seems like providing a better environment for auquatic phytoplankton and whatnot would do a LOT more towards reducing CO2, rather than pie-in-the-sky goals of accelerating the overall production.

I guess that might require the third-world to abandon the third-world, rather than having the developed nations join it...not that the developed nations aren't plenty guilty, too.

mvscal wrote:
Then again there's that bit about the road to hell being paved with good intentions...

Yeah, it would be pretty nice if we actually knew of all these cause/effect dealios for fact, wouldn't it?

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Then again there's that bit about the road to hell being paved with good intentions...

Yeah, it would be pretty nice if we wern't pathetic dildoes, wouldn't it?

Hey, Inofe, why don't you take a long swim in the ocean?

Babs, step away from the warrant officer's load for a second.

Did you actually read the post I provided--in bold type so it would be easier to read?

If you did, you will note that there is no "fanaticism" at all. Just plain facts concerning the REAL motivation behind the global-warming deniers.

Why, after all, are YOU in this camp? You're not a oil company shill, are you?

Because that's really ALL that's behind the denials.

Are you familiar with this corporate puppet?



He thinks this is Good For Business



Not the business of a living, sustainable planet, of course, but just the business of large polluting industries. He's also a hard-core Christer who, like James Watt, thinks the impending Return Of Our Lord precludes any serious concern for the planet.

And that's who you're aligned with?

Why are we not surprised?

88, are you so pathgetic as to suggest that the issue of global warming is some kind of scheme to make money and get political power? Are you really that stupid? Perhaps, but the sheer variety of scientific and government agencies all over the world who insist that global warming is a reall and present danger completely dwarfs your corporate shill list of "doubters."

You're a joke, and you've no argument to offer. The nonsense you present is, gee, supported completely by the oil companies, etc.

Why do you even waste your time? Are you a Christer?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:88..
You're a joke, and you've no argument to offer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm probably one of 88's greatest detractors here(just ask him), and I'd have to say he's made some compelling arguments here. I don't necessarily fall on the same side of the fence as him, but at least he's made his case in a fairly clear manor.

You, on the other hand, have spewed a bunch of rhetoric(that you didn't even write), and have even provided complete falsehoods as your "evidence," which made 88's "hole in a boat" example seem downright intelligent.

The Polluter's agenda is to continue business as usual, profiting from trashing the planet. You, on the other hand, have an equally unsavory agenda -- to bash the United States at all costs.

At some point, you were given a choice -- to live in fantasy or reality. You chose poorly.

Sorry, Dins,but if YOUR argument/attack here is based on my Hating America, then you too are blowing the proverbial warrant officer, etc. Because as much as I love America, I love the planet even more. There is no issue of patriotism--or threat to America--in this matter.

The shill studies and stats that comprise 88's denialist handbook of an argument are supplied basically by the oil companies and other industries which sponsor the favorable research. Mine aren't. Compare the two. As well as the dead on analysis on the Closer Look thread.

So, how are those fuel-celled cars that your "credible" article said would be out by 2003 coming along?

Ah yes, this argument is going along swimmingly.

Lovely day outside and cold as fuck. Nice argument though........

fuel cells in cars are a stupid idea....for now. Maybe someday they'll be feasible. Trouble is, those same hippies that pimp them don't want to hear about a feasible way to make all that 'lectricity to split water into hydrogen/oxygen. That way is newkyuler power, as the shrub would call it.

For now, we need to do what the euros are doing, make shitloads of very efficient diesels. Hybrids are good as well for stop and go urban traffic, though they are pwned by diesels on highway/rural roads. We also should take another look at straight up battery powered cars. They make alot of sense for commuting duties so long as your round trip commute is under 50 miles, which is most of us.

smackaholic wrote:We also should take another look at straight up battery powered cars. They make alot of sense for commuting duties so long as your round trip commute is under 50 miles, which is most of us.

"Plug-in" hybrids will be the next wave. You'll be able to charge the batteries overnight for those less than 50 mile trips, and it will have the small gasoline engine to supplement when the batteries run down. Count on it. These will be available in the next year or so.

many electric grids are overloaded already--
where do these battery proposing folks expect to get enough juice to power up all these "golf carts" ??

also --- it might be enlightening to see what kind of
manufacturing is needed to produce the batteries themselves--not exactly eco-friendly

I'm sure Dins could fill us in !!

Wolfman wrote:I'm sure Dins could fill us in !!

I can attest to the atmosphere being saturated with pollutants and things generally nasty to breathe in. With that in mind, the reindeer will make a point to take old tired sacks of crap like Wolfman and take them out. You've had your time to piss all over the world and we're tired of your stench.

It will go down like this:
-dead old man
-hoof prints
-pebbly upper decker in the toilet
-strong smell of musk in the milk jug

We're doing the world a favor.