Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16803 times)

Angus · « **Reply #435 on:** February 22, 2007, 04:04:42 PM »

preach and pray yerself, but no matter how much you sweat, a horse will still not be a ruminant next year. It might be warmer though

Angus · « **Reply #436 on:** February 22, 2007, 04:05:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
Has anyone in this thread given up their car for save the Earth? Huh, have you?

Oh, actually...sort of.

(bought a bicycle)

lazs2 · « **Reply #437 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:56:07 AM »

so your answer is..... no.

How much have you sent the scientists and the UN to help solve man made global warming?

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #438 on:** February 23, 2007, 10:58:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
you don't have to recall anything.. the link to the 70's article in Time magazine is in this thread.

lazs

Do you have anything better. Sure skipped that one.
Anyway, I may well have sent them UN guys and definately the sci-guys something through my taxes, and as an add on for the sci-guys, maybe I send them a link to this thread?

And as for giving up the car, well I'd have one running if I could afford it at the moment (I don't need it bad enough).
So, I do biking and carpooling. Which sort of proves the contrary to your claim that you just don't get people to go biking and carpooling. Belive me, if it's the $$$, you do

Oh, and guess what, next thing is going to be a complete installation of saving-lightbulbs. Although more cumbersome and expensive, 3x the lifetime and 80% of saving are well worth the effort. You agree with that one, I know.

lazs2 · « **Reply #439 on:** February 25, 2007, 10:04:14 AM »

so angus.. do you believe that you are doing enough and that everyone should sacrafice to at least your level in order to mitigate this world ending man made global warming?

What are some of your solutions for the rest of us? How much should we send to the UN in money and rights? All our money and all of our human rights or, would you settle for something less?

lazs

FastFwd · « **Reply #440 on:** February 26, 2007, 04:35:13 AM »

Summary of this thread = excellent factual presentation by guys like tedrbr, 2bighorn, oboe, angus, plus one or two others. A pitty that the denialists can only come up with responses like "wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk", or "comedy gold", or the temperature in their back yard on Wednesday of last week.

There's also the denialists' concern that cutting back on carbon emissions would "damage the economy". That's like watching your house burning and refusing to use the hose to put out the fire because you're worried about your water bill.

oboe · « **Reply #441 on:** February 26, 2007, 05:47:42 AM »

I appreciate Sabre's contribution from the NASA site regarding satellite measurement of temps. From his site:

Quote

The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.

However, in playing around with the graphs I find no data for either 2005 or 2006, which I believe have been much wamer than average. So the critical omission of the two most recent, warmest years may affect your conclusion.

Still interested to see where this goes. Anybody have a link to the actual IPCC report? I keep finding brief news summaries, not the actual document. MIght be time to dig into it and see if they address this satellite data - I can't imagine they could reasonably ignore addressing it.

btw, TWO of my GE longlasting, $8 flourescent bulbs have burned out already. Gonna have to start dating them when I install them - I don't think I'm getting the promised performance.

Cheers

Shuckins · « **Reply #442 on:** February 26, 2007, 06:40:54 AM »

Fastfwd,

Obviously, you didn't read Sabre's excellent posts.....or else, you are dismissing them out of hand.

Can't have any counterpoints, no matter how relevant, disrupting those politically correct, environmentalist brain-waves...can we?

lazs2 · « **Reply #443 on:** February 26, 2007, 08:32:06 AM »

Ok fastfwd.. perhaps since you agree that we are destroying the planet with man made global warming and are up on the latest scientific papers...

perhaps you can tell me...

If we all slit our throats today... how many minutes will we save in the global warming doom that is predicted... how many more minutes or hours will the planet survive? 1? any?

since that seems a little drastic....

What would you suggest we do? what would make you feel better? Anything the "scientists" tell you to do? Anything the UN tells you to do? What? What needs to be done?

I am saying that you are sufficiently terrified.. they have done their job... now comes the part where they give us the bill. Now is where the funds and freedom get transfered.

Even NPR had trouble the other day with a couple of economists on who said that any solution based on what the scientists say is "man made global warming" would devestate the worlds economy.

How much global warming will all our campfires cause while we huddle around em to cook and stay warm?

They seemed to think that any comprimise would be only a feel good do nothing solution.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #444 on:** February 26, 2007, 08:48:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
...Even NPR had trouble the other day with a couple of economists on who said that any solution based on what the scientists say is "man made global warming" would devestate the worlds economy.
lazs

I think I listened to that interview, and the economists had differing views. laz. Only one thought the world's economy would be destroyed by trying to address global warming. The other pointed out that states economies who have begun addressing some of these issues actually grew faster than states who didn't. DIFFERING OPINIONS, LAZS.

You have to admit, given what your opinion of NPR is, it would be ridiculous to expect them to interview two economists, BOTH of whom make the argument that agrees with your opinion?

Why do you post outright falsehoods, Lazs? Do you think your case is so weak that you have to misrepresent the other side's arguments to win?

lazs2 · « **Reply #445 on:** February 26, 2007, 09:16:19 AM »

oboe... my opinion of NPR is that they are a total socialist lefty leaning program.. it is very rare that they ever have anyone on who will argue against that viewpoint. I think they are a joke of a station.

As you said.. there was one on who predicted total disaster.. the others said that it wouldn't be that bad but had no facts to back it up... did you get anything out of them that made sense? What countries for instance were growing at a rate faster than the US and how did that have anything to do with "adressing" global warming... what I got was that some were having spurts of growth despite finaly getting some pollution controls that are almost as good as the U.S.

What countries have shown a sustained 4-6% growth rate in their economies and how did they do it? what part was due to global warming tech? Sure.. I agree that we would grow faster if we had more nuke energy... We would cease to grow or go backwards if we had $6 a gallon gas.

The guy that was predicting disaster was pragmatic and factual.. the others not so much... I was waiting for them to say what needed to be done and how much it would cost.. I never got that... did you? Even the ones who claimed it wasn't that bad or that .... some economies were growing.. didn't they say that we had to be very careful in what we did?

I love the softballs that old man on npr throws at the lefties he always has on too.

If NPR has anyone on who has any position that isn't left wing socialist... then... it was either a blunder on their fault or.. they just couldn't find anyone credible on the lefts side to replace him. Hell.. even their subjects are loaded most of the time.

NPR is much farther left than fox is right from my observation. I do notice tho that if a person leans left himself then... to him... NPR is very centrous and a great source of news that he can only get on NPR...

I will admit that we heard different things in that interview. I think that I just skimmed over the "economy" of the green states growing tho because it seemed so silly.. States that get fat government contracts to produce green tech are gonna do better than ones who don't get the money to make their infrastructure more efficent.. "man made global warming" they say it like it is a fact on NPR... there is no debate.. they have made up their minds and have moved on to convincing us that we can afford the socialism and that we will like our yoke.

I have nothing against making our machines and power production more efficient... I believe that the free market will demand it. No socialist country is growing like we are. Why can't they tax and regulate themselves into prosperity?

lazs

storch · « **Reply #446 on:** February 26, 2007, 09:52:53 AM »

NPR should be de funded. let's see if the imbeciles can survive without being latched to DC tit.

Bronk · « **Reply #447 on:** February 26, 2007, 10:50:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
NPR should be de funded. let's see if the imbeciles can survive without being latched to DC tit.

They would declare bankruptcy faster than Air America Radio.

Bronk

Mace2004 · « **Reply #448 on:** February 26, 2007, 11:16:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FastFwd
There's also the denialists' concern that cutting back on carbon emissions would "damage the economy". That's like watching your house burning and refusing to use the hose to put out the fire because you're worried about your water bill.

Ahhhh...we're global warming "denialists"...just like those Holocaust "denialists"...nice try. Interesting idea regarding the fire vs water bill but you don't quite have the argument right. The point isn't that you need to put out a fire and are too worried about the water bill, the question is "is there a fire at all?" I'll rephrase your little story so maybe you can grasp reality. "That's like hearing someone tell you your house is burning down but the only smoke is coming out of the chimney." So, your choice is to use the hose and ruin both the house and its contents based in their word or to look for some substantive proof of a fire before going off the deep end. Also, before you decide to flood your own house remember these are the same alarmists who 30 years ago tried to convince you your roses were going to freeze.

Oh, I forgot to mention but some of the globalwarmingists are already backing off of their dire predictions. Al Gore claims in his movie that the sea level is going to go up 20 feet. The last IPCC report claimed the seas would rise by 36 inches, but the latest IPCC report now says only 17 inches. At that rate of correcting itself the next IPCC report should say sea levels will rise only 2 inches.

oboe · « **Reply #449 on:** February 26, 2007, 01:24:08 PM »

Lazs,

I thought they both made some good points. Remember the estimate that more than a million people would die due to global warming by such and such a year? The guy made the point that 1 million dead years into the future really isn't all that many people, and in any case there are very real, immediate threats that claim more people right now - so why not spend money to eradicate those problems?

Bottom line is, IMO, no one is going to spend our economy into destruction trying to solve global warming. Look at Social Security - the problems with that program are much more clear, the solutions are much easier to implement at this time, and we aren't doing jack about it. It's just better politically to ignore the problem.