global warning update.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Curval
Yup.

Some read a book or two...or a web page or two and take it as gospel.


For example, lets take a quick peek at your first linked organisation:

Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." Between 1985 and 2001, the Center received $4,031,000 in 75 separate grants from only twelve foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=246).

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund

LOL!

Big business is telling you not to worry lazs...all is well.

Whats worse, big business saying all is okay or universities latching onto government subsidized tax dollars  for funded projects that bring in a steady paycheck?

[Curval]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats worse, big business saying all is okay or universities latching onto government subsidized tax dollars  for funded projects that bring in a steady paycheck?

That would be a judgement call and it really isn't relevant.

What lazs has done is to point out "proof" that non-natural CO2 emissions are no big deal and they are nothing to worry about.

He got this "proof" from a site that is sponsored by people who build and sell cars (among others).

Do you really think that site would say anything that might suggest cars are a problem?

I doubt it.  In fact I more than doubt it.

I don't have time to poke holes in his other link, but I doubt it would take much effort.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Curval
That would be a judgement call and it really isn't relevant.

.

With your axe to grind with Lazs aside, I think it is completely relevent. You get the information you want from climatologists, the source of that money is the driving factor.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
With your axe to grind with Lazs aside, I think it is completely relevent. You get the information you want from climatologists, the source of that money is the driving factor.

Incorrect.  I didn't get any information from anyone.  I simply used my own powers of observation.

Millions upon millions of cars spew exhaust into the air every single day worldwide.  Factories belch out smoke and waste 24/7.  

To say this is not having an effect on global warming is just silly in my opinion.  It is JUST my opinion.  I have repeatedly said I am not a scientist and I have not linked any research in this thread.  I have not used any climatologist data to back up anything and have in fact pointed out that the environmental lobby is just another form of big business.

What I am NOT doing is arguing a point from a political or ideological perspective...I'll leave that whirling purse fight to you and others.

[Angus]

I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
You can chip this debate into many subfactors. Like:
1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
2. Is it because of us (debateable)
3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)
4 How big is our effect (That's worth a good thread)
5 Can we do anything about it (yes of course)
Then on to the silly part:
6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)
7 Does Photosynthese tie up charbon (yes yes yes)

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Angus
I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
You can chip this debate into many subfactors. Like:
1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)
2. Is it because of us (debateable)
3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)
4 How big is our effect (That's worth a good thread)
5 Can we do anything about it (yes of course)
Then on to the silly part:
6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)
7 Does Photosynthese tie up charbon (yes yes yes)

Agree with most of your post except number 6. David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research would disagree with you, and he has research papers, you have an opinion.

[lukster]

8. Most importantly, what impact will global warming have on us?

I disagree with more than one of your assertions though Angus.

[Saintaw]

Originally posted by Curval
...I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...

[Angus]

"8. Most importantly, what impact will global warming have on us?

I disagree with more than one of your assertions though Angus."

Oh yeah? Which one would be nice to know.

[Angus]

And Rip:
"Agree with most of your post except number 6. David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research would disagree with you, and he has research papers, you have an opinion."

Everything building up humus that contains matter as C, be it forest, grass, or sealife does....tie up a greenhouse gas

[lukster]

3 and 5. I don't think either has been "well established".

[lazs2]

curval... what about the second site?  you seem upset that corporations are doing research and interpreting it... but.... the scientists who have a vested interest in funding (grants) their research are lilly white and clean?

And... you did not argue that any of the data was wrong... mostly because it all came from "scientists".

It would seem that "scientists" are potatos whose integrity is up or the highest bidder.  I got no problem with that.... let's let em fight it out.

you claim tho that you know what is going on just by looking.... pretty much the "religion of environmentalism" in it's best example.  Hard to believe that someone so religious would even fly in big planet killing jets just to play in the snow or look at the sights....  But then... much eaisier to blame everyone elses habits eh?

Angus makes some conclusions that I disagree with... he claims that we can do something about it... While in the strictest sense this is very much true.....he doesn't say what and he doesn't say if "doing something about it" will even have any effect..    

for instance.... if you wanted to dry up an ocean then grabbing a cupfull of ocean water and walking it 20 miles into the desert would be "doing something about it" so far as helping to dry out the ocean.   By the same token... relieving yourself into the ocean would be "causing harm" in so far as your goal of drying up the ocean.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
I'm not a scientist either, but probably about the only one here with an agricultural eduction and my sources are mostly NOT from the internet.
]

 ..................forest for the trees.

1. Is the globe warming or not. (Well established yes)

Yes, if you choose to beleive that side of the coin who says it is . No, if you choose to beleive the side who says it is not.

3 Are we having any effect (Rather well established yes, I'd say)

The so called fact has not even been established as such.
I agree humans are and have been having an effect on the earth and it`s atmosphere since the first one took a leak on a fig tree. That`s a no brainer. Some good, some bad. Just like every other animal, plant or object on the face of the earth. We could just all commit suicide and not take a chance. You go first. I`m gonna try to hang around for the drawing.

6 Is it because of the trees and plants emitting to much (no, you silly)

Rotting vegetation is claimed to be having an effect on this by the tree huggers..........errr scientists in support of the theory even. Rotting marsh/swamps, etc. seem to be a biggy with them. Of course that has also been happening since the beginning of recorded history. Just like the constant changes and cycles of earth`s weather patterns.

[Curval]

you seem upset that corporations are doing research and interpreting it... but.... the scientists who have a vested interest in funding (grants) their research are lilly white and clean?

Do you actually ever read what I write?

And... you did not argue that any of the data was wrong... mostly because it all came from "scientists".

You mean on your first link?  I can't argue science...I'm not a scientist (for the fourth or fifth time).  What I did was to simply point out that big business contributed to the creation of all that research.  If you think they would be totally unbiased about the content I have a bridge to sell you.

It would seem that "scientists" are potatos whose integrity is up or the highest bidder.  I got no problem with that.... let's let em fight it out.

Absolutely.  It's like using "expert witnesses" in a trial.

you claim tho that you know what is going on just by looking.... pretty much the "religion of environmentalism" in it's best example.  Hard to believe that someone so religious would even fly in big planet killing jets just to play in the snow or look at the sights....  But then... much eaisier to blame everyone elses habits eh?

Again, if you took the time to read what I have written you will see that I admitted my habits were as bad as anyone's with respect to the environment.  What I said was that I admitted it rather than saying "everything is okay" and then using scientific facts that I don't understand to back it up.

I see tonnes and tonnes of emissions every time I travel, be it to Canada, the US Europe, the near East or wherever.  I simply cannot believe that there are no environmental repercussions.  Lukster made mention of the fact that emission standards were put in place to make the air breathable and not because of CO2.  Frankly having breathable air is kind of important, don'tcha think?  So, if it isn't for global warming reasons, fine...but don't try and tell me that all those emissions are fine and dandy.  They aren't.  What about carbon monoxide in he air?  Have any data on that?

Angus makes some conclusions that I disagree with... he claims that we can do something about it... While in the strictest sense this is very much true.....he doesn't say what and he doesn't say if "doing something about it" will even have any effect..  

for instance.... if you wanted to dry up an ocean then grabbing a cupfull of ocean water and walking it 20 miles into the desert would be "doing something about it" so far as helping to dry out the ocean.   By the same token... relieving yourself into the ocean would be "causing harm" in so far as your goal of drying up the ocean.

Anything can be taken to the extreme as you have clearly pointed out.

[Skuzzy]

Does anyone know how much CO2 the vegetation of this planet consumes annually?  Seems all the quotes I have seen about CO2 being produced is a gross figure.  Would make more sense if it were a net figure.

But then again, big numbers are always more alarming than small numbers.