Dihydrogen Monoxide

[Ch. 12]

Still the GW thing is about a political agenda....signs point to a cooling trend...now WTF do they want?

And about buying time.....mother nature has ample means to eradicate things into oblivion....if that doesn't work,that Guy you don't quite believe in may vector a mile wide stone upon us in retribution.

Cooling trend? You mean cooling forecast. While it is absolutely true that scientists of every agenda are predicting a massive cooling trend in our near future (of course 'near' is relative in scientific terms and can still be thousands of years), the fact that you blindly point to that as 'debunking GW' shows that you haven't even attempted to read the science behind it. GW will lead to drastic global cooling. If your freezer (for some odd reason) sits above your stove and you heat your stove excessively hot for a long time, it will melt the ice in the freezer causing it to drip all over the stove which will then make the stove cold. Ice melts partially and migrates from the poles to the tropics via ocean currents and that throws the whole climate into chaos. It's simple. In fact, the last significant ice age occurred when the land where Panama currently lies filled in and caused ocean currents to divert...moving cold currents to warm climates and vice versa.

Where the GW opposition gets all giddy is when Houston, TX has an October day with a high temp of 52 degrees b/c they feel that it shows that the world is cooling. Look around. The snow belt gets 1/4 of the snow it got even 20 years ago. Are there natural heating/cooling trends on the Earth? Of course. And that is the GW oppositions argument. But what they conveniently leave out is that these trends take tens of thousands of years...not ten years. It is like watching your grass grow a foot in one millisecond. It's not natural. But why include all of the facts when they are inconvenient, right?

Of course I totally agree with you about mother nature and/or higher powers. Both can right things. What the people that are DOING something about GW are working towards is trying to avoid those corrections by nature b/c none of us will be able to live through such corrections.

 

[delldude]

CH 12:
You can institute all the emissions reg's and changes you want...in the end its not going to change what goes on climatically on earth much if any.
Sea levels have been raising and lowering here.....Heat waves come and go...Glaciers melt and refreeze....all since the beginning of time.
Funny thing over the past year or so...several esteemed sources of intellect have been caught cooking data and making erroneous reports.Funny isn't it?
Predictably....your new 'centrist' government that appears to be wobbling to the left is off and running with this GW baloney...of course the fact that some of their largest contributors are the green movement has absolutely nothing to with that.
I think it is good science to clean up the atmosphere/planet of pollutants and such globally and equally.
This carbon offset stuff is only a get rich scheme for the likes of Gore and some of his cronies.Penalizing for the use of hydrocarbons is only going to raise prices and stifle production.....you just watch.And in the end nothing will have changed.
It all about tax revenue if you've failed to notice.
Did you notice the greenies were gaining momentum or so they thought....largely due to the media and misinformation and collusion with both houses?
They went from Global Warming then changed the moniker to Climate Change after the GW issue started getting disproved.
Well I'm glad they call it climate change because they just admitted whats really been going on for eon's and eon's and there isn't much you can do about that.
The climate on Earth...its all about change.

They institute all these draconian measures and I'd like to see about 4 large volcanoes go off for a year or so.....

 

[KCFlyer]

CH 12:
You can institute all the emissions reg's and changes you want...in the end its not going to change what goes on climatically on earth much if any.
Sea levels have been raising and lowering here.....Heat waves come and go...Glaciers melt and refreeze....all since the beginning of time.
Funny thing over the past year or so...several esteemed sources of intellect have been caught cooking data and making erroneous reports.Funny isn't it?
Predictably....your new 'centrist' government that appears to be wobbling to the left is off and running with this GW baloney...of course the fact that some of their largest contributors are the green movement has absolutely nothing to with that.
I think it is good science to clean up the atmosphere/planet of pollutants and such globally and equally.
This carbon offset stuff is only a get rich scheme for the likes of Gore and some of his cronies.Penalizing for the use of hydrocarbons is only going to raise prices and stifle production.....you just watch.And in the end nothing will have changed.
It all about tax revenue if you've failed to notice.
Did you notice the greenies were gaining momentum or so they thought....largely due to the media and misinformation and collusion with both houses?
They went from Global Warming then changed the moniker to Climate Change after the GW issue started getting disproved.
Well I'm glad they call it climate change because they just admitted whats really been going on for eon's and eon's and there isn't much you can do about that.
The climate on Earth...its all about change.

They institute all these draconian measures and I'd like to see about 4 large volcanoes go off for a year or so.....

It's too bad that they didn't focus on pollution in general and conservation in particular. But...those are boring old topics for the "we'll all be dead by then anyways" crowd. I don't necessarily agree on the "global warming" talk, but anyone who doubts that man has an impact on the environment overall is really living in a dream world.

 

[Ch. 12]

Thanks for reading, Dell. As I noted...you conveniently leave out the one important piece...pace of change. I TOLD you that I agree that it's normal for climate to change...it has happened over and over. This is the first time, though, that it has happened over decades rather than millennia. Again...it is a very unnatural pace and scientists agree on that. It's just that the Bush scientists (I'm assuming when you mentioned the 'esteemed scientists cooking the books' you meant the whole panel that Bush put together to prove that the world was flat and not warming and that we needed to drill for more Bush oil) refute global warming...the ONLY argument they have is that 'it is a natural phenomenon' but not one of them has addressed the pace of change issue. Go ahead and ignore it again...why let facts catch up your witty retorts?


10,000 years vs. 10 years is one helluva anomaly. Explain, please.

 

[delldude]

Thanks for reading, Dell. As I noted...you conveniently leave out the one important piece...pace of change. I TOLD you that I agree that it's normal for climate to change...it has happened over and over. This is the first time, though, that it has happened over decades rather than millennia. Again...it is a very unnatural pace and scientists agree on that. It's just that the Bush scientists (I'm assuming when you mentioned the 'esteemed scientists cooking the books' you meant the whole panel that Bush put together to prove that the world was flat and not warming and that we needed to drill for more Bush oil) refute global warming...the ONLY argument they have is that 'it is a natural phenomenon' but not one of them has addressed the pace of change issue. Go ahead and ignore it again...why let facts catch up your witty retorts?


10,000 years vs. 10 years is one helluva anomaly. Explain, please.

Well, you know accurate records are a thing of recent age.People are freaking out over the Artic ice cap melting....but if you look into it..it seems its only been looked at over some 30 years via satellite.

The 'esteemed scientists'(check out the definition of assume)you assume I refer to, my friend aren't who you automatically envision.They are the ones in the pocket of your favorite party and their bought and paid for agenda funded by your environmental wacko's.

CO2 concentrations based on ice core samples are totally reliable as an indicator?You are aware that the ice sheet moves,rises and falls aren't you?

AGENDA

 

[Ch. 12]

Well, you know accurate records are a thing of recent age.People are freaking out over the Artic ice cap melting....but if you look into it..it seems its only been looked at over some 30 years via satellite.

The 'esteemed scientists'(check out the definition of assume)you assume I refer to, my friend aren't who you automatically envision.They are the ones in the pocket of your favorite party and their bought and paid for agenda funded by your environmental wacko's.

CO2 concentrations based on ice core samples are totally reliable as an indicator?You are aware that the ice sheet moves,rises and falls aren't you?

AGENDA

That's what is humorous about the difference between the Repubs and Dems. When faced with a crisis or issue, Dems research and devise action plans but Repubs deny and cower under their tables in fear.

I'm not talking about satellite imagery. there is plenty of evidence in the ice as you mention as well as on land. We knew about the ice ages long before taking core samples of ice due to geological formations from glacial growth/retreat. And as far as ice cores go, I don't pretend to be an expert but since you do, tell us all why you cannot measure thousands of years worth of seasonality in your eyes when it has been done over and over. I'm pretty certain that scientists aren't dumb enough to drill a core and not take any extenuating circumstances into account. Don't pretend to be what you're not.

As far as agendas go...just b/c the majority of the scientific community isn't in republican denial (i.e. does not agree with you) doesn't mean they are 'bought'. Take of your tinfoil hat. On the other hand...when a President has made a commission to alter reports and fabricate their own science to bolster his agenda...well that is definitely an agenda. Once again...there is proof of one and only your ASSumption of the other.

 

[delldude]

That's what is humorous about the difference between the Repubs and Dems. When faced with a crisis or issue, Dems research and devise action plans but Repubs deny and cower under their tables in fear.

Dem research and action plans based on political contributions.....I wonder if that money would influence things to the contributor's agenda...naw...no chance that could happen.

As far as agendas go...just b/c the majority of the scientific community isn't in republican denial (i.e. does not agree with you) doesn't mean they are 'bought'. Take of your tinfoil hat. On the other hand...when a President has made a commission to alter reports and fabricate their own science to bolster his agenda...well that is definitely an agenda. Once again...there is proof of one and only your ASSumption of the other.

This shoe will fit your foot too my friend..... :rant: BTW-am no GOP hack.

And if you look,I think you'll find that the 'majority' of the scientific community isn't on board.

10,000 years vs. 10 years is one helluva anomaly. Explain, please.

You ought to do some research Mr.Science....it seems now we are enjoying some of the lowest CO2 levels ever.CO2 has been 5 to 25 times the current amount at several different times. :huh:

Look at the bright side of higher CO2 levels.....think of all the food that plants will produce with all that CO2 they take in...we can feed all of the poor needy people now.

 

[Ch. 12]

Dem research and action plans based on political contributions.....I wonder if that money would influence things to the contributor's agenda...naw...no chance that could happen.

There's a big difference between a group that supports the politicians that they feel will tackle what they perceive to be problems and a politician that supports a group aimed to sway public opinion and publish misleading information. The latter is just plain common sense. Right-to-lifers aren't going to funnel tons of cash to Dennis Kucinich b/c they know he's not going to tackle what they perceive to be a problem. Just as the community that feels that something should be done about the accelerating climate mess has decided not to send their checks to Bush and other Repubs (sorry...you are GOP...if the shoe fits...) since they only want to cloud the real data so that they can keep profiting on their oil. Just like tax issues, though, it's funny to me that the majority of the GOP is not well-to-do nor are they benefiting from the GOP platform but they are suckered into making the elite even more elite.

And if you look,I think you'll find that the 'majority' of the scientific community isn't on board.

Right...I forgot. I DO remember reading that in one of the Bush committees reports. They stated it just as you did...vaguely...so that it leads you to believe that the majority don't believe that the earth is warming unnaturally or do to human causes. The more astute individual and one that actually cares to know the truth rather than just get fed info from Fox talking points understands that the disagreement among the majority of scientists isn't on whether the earth is warming unnaturally or if we have anything to do with it but rather what the exact accelerants are and what the correct approach to solve the issue would be. The majority believes that it's based on carbon-based emissions, though, since even the most simple of simple minds could see that correlation...you just have to read something outside of Bush's propaganda machine.

You ought to do some research Mr.Science....it seems now we are enjoying some of the lowest CO2 levels ever.CO2 has been 5 to 25 times the current amount at several different times. :huh:

The only truly accurate measurements began in the 20th century...straight from the source (the atmosphere). Over the past 50 years, CO2 levels have gone up 23%...an astounding shift that outpaces trends seen in the past...by 1000 times! I don't dispute that there were times of higher CO2 levels (natural causes during period of extreme volcanic activity) and that is where the scientific community is looking for all of the issues. But what is completely undeniable is that the earth is warming 1000 times quicker than it ever has before and it can be directly correlated to our industrial age. Nobody is saying that the Earth is hotter than it has ever been before so get that out of your talking points. It is the rate and the potential effects. Why so afraid to do anything about it?? What have you got to lose? The answer is nothing. YOU are fine. Future generations will have to deal with it. Oh wait...unless you live in a place like Venice that is under 5 feet of 'naturally rising' water.

I don't necessarily subscribe to emissions cap trading schemes b/c that is just a shell game. We need to shut up the GOP long enough so that automobile makers and energy companies can work towards REAL solutions in alternate fuels. And who knows? Maybe such a venture would actually spur a golden age that America is so in need of right now...just as technological advances in the mid-20th century did. Why stay in the past and continue to decline as an environment, economy, and country when we could actually do something and prosper? Oh yeah...b/c "conservative" means to keep the status quo. It also means "afraid".

 

[delldude]

Ch 12 wrote:
There's a big difference between a group that supports the politicians that they feel will tackle what they perceive to be problems and a politician that supports a group aimed to sway public opinion and publish misleading information.

You are so right...

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

CH 12 wrote:
Just as the community that feels that something should be done about the accelerating climate mess has decided not to send their checks to Bush and other Repubs (sorry...you are GOP...if the shoe fits...) since they only want to cloud the real data so that they can keep profiting on their oil.

Bush clouding data?

"We have proof of man-made global warming," Limbaugh said on his show…. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."

"In case you hadn't noticed, the global warming debate has now escalated from a minor skirmish to an all-out war…. In the last year or so, more and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and admitting they've had some doubts about this whole global warming thing."

 

[Ch. 12]

Yes Dell...the world is not warming up. Ice is melting and seas are rising at alarming rates but b/c you have discovered an article about a Sept temperature in Russia carried over into Oct therefore wrongly increasing the Oct avg so that must mean that the other things are just 'figments' of imaginations.

The debate among people that aren't trying to politicize the issue is about the causes (as i have to say over and over). The symptoms are there. Other than the fact that this issue has been made a platform issue by the GOP, I'm not sure what the fear is in acknowledging it. It's nature...the world is heating up. What is the fear in admitting that. You know full well that the answer is that the Repubs need to protect their oil tycoons. Aside from that...there is NO REASON to be afraid of admitting global warming. Admitting it and doing something about it actually means jobs, health, saving cities and populations, and sustained living...those aren't bad things. Denying it just means you're trying to protect oil which is really rather 20th century, anyways. Move on. You aren't benefitting from the oil you're protecting...in fact it's hurting everyone as you can see by what our reliance on it has caused recently. Again...WHAT IS YOUR FEAR?????

 

[delldude]

Yes Dell...the world is not warming up. Ice is melting and seas are rising at alarming rates but b/c you have discovered an article about a Sept temperature in Russia carried over into Oct therefore wrongly increasing the Oct avg so that must mean that the other things are just 'figments' of imaginations.

The debate among people that aren't trying to politicize the issue is about the causes (as i have to say over and over). The symptoms are there. Other than the fact that this issue has been made a platform issue by the GOP, I'm not sure what the fear is in acknowledging it. It's nature...the world is heating up. What is the fear in admitting that. You know full well that the answer is that the Repubs need to protect their oil tycoons. Aside from that...there is NO REASON to be afraid of admitting global warming. Admitting it and doing something about it actually means jobs, health, saving cities and populations, and sustained living...those aren't bad things. Denying it just means you're trying to protect oil which is really rather 20th century, anyways. Move on. You aren't benefitting from the oil you're protecting...in fact it's hurting everyone as you can see by what our reliance on it has caused recently. Again...WHAT IS YOUR FEAR?????

I think you got it all wrong......platform issue ? Al Gore,CH 12 and Dr. Hansen are the one's screaming from the platform.

So if the world is heating up,why does satellite data not parallel ground based station data?

Arctic ice expanded 30% this year...how you explain that?

Its not all oil either....sure there's data that supports some temperature rise and its not even close to what you and others are going off the edge of the world over...and its quite dubious as to whether its man induced or natural and again questionable as whether attempts at knee jerk reaction will have little,if any result.

You are the one showing the extremist viewpoint if anybody is.

You are my fear......extremest environmental wacko's whose agenda is the only acceptable agenda.

 

[Ch. 12]

I think you got it all wrong......platform issue ? Al Gore,CH 12 and Dr. Hansen are the one's screaming from the platform.

So if the world is heating up,why does satellite data not parallel ground based station data?

Arctic ice expanded 30% this year...how you explain that?

Its not all oil either....sure there's data that supports some temperature rise and its not even close to what you and others are going off the edge of the world over...and its quite dubious as to whether its man induced or natural and again questionable as whether attempts at knee jerk reaction will have little,if any result.

You are the one showing the extremist viewpoint if anybody is.

You are my fear......extremest environmental wacko's whose agenda is the only acceptable agenda.

You ever watch an ice cube melt? As it thins, it expands outward. They have proven over and over that the ice is thinning and once again you are taking a tiny shred of info and throwing the rest out to prove that b/c 'from above' the ice is 'expanding'' when in fact there is less of it...it is just spread out. The fabled Northwest Passage is a reality b/c the ice is gone. Is that made up? You honestly can't see the forest, can you? Actually...like others of your PLATFORM, I really believe that you can but that you snip pictures of data that don't encompass the entire scene and claim that it's definitive. Whatever works in your sound bite, talking point world. 🙄

And again...WHAT agenda do I have? What does 'my team' gain from trying to tackle a problem that has mountains of evidence supporting it (though the exact causes are still debated)? Do the 'wacko environmentalists' get tax breaks? Are they generating new revenue streams for themselves? No. Flip the question and what does 'your team' gain from showing only shards of the entire picture to try to disprove the entire theory? You get to buy more oil and make bigger cars...which in turn continues to exponentially increase our reliance on oil (who cares if it is foreign or domestic...reliance on ONE non-renewable resource is a terrible thing and only a catalyst for bad things to come) and makes Detroit even more obsolete since they can't seem to figure out why they are losing double-digit market share every year.

So it looks like only your side 'benefits'. But just like the global warming issue...your side fails to see the entire picture and the 'benefits' are ultimately extremely detrimental...unless you run an oil company. Once again...the GOP elite thanks you for your blind patronage that gives them extreme wealth and leaves you cleaning up the mess.

 

[delldude]

You ever watch an ice cube melt? As it thins, it expands outward. They have proven over and over that the ice is thinning and once again you are taking a tiny shred of info and throwing the rest out to prove that b/c 'from above' the ice is 'expanding'' when in fact there is less of it...it is just spread out. The fabled Northwest Passage is a reality b/c the ice is gone. Is that made up? You honestly can't see the forest, can you? Actually...like others of your PLATFORM, I really believe that you can but that you snip pictures of data that don't encompass the entire scene and claim that it's definitive. Whatever works in your sound bite, talking point world. rolleyes.gif

Once again,as I pointed out earlier....your kind....its only you and your agenda...everyone else is wrong.

Funny thing....there has been a recent 'defection' of some rather diehard GW backers.....I guess they are just full of BS then,right?

Absolutely no other acceptable view than to the extremists then?

Consensus doesn't exist in your little GW world. :down:

 

[Ch. 12]

Once again,as I pointed out earlier....your kind....its only you and your agenda...everyone else is wrong.

Funny thing....there has been a recent 'defection' of some rather diehard GW backers.....I guess they are just full of BS then,right?

Absolutely no other acceptable view than to the extremists then?

Consensus doesn't exist in your little GW world. :down:

So as always...no answers, right? Thanks. I figured you couldn't come up with a good reason as to what 'my side' gains vs. what 'your side' gains. Seems I must have been right on that piece since you never could come up with anything the 'enironmentalists' gain and couldn't refute that the 'look-the-other-wayers' stand to benefit from fabricating the opposition science.

 

[delldude]

So as always...no answers, right? Thanks. I figured you couldn't come up with a good reason as to what 'my side' gains vs. what 'your side' gains. Seems I must have been right on that piece since you never could come up with anything the 'enironmentalists' gain and couldn't refute that the 'look-the-other-wayers' stand to benefit from fabricating the opposition science.

You've brought nothing to the debate other than tired misused data that already there is question as to its accuracy.

You for some strange reason see oil as the root cause to all the planets evils.

So you are willing to dump gazillions into fixing a problem that you have no idea what the exact cause is?

That's a Dem knee jerk if I ever heard one.