Where is Al Gore When You Need Him?

[LovetoSki]

We already set the example which is why the USA is as clean as it is. You should have seen things 30 years ago. Back then people saw what environmentalist were talking about and got on board. It isn't perfect, but we aren't the ones causing the big problem. Polution is coming from countries with dictators, go after them. We've done our part. Big manufacturing companies are riddled with guages and meters and warning bells and whistles. The EPA has already set tough standards and if a company is found in violation (they have to check all these guages and meters daily and keep an accurate record) they're hit with huge fines. The EPA even does spot checks on companies. It cost companies million upon million to comply.

Sorry, but we are by far the largest contributor to CO2 emmissions in the world....while many steps have been taken, we could do better. And as I said before, it will only create new technologies and be a catalyst for new business and jobs.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html


Global warming is BS. .

So where did you get your PHD in climatology and biology? Or can I see your years of research into these matters? I assume you have a lab in your basement with all the technical data and experiemints you have conducted over the years?

Its just easier for you to say its BS than to admit that we possibly could be harming the Earth in a very detrimental way......


Hey you know, you might have something there about beheadings. Maybe we should take the gloves off. If they can do it, why can't we?

The scary thing is that you probably do belive that.

[biggie67uga]

but we are the leader of the world and need to set the example for others to follow.



Why is it our responsibility? One second we should be the big brother and set the precedent for everyone in the WORLD and then another second we shouldn't be involved in worldly affairs. Which one is it? If people would quit changing the ====ing rules to suit their means then maybe we could actually get stuff done on a WORLDWIDE scale.

[Wadi66]

Sorry, but we are by far the largest contributor to CO2 emmissions in the world....while many steps have been taken, we could do better. And as I said before, it will only create new technologies and be a catalyst for new business and jobs.Yeah, it could revive the logging industry as they move into the forest to cut down the trees that have died from lack of CO2.

LS, the point is it really isn't a major calamity. Believe it if you want, get worked up into a tizzy fit if that's what feels good. Every generation for the last 100 years has been told one thing or another and gotten worked up only to find it wasn't so. There are just as many scientist on the opposing side, who wins depends on who gets heard. Your views are part of being young and idealistically aware of the world we live in. Man you should have heard me, I was out there beating the drums too. Then over time you realize you've been played like a fiddle.
So where did you get your PHD in climatology and biology? Or can I see your years of research into these matters? I assume you have a lab in your basement with all the technical data and experiemints you have conducted over the years? Well like you I have to rely on evidence presented by others. The trick is look around and see if there is possibly a reason behind the claims before drawing a conclusion.
Its just easier for you to say its BS than to admit that we possibly could be harming the Earth in a very detrimental way......And its easier for you to say its harming the Earth than admit you might be getting jerked around. If we were having this discussion 30 years ago there would be no discussion because I would be at your side. But with each new group entering adulthood and the universities they dredge up something. Every decade its the a same stuff with a different twist. Its pure unadulterated BS.
The scary thing is that you probably do belive that.Actually I don't, I just wanted to pull your chain. :icon_wink

[LovetoSki]

You might be right....it could all be BS for all I know but I would just rather err on the side of caution - and like I said, its not going to ruin the country's economy for us to reseach, develop and implement cleaner and renewable energy. It will create a whole new industry and get us off of foreign energy. It would also be nice to walk around the city and not be surrounded and engulfed in smog.

Im not some total environmental nut either - hell, I own a good chuck on Exxon-Mobil stock and have made quite a good return.......so according to the whackos on the far left Im evil and part of the problem as well.

[Wadi66]

I'm all for clean renewable energy. But I also want to breathe. That requires oxygen. Plants and trees release oxygen after they have absorded CO2. Take away CO2 and there's nothing to sustain plant life. Our oxygen levels are quite a bit less than they were at the turn of the century. Something like 1/2. No darn wonder people are sick. Cars being built faster than trees being planted. The answer isn't just in reducing pollution, one has to identify what is actually a pollutant and what isn't. CO2 is essential to life.

Get everyone to plant trees.

[LovetoSki]

Of course CO2 is essential to life - we need a certain amount of greenhouse Gas in order to trap in the suns heat so we dont all freeze to death. But the levels of CO2 we are seeing now are unprecedented in history. Maybe we all are being lied to and all this information has been manipulated by some liberal scientists bent on destroying our economy, I just dont think so.....check out this graph that shows CO2 levels over the past 600,000 years - they can measure it by year based on ice core samples in Antarctica. The Ice cores actually have rings from the season that work like rings on a tree for measuring age. Small air bubbles get trapped every year and they can measure the checmical composition of the air......look at how high the levels of CO2 shoot up right at the end.....this is in just over 100 years. Its a little worrisome to me....do yout hink these scientists are lying and manipulting data?

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/greenhouse.htm

[IHL]

Well, I don't know about the whole global warming thing... well, actually I think I do know, but that isn't the point.

The best headline I've seen on Drudge lately is this one...

Pelosi Announces 'Global Warming Panel'

and the headline is right below a picture of frozen oranges still on the tree... precious.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/070118/afp/isgejif27180107122109photo00.jpg?

Record cold temps in California, snow in Malibu, ice storms in Texas and Oklahoma... yeah, great time Nancy old girl.

[Bumblebee]

How can anyone know if half the scientist say no and the other half say yes, it true.

Read on Drudge that an ABC meterorologist claims he doesn't know a single weatherman who believes man made global warming hype.

I can't verify this, but rumors are going around that Al Gore was giving a speech about global warming and someone threw a snowball at him. :icon_lol:

[Schmitty27]

The world is getting warmer - anyone who denies that wasn't taught how to read a simple line graph.

Yeah its goin back a couple pages but I just read this.

It is simply not true that it is a line graph. Funny thing is if you decide to take a section of a sine curve over a small interval of the period, it looks linear. Doesn't mean the entire curve is linear.

The man-made effect on global temperature change is amazingly minimal. Temperatures fluctuate over a relatively consistent sine curve. I've said this time and time again, I did this in my honors trig class and the peak temperatures were predicted to occur in 2005. So what we were one year late, thats systematic error.

We have an extremely dynamic planet, and everyday humans can't really comprehend a giant globe being able to go through such large changes by itself. But it does.

The looney left must like self loathing. A perfectly natural cycle occurs on Earth and they force everyone to feel ashamed because they want us to believe we caused it. Sad, very very sad...:frown1:

Edit: LTS according to your post 31, you are suggesting that scientists are lying and manipulating data. And while I don't believe that is true I do believe their actions aren't in good faith. I don't know much about that antarctic data, and for all we know it could be moot data.

My idea is that they are being manipulated to say that global warming is a real threat. Why? Funding. These scientists need money from the government to keep their jobs. This could be blackmail or it could be slipping some extra cash under the table but politicians who are themselves environazis would love to see factories, cars, cows, every polluting substance be forced to be much cleaner. Give some money to some scientists, say this, say that, and boom, the world believes the globe is in imminent danger.

Conspiracy theory? Yes, but it wouldn't surprise me one but if it were true.

[FKLBRLS]

Did any of you hear about what that Heidi Cullen said? She's the global warming-fear-mongering woman from that show "The Climate Code." From Fox News (on TV today, but also as a few paragraphs from their website, as it wasn't a big story, more of a mention):

"Skeptics Decertified?"

A climate expert on the Weather Channel says TV weather forecasters who express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming should lose their official certification.

Heidi Cullen hosts a weekly show on the station. She writes on the Weather Channel Web site that, "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS — American Meteorological Society — shouldn't give them a seal of approval. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise."

But in fact — hurricanes DO rotate clockwise — in the southern hemisphere, where they are called cyclones.

Silencing all opposing thought-a key tenet of fascism if you ask me. "But how can global warming occur if?..." "Shut up, you're stupid and ignorant, global warming is real, you're a ======."

[FKLBRLS]

So where did you get your PHD in climatology and biology? Or can I see your years of research into these matters? I assume you have a lab in your basement with all the technical data and experiemints you have conducted over the years?
You don't need a PHD in climatology to realize a few things:

1) Ice melts into water at 32 degrees F
2) The temperature at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, (where liberals now say global warming ocean rise will come from (having changed their story from the actual polar ice caps)), ranges from -4 degrees F to -24 degrees F.
3) If the temperatures at the ice sheet rise by 3 degrees over the next 100 years, that brings the range to -1 F to -21 F, still well below freezing.
4) Keep in mind too that closer to the earth's poles, where parts of Greenland lie, the atmosphere is bombarded with high-frequency solar rays, including gamma rays.

Obviously that just turns it into a math problem, but it does raise some questions.

I wholeheartedly agree with trying to reduce fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Some ways include: Burning garbage for electricity (the CO2 issue would still have to be addressed though), biofuels, tar sands, and perpetual-hydrogen-drive vehicles (my idea, don't know if it would work). CO2 could be fixed by either burying it or by planting more trees. We have more forest in this country now than we did 100 years ago. From a logging perspective, it would make sense: more trees planted equals more trees logged, and the process keeps going adding forest every year. Additionally, if we found a way to desalinize water more cheaply and by using less energy, I envision a future in which the Mojave desert is one massive forest.

Also, I've heard of a theory about crude oil. Some say it is not organic at all, but rather synthesized deep underground by complex formulas we don't really understand yet. This theory came because supposedly when Texaco came back to an oil field they had abandoned for lack of output. They wanted to take down the infrastructure. What they found (supposedly) is that the wells were giving oil again. The details I've heard on this are all sketchy, but it would be worth looking into.

[Dr. Madd]

Burn Garbage for Electricity is good.. Alternatives to fossil fuels, merely because it would relegate Arabs to the obscurity they deserve.I suggest urban renewal- to farmland. Tear down crackhouses, Abandoned factories, ACLU headquarters- you know useless buildings in cities. And replace them with cornfields and woods.

[LovetoSki]

Edit: LTS according to your post 31, you are suggesting that scientists are lying and manipulating data. And while I don't believe that is true I do believe their actions aren't in good faith. I don't know much about that antarctic data, and for all we know it could be moot data.

My idea is that they are being manipulated to say that global warming is a real threat. Why? Funding. These scientists need money from the government to keep their jobs. This could be blackmail or it could be slipping some extra cash under the table but politicians who are themselves environazis would love to see factories, cars, cows, every polluting substance be forced to be much cleaner. Give some money to some scientists, say this, say that, and boom, the world believes the globe is in imminent danger.

Conspiracy theory? Yes, but it wouldn't surprise me one but if it were true.

Just like many scientists who outright dismiss it are on the payrools of the Oil companies.....both sides have their own reasons.....and not one of us know whats going to happen.....only the future will reveal that. I said it before, Ill say it again....getting off of burning fossil fuels will only do good, clean the air and stop funding ME countries. There is no bad that can come from it.

[Schmitty27]

Agreed, agreed. But the consequences I believe are great if we immediately try to force these changes. No other fuel that can be used in cars is where it should be, and an overhaul to electric would be merciless on the auto makers.

We need to switch to 90% of our electricity as nuclear in the next 10 years while continuing a small change into electric and a bigger push for hydrogen engines. Electric cars really aren't that efficient which is why only hybrids are really only available now. Hydrogen is our future fuel.