The Bush Administration

[spc]

Global Warming is happening.  But not to an extent to actually be worried about.  The earth has suffered Ice Ages where ambient surfaces temperatures averaged around 100 degrees.   The majority of evidence shows that almost all of the Paleozoic was plagued by temperatures  in excess of 125 degrees.  When looking at the big picture our current temperature levels are fairly mild.  Even cutting  90% of our 'greenhouse' gas emissions would have almost no effect on the current temperatures. Just my .02
I'm pretty sick of the subject, though, it comes down to we really can't control what happens with our environment on a certain level and man doesn't want to admit that there is a lack of control so we scapegoat the problem to something that 'theoretically' could be a cause.

[Jake D]

We also had a mini ice age a couple hundred years ago.   I don't know if you've heard of the potato famine or the plague?  Yeah, that was nice.   Let's wait until the next mini ice age to worry about green house gases.  That way we won't have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil one bit!  Let's hear it for the Grand Old Party!!! Yay!!!

[yamahonkawazuki]

Meh, hopefully hillbillary dont get in in 08

[yamahonkawazuki]

and global warming has been going on long before humans got involved, as much as the liberal left would like to to not believe

[jdanna]

What is measurably provable is that we are polluting a great deal more, China will probably overhaul the US this year as the worlds biggest polluter in total, however because of the population China produces around three tonnes per head whereas the US produces about 20 tonnes per head. Meanwhile the rest of the world is either improving or slowing its excelleration which means little in the face of US, China and India.

this is exactly why i think all this global warming/CO2 is gonna end the world crap is so dangerous!

i am NOT anti-environment. i think we should do everything we can to clean up after ourselves, and reduce the amount we pollute.
but to focus on emmissions of CO2 because they "cause global warming" takes away the focus on all the other crap that we spit out.
you know, the smog, the carcinogens (sp?), etc.

Check out this article:
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Are reduced CO2 emmissions that slow global warming (which again, is FAR from proven, and has a very good chance of being TOTALLY wrong) worth the immidiate, tangible effects that building a prius has on the environment? I dont think so.

Rallying behind junk science has historically proven to be dangerous, and its just all happening again.

[trumpetguy]

and global warming has been going on long before humans got involved, as much as the liberal left would like to to not believe

Maybe you ought to watch something other than the Faux News Network (or read).  The issue is whether we are accelerating the warming.  Yes, there have been cycles before (and many species have died out as a result of those cycles).  We're now heating the earth at a faster rate than before, and real scientists (not oil company shills) think it's because of CO2.

What possible motive do real scientists have to point out this problem?  They aren't going to get rich publishing their theories.

What possible motive do oil company whores have to deny it?  The oil companies stand to make billions more if we stick our heads in the sand.

Kind of telling that the cons have a financial stake in denying.  They wouldn't lie for money, would they?!?  Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the GOP lie?  Does a bear s*it in the woods?

[nightrider]

They say there are still people who believe the moon landings were faked by the US government... that the holocaust never happened... that Jesus is coming back in about 2012...

Prove to me that there is an HIV/AIDS virus. You can't. There is just a bunch of talk, liberal scientists yammering, bunch of people who are/were sick.

Yep.

[trumpetguy]

Meh, hopefully hillbillary dont get in in 08

I agree.  John Edwards or Barack Obama would be much better.  Although I'd love to see Hillary win just because of how much it would irritate the reichwingers.

[yamahonkawazuki]

They say there are still people who believe the moon landings were faked by the US government... that the holocaust never happened... that Jesus is coming back in about 2012...

Prove to me that there is an HIV/AIDS virus. You can't. There is just a bunch of talk, liberal scientists yammering, bunch of people who are/were sick.

Yep.

and i never did say that ppl werent involved in global warming, or accelerated it, but it has yet to be proven, and trumpetguy the democratic party as well as teh other parties out there do the same damned thing, so if youre gonna bash bush, hell bash the oehrs as well mmmkay

[yamahonkawazuki]

Meh, hopefully hillbillary dont get in in 08

I agree.  John Edwards or Barack Obama would be much better.  Although I'd love to see Hillary win just because of how much it would irritate the reichwingers.

well it would be funny as all hell to call bill "first lady" , im not keen on edwards, perhaps obama i dunno yet, lol both parties have severely disappointed me in fact all aprties have. but i must vote, just dont know who for, yet

[nightrider]

I think I'm going to vote for Obama. I like Bill Clinton and think he was a good President but Hillary is a little scary/artificial/scheming.

Obama is an intelligent guy, he has the potential to be a brilliant president.

[jdanna]

They say there are still people who believe the moon landings were faked by the US government... that the holocaust never happened... that Jesus is coming back in about 2012...

Prove to me that there is an HIV/AIDS virus. You can't. There is just a bunch of talk, liberal scientists yammering, bunch of people who are/were sick.

Yep.

thats a nonsense analogy. there is tons of legitimate science saying global warming is nonsense.

if manmade co2 emmissions cause global warming, why does the ice core data from 2 different ice core studies show a lag of hundreds of years between when temerature goes up or down and when co2 levels go up or down?

why were medieval temperatures significantly warmer, for much longer, then the current warming trend?

why is the current warming trend not effecting temperatures in the troposphere?

why was there a 45 year cooling trend before the current warming trend, when during that 45 year period co2 emmissions never decreased?

is it possible that the current warming trend is related to the current trend of higher solar activity?
that the HUGE BALL OF PURE WARM THAT WE CIRCLE AROUND has something to do with the temperature?
Not a chance! the oil companys are paying me to say this!

[NiceGuysFinishLast]

lmfao @ huge ball of pure warm

[nightrider]

Well, the leaders of the world's largest countries are pretty much over debating the science now... they are on to regulating emissions (obviously no one wants to).

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=un-climate-talks-reach-ag

[GeeP]

All that emotional appeal followed by the last paragraph:

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

The only vehicles mentioned were made by Toyota and General Motors.  I wonder how much GM paid Chris Demorro for that ad?   Not that I don't agree with parts of it.  Why spend a small fortune on added complication when you can buy a cheap 4 banger?  Hell, VW Rabbit Diesels were getting 60+ mpg in 1981.

I don't know where they get the 100,000 mile figure from, but it is BS.  A forklift battery is good for around 20,000 hours of operation, the traction motors at least that long.  20,000 hrs at 50MPH is a million miles more or less.  The chassis will last half a million miles without question.  I have a VW Rabbit, a VW Fox, and a Dodge Dakota well past half a million miles and they're still on the road.

Both sides are skewing the issue in an attempt to fit the policy to their actions.  The bushies want to keep their oil business alive and highly profitable, the tree huggers want us to go back to candles.  Somewhere amidst all the bullshit is the truth.  It is irresponsible to think that the millions of tons of pollutants we spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely no effect on the environment we live in.  Pollutants such as fine particulates, lead, mercury, radioactive contaminants, etc.  This ball of rock has a finite atmosphere and a finite quantity of energy resources.

In the end, if you really want to know what is going on you have to dig below the political scum that floats on the surface.

[jdanna]

Well, the leaders of the world's largest countries are pretty much over debating the science now... they are on to regulating emissions (obviously no one wants to).

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=un-climate-talks-reach-ag

the UN and IPCC are not science. they are political orgisations.

the IPCC report credited tons of scientists that totally disagreed with it. then refused to take their names off of it.
thats why "all the scientists agree"

[jdanna]

  It is irresponsible to think that the millions of tons of pollutants we spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely no effect on the environment we live in.  Pollutants such as fine particulates, lead, mercury, radioactive contaminants, etc.  This ball of rock has a finite atmosphere and a finite quantity of energy resources.

In the end, if you really want to know what is going on you have to dig below the political scum that floats on the surface.

i COMPLETELY agree. i just think we should focus on things like fine particulates, lead, mercury (which those "co2 friendly" hippy ass compact florescent light bulbs are FULL OF btw) radiactive contaminants, etc, instead of focusing all of our energy in reducing emmissions of a gas that half the life on this planet exhales constantly.

[97gs500e]

concerning global warming, check this out:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=documentary+warming

the argument is a little biased, but it's worth checking out..

[jdanna]

concerning global warming, check this out:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=documentary+warming

the argument is a little biased, but it's worth checking out..

thats a good watch.
some spots are a bit biased, but on the whole its got a lot of good points.
they had one graph that was innacurately labeled, that they fixed in later versions.
and one of the scientists they interviewed recanted some stuff and said they took him out of context. he was probably applying for a grant.

there was a canadian produced doc thats a bit older also, but i forget the name. it focused more on the IPCCs manipulation of the ice core data. ill try and find it.


my big point is that there is still a LOT of debate. to compare my questioning global warming on the grounds of science and evidence to sombody denying the holocaust is absolute nonsense.
so is the argument that i always hear which is : "all scientists agree"

anybody that knows jack about science knows that all scientists NEVER agree. science isnt based on consensus.

religion and politics however, are.

[jdanna]

i just realized i really like the word "nonsense"

i must have used it like 17,000 times in this thread alone.