Quote from: nightrider on May 03, 2007, 10:34:31 PM
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.

ehh i have my issues with slick willie, but, i will make an informed vote this next time,

Jake:  Holy f%$k!!!  Someone else that knows we actually had an ice age recently   Yep it's been directly linked to those occurances and to a large portion of the 'vikings' decline

Quote from: jdanna on May 02, 2007, 09:49:53 PM

Quote from: nightrider on May 02, 2007, 12:20:07 PM
Stifles/quashes dissent in scary ways (global warming reports censored, scientists muzzled)

If anything it's the opposite, and has nothing to do with the administration.

For examples,
Governor Kulongoski (D-Oregon) recently stripped Oregon State climatologist George Taylor of his job title for expressing his opinion that the bulk of global warming in the last half century is cyclical rather than caused by human activity. 

QuoteIn an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases...

Same story up north where the University of Washington canned/fired/terminated employment of its meteorologist and associate climatologist for disputing a govt report stating that Cascade snowpacks have shrank 50% in the last fifty years--which they haven't. 

Quote"In all my years of doing science, I've never seen this sort of gag-order approach to doing science," said co-worker and meteorologist Cliff Mass.

Regarding the current administration, the US Senate voted down the Kyoto Protocol 99-to-1 during the Clinton administration.   

I love Obama...I would have his babies...you know except for the whole lesbian thing...

Yep, Shrillary will irritate the reichwingers ... problem is she doesn't just irritate reichwingers ... she irritates everyone ... our friends, our enemies, moon people, people who live in the subway, trolls, leprechauns, women ...
Yea, she irritates the crap out of women. Heck, 90% of women wont vote for her if there was a different choice. I have heard some one come on the radio one day a few weeks ago and say ... yes I'll vote for a woman, just not that one. Yup ... me too. I might consider voting outside the species. How about Dilbert for president.
Anyway, Global warming ... yes there are several non oil company scientists who dont entirely believe the cause and effects as presently portrayed ... however are they anti Gore and hence that way ... no idea. In fact I believe it was a Virginia tech professor who I heard on the radio and how he thought it was a huge stretch.
But the other pollutants ... those are real. Arsenic, mercury, lead, PCB's etc etc etc ... and petro based power plants spew tons of those.
Pastrana: I dunno why they had to shut down the nuclear power plant due to hot water, cos we have one that we are running at full steam (no pun) and we do have the water dump into the lake/river ... if it gets too hot, so what, it will cause its own micro warm spot, but how does it affect the larger picture. Warms up the ocean how much ... it takes a looooong time to get to the ocean though, it prolly warms up all along the way a little and prolly not much at the ocean.
Cool.
Srinath.

the one in buffalo was dumping into a lake..which is..much much smaller than the ocean clearly...it was causing all kinds of problems, algae blooms that killed fish and what not...the ecosystem of the lake (and tourism cause it looked disgusting) was pretty much dying..

Are directly going to cause another ice age or mass flooding? I don't really know.

I do, however, think that common sense dictates that if we were over-consuming resources and pumping so much waste into a balanced ecosystem that it is bound to destroy it. Scientists can prove the existence of the atmospheric layers and the effect that our waste has on it. It certainly doesn't take a scientist to prove that consuming exponential levels of oil are hurting the planet on some level.

It's really stupid to politicize environmental research- and pretty damn awful that Oil companies would rather make money by covering up and paying off "researchers" than provide a better future for generations to come.

Granted I got most of my research information from the documentary "Bio Dome" starring Pauly Shore and Billy Baldwin.....

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on May 03, 2007, 09:29:40 PM
and global warming has been going on long before humans got involved, as much as the liberal left would like to to not believe

Hopefully your little lauch icon is laughing at your retarded post. 

Quote from: jdanna on May 03, 2007, 10:04:19 PM

Quote from: Cal Price on May 03, 2007, 12:58:10 AM
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.

You are obviously focusing too much on polution cause by automobiles.  As Lewis Black said, "Bush was worried about whether or not gays could get married but we still don't have an energy policy and we won't have solar power in my life time."

You can still keep you SUV if we focus on renewable fuel source.  Try opening up some creative thinking into that thick republican skull of yours.   We can't continue to use coal to power our cities.   And Bush wants to RELAX the emissions standards placed on coal burning power plants instead of tighten them.  That is because he is in bed with the energy lobby.  There can be no other explaination.  Got sun?  Got wind?  Got corn?  Use 'em. 

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on May 03, 2007, 10:27:06 PMand 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

No problem.  Whenever I see the Democrats spending us into the poorhouse, lying us into a war, spying on American citizens, authorizing torture, hiring based purely on ideology/loyalty and not skill (heckuva job Brownie), suppressing minority voters, issuing propaganda to media outlets, and raping the environment, I'll bash them.  Fair enough!

Go JakeD, go JakeD,

hes done in a year, hes not going anywhere nor are his policies, start focusing who you are going to vote for next.  oh and global warming-Joke.

Quote from: Jake D on May 04, 2007, 08:38:54 AM

You are obviously focusing too much on polution cause by automobiles.  As Lewis Black said, "Bush was worried about whether or not gheys could get married but we still don't have an energy policy and we won't have solar power in my life time."

You can still keep you SUV if we focus on renewable fuel source.  Try opening up some creative thinking into that thick republican skull of yours.   We can't continue to use coal to power our cities.   And Bush wants to RELAX the emissions standards placed on coal burning power plants instead of tighten them.  That is because he is in bed with the energy lobby.  There can be no other explaination.  Got sun?  Got wind?  Got corn?  Use 'em. 

solar and wind power are too expensive and too innefecient to be practical.
i agree that we need to get away from coal. nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient source of power we have today.

im not agreeing with bushes energy policy, but i am also adamently disagreeing with the global warming lobby.

Ah.  Something told me you'd go with the "waaaaaaa. . . it's too hard" argument.  You see, if we'd spend a Brazilian dollars on R&D for alternative fuel sources rather than establishing middle eastern colonies (tell me I'm wrong about that one) we'd get it figured out.

The ONLY long term viable solution to our energy problems are solar and wind.  We can't continue to think that fossil fuels and "nuke-ler" power are the answer.  We have to develop better alternatives that have ZERO impact on our environment.  Because on a long enough time line, everyone's life expectancy is zero (thank you Tyler Durden).  AKA, we can't solve our problems by continuing to think on the level we were thinking on when we created our problems.  100 years ago, the fastest a human had ever traveled was on a steam powered locomotive.  Do you think that 100 years ago, someone would have believe we'd be traveling in hybrid motor vehicles?   The answer to our problems is, gasp, something we haven't invented yet.   If that means ultra efficient solar and wind power, than so be it. 

And in 2008 the Republican's will scare the herd with talks of gheys, guns, and God.  They'll turn a blind eye to our colonies in the middle east, the (5 year old) war in Iraq, the really thin ice cap, the proliferation of hurricanes on the gulf coast and all those silly little matters, and the herd will vote on the next American Idol instead of the person they should be voting for (Obama). 

Edit: Your end of the lesson, trick.

Quote from: Jake D on May 04, 2007, 01:18:16 PM
Ah.  Something told me you'd go with the "waaaaaaa. . . it's too hard" argument.  You see, if we'd spend a Brazilian dollars on R&D for alternative fuel sources rather than establishing middle eastern colonies (tell me I'm wrong about that one) we'd get it figured out.

The ONLY long term viable solution to our energy problems are solar and wind.  We can't continue to think that fossil fuels and "nuke-ler" power are the answer.  We have to develop better alternatives that have ZERO impact on our environment.  Because on a long enough time line, everyone's life expectancy is zero (thank you Tyler Durden).  AKA, we can't solve our problems by continuing to think on the level we were thinking on when we created our problems.  100 years ago, the fastest a human had ever traveled was on a steam powered locomotive.  Do you think that 100 years ago, someone would have believe we'd be traveling in hybrid motor vehicles?   The answer to our problems is, gasp, something we haven't invented yet.   If that means ultra efficient solar and wind power, than so be it. 

And in 2008 the Republican's will scare the herd with talks of gheys, guns, and God.  They'll turn a blind eye to our colonies in the middle east, the (5 year old) war in Iraq, the really thin ice cap, the proliferation of hurricanes on the gulf coast and all those silly little matters, and the herd will vote on the next American Idol instead of the person they should be voting for (Obama). 

Edit: Your end of the lesson, trick.

your kind of contradicting yourself here - saying the only long term viable solution is solar and wind, then saying the only viable solution is something we havent invented yet.

im not willing to bank our future on something that hasnt been invented yet, or is prohibitivly expensive.
nuclear power is a metric bajillion times more effeciant then solar and wind, and 10 metric bajillion times more eco-friendly then coal.

im not talking about gays, guns, or god, and i do like obama. but he simply has 0 foreign policy experience, which makes me think he would make a total mess out of pulling out of iraq.
i do agree that we need to start pulling out right now, but its gotta be done right. what right is, i do not know, but i dont think obama does either.

im aa registered dem right now, but im gonna change so i can vote for rudy in the primarys.

 As a NY'er...I hate Rudy and Hitlery especally...I love Obama..I'm blunt what can I say?

Quote from: Jake D on May 04, 2007, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on May 03, 2007, 09:29:40 PM
and global warming has been going on long before humans got involved, as much as the liberal left would like to to not believe

Hopefully your little lauch icon is laughing at your retarded post. 

care to elaborate?

Fred Thompson '08 

Quote from: jdanna on May 04, 2007, 12:26:40 PM
solar and wind power are too expensive and too innefecient to be practical.

Entirely untrue.  I'm in the process engineering a 100% solar system to supply 400A three-phase service to my house and business.

The electric rates doubled this year.  Combine that with demand billing on three-phase and expected further increases in the electric rates and solar makes perfect sense.  I expect to break even on the installation in 20 years or less.  The cells I'm looking at have a 40-year output warranty and will withstand 1" hail at 60 MPH. 

One thing I have learned is that it is perfectly possible to power an average sized home with less than half the roof area of the house.  Battery banks and inverters provide night power.

It isn't a question of the technology being available, it is a question of whether we're willing to use it.  Around here I see lots of brand new F-350 duallies hauling a few bags of groceries on the weekend.  If they had spent that money on solar they could free themselves from the grasp of the power company. 

The future doesn't involve powerplants in the same way we see them today.  In the future many homes will power theselves with banks of solar panels on the roof.  The installation will not be big, bulky, or require excessive maintenance on the part of the homeowner.  In fact, the technology will require less attention than your water heater.

Why haven't these things hit mainstream yet?  Because the people arent cold, dark, and hungry yet.

Quote from: Jughead on May 04, 2007, 10:28:25 PM
Fred Thompson '08