PDA

View Full Version : If You Don't Believe in Global Warming...



dirty old man
11-13-2007, 10:29 AM
Just look outside. Isn't it bitchen to have this kind of weather in Nov

WYRD
11-13-2007, 10:32 AM
I dont think the skeptics have an issue with global warming, only the fact we as a human race are causing it....mother nature has a way of doing her own thing. Now we just need to adjust and start Christmas Boating Season;) :D

uLtRADeNniS
11-13-2007, 10:34 AM
Umm Its So Cal. :rolleyes:
Global Warming cracks me up.. But yea maybe we should worry about Global Warming and free health care plans, rather than other countries that are waiting to blow us up and are actually a true living threat to us, unlike Global Warming....which there is no scientific proof that it actually does exist...Although we do have proof that we are hated by other countries.:D

atomickitn
11-13-2007, 10:46 AM
global warming is a touchy subject........most really don't know **** about it ......other than what others say,, the earth has several cycles that it go's through....remember the ICE age......the earth is just now ending that cycle...and as this cycle ends the next one will start. what it will be only mother nature knows for sure....but I'm willing to bet that it will be cold.:)

Froggystyle
11-13-2007, 10:51 AM
I keep hearing the most amazingly stupid observations about global warming that confirm that the folks preaching have exactly zero scope on the situation....
As an example, Audrey and I were absolutely addicted to the "Planet Earth" series on Discovery HD a while back. Big time promo central for the global warming, we are killing the earth deal, but you live with it because why else would these hippies go out and get you this phenomenal footage.
Also on around that time was "Discovery Atlas" which chronicled different nations and cultures through the eyes of some indiginous folks. Brazil, China, Australia and Italy. Also hugely into the whole global warming thing...
Here is where I started laughing out loud...
They took us to the Italian Alps bordering Switzerland and showed where one of the highest battles has ever taken place. It took place in the late 1800's early 1900's. The guy said... pardon me if I paraphrase... that "All of this has been covered in snow for over 100 years... but because of global warming it is all visible again and you can see these well prserved artifacts of cans, ammo, wood etc..."
Uh.... 100 years ago the snow was this low, and nobody was blaming it on global warming dude. That is why the artifacts are at this level.
Doesn't that sound ridiculous to anyone else?

Not So Fast
11-13-2007, 10:53 AM
Just look outside. Isn't it bitchen to have this kind of weather in Nov
You've opened the proverbial can of worms now, at least you didnt mention Big Al!!;) NSF

WYRD
11-13-2007, 10:55 AM
I keep hearing the most amazingly stupid observations about global warming that confirm that the folks preaching have exactly zero scope on the situation....
As an example, Audrey and I were absolutely addicted to the "Planet Earth" series on Discovery HD a while back. Big time promo central for the global warming, we are killing the earth deal, but you live with it because why else would these hippies go out and get you this phenomenal footage.
Also on around that time was "Discovery Atlas" which chronicled different nations and cultures through the eyes of some indiginous folks. Brazil, China, Australia and Italy. Also hugely into the whole global warming thing...
Here is where I started laughing out loud...
They took us to the Italian Alps bordering Switzerland and showed where one of the highest battles has ever taken place. It took place in the late 1800's early 1900's. The guy said... pardon me if I paraphrase... that "All of this has been covered in snow for over 100 years... but because of global warming it is all visible again and you can see these well prserved artifacts of cans, ammo, wood etc..."
Uh.... 100 years ago the snow was this low, and nobody was blaming it on global warming dude. That is why the artifacts are at this level.
Doesn't that sound ridiculous to anyone else?
maybe they fought in the snow, that would confirm your parents ole saying...walked to school..snow..10 feet..barefoot..yada yada:D

uLtRADeNniS
11-13-2007, 10:57 AM
I keep hearing the most amazingly stupid observations about global warming that confirm that the folks preaching have exactly zero scope on the situation....
As an example, Audrey and I were absolutely addicted to the "Planet Earth" series on Discovery HD a while back. Big time promo central for the global warming, we are killing the earth deal, but you live with it because why else would these hippies go out and get you this phenomenal footage.
Also on around that time was "Discovery Atlas" which chronicled different nations and cultures through the eyes of some indiginous folks. Brazil, China, Australia and Italy. Also hugely into the whole global warming thing...
Here is where I started laughing out loud...
They took us to the Italian Alps bordering Switzerland and showed where one of the highest battles has ever taken place. It took place in the late 1800's early 1900's. The guy said... pardon me if I paraphrase... that "All of this has been covered in snow for over 100 years... but because of global warming it is all visible again and you can see these well prserved artifacts of cans, ammo, wood etc..."
Uh.... 100 years ago the snow was this low, and nobody was blaming it on global warming dude. That is why the artifacts are at this level.
Doesn't that sound ridiculous to anyone else?
Yea, Those hippies come up with ridiculous shit that you would have to be an idiot to believe.

boatsntoys
11-13-2007, 10:59 AM
I read that when Mt. St. Helens went off, it threw as much pollution into the air/atmosphers in one day, equal to all what humans have done since the beginning of time.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:00 AM
i think the reason people freak is that they try to make global warming a political issue. It is not its a human issue.
No legit scientist on this planet disagrees with global warming (Legit being the key word). and i dont think any of them disagree with the earth going thru cycles of hot and cold.
However the trend they are seing with CO2 and other greenhouse gases is troubleing as we know what too much C02 and other gases will do to a planet.. Look at venus in case you dont know.
What their point is that humans are a major contrubuting factor in these gases and its doing no good. and that if not careful we will do great harm to our own planet. Not in my life time not in yours but later down the road leaving this mess with my childrens children.
So why not do something now and support plans to cut green house gasses? Why is it such a hard thing to grasp. If we do nothing and are wrong then we are screwed. If we do something and help the situation we spend some money and have a more groovy place to live later in life. So make a choice but dont pretend it aint happening, even the administration acknowledges it now.
go ahead and call me a liberal bitch now...

JB in so cal
11-13-2007, 11:02 AM
I read that when Mt. St. Helens went off, it threw as much pollution into the air/atmosphers in one day, equal to all what humans have done since the beginning of time.
Combine that and cow farts and We're Doomed!

atomickitn
11-13-2007, 11:03 AM
soo you need to be slapped too?:)

uLtRADeNniS
11-13-2007, 11:04 AM
i think the reason people freak is that they try to make global warming a political issue. It is not its a human issue.
No legit scientist on this planet disagrees with global warming (Legit being the key word). and i dont think any of them disagree with the earth going thru cycles of hot and cold.
However the trend they are seing with CO2 and other greenhouse gases is troubleing as we know what too much C02 and other gases will do to a planet.. Look at venus in case you dont know.
What their point is that humans are a major contrubuting factor in these gases and its doing no good. and that if not careful we will do great harm to our own planet. Not in my life time not in yours but later down the road leaving this mess with my childrens children.
So why not do something now and support plans to cut green house gasses? Why is it such a hard thing to grasp. If we do nothing and are wrong then we are screwed. If we do something and help the situation we spend some money and have a more groovy place to live later in life. So make a choice but dont pretend it aint happening, even the administration acknowledges it now.
go ahead and call me a liberal bitch now...
LMFAO!

Froggystyle
11-13-2007, 11:10 AM
i think the reason people freak is that they try to make global warming a political issue. It is not its a human issue.
No legit scientist on this planet disagrees with global warming (Legit being the key word). and i dont think any of them disagree with the earth going thru cycles of hot and cold.
However the trend they are seing with CO2 and other greenhouse gases is troubleing as we know what too much C02 and other gases will do to a planet.. Look at venus in case you dont know.
What their point is that humans are a major contrubuting factor in these gases and its doing no good. and that if not careful we will do great harm to our own planet. Not in my life time not in yours but later down the road leaving this mess with my childrens children.
So why not do something now and support plans to cut green house gasses? Why is it such a hard thing to grasp. If we do nothing and are wrong then we are screwed. If we do something and help the situation we spend some money and have a more groovy place to live later in life. So make a choice but dont pretend it aint happening, even the administration acknowledges it now.
go ahead and call me a liberal bitch now...
How come nobody has been noticing "Global Cooling" up until the industrial age?
I don't think that CFC's are great for the ozone layer, but I don't buy the impact that humans are having on the whole deal.
Algae blooms produce a hell of a lot more oxygen than the rain forest as an example. The ocean is our greatest ecological resource and we haven't scratched the surface on it's ability to "cure" the environment.
It was noted, then verified that the hippies that burned the H2 a while back put more contaminants and particles into the atmosphere than the entire fleet of H2's had collectively contributed to that point. Well done folks... great job. Very compelling...
The damage being done to the earth by the lithium mining required to build a hybrid car's battery is amazing, and much of it is being done in different countries without any of our regulations. Tell me again how much better off the planet is driving one of these rigs?

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:11 AM
whats wrong man you dont like the word groovy? how about hip? whats up man? no legit come back beyond didnt like groovy?

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:13 AM
How come nobody has been noticing "Global Cooling" up until the industrial age?
I don't think that CFC's are great for the ozone layer, but I don't buy the impact that humans are having on the whole deal.
Algae blooms produce a hell of a lot more oxygen than the rain forest as an example. The ocean is our greatest ecological resource and we haven't scratched the surface on it's ability to "cure" the environment.
It was noted, then verified that the hippies that burned the H2 a while back put more contaminants and particles into the atmosphere than the entire fleet of H2's had collectively contributed to that point. Well done folks... great job. Very compelling...
The damage being done to the earth by the lithium mining required to build a hybrid car's battery is amazing, and much of it is being done in different countries without any of our regulations. Tell me again how much better off the planet is driving one of these rigs?
They have been talking about this subject since the 90's. but technology and scientific evidence is now becoming better and the evidence is undoubtable. So now that its a larger political topic (Hate that its political) you hear about it alot more often.

Troy McClure
11-13-2007, 11:14 AM
However the trend they are seing with CO2 and other greenhouse gases is troubleing as we know what too much C02 and other gases will do to a planet.. Look at venus in case you dont know.
What their point is that humans are a major contrubuting factor in these gases and its doing no good. and that if not careful we will do great harm to our own planet. Not in my life time not in yours but later down the road leaving this mess with my childrens children.
So how many humans contributed to the warming of Venus? The problem with many of those insisting that humans are contributing to GW is that they almost always will benefit from the panic that they are trying to create. Weather financially, politically or otherwise.
Here is an interesting article....
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58586

McIntyrelocal
11-13-2007, 11:15 AM
you know i cant believe that these people that say us as such a small part of the sceem of life being the human race could even have the tiniest effect on somthing like mother nature blows me away who do these guys think they are to think that we could have any effect when you watch what things can change in a matter of hours (katrina) for instance. like what we do could have a lasting impression i cant conseve it.The we burn in cars is the same oil that the earth generates below us.and for the people that say we run on only fossil fuels is unbelievable i saw a study that the earth has already reproduced a large amount of the oil weve taken but thats just what i believe.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:15 AM
here is a quick time table of Global warming. first entry is 1904... its been a subject for a while...
Global Warming in the Public Eye: A Timeline
1904: Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius was, according to NASA, "the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate."
Arrhenius began studying rapid increases in anthropogenic — human-caused — carbon emissions, determining that "the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries."
The unique research of Arrhenius suggested that this increase could be beneficial, making Earth's climates "more equable" and stimulating plant growth and food production. Until about 1960, most scientists thought it implausible that humans could actually affect average global temperatures.
1950s: Geophysicist Roger Revelle, with the help of Hans Suess, demonstrated that carbon dioxide levels in the air had increased as a result of the use of fossil fuels.
1965: Serving on the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965, Roger Revelle helped publish the first high-level government mention of global warming. The book-length report identified many of the environmental troubles the nation faced, and mentioned in a "subpanel report" the potential for global warming by carbon dioxide.
1977: "In 1977 the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences issued a study called Energy and Climate, which carefully suggested that the possibility of global warming 'should lead neither to panic nor to complacency.' Rather, the study continued, it should 'engender a lively sense of urgency in getting on with the work of illuminating the issues that have been identified and resolving the scientific uncertainties that remain.' As is typical with National Academy studies, the primary recommendation was for more research." — From "Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock" by Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr., THE ATLANTIC, July 2000
Roger Revelle chaired the National Academy Panel, which found that about forty percent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide has remained in the atmosphere, two-thirds from fossil fuel and one-third from the clearing of forests. It is now known that carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming and remains in the atmosphere for a century.
1980s: Representative Al Gore (D-TN), who had been a student of Revelle's, co-sponsored the first Congressional hearings to study the implications of global warming and to encourage the development of environmental technologies to combat global warming.
1982: Roger Revelle published a widely-read article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN addressing the rise in global sea level and the "relative role played by the melting of glaciers and ice sheets versus the thermal expansion of the warming surface waters."
1983: The Environmental Protection Agency released a report detailing some of the possible threats of the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
1988: NASA climate scientist James Hansen and his team reported to Congress on global warming, explaining, "the greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s" and that "the temperature changes are sufficiently large to have major impacts on people and other parts of the biosphere, as shown by computed changes in the frequency of extreme events and comparison with previous climate trends."
With the increased awareness of global warming issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC was the first international effort of this scale to address environmental issues.
1990: Congress passed and President George Bush signed Public Law 101-606 "The Global Change Research Act of 1990. The purpose of the legislation was "…to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes."
As part of the Act, the Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) was established "to disseminate to foreign governments, businesses, and institutions, as well as citizens of foreign countries, scientific research information available in the United States which would be useful in preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the effects of global change. The office began formal operation in 1993.
1992: In June of 1992, over 100 government leaders, representatives from 170 countries, and some 30,000 participants met in Rio de Janeiro at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or the "Earth Summit"). There, an international assembly formally recognized the need to integrate economic development and environmental protection into the goal of sustainable development.
1997: In December, 1997, more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gases for the developed nations, pursuant to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992. The outcome of the meeting was the Kyoto Protocol, in which the developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012.
Also that year, the United States Senate unanimously passed the Hagel-Byrd Resolution notifying the Clinton Administration that the Senate would not ratify any treaty that would (a) impose mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the United States without also imposing such reductions for developing nations, or (b) result in serious harm to our economy.
2001: The IPCC released its third assessment report, concluding on the basis of "new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." They also observed that "the globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius over the period 1990 to 2100."
The same year, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is now in limbo until one of the two crucial holdouts — Russia or the United States — will ratify the treaty.
2002: The Milan conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was just one in a series of international meetings to negotiate points of the Kyoto Protocol, and the tension surrounding the issue brought both scientists and the energy industry to the table. NOW reported on the conference in "Ode to Kyoto."
2003: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) co-sponsored a proposal for mandatory caps on "greenhouse gas" emissions from utilities and other industries. Although the proposal was rejected in the Senate by a margin of 55 to 43, it was the Senators' first attempt to garner Senate attention for the issue of global warming, and McCain and Lieberman were encouraged by the support for the measure.
2004: In August, an annual report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research — "Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005" — was submitted to Congress. In what the NEW YORK TIMES called a "striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change," the report indicated that "emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades." Dr. James R. Mahoney, the director of government climate research, told the NEW YORK TIMES that the studies mentioned in the new report are "significant but not definitive."
On September 15, members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation heard testimony examining recent scientific research concerning climate change impacts. Senator John McCain presided, opening the hearing by explaining:
Last month, I visited the Arctic region and saw first hand the impacts of climate change on the region. These impacts are real and are consistent with earlier scientific projections that the polar regions would experience the effects of climate change at a faster rate than the rest of the globe. The retreating glaciers provide irrefutable evidence supporting the need to take action on this issue. We cannot continue to ignore an issue that is not static. We need to take action that extends well beyond eloquent speeches, and includes meaningful actions such real reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases.
In late 2004, the Bush Administration came into conflict with the world community when it appeared to take issue with parts of an eight-nation report compiled by 250 scientists which contended that the Arctic is warming almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet due to a buildup of heat-trapping gases. The U.S. State Department argued that the group lacked the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals.
2005: In a January 2005 speech Senator James Inhofe made a speech on the Senate floor again condemning the idea of global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Inhofe made frequent reference to the fictional work by author Michael Crichton, best known for the rebirth of dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK, STATE OF FEAR in which eco-terrorists engineer disasters to prove their theories about global warming. (More about global warming and the international media.)
The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. Industrialized countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 - 2012. The emissions covered under the treaty are: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). As of April 19, 2005, 149 states and regional economic integration organizations have deposited instruments of ratifications, accessions, approvals or acceptances. (More about Kyoto.)
SOURCES: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; CBS News; NASA's Earth Observatory; Environmental Research Foundation; THE ATLANTIC; SOCIAL PROBLEMS; Global Change Research Information Office

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:17 AM
So how many humans contributed to the warming of Venus? The problem with many of those insisting that humans are contributing to GW is that they almost always will benefit from the panic that they are trying to create. Weather financially, politically or otherwise.
Here is an interesting article....
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58586
As usual you take my example too literal. Venus is a example of how greenhouse gases can affect an atmosphere on a global level. Scientist learn alot by studying venus to see how these gasses affect a planet size enviorment.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:21 AM
So question. how many of those who dont believe in man caused global warming and debunk it saying man could never cause this dont believe in evolution and that the earth is only 5000 years old and god put the fossils there and Jesus was around the same time as the dinosours?
how many?

Infomaniac
11-13-2007, 11:22 AM
We are still going to the lake in Oklahoma
74 degrees today.

WYRD
11-13-2007, 11:23 AM
How come nobody has been noticing "Global Cooling" up until the industrial age?
I don't think that CFC's are great for the ozone layer, but I don't buy the impact that humans are having on the whole deal.
Algae blooms produce a hell of a lot more oxygen than the rain forest as an example. The ocean is our greatest ecological resource and we haven't scratched the surface on it's ability to "cure" the environment.
It was noted, then verified that the hippies that burned the H2 a while back put more contaminants and particles into the atmosphere than the entire fleet of H2's had collectively contributed to that point. Well done folks... great job. Very compelling...
The damage being done to the earth by the lithium mining required to build a hybrid car's battery is amazing, and much of it is being done in different countries without any of our regulations. Tell me again how much better off the planet is driving one of these rigs?
Well put! While I am all for trying to reduce waste in areas that make sense (conserve electricity & Water, reduce waste, reuse, recycle, ect.) but the mass hysteria BS is driving me crazy. Most people who are up in arms about it are just sponging up all the hype that is feed into mainstream media. We have only been able to make a detailed record of the earths paterns for the last couple of thousand years or so, beond that we have no real record only a hypothesis, or a S.W.A.G. to what the natural cycles of the earth are.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Well put! While I am all for trying to reduce waste in areas that make sense (conserve electricity & Water, reduce waste, reuse, recycle, ect.) but the mass hysteria BS is driving me crazy. Most people who are up in arms about it are just sponging up all the hype that is feed into mainstream media. We have only been able to make a detailed record of the earths paterns for the last couple of thousand years or so, beond that we have no real record only a hypothesis, or a S.W.A.G. to what the natural cycles of the earth are.
Thats not true, the artic glaceirs hold a detailed record of air quality and air composition. As well as relative anual temperature. they take core samples and can determine all of that info just like reading the rings on a tree.
some antartic Glaceirs date back 13.6 ~15 million years ago

WYRD
11-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Thats not true, the artic glaceirs hold a detailed record of air quality and air composition. As well as relative anual temperature. they take core samples and can determine all of that info just like reading the rings on a tree.
I wonder if they have done a "study" to find out how much affect having exploration drilling into the glaceirs has sped up the warming process...:idea:
The world changes at it ages, forests become pretrafied, oceans become deserts, mountians become valleys, time has a way of ensuring these things will happen without human interaction. Before you know it they will be panicing about the next Ice Age, are you denying that took place:confused: Put some shorts on and enjoy the sun (before the gases all burn itself out):eek: ;)

Jordy
11-13-2007, 11:37 AM
1950s: Geophysicist Roger Revelle, with the help of Hans Suess, demonstrated that carbon dioxide levels in the air had increased as a result of the use of fossil fuels.
You know, I can't help but wonder if Hans was a doctor??? :idea:
I have a very hard time buying into this idea when the head cheerleader for it (Al Gore, who invented the very internet we're typing on now) is such a complete hypocrite. Looking forward to the book that critiques his points from An Inconvient Bunch Of Bullshit, I mean Truth, point by point. Think it's hitting stores very soon. :notam:

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:39 AM
I wonder if they have done a "study" to find out how much affect having exploration drilling into the glaceirs has sped up the warming process...:idea:
The world changes at it ages, forests become pretrafied, oceans become deserts, mountians become valleys, time has a way of ensuring these things will happen without human interaction. Before you know it they will be panicing about the next Ice Age, are you denying that took place:confused: Put some shorts on and enjoy the sun (before the gases all burn itself out):eek: ;)
I doubt an electric drill and corer causes to much global warming but i am sure the snow cats they use sure kick out some nasty exhaust. However in order to study these things you must do what you must. I am sure if they had an alternative to get out there effectively they would do so.
picture of a core sample.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/images/wsci_02_img0269.jpg

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:44 AM
You know, I can't help but wonder if Hans was a doctor??? :idea:
I have a very hard time buying into this idea when the head cheerleader for it (Al Gore, who invented the very internet we're typing on now) is such a complete hypocrite. Looking forward to the book that critiques his points from An Inconvient Bunch Of Bullshit, I mean Truth, point by point. Think it's hitting stores very soon. :notam:
Screw gore and everyother politician who makes this their pet project. its not about politics. read the scientific journals. make up your own oppinion. any one that says well the dems said it was true there for it must or says Gore says its true so it must be a lie is a uneducated moron. Do your own research form your own oppinions.
Show me scientific proof that im wrong and i am happy to look over it.. and if im wrong them im wrong but dont just vote party lines on this kind of issue.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:46 AM
BTW Gore is not the head cheerleader he just made a movie and is known by most americans so he makes the news.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 11:55 AM
(Al Gore, who invented the very internet we're typing on now) :notam:
As a matter of fact he had a large part to play in creating the internet. read below.
Main article: Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology
Gore at the Ansari X Prize Executive Summit, October 19, 2006Al Gore was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both Senator and Vice-President. Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s, public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation that would alleviate this problem.[85] Gore thus began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[86] which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway".
In 1999, various media outlets suggested that Gore claimed that he "invented the Internet"[87][88] in reference to a CNN interview in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."[89]
In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 2000-09-29 article (originally sent via email) that described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:[90]
"[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept."
Gore has been a member of the board of directors of Apple Inc. since 2003 and serves as a Senior Advisor to Google Inc.[91]
On 6 June 2005, Gore was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award "for three decades of contributions to the Internet" at The Webby Awards. In giving him the award, Tiffany Shlain (the awards' founder and chairwoman) stated that she "wanted to set the record straight [...] it's just one of those instances someone did amazing work for three decades as Congressman, Senator and Vice President and it got spun around into this political mess."[92] Gore, during his acceptance speech (limited to five words according to Webby Awards rules), joked: "Please don't recount this vote".[93]

78Eliminator
11-13-2007, 12:19 PM
To those who are truly concerned about Global Warming, I offer one valid suggestion: Stop Breeding.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 12:22 PM
To those who are truly concerned about Global Warming, I offer one valid suggestion: Stop Breeding.
Does that cause toxic gasses?

78Eliminator
11-13-2007, 12:27 PM
Does that cause toxic gasses? Humans? Yes, they do. There are 9 billion on the planet. Supposed to be 15 billion by 2014. Might be a good idea to cut down on the population to make it a more pleasant place to live, and have a little elbow room.
Or we can just have another large scale war. Whatever.

WYRD
11-13-2007, 12:29 PM
Does that cause toxic gasses?
Only if your putting it in the wrong hole:eek:

RT21
11-13-2007, 01:17 PM
i think the reason people freak is that they try to make global warming a political issue. It is not its a human issue.
No legit scientist on this planet disagrees with global warming (Legit being the key word). and i dont think any of them disagree with the earth going thru cycles of hot and cold.
However the trend they are seing with CO2 and other greenhouse gases is troubleing as we know what too much C02 and other gases will do to a planet.. Look at venus in case you dont know.
What their point is that humans are a major contrubuting factor in these gases and its doing no good. and that if not careful we will do great harm to our own planet. Not in my life time not in yours but later down the road leaving this mess with my childrens children.
So why not do something now and support plans to cut green house gasses? Why is it such a hard thing to grasp. If we do nothing and are wrong then we are screwed. If we do something and help the situation we spend some money and have a more groovy place to live later in life. So make a choice but dont pretend it aint happening, even the administration acknowledges it now.
go ahead and call me a liberal bitch now...
I love the "what do we have to lose?" argument. Judging by the people shoving this down our throat (liberal bitches), I would say we have a lot to lose. Namely, MONEY. And lots of it. Not to mention all the personal freedoms we stand to lose. Motorsports of all kind will be a thing of the past. Just get in your econo-box and go to work and back home, sucker. Dont give these people an inch. F-em all.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 02:31 PM
I love the "what do we have to lose?" argument. Judging by the people shoving this down our throat (liberal bitches), I would say we have a lot to lose. Namely, MONEY. And lots of it. Not to mention all the personal freedoms we stand to lose. Motorsports of all kind will be a thing of the past. Just get in your econo-box and go to work and back home, sucker. Dont give these people an inch. F-em all.
Ill take one of these econo boxes any day my freind. 100% torque on demand 100% of the time thru the entire RPM range... Hell YEA!!!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
And agian this is not a political issue its a humanity issue. and having money when the air is toxic wont do any good. Investment now insures a better future for our children.
Im down for mandatory birth control No need to have 16 flippin kids man. Do it like China.

R.A.D.man
11-13-2007, 02:57 PM
Melting glaciers reveal ancient tree stumps (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919586/posts?page=65)
I wonder how the hell those trees grew in that ice 7000 years ago :idea:

delemorte
11-13-2007, 03:08 PM
Melting glaciers reveal ancient tree stumps (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919586/posts?page=65)
I wonder how the hell those trees grew in that ice 7000 years ago :idea:
The trees pre date the glacier... contrary to the bible the earth is more than 5000 years old.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 03:11 PM
Melting glaciers reveal ancient tree stumps (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919586/posts?page=65)
I wonder how the hell those trees grew in that ice 7000 years ago :idea:
From your own article.
The radiocarbon dates seem to be the same around the world, according to Koch. There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees.
"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."
Very telling isnt it??

R.A.D.man
11-13-2007, 03:26 PM
From your own article.
The radiocarbon dates seem to be the same around the world, according to Koch. There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees.
"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."
Very telling isnt it??
Yes, the "it seems like" part is the most telling to me especially if one uses science as a base for ones argument. He has no way of knowing if its precedented, unprecedented or what the fock. That was my favorite part.

delemorte
11-13-2007, 03:29 PM
Here is an interesting article....
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58586
I just read that article... He's a WEATHER MAN!!!! your going to take the word of a WEATHER MAN over a true scientist? Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

delemorte
11-13-2007, 03:30 PM
Yes, the "it seems like" part is the most telling to me especially if one uses science as a base for ones argument. He has no way of knowing if its precedented, unprecedented or what the fock. That was my favorite part.
They can tell the age of the ice. so he knows exactly when it was last at that position.
and yes he used the words seems like. Science is a matter of educated guesses. Unless you are God him self you where not there. However its a hell of alot better than jsut saying Fock Gore it must be made up.
The Scientific Method
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

That Guy
11-13-2007, 03:34 PM
you know i cant believe that these people that say us as such a small part of the sceem of life being the human race could even have the tiniest effect on somthing like mother nature blows me away who do these guys think they are to think that we could have any effect when you watch what things can change in a matter of hours (katrina) for instance. like what we do could have a lasting impression i cant conseve it.The we burn in cars is the same oil that the earth generates below us.and for the people that say we run on only fossil fuels is unbelievable i saw a study that the earth has already reproduced a large amount of the oil weve taken but thats just what i believe.
Um excuse me....what? :confused: :idea: :confused:

RT21
11-13-2007, 03:38 PM
Ill take one of these econo boxes any day my freind. 100% torque on demand 100% of the time thru the entire RPM range... Hell YEA!!!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
And agian this is not a political issue its a humanity issue. and having money when the air is toxic wont do any good. Investment now insures a better future for our children.
Im down for mandatory birth control No need to have 16 flippin kids man. Do it like China.
Wow, that looks really...uhm, roomy. Wont even get me to the river. And all that for only 100,000. :rolleyes:
Maybe you should put one of those "motors" in your boat? Friend.
Money is everything. Can you explain why electricity in Needles cost double what it costs across the river in Fort Mojove?

R.A.D.man
11-13-2007, 03:46 PM
They can tell the age of the ice. so he knows exactly when it was last at that position.
He knows exaclty nothing when it comes to exactly. Are you saying he is both precise and accurate in his conclusions and his information. I think not. All ice dating efforts have more and more error the farther back you go. You have to asume more and more constants along the way (atmosphere gases for one as compared to today) thus introducing more and more error. I propose his 7000 year number to be an estimate that was likely at a minimum a couple of hundred years plus or minus and this comes from the best efforts in ice dating. Take that into account and his 150 year number less than the plus or the minus so it is not very precise and surely not accurate.
I must go slep at the Holiday Inn now to refresh.

jh4rt
11-13-2007, 04:01 PM
I point you to this:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
One of the better things he says; and I paraphrase, is that people on the other side of the argument will rapidly turn to presenting evidence that the globe is warming... where they have strong ground.... So... the argument goes like this.
"The earth is warming and it is man's fault..."
"What has man done to cause this and what evidence do you have that he has, or that ceasing certain behaviors will reverse this particular cycle?..."
"Well, the glaciers are melting; don't you care about the environment? Do you slaughter seals?"
"No, I'm just not sure I believe that man is the cause or even marginally contributory to the earth's meteorological cycles..."
"Well, you must hate whales and want your grandchildren to drown. Why, there is a hurricane in the Atlantic right now that could have been prevented."
"I see, and you think I caused that with my SUV?"
"Well, SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING....or we will all eventually have to move to the moon!"
He says it way better than I could. He will continue to post.
Meanwhile, Don't Panic.... and I hope you brought your towel...

boatsntoys
11-13-2007, 04:31 PM
I saw on Tv a few days ago....COW FARTS, thats right, cow farts contribute 3 times the amount automobiles do, toward global warming.

McIntyrelocal
11-13-2007, 05:13 PM
I saw on Tv a few days ago....COW FARTS, thats right, cow farts contribute 3 times the amount automobiles do, toward global warming.
yep the president of peta was on bill maher and said we should all stop eating meat and no one should drink milk or eat dairy products because the breeding of cows at the levels that we are is a major part of global warming because of the methane being produced from the cows.im sorry i may be completly stupid but i fell out of my chair laughing.but everyone is entitled to there opinion.and im often critisized about mine.

McIntyrelocal
11-13-2007, 05:24 PM
Um excuse me....what? :confused: :idea: :confused:
i read part of a study that "sugested" that it would be impossible for as much oil as we use that it would all be from fossil fuels.The amount of fossils that would have to have been in the ground there wouldnt have been enough room for that many to roam on our planet for that much oil,And also that they have documented reports of certain wells that have been pumped dry that have already produced more oil but not sure what exactly from but deaper cores were taken and no fossils were found.So take that for what you want but i tend to agree with that theory.

NuckinFutz
11-13-2007, 05:33 PM
Oh my God, the sky is falling. I'm going to go crawl under a rock. No shit, we need to conserve, but gas prices have me conserving. The fact we are on a boating site says we "needlessly" are using the earths resources. I guess I'm not to concerned about two hundred years from now. Science will find new fuels, think about it, if you told someone two hundred years ago we'd be driving around in cars, talking on a phone, flying to space, or typing on the internet they'd say you're crazy. Nuff said.

Troy McClure
11-13-2007, 05:37 PM
I just read that article... He's a WEATHER MAN!!!! your going to take the word of a WEATHER MAN over a true scientist? Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?
He actually started weather.com and is now a weather man. Probably not doing too bad. Also, he is a meteorologist, aka atmospheric scientist.
You, however, are quoting studies by Carl Sagan who, although is a scientist is an astronomer. (He was the one who decided that Venus was hot due to global warming BTW)
Those in glass houses.......blah blah blah....
Also, this subject has been discussed so many times here...
Illegal immigration
Religion
Global Warming
Katchina gel jobs
Planes and treadmills...
All been way over discussed and no ones going to sway someones opinion on a chat board..:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

McIntyrelocal
11-13-2007, 05:41 PM
He actually started weather.com and is now a weather man. Probably not doing too bad. Also, he is a meteorologist, aka atmospheric scientist.
You, however, are quoting studies by Carl Sagan who, although is a scientist is an astronomer. (He was the one who decided that Venus was hot due to global warming BTW)
Those in glass houses.......blah blah blah....
Also, this subject has been discussed so many times here...
Illegal immigration
Religion
Global Warming
Katchina gel jobs
Planes and treadmills...
All been way over discussed and no ones going to sway someones opinion on a chat board..:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
THANK YOU AND WITH SAID IM GONNA STOP GETTING HOOKED ON THESE MEANINGLESS THREADS.IM NOT SMART ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION ANYWAY.:)

Troy McClure
11-13-2007, 05:51 PM
I point you to this:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
One of the better things he says; and I paraphrase, is that people on the other side of the argument will rapidly turn to presenting evidence that the globe is warming... where they have strong ground.... So... the argument goes like this.
"The earth is warming and it is man's fault..."
"What has man done to cause this and what evidence do you have that he has, or that ceasing certain behaviors will reverse this particular cycle?..."
"Well, the glaciers are melting; don't you care about the environment? Do you slaughter seals?"
"No, I'm just not sure I believe that man is the cause or even marginally contributory to the earth's meteorological cycles..."
"Well, you must hate whales and want your grandchildren to drown. Why, there is a hurricane in the Atlantic right now that could have been prevented."
"I see, and you think I caused that with my SUV?"
"Well, SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING....or we will all eventually have to move to the moon!"
He says it way better than I could. He will continue to post.
Meanwhile, Don't Panic.... and I hope you brought your towel...
I thought that they just had to say "It's for the kids" and everyone falls in line...
Fock.. I hate these threads, I get sucked in and can't leave....speaking of sucking, I'm going to do a search for porn now.......:devil: :devil:

SB
11-14-2007, 11:30 AM
this guy is good
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
An anonymous Brit has now admitted in a brief interview that he wrote the fake global warming research paper which is claimed to have fooled some of us “global warming skeptics”. His stated purpose was to “expose the credulity and scientific illiteracy of many of the people who call themselves climate sceptics”.
I would argue that he has done just the opposite. Several of us (scientists and non-scientists alike) were able, within a matter of seconds to minutes, to identify the paper as a fake. We then spread the word, warning others of the hoax. Therefore, we showed that we do not, as the hoaxer claims, “believe almost anything if it lends support to their position”. We did exactly the opposite.
Remember how I ended the original post:
Now, if you really want to have fun, create a similar hoax the other way, supporting catastrophic man-made global warming. You will probably make the NBC Nightly News. It would be fun to try something really nutty and see if people buy it, like saying the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next century... oops, its already been done. Al Gore made that claim, among other truly absurd statements, in his movie An Inconvinient Trust, for which he not only made the NBC Nightly News but he also won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize.

R.A.D.man
11-14-2007, 01:03 PM
I think the Nobel jumped the shark with that one.

ULTRA26 # 1
11-14-2007, 02:23 PM
Ill take one of these econo boxes any day my freind. 100% torque on demand 100% of the time thru the entire RPM range... Hell YEA!!!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
And agian this is not a political issue its a humanity issue. and having money when the air is toxic wont do any good. Investment now insures a better future for our children.
Im down for mandatory birth control No need to have 16 flippin kids man. Do it like China.
Mandatory birth control. Wouldn't this be considered a loss of a freedom? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
BTW, I agree that climate change should not be viewed as a political issue.

SB
11-15-2007, 01:01 PM
Mandatory birth control. Wouldn't this be considered a loss of a freedom? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, it would.
Look how we do it here though:
First we mandate that your kids have to be buckled. Then we mandate the shrinking of vehicles so they won't hold all your kids.
But we wouldn't dream of regulating family size.:confused:
BTW, this does not apply to Mexicans.
:idea: