DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 18, 2008, 08:05:37 PM
-
Headlines from across the nation today:
Vegas: Biggest Snow in 30 years...
Spokane shut down by snowstorm...
WATCH: NYC May Get 6 Inches Tomorrow...
Chicago: One Foot...
FREAK: SNOW IN MALIBU...
Major Winter Storm Parade...
LOL@"Global Warming"
Oh and yes I've seen the moronic leftist argue
oh it's getting so much colder because of global warming ::)
Global Warming = Excuse To Exercise Control Over People....in other words Liberalism!
-
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........................didn't you get the memo CU4? It's now "Climate Change", as if there was none before. I mean, when's the last time you saw some major meeting of fringe leftists attending a Global Warming conference?
-
You seem to think that Global Warming means that no one will ever have a winter again. It does not work that way. Winters will be slightly warmer each year on average, and summers will also be warmer by a degree or two.
Even a change of several degrees will change what will grow and when and where.
-
When most reputable scientists concerned with the issue say that the world is warming due to mankind's actions, I don't argue with them. Since every winter has snow days and warm days, I would expect that even during an overall warming trend, there will be unusually cold and snowy days, just not as many now as, say, 20 years ago. Cherry-picking the odd snowy day is a method of "reasoning" that seems to appeal to right-wing anti-state nutbars, but hasn't convinced any groundswell of qualified scientists to change their opinion as far as I'm aware.
-
It seems that "Conservatives" tend to prefer the anecdote to the well-processed statistic most of the time. Find one bogus welfare mother that is proof that all welfare mothers are cheats. One very cold day or bad snow, and Global warming is a farce. Strangely, one more collapse of a deregulated market and it's time to blame the "libtards". Only they are pure, only they never make mistakes.
Wars, on the other hand, they seem to fancy.
-
It seems that "Conservatives" tend to prefer the anecdote to the well-processed statistic most of the time.
Of course, the "well-processed statistic" of the past several years seem to indicate a downward direction to global temperatures. Even some of the data for the '90s has been revised recently.
-
but does this mean it`s ok to pollute or not?
the whole point about global warming is not pollute and if or when found false can we be allowed to throw trash in the streets again?
most time I hear the word global warming brought up is when somebody drops something on the floor.
does anyone notice the opposition to global warming never once say people should still not litter?
I don`t give a damn about global warming myself I`m just glad the streets don`t have trash on them.
-
but does this mean it`s ok to pollute or not?
That's silly. Most effects of pollution have nothing to do with global warming.
-
"When most reputable scientists concerned with the issue say"
yeah and up until about 2003 "most reputable scientist" thought ulcers were connected to bad diet or a stressful lifestyle........WRONG! WRONG!
Two scientists, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, confronted significant opposition to their hypothesis that peptic ulcers are caused by the spirally-shaped bacteria Helicobacter pylori. They collaborated for over two decades to prove their case for this simple, yet overlooked cause of the disease.
In 2005 these two scientists, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, that went against the grain of current opinion won the Nobel Prize.
-
That's silly. Most effects of pollution have nothing to do with global warming.
What about CFC's? It was my belief that those had a direct effect on global warming due to the fact that they lessen the ozone layer. Or am I missing something?
I'm not in favor of pollution, I don't think that anyone wants to see huge swaths of forest and national treasures wiped out due to acid rain. Nor do I think that anyone wants to see mercury in glaciers or in alpine lakes. I do not have a problem with environmental regulations if they make good scientific and economic sense, such as making mining companies take out bonds to pay for their cleanup of old mine sites, so that the Federal and State governments don't have to take on the financial cost of their cleanup (which can run into the billions). But as with anything else, there's a balance there.
-
does anyone notice the opposition to global warming never once say people should still not litter?
no but we do notice some of the biggest blowhards about so called "global warming" fly around
in private jets and have huge energy consuming homes/castles while people like President Bush
have a private home that is much more energy and ecological friendly.
-
What about CFC's? It was my belief that those had a direct effect on global warming due to the fact that they lessen the ozone layer. Or am I missing something?
Actually, the concern over CFCs was that they would bring on a new ice age, not global warming. Yeah, there are many other effects of pollution other than global warming - that's why I said that the thought that "it's ok to pollute if we're not worried about global warming" is silly. Most effects of pollution have nothing to do with global warming - pollution should be reduced because of these other effects, not because of global warming.
-
yeah and up until about 2003 "most reputable scientist" thought ulcers were connected to bad diet or a stressful lifestyle........WRONG! WRONG!
Are you saying that peptic ulcers are totally unrelated to stress? I can buy into the bacteria being another cause, or even the primary causative agent, but I don't believe that it is the sole cause. New ways of looking at things are good, but they don't always refute the traditional ways even if they are correct.
Despite the finding that a bacterial infection is the cause of ulcers in 80% of cases, bacterial infection does not appear to explain all ulcers and researchers continue to look at stress as a possible cause, or at least a complication in the development of ulcers.
An expert panel convened by the Academy of Behavioral Medicine research concluded that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role.[1] Researchers are examining how stress might promote H. pylori infection. For example, Helicobacter pylori thrives in an acidic environment, and stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid.
A study of peptic ulcer patients in a Thai hospital showed that chronic stress was strongly associated with an increased risk of peptic ulcer, and a combination of chronic stress and irregular mealtimes was a significant risk factor.[6]
A study on mice showed that both long-term water-immersion-restraint stress and H. pylori infection were independently associated with the development of peptic ulcers.[7]
Peptic ulcers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptic_ulcer)
-
Actually, the concern over CFCs was that they would bring on a new ice age, not global warming. Yeah, there are many other effects of pollution other than global warming - that's why I said that the thought that "it's ok to pollute if we're not worried about global warming" is silly. Most effects of pollution have nothing to do with global warming - pollution should be reduced because of these other effects, not because of global warming.
That makes sense, I'm not up to date on the science of it all. From talking to you about this issue in the past I've concluded that while climate change, and even dramatic climate change is normal, how much of it man has contributed is kind of up in the air. Is that an accurate representation?
-
That makes sense, I'm not up to date on the science of it all. From talking to you about this issue in the past I've concluded that while climate change, and even dramatic climate change is normal, how much of it man has contributed is kind of up in the air. Is that an accurate representation?
Yup, that's it in a nutshell. The consensus among scientists is that there is a global climate change happening, and it's fairly dramatic. Where there is no consensus is the amount of influence humans exert on the process.
The Earth has been much warmer in the past, and also much colder. And science has shown a couple of things: global climate changes in the past have occurred even more rapidly than is predicted for this current change (about 20 years in one case, IIRC) and that magnetic pole shifting has been involved in past climate changes (we're currently past due for a magnetic pole shift, which happen at fairly regular intervals).
-
A result of nature, not man (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)
-
Feeble arguments. Lame reeasoning.
Even if it were a result of nature, this does not preclude it from ruining the climatre for humans, not of humans doing something to remedy it.
Supposedly the entire world is misinformed because it listens to CNN, and here you are, blathering about some CNN meteorologists who are now experts.
-
Wrong yet again, Xo. No one is claiming that man doesn't have some impact on climate, nor that man shouldn't do anything to lessen his impact, nor have I claimed, or even implied CNN is the source of all misinformation
Wow, that was the hat-trick for you. Impressive
-
So I am wrong for agreeing with you?
You appear to need constant agreement.
I think you should get a puppy. Really.
-
"Despite the finding that a bacterial infection is the cause of ulcers in
80% of cases, bacterial infection does not appear to explain all ulcers"
TAKE BACK THAT NOBEL PRIZE!
The "against the grain" discovery
only helps MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!
But hell it's not 100%...only 80!
Accepted science was "only" 80% WRONG! ::)
LOL....Silly Fatman!
(http://mp3.news.com.au/hwt/images/marshall1.jpg)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/)
-
So I am wrong for agreeing with you?
No, you're wrong for implying that those who don't support the "Global Warming is caused by man" mantra, as pushed by Gore & Co, apparently must believe "global warming doesn't exist", and that we have no need to do anything about what we can control.
That and that CNN is some source of evil propoganda machine
You appear to need constant agreement.
Not in the least. I just enjoy pointing out when folks are dreadfully wrong, in their thinking process. I appreciate your contributions. You sure seem to have plenty of time to respond to my supposed waste of time here. More hypocrisy on your part, perhaps?
I think you should get a puppy. Really.
Wife and I have 2, thank you very much.
-
sirs it's the same old...."if you aren't for public schools...well then you dont want to educate children" or "if you oppose homosexual marriage, then you are a gay hater" .....ya know the...only my way or you're demonized crap!
-
Unfortunately.......too often, true. If you don't support higher taxes for schools, you're against the children. If you don't support hate crimes legislation, you hate gays. If you don't support the Kyoto accords, you support pollution. If you don't support mandatory vaccinations of teenage girls, you want women to die of cancer. Yea, yea, seen and heard it all, CU4 :-\
-
I just want to know what global warming project do the opposition want stopped? if nothing really than why not point that out
-
Name some Kimba, and then they can be pointed out if there's a problem with them of not.
But rule of warning, try to avoid bringing up the "purchasing of carbon offsets". That's some of the worst crock of AMBE rich enviromental whackos, like Gore, have introduced to the notion of "curbing greenhouse emisions & global warming"
-
I just care about the carbon talks. either you pollute or not ,my brain shutoff when folks say carbon footprint. why can`t we just try to keep things clean enough to not have hairlip kids.
sound simple , but that actually happen in the 70`s
-
The real bullsh*t is the clean coal schtick.
-
>>But rule of warning, try to avoid bringing up the "purchasing of carbon offsets". that's some of the worst crock of AMBE rich eviromental whackos, like Gore, have introduced to the notion of "curbing greenhouse emisions & global warming"<<
We should rename the saloon 4DHS. The lemming left have bought this swindle lock stock and barrel. It's a hoax, nothing less. It's all about putting more power into the governments hands. We've found global temperatures used by "scientists" to create "computer models" are flawed. You've seen this study. Thermometers next to aircondition units and so on. We also recently found out that NASA used faulty information and then lied about the results. It seems the warmest year over the past hundred was 1934 not 1998 as previously claimed by Gore and his power hungry minions.
Global warming is a complete hoax. It's become part of the template.
-
I just care about the carbon talks. either you pollute or not ,my brain shutoff when folks say carbon footprint. why can`t we just try to keep things clean enough to not have hairlip kids. sound simple , but that actually happen in the 70`s
So you don't have any real programs you're referring too, simply that you'd advocate that we all try to do a better job at not polluting. I'm cool with that
-
So you don't have any real programs you're referring too, simply that you'd advocate that we all try to do a better job at not polluting. I'm cool with that
yes ,that all I`m trying to do.
I just find it sad we had to go through all this global stuff to do it.
-
CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/18/2008 11:02:44 PM
Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads ? how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn?t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN?s Dec. 18 ?Lou Dobbs Tonight? that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
?You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,? Myers said. ?Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big ? I think we?re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we?re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.?
Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.
?But this is like, you know you said ? in your career ? my career has been 22 years long,? Myers said. ?That?s a good career in TV, but talking about climate ? it?s like having a car for three days and saying, ?This is a great car.? Well, yeah ? it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won?t be so good. And that?s what we?re doing here.?
?We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world?s been around,? Myers continued.
Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told ?Lou Dobbs Tonight? viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.
?If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,? Lehr said. ?If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We?ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we?re back into a cooling cycle.?
Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle ? a result of nature, not man.
?The last 10 years have been quite cool,? Lehr continued. ?And right now, I think we?re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.?
Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.
Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore?s 2006 movie, ?An Inconvenient Truth,? had some inaccuracies.
?There are definitely some inaccuracies,? Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN?s ?American Morning.? ?The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.?
Marciano also said that, ?global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we?ve seen,? pointing out that ?by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.?
His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying ?the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.?
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)
-
Psssst, already posted this (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8609.msg90604#msg90604), C ;)
-
(http://www.moonbattery.com/egypt-global-warming.jpg)
Egypt soon if global warming keeps up at this pace.
Courtesy Moonbattery (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/12/open_thread_122.html)
-
>>yes ,that all I`m trying to do. I just find it sad we had to go through all this global stuff to do it.<<
I'm sure you realize that America is one of the few countries that actually gives a damn about the environment. It's one of the reasons the car companies in this country are having such a tough time. Cafe standards that other countries don't have to worry about for one.
Have you ever seen the Rio Grande River? Mexico takes a big dump in it daily. We got a good look at how China treats the environment recently. So while it's true we use a lot of energy, it's also true we go to great lengths to keep it clean. Much greater lengths than most of the world.
-
Good point, Rich. The U.S. by and large goes to huge extents in curbing pollutants and green house emissions, even at the detriment of business, at times, compared to so many other countries, China in particular
-
yep the liberals will have us all driving expensive solar cars or some other non-sense which will result in
a glut of cheap oil and the rest of the world....china...india will be driving oil driven cars while we are stuck with
the expensive social experiment vehicles of liberalism
-
not quite.
we just lived through a $70+ fill up period and nothing is gonna stop that from happening again.
and don`t forget we are now starting to get into some economic harshnest .
meaning people are finally gonna focus on getting cheaper forms of transportation. It`s very [possible we will get cheaper forms.
don`t get me wrong,I don`t see any viable forms right now ,but that doesn`t mean in 5 years we`ll not come -up with something .
And speaking of china that`s not accurate ,it`s more like the rich in china will be driving the cars,it`ll be like brazil where the underpeople will still peddle or walk and the rich drive or fly over.
-
yep the liberals will have us all driving expensive solar cars or some other non-sense which will result in
a glut of cheap oil and the rest of the world....china...india will be driving oil driven cars while we are stuck with
the expensive social experiment vehicles of liberalism
However, this isn't the case. In many, if not most countries abroad, gas costs way more than it will ever cost in the U.S. Generally extra taxes and such added. It tends to be a huge deterrent to drive gas-guzzling anything and has them demanding for alternatives.
-
http://www.byd.com/news/newsmore.asp?id=27&show=media (http://www.byd.com/news/newsmore.asp?id=27&show=media)
Chinese hybrid cars
http://www.byd.com/news/newsmore.asp?id=54&show=media (http://www.byd.com/news/newsmore.asp?id=54&show=media)
[.......]
One person who seems to believe in the car's viability is Warren Buffett. In September, Des Moines-based MidAmerican Energy, which is controlled by Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), paid $231 million for a 9.9% stake in BYD Auto's parent company BYD with a view to helping BYD distribute its cars in the U.S. by 2011.
U.S.-China Collaboration
Others believe in China's potential in developing cars that are more environmentally friendly. The F3 DM's China launch comes just a few days after Washington and Beijing announced plans to work together on green car technology: China's Science & Technology Ministry signed an agreement with the U.S. Energy Dept. to collaborate on battery technology to power cars on Dec. 11.
Although it's not much to look at—the F3 DM is based on the same platform as the gas-powered F3 sedan by BYD that resembles the Toyota Camry—driving one is remarkable. On a recent test drive at BYD's sprawling Shenzhen campus, the car's acceleration was impressive, going from zero to 60 in a respectable 10.5 seconds. What makes the experience so novel is the absence of engine noise, which heightens one's awareness of the sounds of rushing air and tires on the road. The car's top speed is about 100 mph, and it is capable of running for 60 miles before the batteries need recharging, which occurs automatically when the gas engine kicks in.
[........]
---------------------------------------
The Chinese are investing in their auto manufacturing capabilities. I think we need to invest in our country's ability to make hybrid cars that will sell (assuming anyone has any money).
-
yep the liberals will have us all driving expensive solar cars or some other non-sense which will result in
a glut of cheap oil and the rest of the world....china...india will be driving oil driven cars while we are stuck with
the expensive social experiment vehicles of liberalism
===================================================================================
So you believe that oil will last forever. Well, it can't and it won't, because the Earth is not making any more of it. Coal and natural gas, shale oil and tar sands will also run out.
-
Well, it can't and it won't, because the Earth is not making any more of it.
Sure it is; just not as fast as we're using it.
-
Well, it can't and it won't, because the Earth is not making any more of it.
Sure it is; just not as fast as we're using it.
===========================================
This may be true, but we can't count on speeding up the process whatever it is. So it's time to develop energy resources that are renewable.
Where, exactly, is the Earth producing oil, by the way? In landfills, perhaps? That's where all my yard waste, dead possums and dinosaurs go.
-
However, this isn't the case. In many, if not most countries abroad, gas costs way more
than it will ever cost in the U.S. Generally extra taxes and such added. It tends to be a huge
deterrent to drive gas-guzzling anything and has them demanding for alternatives.
Once again Henny doesn't read my post. If the US converts away from oil/gasoline the biggest
demand in the world would be no more and that would cause a huge, huge glut of oil, which
would mean cheap cheap oil and the "huge deterrent" would not exist. Many of the third
world countries would use gas/oil. So the so called "global warming" would just continue but
we'd be the ones with the high cost energy while the rest of the world uses the abundant oil.
And Lanya could go on pretending China is "green"!
-
However, this isn't the case. In many, if not most countries abroad, gas costs way more
than it will ever cost in the U.S. Generally extra taxes and such added. It tends to be a huge
deterrent to drive gas-guzzling anything and has them demanding for alternatives.
Once again Henny doesn't read my post. If the US converts away from oil/gasoline the biggest
demand in the world would be no more and that would cause a huge, huge glut of oil, which
would mean cheap cheap oil and the "huge deterrent" would not exist. Many of the third
world countries would use gas/oil. So the so called "global warming" would just continue but
we'd be the ones with the high cost energy while the rest of the world uses the abundant oil.
And Lanya could go on pretending China is "green"!
Pay attention, Chucklehead. Clearly, you didn't read MY post. The point is that the price of gas in many other countries is higher - way higher - because it is TAXED SO HEAVILY. It is also totally regulated by governments - the price is about the same everywhere you go within a country. It isn't going to change much if the U.S. demand drops - not enough, anyway.
More importantly is that because of the high prices for so long, many countries have built infrastructures that work with and around oil consumption. Not everyone in every country commutes as far to work as an American does - they live within walking, bike riding, or subway distance of their employer.
-
Oh my. Henny called you a Chucklehead. Capital C.
:D
-
Where, exactly, is the Earth producing oil, by the way? In landfills, perhaps? That's where all my yard waste, dead possums and dinosaurs go.
Deep underground where there is an accumulation of organic waste and sufficient pressure.
-
CU4,
China definitely is not "green." They have huge, huge pollution problems.
However, they see the handwriting on the wall and are trying to lessen pollution. And they see a market for hybrid cars so they're making them.
I read about companies where the lights don't go on in unused rooms unless you stamp on the floor, so this is their way to waste less electricity, burn less coal. Government mandates that thermostats are set to 79 degrees in summer, etc.
They are or were during the Olympics mandating the number of cars allowed on the road, in an effort to clear some smog. People wear disposable masks because the air is so bad.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/273649.aspx?p=1 (http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/273649.aspx?p=1)
-
>>However, they see the handwriting on the wall and are trying to lessen pollution.<<
Really? Besides making a buck selling hybrid cars to global warming alarmists, what exactly is China doing to "lessen" polution?
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=China+tries+to+use+less+energy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=China+tries+to+use+less+energy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
-
At some point, China will sell hybrid cars for export, but I don't think they have manufactured even one other than prototypes.
If the US does not develop renewable fuel, then oil will rise to astronomical prices. At this point, if renewable hybrids or some other non-petroleum type of vehicle and energy producers are not immediately available, the economy will decline drastically.