Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[embraerjetpilot]

The Democrats are too busy worrying about how the poor folks can fly......

The Dems. don't want to see the carriers get together....However that is what needs to happen...



Some people just dont get it...you are one of them...the past 8 years have just been one disaster after another for the airlines. Why is that?

And mergers are just a big excuse to give these executives big bonuses. They will still be losing millions of dollars each year.

Besides, that old guy Mccain wants to take away any negotiating rights we have. Want to work for 2 dollars an hour... Vote for him!

 

[STL717]

One more time for the attention-deficit crowd: I never brought up Al Gore. You did.

Secondly, I asked stl717 to : find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm. Good luck.

By his own admission, he was unable to.

Third, I haven't seen any data about how much co2 was released in the recent Chilean eruption. Please teach me, wise one. Then compare that to man's annual output of about 28,000,000,000 TONS of CO2. You will find that volcanos typically emit less than 1% of man's annual output.

Finally, please move on from this unhealthy obsession with Al Gore. It makes you sound like a wierdo.

So, your logic is because all publically funded web sites promote the theory of manmade global warming then it must be true.

I think you need to do more reading and research of the whole issue.

Manmade carbon dioxide induced global warming is not happening.

The solar scientists are now predicting the sun’s output is diminishing and to expect decades of cooling. The current sun spot cycle is at about 12 years long, significantly longer than the past few cycles indicating a cooling of the sun.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

The hockey stick graph of global temperature was a lie.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm



On top of that the PDO has probably swapped to it’s negative phase.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=126
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/nasa-pdo-flip-to-cool-phase-confirmed-cooler-times-ahead/


The hottest year in the last decade was 1998. This was apparent after a Canadian proved NASA had an error in the calculations they had used for each year after 2000. NASA quietly fixed the error and the main stream media didn’t bring up the issue.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
http://oceanengineering.blogspot.com/2007/08/y2k-error-in-nasa-temperature-study.html



And don’t forget about instrument error. Many temperature sensors are not located correctly per NOAA specifications such as next to parking lots and air conditioners affecting accurate readings.
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm




Meanwhile the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase while global cooling occurs, proving there is not a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Thus we now have “climate change” advocates still pushing for carbon taxes or cap and trade.

Enjoy your new tax.

 

[Soverytired]

Secondly, I asked stl717 to : find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm. Good luck.

This is a reasonable demand, although I would suggest that "publicly funded" does not mean "neutral". This bias on your part assumes all government sponsored organizations are pure and true, and all privately funded organizations are short-sighted and biased.

"Publicly funded" = garbage, for most things (public schools, the DMV, etc.)

I think the 100% consensus is that the climate is changing. I think 95% of those scientists believe mankind is having some impact. How much impact is very much up as a matter of debate.

 

[jayme]

Public money takes the bias out of things. NASA/NOAA/NWS/USGS etc. don't need to twist their data to continue to get funds. They are there to serve us. If anything, they would be biased towards the republicans, who as a party think global warming is a sham. Despite this bias, they still agree man is causing the planet to warm and that it's a bad thing.

There are some public systems that could benefit from competition. You mention education - I absolutely agree! However, global warming is being researched by many different serious scientific agencies. If it was a sham, don't you think one of those organizations would be shouting it out, and trying to get the research money budgeted for the others? Yet, as organizations, they all agree that man is causing the planet to warm.

 

[STL717]

Public money takes the bias out of things. NASA/NOAA/NWS/USGS etc. don't need to twist their data to continue to get funds. They are there to serve us. If anything, they would be biased towards the republicans, who as a party think global warming is a sham. Despite this bias, they still agree man is causing the planet to warm and that it's a bad thing.

There are some public systems that could benefit from competition. You mention education - I absolutely agree! However, global warming is being researched by many different serious scientific agencies. If it was a sham, don't you think one of those organizations would be shouting it out, and trying to get the research money budgeted for the others? Yet, as organizations, they all agree that man is causing the planet to warm.

I guess you didn't read this from an earlier post.

You include NASA in your list of climate science sources; however it appears that James Hanson NASA’s manmade carbon dioxide global warming advocate may be just a little biased due to the influence of money.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-go...l-george-soros

Or do a google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=james-hansen+soros

 

[LoveGun]

I guess you didn't read this from an earlier post.

You include NASA in your list of climate science sources; however it appears that James Hanson NASA’s manmade carbon dioxide global warming advocate may be just a little biased due to the influence of money.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-go...l-george-soros

Or do a google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=james-hansen+soros

You believe that because an ultra conservative website does a biased, poorly researched story on one NASA scientist all government funded research on climate change is a sham? I have to agree that our public eduction system is failing. Obviously you were never taught critical thinking.

 

[jayme]

Exactly. James Hanson is not NASA.

STL717 - have you gone to NOAA.gov yet to verify your silly numbers?

 

[STL717]

Exactly. James Hanson is not NASA.

STL717 - have you gone to NOAA.gov yet to verify your silly numbers?

Mr. Hansen is the most vocal NASA scientists promoting manmade global warming.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

You might want to call or email Mr. Hansen so he knows he is not NASA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


The silly numbers are not mine, do you have any silly numbers?

 

[jayme]

I'll take that as a no.

 

[STL717]

I'll take that as a no.

Oh I went NOAA and I didn't see and legitimate numbers but I did see many silly numbers and pretty graphs too.

So if manmade global warming is really happening as you believe and all the ramifications such as the oceans are going to rise soon. Why is no one moving from all the low lying areas? With the expected more devastating hurricanes why is no one moving away from the southeastern USA coastline? I have not seen any news reports of mass migrations.

How will “cap and trade” or carbon taxes reduce the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus reduce global warming and “save the world”?

 

[Bavarian Chef]

Carbon dioxide has absolutely nothing to do with making our environment cleaner. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Ozone and carbon monoxide are examples of pollutants.

I am for a clean environment.

I do have a question. Why are the environmentalists so quiet while farmers plow more land to plant corn in the USA and sugar cane in Brazil?

Risk in climate change? There is no risk, the climate will continue to change just as it always has.

They aren't being quiet about it (do you need the links?) -- deforestation is at the top of the list.

Pick and choose whichever part of "climate change" you want to believe in order to make it convenient for your conscience -- then tell your great grandchildren that you were willing to take the risk to save a few bucks or your current lifestyle.

If it does all go to hell in a handbasket, you can just say that it was the natural order of things and not the direct result of man's (in)action. I guess for some, it's that simple. For others, it's like thinking that back in the day, most people didn't think that smoking was harmful.

That being said, the "hype" is soon to be a reality. The federal government will act, whether you like it or not.

The environment should NEVER, EVER be a partisan issue.

 

[Quimby]

Jayme needs to pull his head out of ALGORES ahole. You asked him to cite references and he did, you won't read them or believe them if you do read them. Just like those that said the ice age was returning during the 70's. To think that our SUV's can affect the climate is a joke. The volcano that just erupted in Chile spewed more CO2 than we can make in a decade, seems to me like there have been volcanos around for a few years, yet the earth is still here. I saw Al Gore flying from the Sundance film festival in a G-V with one other person on board. I guess he's real concerned about his global footprint right? Oh yeah, he buy carbon credits to offset his travels and his mansion.....from his own company. Geez jayme wake up!!!!!

Gore was seen getting on a G-II with a few folks last year to go from TN to the west coast.........(not that I don't love the G-II). He talks the talk, but.......

If he was so concerned about emissions, maybe he should walk.

 

[Nado]

At least St. Bono can confess his sins to someone-

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


Quote:
Bono confesses sins to 'father' Al Gore

Jan 24 02:09 PM US/Eastern

‘Gulfstream-Flying Rock Star’ Bono Confesses Carbon Sins to ‘Father’ Al Gore

Having climate campaigner Al Gore round to your house is to open yourself to a self-flagellating guilt trip, Irish rock star Bono confessed Thursday.

Sharing a stage with the former US vice president at the annual gathering of world movers and shakers in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, the U2 frontman joked that their friendship was a source of pressure on the domestic front.

"He's been round my house and it's like... here's the recycler Al, you know... I've got a posh car, but it runs on ethanol Al," Bono said.

Acknowledging that a career in rock music was not always conducive to a green lifestyle, Bono compared a conversation with Gore to an act of religious contrition.

"It's like being with an Irish priest. You start to confess your sins," he said. "Father Al, I am not just a noise polluter, I am a noise-polluting, diesel-soaking, gulfstream-flying rock star.

"I'm going to kick the habit. I'm trying father Al, but oil has been very good for me -- those convoys of articulated lorries, petrochemical products, hair gel."

Bono and Gore were in Davos to push their respective campaigns for poverty alleviation and reducing carbon emissions.

 

[MJ42]

Public money takes the bias out of things. NASA/NOAA/NWS/USGS etc. don't need to twist their data to continue to get funds. They are there to serve us. If anything, they would be biased towards the republicans, who as a party think global warming is a sham. Despite this bias, they still agree man is causing the planet to warm and that it's a bad thing.

There are some public systems that could benefit from competition. You mention education - I absolutely agree! However, global warming is being researched by many different serious scientific agencies. If it was a sham, don't you think one of those organizations would be shouting it out, and trying to get the research money budgeted for the others? Yet, as organizations, they all agree that man is causing the planet to warm.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/5752141.html

Happy to see NASA using our money wisely.

 

[jayme]

What's your premise, here? That since there is waste at NASA, all their research is moot? Interesting...

 

[jayme]

Gore was seen getting on a G-II with a few folks last year to go from TN to the west coast.........(not that I don't love the G-II). He talks the talk, but.......

If he was so concerned about emissions, maybe he should walk.

One more time - I never brought up Gore. You did.


I'm more concerned with NOAA and NASA.

 

[MJ42]

What's your premise, here? That since there is waste at NASA, all their research is moot? Interesting...

Ha, funny...my uncle is Chairman Emeritus at NOAA, I know the value of his quality research. I wish I could get him to respond to some of your posts, he would eat you for lunch.

I think 717's doing a good job debating you, I wish I had access to the wealth of info that my uncle has!

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I'll be happy if they can keep track of the bags

Can you imagine them handling bags of oil. I would like to see some of the rampers running the cracking towers!
PBR

 

[jayme]

Ha, funny...my uncle is Chairman Emeritus at NOAA, I know the value of his quality research. I wish I could get him to respond to some of your posts, he would eat you for lunch.

I think 717's doing a good job debating you, I wish I had access to the wealth of info that my uncle has!

From your "uncle's" website:

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

 

[jayme]

And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

 

[MJ42]

From your "uncle's" website:

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

I personally liked #10:


10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

 

[MJ42]

And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

Funny how you pick out things that only support your view and skip over those that don't!

 

[jayme]

My argument is that we are causing global warming. I didn't leave out any contradictory information.

 

[MJ42]

My argument is that we are causing global warming. I didn't leave out any contradictory information.

And where in your NOAA links does it say we are causing global warming? Or did I miss it?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

A common argument against raising CAFE standards is that it will almost invariably mean lighter cars, which will in turn raise fatalities during car crashes.............

Of course if people would simply put down the coffee, the cheeseburger, the cell phone, the paper and f-ing pay attention .....and maybe use a turn signal once in a while, fatalities might just not increase. But, then who am I to ask people to be aware of their surroundings?

 

[jayme]

And where in your NOAA links does it say we are causing global warming? Or did I miss it?

You missed it.

Reread post #49.

 

[MJ42]

You missed it.

Reread post #49.

"So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation."


Still don't see it. Above quote from your post questions if humans are the cause. Nothing in any of your links say we are causing global warming.

 

[jayme]

Still don't see it. Above quote from your post questions if humans are the cause. Nothing in any of your links say we are causing global warming.

Good lord...

See if you can connect the dots:

1. The greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gasses.

2. Humans are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses.

Got it?

 

[STL717]

The cost and futility of trading hot air​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Why carbon ‘cap-and-trade’ is an immoral non-solution to a non-problem[/FONT]


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.html

 

[Soverytired]

They aren't being quiet about it (do you need the links?) -- deforestation is at the top of the list.

Pick and choose whichever part of "climate change" you want to believe in order to make it convenient for your conscience -- then tell your great grandchildren that you were willing to take the risk to save a few bucks or your current lifestyle.

If it does all go to hell in a handbasket, you can just say that it was the natural order of things and not the direct result of man's (in)action. I guess for some, it's that simple. For others, it's like thinking that back in the day, most people didn't think that smoking was harmful.

That being said, the "hype" is soon to be a reality. The federal government will act, whether you like it or not.

The environment should NEVER, EVER be a partisan issue.

I'm curious, are you in your early 30's or younger? There is a fair amount of niavetee about your faith in the oncoming "climate change" and the necessity and ability of "the government" to do something about it.

Skepticism is a good thing. When the government wants to tax you into oblivion, retard the US and world economies, and set goals and programs that are unmeasurable in effect (remember, all these guys will be long out of office and dead before their programs have any affect) . . . well, one tends to realize that we've been down this road before.

Climatology is an infant science. Climate models are wildly inaccurate. Not all global warming scenarios are bad; some are beneficial. And if you think the biggest carbon "offenders" of China and India are going to go back to 2nd-3rd world status (or the US for that matter) for a nebulous goal, you're fooling yourself.