Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
The newest trend in Airline Fees...Al Gore dream come true!
- Thread starter PreContact
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
jayme
My Mona Lisa
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 943
Absolute garbage, every word.
Man emits over 25 BILLION tons of CO2 every year. Volcanoes emit about 1/2 of 1% of that (130 million tons) according to the usgs.
jetflyer
Concerned Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2002
- Posts
- 2,040
Ladies and Gentlemen I hope you're seated for today's sermon.
Peak Oil was last year in August at 85.1 million barrels per day.
The U.S. uses 1/4 of the world's oil.
Only 2/3 of the oil the U.S. uses is for transportation.
Saudi Arabia passed peak in December 2005. Their production is down from 9.5mbd to 8.3 and keeps declining linearly month after month.
Oil production for Planet Earth is declining and global crude, gasoline, heating oil, etc. inventories are being drawn down by over 1 million barrels a day currently.
The Cheap Petroleum Party will soon be over.
Global warming won't matter as long as the remaining coal is used through carbon sequestration tecnologies.
Go take that vacation. Go drive across the country. Enjoy the low gasoline prices now.
Doug, I know you were kidding but I didn't want to disappoint
Cya,
Jet
Last edited:
HoursHore
Medieval Warrior
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Posts
- 558
The whole damn Kyoto treaty. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_treaty
The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[7][8] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.
People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[31] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and as of first-half 2007, is expected to become the largest by second-half 2007.[3] In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions [4]. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years [5][6]. Some predictions (in 2006) are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years [7] [8].
European Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_treaty
The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[7][8] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.
People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[31] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and as of first-half 2007, is expected to become the largest by second-half 2007.[3] In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions [4]. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years [5][6]. Some predictions (in 2006) are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years [7] [8].
European Union
wrxpilot
The proud, the few
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Posts
- 901
While that has nothing to do with the current topic, here's an answer for you:
http://www.stevenspublishing.com/St...a8b12af89cd8b5f2862572cd005347e9?opendocument
I apologize for eliminating yet another topic from the fear mongering folks.
wrxpilot
The proud, the few
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Posts
- 901
Enter the morons. I'm outta this thread.
Cobra
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Posts
- 216
I hear they are having a bulk rate special over at HD for pool sand. You can have on hand a fresh supply for burying that coconut of yours.
How much did Dick (5 x deferments) Cheney pay you to say that?
Lebowski
Don't f*** with the Jesus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Posts
- 130
This is from the NOAA web site:
What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. 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.
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. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
Read it all for yourself at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. 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.
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. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
Read it all for yourself at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Posts
- 932
Brilliant deductive reasoning! Can you please enlighten me as to just how you came to this conlusion DanRoman? Clearly your mental acuity is fantastic since I never said I consult pilots on this forum to determine my views on ecological matters. It must be something more, perhaps tone or a slip of the keyboard that allowed you to deduce my source of information. Please let me in on it!
STL717
CL-215 Lake James, NC
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 251
Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Sunday , January 28, 2007
By Steven Milloy
President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned Americans in 1961 against the growing and unwarranted influence on our government of a “military-industrial complex.” The 2007 version of this concern should focus on the looming eco-industrial complex.
Just this week the so-called U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) announced its presence and called for “the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America , Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, World Resources Institute.
USCAP is obviously a politically and economically formidable group that plans to press Congress and the Bush administration hard for global warming regulation, including the ever-dubious cap-and-trade of greenhouse gas emissions.
At face value, USCAP comes off as a mutually beneficial partnership between big business and environmental groups. If successful, the environmentalists get the economy-controlling global warming regulation they have been working toward since the late-1980s. The companies plan to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us -- whether we need it or not and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.
These, of course, are reasons enough to be concerned about USCAP -- but the sub-surface view of what USCAP represents is even more ominous.
As described in a 2004 book entitled, “Biz-War and the Out-of-Power Elite: The Progressive-Left Attack on the Corporation,” left-leaning environmental groups, labor groups and human rights groups have been quietly working to harness (hijack?) the influence, power and resources of large publicly-owned corporations in order to implement the Left’s social and political agenda.
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, it has been increasingly difficult for the Left to advance its social agenda through the public political process. This has certainly been true with respect to environmental issues, in general, and global warming, in particular.
Environmentalists, for example, tried and failed to impose the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. --despite the active support of the Green-friendly Clinton administration. Other Kyoto-like legislation -- such as the so-called McCain-Lieberman bill – also failed the political test.
But just as the political prospects for global warming regulation seemed to be fading, the environmentalists’ long-standing efforts to capture the corporation began to gain traction, thanks to successful pressure campaigns against the CEOs of financial service companies.
The Rainforest Action Network’s campaign against Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill resulted in the bank agreeing to give environmentalists a say in the bank lending process. The capitulation of Citigroup, America’s largest bank, was quickly followed by similar surrenders by the next largest U.S. banks, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
At about the same time, the General Electric Company apparently made peace with environmentalists over the company’s long-standing headache involving the clean-up of PCB sediments spilled decades ago in the Hudson River. Coincidentally (or not), at about the same time that GE’s PCB problem went away, the company very publicly teamed up with environmental activists in May 2005 to champion global warming regulation.
Through a combination of coaxing and coercion, the Greens have now successfully insinuated themselves into corporate boardrooms to the point where they’ve gained critical mass in the form of USCAP.
The significance of the Greens’ capture of big business is readily apparent.
America is on the verge of committing economic and political suicide by enacting global warming regulation. What’s the reason? Al Gore’s hyped movie notwithstanding, there is no new or compelling science to support the notion that humans are harming global climate or that humans can control climate to any discernible extent.
What’s changed is the new pressure from big business for global warming regulation. This pressure even forced President Bush to acknowledge, however briefly, the problem of global warming in this week’s State of the Union address.
And this pressure is only likely to increase. Perceiving that the global warming regulation train is moving, businesses naturally will seek to craft the process to their advantage. General Motors and Ford, for example, have fought against mandatory global warming regulation in the past. But their businesses are being crushed by retiree health care costs. It’s possible that the companies might support global warming regulation in exchange for some form of legislative relief from their health care burdens.
Can both the Greens and business get what they want? Is this a win-win? Are there any losers? It’s possible that businesses may benefit in the short-term. But in the longer-term, only the Greens will win. Any global warming regulation implemented today will most likely only become more stringent tomorrow. If big business helps the Greens start the global warming regulation boulder rolling down the hill, it is only a matter of time before it gets out-of-control and turns into a crushing burden.
Moreover, remember that the Greens’ goal is to capture the corporation as a means to implement their social agenda, which goes far beyond the distraction of global warming to an unpalatable political vision that most of us would regard as socialistic.
In that case, businesses won’t be the only losers.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Sunday , January 28, 2007
By Steven Milloy
President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned Americans in 1961 against the growing and unwarranted influence on our government of a “military-industrial complex.” The 2007 version of this concern should focus on the looming eco-industrial complex.
Just this week the so-called U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) announced its presence and called for “the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America , Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, World Resources Institute.
USCAP is obviously a politically and economically formidable group that plans to press Congress and the Bush administration hard for global warming regulation, including the ever-dubious cap-and-trade of greenhouse gas emissions.
At face value, USCAP comes off as a mutually beneficial partnership between big business and environmental groups. If successful, the environmentalists get the economy-controlling global warming regulation they have been working toward since the late-1980s. The companies plan to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us -- whether we need it or not and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.
These, of course, are reasons enough to be concerned about USCAP -- but the sub-surface view of what USCAP represents is even more ominous.
As described in a 2004 book entitled, “Biz-War and the Out-of-Power Elite: The Progressive-Left Attack on the Corporation,” left-leaning environmental groups, labor groups and human rights groups have been quietly working to harness (hijack?) the influence, power and resources of large publicly-owned corporations in order to implement the Left’s social and political agenda.
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, it has been increasingly difficult for the Left to advance its social agenda through the public political process. This has certainly been true with respect to environmental issues, in general, and global warming, in particular.
Environmentalists, for example, tried and failed to impose the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. --despite the active support of the Green-friendly Clinton administration. Other Kyoto-like legislation -- such as the so-called McCain-Lieberman bill – also failed the political test.
But just as the political prospects for global warming regulation seemed to be fading, the environmentalists’ long-standing efforts to capture the corporation began to gain traction, thanks to successful pressure campaigns against the CEOs of financial service companies.
The Rainforest Action Network’s campaign against Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill resulted in the bank agreeing to give environmentalists a say in the bank lending process. The capitulation of Citigroup, America’s largest bank, was quickly followed by similar surrenders by the next largest U.S. banks, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
At about the same time, the General Electric Company apparently made peace with environmentalists over the company’s long-standing headache involving the clean-up of PCB sediments spilled decades ago in the Hudson River. Coincidentally (or not), at about the same time that GE’s PCB problem went away, the company very publicly teamed up with environmental activists in May 2005 to champion global warming regulation.
Through a combination of coaxing and coercion, the Greens have now successfully insinuated themselves into corporate boardrooms to the point where they’ve gained critical mass in the form of USCAP.
The significance of the Greens’ capture of big business is readily apparent.
America is on the verge of committing economic and political suicide by enacting global warming regulation. What’s the reason? Al Gore’s hyped movie notwithstanding, there is no new or compelling science to support the notion that humans are harming global climate or that humans can control climate to any discernible extent.
What’s changed is the new pressure from big business for global warming regulation. This pressure even forced President Bush to acknowledge, however briefly, the problem of global warming in this week’s State of the Union address.
And this pressure is only likely to increase. Perceiving that the global warming regulation train is moving, businesses naturally will seek to craft the process to their advantage. General Motors and Ford, for example, have fought against mandatory global warming regulation in the past. But their businesses are being crushed by retiree health care costs. It’s possible that the companies might support global warming regulation in exchange for some form of legislative relief from their health care burdens.
Can both the Greens and business get what they want? Is this a win-win? Are there any losers? It’s possible that businesses may benefit in the short-term. But in the longer-term, only the Greens will win. Any global warming regulation implemented today will most likely only become more stringent tomorrow. If big business helps the Greens start the global warming regulation boulder rolling down the hill, it is only a matter of time before it gets out-of-control and turns into a crushing burden.
Moreover, remember that the Greens’ goal is to capture the corporation as a means to implement their social agenda, which goes far beyond the distraction of global warming to an unpalatable political vision that most of us would regard as socialistic.
In that case, businesses won’t be the only losers.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
jayme
My Mona Lisa
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 943
Do you always believe in conspiracy theories, or just this one?
Do you trust NOAA when it comes to weather? How about NASA when it comes to studying the atmosphere? It's their satellites, after all that are tracking the changes in the earth's atmosphere.
How about the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)?
Guess what all of their official stance is on global warming?
Do you trust NOAA when it comes to weather? How about NASA when it comes to studying the atmosphere? It's their satellites, after all that are tracking the changes in the earth's atmosphere.
How about the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)?
Guess what all of their official stance is on global warming?
Lebowski
Don't f*** with the Jesus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Posts
- 130
This is from the NASA website:
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.
Read it all for yourself at:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.
Read it all for yourself at:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Last edited:
ex j-41
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Posts
- 881
Go start your car in your garage with the door closed. Wait 15 min and get out of your car. Now tell me that is a smart thing to do. Now start 154 million cars and see what that does to our enviroment. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how bad the gasses are. Get your head out of your ass and think big. The melting ice caps is an indication or symtom of what is to come. Bush wants you to buy gas, make his buddies rich, show me a texan that cares about the enviroment and i will show you a philly ramper that isn't lazy.
You said exactly what I was thinking. I won't go into "how bad" or conspiracy theories or politics or any thing else, but you have to agree, it ain't good. It CAN'T be. Otherwise, locking yourself in a running car in the garage wouldn't be suicide...
dalegribble
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Posts
- 110
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
Warming yes, but don't be so arrogant as to assume you or I as humans can stop it. Gross polution is horrible, and should we do something to eliminate it, yes. Should we learn to conserve, yes. But most enviro types are going on emotion, feelings and NOT the facts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
Warming yes, but don't be so arrogant as to assume you or I as humans can stop it. Gross polution is horrible, and should we do something to eliminate it, yes. Should we learn to conserve, yes. But most enviro types are going on emotion, feelings and NOT the facts.
I ask you this: you agree that it is "horrible", and that we "should do something to eliminate it", and that we should "conserve". Why are we arguing about what everyone is "going on"? Who cares if they are going on "emotion, feelings," or "facts"? Isn't the end result the same? Isn't gross pollution still "horrible", shouldn't we still "do something to eliminate it", and shouldn't we still "learn to conserve"?
HoursHore
Medieval Warrior
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Posts
- 558
This is pretty much why we are doomed as a species.
IT dosen't matter if you believe the global warming theory/fact.
Buying oil/ securing oil is bad for america.
We can save ourselves(USA) by spending our money on research to get everyone a vehicle/ house that uses less energy. Giving less money to the people in the world that hate us.
If not for the green-ness of the planet, how about taking the reason for the terrorists hating us out of their minds.
Because oil men won't make money on it. They want to run the world till it dies, along with them, on oil. Because a bank account with alot of zeros might just save their a$$ then. Someone tell them we could be the next Saudi Arabia in the technology/ solar field. If they wanted that. But They are busy stocking up on zeros. Letting China become the world leader in cheap solar technology.
The military industrial complex won't make money either. And they won't let that happen.
This place and it's people scare me. Buy your SUV. Be ignorant.
The world can't wait to see your fall.
A true American.
Buying oil/ securing oil is bad for america.
We can save ourselves(USA) by spending our money on research to get everyone a vehicle/ house that uses less energy. Giving less money to the people in the world that hate us.
If not for the green-ness of the planet, how about taking the reason for the terrorists hating us out of their minds.
Because oil men won't make money on it. They want to run the world till it dies, along with them, on oil. Because a bank account with alot of zeros might just save their a$$ then. Someone tell them we could be the next Saudi Arabia in the technology/ solar field. If they wanted that. But They are busy stocking up on zeros. Letting China become the world leader in cheap solar technology.
The military industrial complex won't make money either. And they won't let that happen.
This place and it's people scare me. Buy your SUV. Be ignorant.
The world can't wait to see your fall.
A true American.
Cobra
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Posts
- 216
OMG, reserve that last line for yourself Mr. willfully ignorant!
jayme
My Mona Lisa
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 943
"Arrogance" would be a good arguement if this were a philosophical debate, but it's not. It boils down to science. Pure numbers.
Since humans started burning oil, we have driven CO2 concentrations from ~280 PPM to ~380 PPM.
Humans contribute ~27 BILLION tons of CO2 each year.
Global temps have risen about 1 degree F since we started burning fossil fuels, most of that in the past 25 years. The rate of temp change is accelerating. The amount of CO2 we emit is increasing almost exponentially.
jayme
My Mona Lisa
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 943
Wow! Who would have thought a few facts would be so intimidating?
Cobra
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Posts
- 216
For some reason certain people can't deal with the fear factor on this topic. Fear greatly influences their opinions/judgement.
AA717driver
A simpler time...
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Posts
- 4,908
How do you know what the CO2 concentration was in 1890? Where were the samples taken and by whom? Just another example of "scientific proof" that sounds good but has no evidence to back it up.
Global temperature increases have occurred at varying intervals throughout the history of the world (that HAS been established by scientists).
No aspect of this GW/CC movement will do anything to get us off fossil fuels. In fact, it is being driven by politicians who are owned by "big oil". How the he!! can you follow Al Gore who made much of his money owning oil stocks? (And, one who clearly does not practice what he preaches.)
When Al divests his portfolio of all stocks related to the fossil fuel business, I'll start to believe. Until that time, it's just another power grab by elitists.TC
P.S.--I'll take them seriously when the IMF/World Bank stops funding the clear-cutting of the rain forrests.
Lebowski
Don't f*** with the Jesus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Posts
- 130
People keep insisting on bringing politics into this issue. Why do you care what Al Gore does? Does that change what is physically happening to our environment? Do you always look to Al Gore (or the IMF or whatever) before making your own judgments?
The science is clear. I think some people will never believe in global warming just because it was a cause that was championed by Al Gore. I don't get all the talk of leftist, socialist conspiracies. Maybe I don't watch enough Bill O'Reilly. I guess some people will believe things that are absolutely ridiculous (there's an "eco-industrial complex" that is replacing the military-industrial complex? give me a break) before they can admit that a democrat or "liberal" or whatever you want to call it, could be right about something that could be vitally important.
Have a good day.
Cobra
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Posts
- 216
1890? With tremendous accuracy atmospheric CO2 levels can easily be determined by ice core samples alone for that time period, that isn't even remotely a challenge for current technologies. You can determine the atmospheric makeup of a celestial body (if an atmosphere exists) by spectral analysis of light that was emitted hundreds of millions ago.
Just because politicians distort the facts, or the person delivering the facts is not your favorite politico doesn't change the fact of Global Warming. I wonder if Ann Coulter were the author of An Inconvient Truth you'd probably believe her I'm guessing? Another thing is that people get wrapped up around CO2 emissions cocerning global warming. That is just one vector when it comes to human activity influencing climate change. Massive deforestation, Crappy agricutural practices, crappy ranching techniques, population rise, urban sprawl, all these things influence the climate just to name a few more variables than CO2 emissions.
Ultimately, we collectively will decide our fate. We can either use our collective heads or we can continue to butt our heads together. Either way, the problem persists and how we eventually handle it I have no guess. History tells me that we will go the way of the dodo bird.
Last edited:
jayme
My Mona Lisa
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Posts
- 943
Do you see the irony?
It is convenient for you to argue that my CO2 concentration numbers are unreliable.
It's also convenient for you to argue that average global temperatures are cyclical and completely out of our control.
Now here comes the ironic part: you believe that past CO2 concentrations could not possibly be measured accurately, but past average global temps are positively known.
You can't have it both ways.
Just because this stuff is too complicated for you to really understand, doesn't mean the professional scientists don't understand it either.
jetflyer
Concerned Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2002
- Posts
- 2,040
Did you know Al Gore thinks we're at Peak Oil NOW and that oil prices are going to continue to rise.
He said so on the "Larry King Live" show.
Here is a link to the discussion:
http://www.energybulletin.net/17142.html
Also you must LISTEN to Al Gore talk about how we're at peak oil in 2005 in a Q&A townhall meeting. It's only 3 1/2 minutes long:
Here is the link to the audio of Al Gore talking about peak oil: http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/747
He says in the interview above the oil price rises in 2005 to $54/barrel are just the beginning.
He says we've gone to war in the middle east for oil.
He says Global Warming and Peak Oil are very connected.
Is Al Gore worried about GW or really the coming energy crisis from Peak Oil?
The solution is the same for both........
Makes you wonder doesn't it!?
I think you GW worriers are worried about the wrong thing! Your job is OK if the Earth heats up. If peak oil is now, your job is in jeopardy NOW.
Jet
He said so on the "Larry King Live" show.
Here is a link to the discussion:
http://www.energybulletin.net/17142.html
Also you must LISTEN to Al Gore talk about how we're at peak oil in 2005 in a Q&A townhall meeting. It's only 3 1/2 minutes long:
Here is the link to the audio of Al Gore talking about peak oil: http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/747
He says in the interview above the oil price rises in 2005 to $54/barrel are just the beginning.
He says we've gone to war in the middle east for oil.
He says Global Warming and Peak Oil are very connected.
Is Al Gore worried about GW or really the coming energy crisis from Peak Oil?
The solution is the same for both........
Makes you wonder doesn't it!?
I think you GW worriers are worried about the wrong thing! Your job is OK if the Earth heats up. If peak oil is now, your job is in jeopardy NOW.
Jet
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
