ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

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

Preech on greenies, and tree huggers. Fell secure in knowing your planet isn't dying. In fact it a very alive and will continue to function as it has long after you are gone.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

This has nothing to do with global warming...

global warming means HUMANS have altered the natural cycles of warm/cold...regardless of what those cycles were without our influence. This means that our influence on what will happen is uncertain, and can't be deduced from things like in that article. Most scientists in the field suspect that our influence, if left unchecked, will cause results we don't want. Most importantly, why wouldn't we take precautions to slow down our influence on global temperatures? We can either go on as we are now, and maybe ruin the planet, or we can scale back on our green house gas production and be sure that we won't ruin the planet. I mean...driving without a seatbelt is fun and all...

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'll say it once and I'll say it again...

There's simply nowhere near enough timeline data on weather trends in the last couple thousand years vs. the age of the planet.

Like the new trailer I saw for Leonardo Dicaprio's movie showing blowing palm trees, floods, tornados, and the struggling blacks of Katrina... If you want to win the hearts and minds of everyone on this issue then just say that pollution and our global thumbprint is bad. Don't say that it's bad and causing something not even the most brilliant scientists can suggest is actually responsible for. Just doesn’t make sense to me that these people take it to the next level of believability when our habits on just producing pollutions is easily convincible as fact. Let’s start by convincing people that throwing their pepsi bottles out of their gas-guzzling SUV windows is bad first!

To me, saying our trends are responsible for 'global warming' isn't any worse than hearing our planet is only a few thousand years old from other groups.

I will tip my hat to Leo as he supposedly flies coach. I respect that very much.

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

This article has everything to do with global warming. It shows, once again, that the planet goes through natural warming and cooling phases. With or without the influence of man.
It amazes me that you speak of sicentists that support the theory that man has a significant influence on the planet yeet when another scientist presents findings that negate "most scientists" you write it off. There was a time when most people, scientists included, thought the world was flat.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Man, you really don't get it. NOONE says that the planet doesn't go through these cycles. We KNOW humans are causing change because of the CORRELATIONS between our carbon output and the temperatures. Furthermore, the KINETICS of the situation have been shown time and time again to be different NOW then they ever have been before, because of human-caused global warming.

I don't discount science that I don't 'agree' with; I interpret the results in the framework of all the studies that have been done, and this study is nothing new with respect to the current situtation of global warming. It shows that the temps were different at one point in history than we thought; but it doesn't show anything else. This study certainly does NOT negate any of the other findings that I've seen regarding global warming, that's my point. You have seriously misinterpreted the findings that you posted, that's all.

1reguL8NSTi

I have a very informed friend on this matter and asked about it (she's getting her PHd in Geology, knows her **** basically) and she said that although the human influence on the world is very speculative it is minimal at most. She also said that these programs Gore and his bunch are using to calculate the "catastrophic" results they get fail to include many factors. Furthermore she said that the earth is nothing new to climate change obviously. I don't hear anyone saying the cavemen ruined the ice age because of the CFC use and green house gases. As far as I'm concerned it's all bull**** liberal agenda that has yet to have any supporting facts other than speculation. I'm all for saving the enviroment but I don't need someone to formulate a horror story to motivate me.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html


http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
read up.

I posted this in another thread, maybe you guys didn't read the links.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Can anyone tell me what anyone with the 'liberal agenda' has to gain by talking about global warming? There's no reason to make something like that up; on the other hand, there are several businesses and their lobbies (and therefore government officials and politicians) that have a lot riding on people NOT trusting that global warming is the truth.

Seriously. Think about it...assume global warming is the truth. Then the people saying it's true have two outcomes possible: -everyone cuts back and the world is fine. They never get to say "look I told you so", because the world is fine and noone knows what would have happened without change. Or -noone changes, and the world goes to s*** because of global warming. Then everyone is f***ed and the people who said global warming was true are f***ed along with them.

On the other hand, assume global warming is a lie. Then the people talking about global warming have their whole reputations to lose when it doesn't happen.

The whole 'agenda' thing is silly. It's about profits for oil and car companies, their lobbists, and their influence over government policy and therefore the withholding and influence on geverntment researchers.

Global warming is truth.

1reguL8NSTi

With all do respect, thanks for helping me prove my point. Your web site just told me that more than 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution (the begining of "serious" green house gas production) we're still only producing 35 percent more green house gases than we were prior to the Revolution.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Only?!?! Hahahaha...


Think about how your car would run if it had 35% more horsepower...or if you got a 35% raise...


that made my day hahaha

1reguL8NSTi

You sound pretty educated but surely you are not that neive. The "global warming" theory is the liberal equivalent to the invasion of Iraq. This tactic has been used by politicans since the beginning of politics themselves. Create something for a populace to genuinely fear, propose a "solution" and use that false safety net to hold your power. Hitler did it, the American's did it with the Soviets, Clinton did it with the economy and now Gore is using it as an election ticket.

To think that Gore and his "global warming" crew have nothing to gain is downright ignorance. Why do you think Gore has yet to announce his presidential candidacy? Because if he did that'd undermine his "global warming" credibility. He'll wait until he's convinced enough people have jumped on the banwagon then he'll take them for a ride to the polls. And if he is elected you don't think he'll have a little bit of money comfortably tucked away in some government funded program that's subsized billions of dollars to "fix" the problem? Come on man.

I love the enviroment as much as the next guy and will be the first to say that it is in serious danger. But to think that buying a Prius and buying bio-degradable toilet paper is going to ensure the National Parks for years to come is about as close to a pipe dream as you can get.

1reguL8NSTi

OK, and how much more fuel do we burn now compared to then? Exactly, I'm well aware that there's no free lunch but trade offs must be made.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I seriously doubt Al Gore will run. And while he's the most visible of the global warming people, he's by no mean the first or the most dedicated to it. The people who really care about it aren't using it for publicity, they are trying to save everyone's ***. But they are being beaten down with the might of a corporate-government alliance that should not exist by the definition of democracy.

Of course trade offs need to be made, but the trade offs that need to be made aren't being made right now at all. Our country uses coal and oil like there's no tomorrow (literally, because many believe there actually is no tomorrow...), while the people who make money off of our energy consumption are making money both from record sales AND government subsidies and perks. It's a profit producing monster that's completely out of control.

It's not about driving Priuses and the like either. It's about the small things like using public transportation, turning off air conditioning and heating, all that stuff that is easy but slightly inconvenient. That, and convincing the government (by votes) and companies (with our wallets) that we won't put up with conspicuous consumption of fossil fuels. It would be good for our economy, the environment, and all Americans if we were more energy-responsible. The only people who lose are oil companies and their government payees...

1reguL8NSTi

I totally agree that it's about the small things and honestly, I try to contribute where ever and whenever I can. I ride the bus, honest I do. I watch my energy consumption (air conditioning, etc...) and conserve water as much as possible. Partly for the environment but also because it gives me a little more money to throw around and some piece of mind. But they're literally blowing this thing out of proportion. The same proportion as the "urgency" to invade Iraq, and that's what scares me. Not all Americans (in fact the majority) don't have the means or the desire to inform themselves on the issues and I fear this will turn into a turrent of unneeded and furthermore, irrelevant change. Gun control is a fine example. We have more gun control laws on the books than a gun owner could possibly keep himself reliably and responsibly informed on. With that said, owning a gun is a gray area. I own a gun because if the unthinkable were to happen, I'd like to defend myself. I don't want to see energy consumption reach the level where people are so unclear on it's use and the litigation behind it that it becomes a moral issue.

cowg

iTrader: (1)

I read on this subject constantly,but before I START let me say I am for every reasonable measure to clean up the world and all forms of pollution.For me It started in the mid 1950's when as a freezing ,skinny kid in missouri I read my first articles in National Geographic that stated we were towards the end of the current interglacial period ,but that it was going to get considerably warmer for hundreds of more years. What I see in my readings on a regular basis are ongoing explorations of the ice packs in places like Greenland.These aren't to prove or disprove any theories they're just to see what the climate was like 100,000 plus years ago. All of them point to the fact that it was considerable warmer than it is now. Even the conservationists point to where the ice pack will shrink to in in 50+ years. Interestingly it is at a point that is about half way between where it is today and where it was 130,000 years ago. Guys, there were hardly any homosapiens around then and I don't believe their predecessors were very high tech. So if you don't like the heat-get off the planet-it's gonna get warmer and it's not gonna kill us. What might do the trick though is the pollution of the oceans and our water supplies.CO2 contributes greatly to the former.My worry is we'll do a bunch of feel good s*#T which isn't going to help the temp and miss the real problems which will kill off your kids.