posted
this is no news for scientists but the masses still buy it itīs no surprise as the propaganda-machine is running full throttle, you hear about global warming all over the place now... global warming is big business now, weīre talking about a multi-billion dollar industry but there are 2 other main reasons why itīs pushed so hard: 1: a global carbon tax will be introduced! it will not be global and it will not effect co2-emissons in the first place! but weīre still gonna get it because itīs our money theyīre aiming at! 2: promotion of atomic energy! this was the very first reason this theory was ever pushed! and surprise surprise,check the news, whatīs europe doing? pushing atomic energy! this global warming movement is turning into a cult, if youīre arguing about the junk science behind it you will be compared to holocaust-deniers! here is a brand new documentary that aired on BBC a couple of days ago: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swin dlePosts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Science, my man, SCIENCE!
thatīs exactly what iīm saying ! i guess you have to get out of that left/right paradigm first to see that the underlying science of global warming is a joke itīs not a scientific issue, itīs all politics and propaganda... scientist are laughing at this!
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
The global climate change movement has been around since the early 60's and the environmental movement since before that. Only recently have they come to the conclusion that people aren't going to listen unless they can provide an economic motivation.
I would not doubt that some will push atomic energy, but that will be short lived. Just like ethanol will dissapear when an altenative with more tangible benefits arrives so to will atomic energy disappear as soon as a cost-effective alternative without the drawbacks of using nuclear fission is available.
While climate change is highly politicized, I don't doubt that the majority of politicians would happily let it go away if it were up to them. No, Global Climate Change is real. As is deforestation in most of the worlds rainforests, as is mercury poisoning in rivers, streams, and fish, as is the projected 15-20 years left before the Orangutan disappears from the wild.
Turn your head and deny if you must. The only thing that will happen is the same thing that happened when you skipped your dentist appointments all through college and then when you grew up you went in and looked at him in shock and dismay and cried "How many cavities?!?!?!"
P.S. Trivia, look at the monkey name above. There is no G at the end of the name and there never has been. The word is O-Rang-U-TAN not O-Rang-U-TANG. Just in case you care.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: thought I heard somewhere that the snow/ice in the NE this year was cuz the Great Lakes normally freeze over...but not this year.
Any relevance?
Don't know about that Tex but I do know that Lake Superior is below normal water level. See, there aren't many signs but this is the fifth year of a quiet, gradual drought in the Midwest. It would take another 6 feet of snow falling up here to make up the difference to bring Lake Superior back to normal levels.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes there is global warming, nobody is denying that but no, itīs not man made you have to check the history of this theory that co2-emissions are the cause for global warming this theory is officialy debunked already for a while! this is not a scientific but a political issue thatīs why you see the propaganda everywhere! instead of digging deeper most people just drink the kool-aid and pass it on itīs sad but this is the generation of morons no surprise weīre getting scammed! itīs so damn easy nowadays! what will the next fairy tale presented to us?
Posts: 2473 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: When a "hummer" meant something entirely different the price was a lot less as well. :D
I wouldn't be caught dead in the vehicle.
Were you, out of civic pride and volunteering to help in case of natural disaster in your state, in the National Guard and sent to Iraq or Afganistan, you very well might be caught dead in a hummer.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact: Livestock flatulence contributes more co2 in the atmostphere than automobiles do. When you hear all of these global warming reports that a "consensus" of scientists believe...
Science isn't debateable. It's either proven or not. Go buy a hybrid if you have guilt that you are causing global warming.
posted
"Science isn't debateable. It's either proven or not. Go buy a hybrid if you have guilt that you are causing global warming. "
You have much to learn about science, I can see.
It is science, rather than religion or idiology, which is postulated on the basis that EVERYTHING is debatable.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been, among other things. I have a quite broad range of experience.
For example, I have experience to know that livestock flatulnce does not contribute more CO2 to the athmosphere than automobiles, in spite of what Fat Rush the Doper likes to excite his groupies with.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
and if you do a little research on them? you find things like this:
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Stanley B. Goldenberg Meteorologist Hurricane Research Division/AOML/NOAA
Hobbies: Family: A Wife, three sons, and eight daughters Photography, Bowling, Swimming Music: Viola, Piano, Guitar & Composing Former worship Leader at Temple Aron HaKodesh (Messianic Jewish Synagogue), Ft. Lauderdale, Florida School of the Bible instructor Upper Room Assembly (Miami, Florida)
posted
It isn't carbon that is the main guilty party in the eroding of the ozone layer. In fact, most carbon compounds have absolutely no effect on it.
The main culprit is fluorocarbons with chlorofluorocarbons a close second (think freon and 134a).
Co2, methane, ethane, propane, butane (I could keep on going, but you get the idea, just add another carbon for each step) and so forth have zero ozone depletion potential. Those saturated carbon compounds and C02 do have significant global warming effect, though.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
to think a herd of cattle or people with gas are causing global warming is crazy.
Autos,industry,and republicans
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I thought this debate was over.
to think a herd of cattle or people with gas are causing global warming is crazy.
Autos,industry,and republicans
Though I must sympathize with the accusation of republicans, I want to point out that the easily blamed automobile is nowhere close to the problem of industrial pollution that using coal to produce electricity is.
Get out on the highways more, particularly after dark, and notice that big trucks make up more than just 10 or 15 percent of the traffic. Each of those trucks puts out more global warming exhaust than dozens of automobiles.
Most of the cars on the highways are only out there for a day or two a year, while the big trucks tend to run thousands of miles week after week.
It will take more than demanding that Detroit produce more efficient cars or cars using alternative fuels to whip this mess and destroying the American automobile industry in order to have an easy target to blame isn't going to solve things.
Something meeds to be done about the waste and inefficiency of manufacturing essentially identical products on the west coast and on the east coast and then squandering the enegy to ship the stuff to the opposite coast.
(Diesel trains burn one hell of a lot of fuel per mile and are slower to get stuff from place to place, but the efficiency of railway shipping far out strips trucking. Some things simply shouldn't be allowed to be sent cross country by truck.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
We probably can't see more than maybe 2%, at best, and wouldn't argue that that isn't way high.
Years ago, most didn't consider CO2 to be a pollutant and even the most efficient fuel burning car puts out a hell of a lot of it, not to mention what comes from electricity production.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Years ago, most didn't consider CO2 to be a pollutant and even the most efficient fuel burning car puts out a hell of a lot of it, not to mention what comes from electricity production.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! This is just all a huge scam being perpetrated by the wacko left!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute. After thought, PM does know sh-t. Exactly that and nothing worthwhile.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Years ago, most didn't consider CO2 to be a pollutant and even the most efficient fuel burning car puts out a hell of a lot of it, not to mention what comes from electricity production.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! This is just all a huge scam being perpetrated by the wacko left!
CO2 is not pollution in the toxic sense of the word, but it is a pollutant ins the sense that it must be in balance in the atmosphere.
we've cut down (rain) forests which are the best "users" of CO2 and we burn 80 million barrels of oil a day. the oil alone produces a quantity of CO2 equivalent to the Amazon river flow at it's highest known flood stage. coal produces more than that. if we had a good "carbon sink" like actively growing/expanding rain forest? the problem would not be so bad. think in terms of balance, any kid who ever had an aquarium either understands basic fundamnetals of eco balance or they watched their fish DIE.
pollution doesn't need to be a toxin to be considered pollution. paper cups aren't toxic, but if they are laying all over the side of the road? we call them pollution.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
