quote:

---

Originally posted by bdgee:
I think someone needs to learn to separate their political agendas and biases from science.

Science don't work that way. If it did, it would cease to be science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bdgee:
It is a matter of religious conviction, after aall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bdgee:
Science, my man, SCIENCE!

---

that´s exactly what i´m 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
it´s not a scientific issue, it´s all politics and propaganda...
scientist are laughing at this!
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
Tom, tom, tom...

You don't know many scientists.

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 world’s 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.
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
Man made Global Warming is a Hoax?

That's great news! I can finally buy that Hummer the government is offering all the tax breaks for.
 

---

Posted by tompom on :
 
yes there is global warming, nobody is denying that
but no, it´s 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
that´s why you see the propaganda everywhere!
instead of digging deeper most people just drink the kool-aid and pass it on
it´s sad but this is the generation of morons
no surprise we´re getting scammed!
it´s so damn easy nowadays!
what will the next fairy tale presented to us?
 

---

Posted by HILANDER on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Bennett:
Man made Global Warming is a Hoax?

That's great news! I can finally buy that Hummer the government is offering all the tax breaks for.

---

I remember when "hummer" meant something entirely different.

As for the vehicle, absolutely worthless piece of environment raping garbage.

PS: had to edit because I spelled "something" wrong.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
 
When a "hummer" meant something entirely different the price was a lot less as well.

I wouldn't be caught dead in the vehicle.
 

---

Posted by bdgee on :
 

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.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Propertymanager:

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.
 

---

Posted by T e x on :
 
. . . toxin. . .

Technically, "toxin" does not extend to all toxic compounds or the lesser known "toxicant." A toxin contains some sort of protein.

Sorry to be pedantic...pet peeve of mine because so many newspapers and magazines misuse the the term.
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by T e x:
. . . toxin. . .

Technically, "toxin" does not extend to all toxic compounds or the lesser known "toxicant." A toxin contains some sort of protein.

Sorry to be pedantic...pet peeve of mine because so many newspapers and magazines misuse the the term.

---

cool. i have been in the habit of thinking of toxin and poison interchangeably, but i will re-structure my hard drive to be more precise
 

---

Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Propertymanager:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! This is just all a huge scam being perpetrated by the wacko left!

---

quote:

---

CO2 in the political spotlight

Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).

The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.

---

quote:

---

Fetchez la vache!

---

Now go away or I will taunt you a second time!
 

---

Posted by Peaser on :
 
Pitchen a mush.
 

---

Posted by Peaser on :
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html
 

---

Posted by glassman on :
 
LOL Deming?

"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.

he's a nutcase:
In March 2000, the University of Oklahoma dismissed the sexual harassment charges filed against Deming.[59] However, four of the complainants filed appeals, resulting in a closed hearing before a faculty panel that took place on April 27, 2000. The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) "questioned the decision to bar lawyers from speaking at the April 27 hearing. In response, the University set up a hearing for May 5. There, in a public forum, OU and general consul Joseph Harroz dropped all complaints"[60] In a memorandum, Harroz explained that "the University may not take any adverse action against Dr. Deming," because his statements were protected by the First Amendment.[6


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming


how come every time i read about how climate change is BS i look up the person quoted and find wierdness?

this guys wiki article is full of oddball and conrtoversial stuff.. the harrassment cases were the result of a crude and vulgar student newspaper article he penned. regardless of whether i agree or disagree with him? i wouldn't consider sending my kid to study at anywhere near him.

not to mention that he is an associate editor for the academic journal Petroleum Geoscience which by it's very name would tell us who it supports...
 

---

Posted by Peaser on :
 
Geez, what do you want and expect? It's Fox.

Without a loonie, there'd be no toonie?

Wackos to the left of me, wackos on the right, stuck in the middle again...
 

---

Posted by rhwdetroit on :
 
Global warming is NOT a "hoax." Is there controversy/disagreements between scientists? Yes. However, if we really are in dispute over this, isn't it best to error on the side of what is best? This is one area where I part ways with people on the right.
 

---

Posted by Pagan on :
 
Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says

About 2 trillion tons of ice have melted in Greenland, Antarctica, Alaska since 2003
Lost amount of water could fill up Chesapeake Bay 21 times, NASA scientist says
Most came from Greenland, where losses raised global sea levels .5 mm annually
Scientist says sea levels rising 50 percent faster than 15 years ago

By Emanuella Grinberg
CNN
(CNN) -- Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.

Using new satellite technology that measures changes in mass in mountain glaciers and ice sheets, NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke concluded that the losses amounted to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.

"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing," said Luthcke, who will present his findings this week at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, California.

NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, mission uses two orbiting satellites to measure the "mass balance" of a glacier, or the net annual difference between ice accumulation and ice loss.

"A few degrees of change [in temperature] can increase the amount of mass loss, and that contributes to sea level rise and changes in ocean current," Luthcke said.

The data reflects findings from NASA colleague Jay Zwally, who uses different satellite technology to observe changing ice volume in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica.

In the past five years, Greenland has lost between 150 gigatons and 160 gigatons each year, (one gigaton equals one billion tons) or enough to raise global sea levels about .5 mm per year, said Zwally, who will also present his findings at the conference this week.

GRACE measured that mountain glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska lost about 84 gigatons each year, about five times the average annual flow of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, according to NASA.

"Every few extra inches of sea level have very significant economic impacts, because they change the sea level, increase flooding and storm damage," said, Zwally, ICESat Project Scientist. "It's a warning sign."

Melting ice, especially in Greenland and the Arctic, is also thought to contribute to global warming, Zwally said. When the vast ice sheets and glaciers melt, they lose their reflective power, and instead, oceans and land absorb the heat, causing the Arctic waters and the atmosphere to warm faster.

"We're seeing the impacts of global warming in many areas of our own lives, like agriculture," Zwally said.

As an example, he cited the pine beetle infestation of this summer in the forests of Colorado and western Canada.

"They were believed to be spreading because the winter was not cold enough to kill them, and that's destroying forests," he said.

In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.

"The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what's going on and how fast things are changing, there's a lot of uncertainty," he said.
 

---