|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 29, 2007 18:00:18 GMT -5
It would seem that the almost universal Democrat party position is:
Worry about a process whose causes are in debate and whose effects may not occur for a hundred years, if at all.
Do NOT worry about a process whoses causes are well known and whose effects are being felt- tragically so- RIGHT NOW.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 29, 2007 18:16:16 GMT -5
It would appear the tentacles of the evil Bush, Rove and Big Oil reach farther than we thought... www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.eceClimate change hits Mars Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.
Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.
Damn those Martian SUVs!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 29, 2007 19:59:34 GMT -5
Just great. Now where are we gonna go when this world is destroyed?!?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 30, 2007 10:30:52 GMT -5
"Rush Limbaugh...Global warming's most popular denialist, talk radio's most imitated showman, conservatism's minister of disinformation, he has injected millions of semi-vacant American skulls with a cream filling of complacency that has helped thrust this country into the forefront of backward leadership." Good article in Vanity Fair: www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 30, 2007 10:56:31 GMT -5
"Rush Limbaugh...Global warming's most popular denialist, talk radio's most imitated showman, conservatism's minister of disinformation, he has injected millions of semi-vacant American skulls with a cream filling of complacency that has helped thrust this country into the forefront of backward leadership." Good article in Vanity Fair: www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705Quote from 'Vanity Fair article ''In the surreal parade of Bush administration follies and sins, one singularly telling one has gone almost entirely unremarked: Vice President Dick Cheney has appeared several times on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Think about this: The holder of the second-highest office in the land has repeatedly chummed it up with a factually challenged right-wing hack, a pathetic figure only marginally less creepy than Coulter.'' —Gary Kamiya, Salon, March 13, 2007. All about 'Prime-Time' listening audience vulnerable to being brainwashed, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 30, 2007 11:20:44 GMT -5
"Rush Limbaugh...Global warming's most popular denialist, talk radio's most imitated showman, conservatism's minister of disinformation, he has injected millions of semi-vacant American skulls with a cream filling of complacency that has helped thrust this country into the forefront of backward leadership." Good article in Vanity Fair: www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705Blondie, how would address the information W.O.M.I. posted in post #361? It's apparent from this thread that you don't want to address all of the facts that W.O.M.I.'s posted but I'd love to hear your explanation for that information.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 30, 2007 11:32:47 GMT -5
the basic science has been presented and explained here....blondie and rich have NEVER posted one item in rebuttal to the science involved.
the temperature hasnt risen at all over the last 10 years.....there really is NO WAY of measuring "global temperature"....co2 is NOT "pollution" it is a nutrient REQUIRED for life as we know it......the earth warms and cools in natural cycles and has been doing so for millions of years......the rise is co2 levels comes AFTER warming not before.
any ONE of those points shows human caused global warming to be totally FALSE.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 30, 2007 17:03:13 GMT -5
Now let me see if I understand this...
If the global warming cultists use Left-wing sources to 'prove' their point, that's fine.
Vanity Fair gave far more coverage than was deserved to "Ambassador" Joe Wilson and his blushing bride Valerie Plaime- both PROVEN liars though you wouldn't know from the fawning piece VF did on them. I mean, is it customary for a covert CIA agent to pose in a Jaguar convertible in an international publication? (and did anyone else think they looked just a bit like Boris and Natasha from the old Bullwinkle cartoon?)
If I use a Right-wing source, such as Newsbusters- even if I go on to provide a link to the original source which had nothing to do with Newsbusters- then my source is impeachable.
If the rules are, 'I accept only sources which I deem credible and I refuse to find ANY of your sources credible' is the rule here, I just need to know that before continuing the debate (and yes, there >IS< a debate).
Since our resident global warming cultists have not bothered to rebut the science presented by the other side in the debate (and yes, there >IS< a debate) and has resorted to name-calling, one can only surmise that they have given up. Frankly, they lasted a good bit longer than they might've been expected to, given the abysmally poor science they had to rely upon. But the effort is worth it- the forces of Communism have been defeated yet again!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 2, 2007 8:11:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 2, 2007 8:26:14 GMT -5
You still haven't addressed post #361, Blondie. One might get the impression you're avoiding it......
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 2, 2007 10:29:25 GMT -5
You still haven't addressed post #361, Blondie. One might get the impression you're avoiding it...... Here's a quote from that post: "The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth." Here's my response. So what? Mars has gotten warmer too. I noticed that the folks at NASA haven't jumped to the same conclusions as the desperate GW deniers. From Fark link: "B-B-B-B-B-But China..." Poor nations brake greenhouse gas rise: U.N. draftBy Alister Doyle, Environment CorrespondentWed May 2, 8:16 AM ET Developing nations that are fast industrializing, such as China and India, have braked their rising greenhouse gas emissions by more than the total cuts demanded of rich nations by the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. A draft U.N. report, to be released in Bangkok on Friday after talks between governments and scientists, also shows that policies meant to curb air pollution from factories or cars or to save energy, have had a side-effect of fighting global warming. "Efforts undertaken by developing countries (i.e. Brazil, China, India and Mexico) for reasons other than climate change have reduced their emissions growth over the past 3 decades by approximately 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year," according to a technical summary seen by Reuters. It said that was "more than the reductions required from (developed nations) by the Kyoto Protocol." By contrast, France's annual emissions in 2004 were 563 million tonnes, Australia's 534 million and Spain's 428 million. The data may spur debate about what is a fair share-out of curbs on emissions in any deal to extend and widen Kyoto, which now binds 35 industrial nations to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing it would cost U.S. jobs and that it wrongly excluded 2012 goals for poorer nations such as China. "China is already doing a lot," said Hu Tao, of China's State Environmental Protection Administration. ONE CHILD POLICY He said China's one-child per couple policy introduced in the early 1980s, for instance, had a side-effect of braking global warming by limiting the population to 1.3 billion against a projected 1.6 billion without the policy. "This has reduced greenhouse gas emissions," he told a conference in Oslo last month. China is the number two emitter of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, behind the United States and ahead of Russia. Developing nations argue that they should get credit for policies that have helped slow rising emissions. They note that east European nations in Kyoto get credit for the collapse of Soviet-era smokestack industries -- unrelated to deliberate efforts to fight global warming. Russia, for instance, has apparently done most among Kyoto nations with a 32 percent fall in emissions between 1990, a year before the Soviet Union fell apart, and 2004. And overall, the world's use of energy has become more efficient for the past century. The amount of energy used per dollar of economic output has fallen at about 0.3 percent a year, according to U.N. data. "The carbon intensity of production has been falling, especially in the developed countries. It partly reflects a movement from manufacturing to services," said Sudhir Junankar of the economics and environmental forecasting think-tank Cambridge Econometrics. And it is hard to say which Kyoto nations have done most, with deliberate policies, to cut emissions since 1990. "Within Europe you could look at Sweden, Germany and the UK at the top end," said Jennifer Morgan, of the London-based E3G think-tank. Germany has also benefited from the collapse of East German industry and Britain from a shift from polluting coal. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/sc_nm/globalwarming_curbs_dc;_ylt=AiNTcyp3enQbM37vtJ67T_bMWM0F
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 2, 2007 10:45:54 GMT -5
Here's my response. So what? Mars has gotten warmer too.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 2, 2007 12:48:07 GMT -5
Pot...meet kettle... "Gore Calls Canada Climate Plan a 'Fraud'" Apr 29, 11:31 PM (ET) "Gore said the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production." Would that be kinda like carbon offsets, Al?? apnews.myway.com/article/20070430/D8OQM6MO0.html
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 2, 2007 13:16:02 GMT -5
From the "UN Draft"
"President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing it would cost U.S. jobs and that it wrongly excluded 2012 goals for poorer nations such as China."
Good to see the UN recognizing a positive accomplishment of President Bush...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 2, 2007 19:10:06 GMT -5
blondie inadvertantly gave a bit more of an insight into the agenda of the eco-chondraics than perhaps she meant to...
If you think that the eco-chondriacs are merely out to better the state of the planet, think again.
*anthropogenic global warming
*only so-called "developed nations" are responsible
*population control (yep...I did catch that from you blondie)
*rejection of Judeo-Christian morality
*pro-Communist leanings
Scratch the surface of the modern environMENTAList whacko movement and you find a Communist/Socialist.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 3, 2007 10:52:27 GMT -5
blondie inadvertantly gave a bit more of an insight into the agenda of the eco-chondraics than perhaps she meant to... If you think that the eco-chondriacs are merely out to better the state of the planet, think again. *anthropogenic global warming *only so-called "developed nations" are responsible *population control (yep...I did catch that from you blondie) *rejection of Judeo-Christian morality *pro-Communist leanings Scratch the surface of the modern environMENTAList whacko movement and you find a Communist/Socialist. So do you think Satan's behind the international GW conspiracy? Who can save us? www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21665879-5006007,00.html
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 11:34:47 GMT -5
Man, Satan needs to fit some lower body exercises into his regimen...
I notice how you try to pull out the "Christian" element as usual to "make your point". Almost as predictable as us Bible thumpers! Which tends to lead towards the idea that your atheism strongly influences your ideal set as opposed to just being who you are.
As far as the team you showed who might be able to save us -- nah, there's quite a bit of environmentally unfriendly stuff coming out of the manufacture of action figures. That's why we farm that work out to the Chinese ;D.
As for the last link? Hey, we all still want one SUV per person here in the states, right? Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 3, 2007 15:49:41 GMT -5
Man, Satan needs to fit some lower body exercises into his regimen... I notice how you try to pull out the "Christian" element as usual to "make your point". Almost as predictable as us Bible thumpers! Which tends to lead toward the idea that your atheism strongly influences your ideal set as opposed to just being who you are. As far as the team you showed who might be able to save us -- nah, there's quite a bit of environmentally unfriendly stuff coming out of the manufacture of action figures. That's why we farm that work out to the Chinese ;D. As for the last link? Hey, we all still want one SUV per person here in the states, right? Makes sense. Kevin, Are you a Global warming denier too? If so why? I don't see this as a religious issue though the GW deniers remind me of creationists with their world-wide conspiracies and dismissal of real science. It's more of an I hate democrats thing.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 3, 2007 17:02:19 GMT -5
science fact = co2 is a nutrient required for life as we know it on this planet, NOT pollution, i embrace the science, blondie rejects it.
science FACT = the earth warms and cools in natural cycles that have been going on for millions of years, i embrace the science blondie claims humans have taken control.
science FACT = the temperature reconstructions indicate warming comes first then co2 increases follow, in true cause = effect the effect CANT come before the cause, i KNOW that science blondie dismisses it.
science FACT = our climate has too many variables for it to be possible to assign a "causal" power to any one small component, blondie dismisses this reality.
science fact = we have no method of determing a single "global temperature" in any meaningful way, i embrace that science blondie dismisses.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 18:45:42 GMT -5
Kevin, Are you a Global warming denier too? If so why? I don't see this as a religious issue though the GW deniers remind me of creationists with their world-wide conspiracies and dismissal of real science. It's more of an I hate democrats thing. I'm not a denier, but I do tend to think people go overboard on both sides. Just like almost anything that people want to look at in a political light. Billt lists a science fact for CO2 being a nutrient. This is true in the simple sense that green plants draw it in, using the carbon for fuel, and put off oxygen for the atmosphere. However, the problem with this is that there is much to be said about the depletion of forestry for many reasons. Do we know whether or not the level of CO2 has reached a point where the green plants can use it all? Like people taking in too much food, there are negative consequences. Remember the mouse and plant experiment? They put a mouse and a plant together in a glass container with no outside source of oxygen. The mouse breathed out CO2, the plant took it out and produced oxygen for the mouse to use. It was a cycle that allowed both to live in a synergistic way. But what might have happened if there were 3-4 mice and still only 1 plant? I basically have an open mind about it but do not take an extreme view either way. Just like my politics .
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 3, 2007 22:51:58 GMT -5
Anyone see the special on Sundance about sewage sludge and what they do with this shit? (sorry for the pun)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 4, 2007 15:13:21 GMT -5
blondie has given yet another insight into the way the Left wants to frame this argument.
Notice that she refers to "global warming deniers" when that is, in point of fact, NOT the argument?
Properly framed, the debate- and yes, there >IS< a debate- is over anthropogenic- that is, "man-made- global warming.
Don't allow the Left to reframe the debate to its own advantage.
I also point out that the same folks who are pushing the hysterical nonsense that we're all dead in ten years of we don't all drive Priuses (Pri-ii?) and install CFLs are also part of the greater leftist- which is to say Communist/Socialist- ad hoc groups that push, among other things, population control (I say, "you first"), radical animal rights, open borders, atheism, GLBTC rights (that's be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and, the new group, "Confused") surrender of US sovereignty to the UN, etc.
Peel back the veil of the eco-chondriacs and you find Communists who, defeated by Reagan during the 1980s, are merely trying another tactic by which to defeat Capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 4, 2007 16:45:54 GMT -5
It would seem that the almost universal Democrat party position is: Worry about a process whose causes are in debate and whose effects may not occur for a hundred years, if at all. Do NOT worry about a process whoses causes are well known and whose effects are being felt- tragically so- RIGHT NOW. Wow....I even impress myself sometimes: washingtontimes.com/national/20070504-123740-8370r.htmHouse GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climateMemo to Democrats: Global warming might be a threat to national security. Jihadists are a threat to national security.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 4, 2007 16:48:19 GMT -5
womi
The Democrats don't have any solutions for what might happen just like they don't have any solutions to what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 4, 2007 17:44:09 GMT -5
phin- You're on to something. It's in the interest of Democrats to keep people absolutely scared to death of things that either do not exist or only might exist, all the while studiously ignoring threats that really do exist. Simultaneously, the have to convince folks that absolutely no progress has been made in solving any of these bogus or laregly bogus issues- this despite the fact that Democrats were in all or at least in part in charge of government (the only mechanism by which any truly pressing problem can be solved of course) during which things (allegedly) didn't get any better). They also must studiously offer no sensible solutions to any of these alledged problems because, if they ever actually 'solved' any of them, they wouldn't have the issue with which to bludgeon thier opponents. It's more important- MUCH more important- to have the issue rather than present any solution. Look at the, ah, Rev-un-rend Jack-SON and his race pimps. They HAVE to contend that America crica 2007 is no better than America, circa 1867. They cannot recognize that ANY progress has been made on race relations in this country because, to do so would be to end their usefulness. No one is really keen to 'solve' themselves right out of a job.....and some less so than others. 'Pope Algore I' and his global warming cultists are in basically the same boat. If the rightly recognize that the earth is a much cleaner place now than it was in the 1970s and that progress, substantial progress, is being made in making further improvements to the environment- and this without government forcing us to cripple our economies and roll back our standards of living 50 years or more- would be to render themselves utterly irrelevant. All the more reason to shine the Light Of Truth on them (solar powered of course! ).
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 23:37:52 GMT -5
Yikes...how'd I miss this one: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQCalifornia Hotels Go Green With Low-Flow Toilets, Solar Lights First paragraph: April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming. So the 'disciples' of 'Pope Algore I' now believe his 'bible' to be more important than the real Bible? Makes you wonder what the real agenda is here....or it should anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 5, 2007 23:45:46 GMT -5
Hey, sales are down. People weren't buying the book anymore so that had to do something with the rest of books sitting in the Nice Price bin.
BTW, doesn't paper production deplete trees, which in turn reduces the ability to convert CO2 to O2? Sheryl Crow wants us to use 1 square of toilet paper but they continue to pump out more copies of Gore's book?
I say make the pages softer so we can use it as TP.
|
|
|
Post by Pirateguy on May 6, 2007 0:11:04 GMT -5
'It's in the interest of Democrats to keep people absolutely scared to death of things that either do not exist or only might exist,'
like the al Qeada being headquartered in Iraq and the huge stockpiles of WMD over there??
'all the while studiously ignoring threats that really do exist.'
illegal immigration and open borders?? you have a funny way of looking at stuff sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 6, 2007 15:04:36 GMT -5
Geee...haven't we heard those LIEberal Talking Points once or twice before?
Please see the approximately 479 posts thoroughly discrediting them.
Just a breif reinteration:
No one in the Bush Administration ever- EVER- said AQ was "headquartered" in Iraq. they did say, and it is inarguable, that AQ was present in Iraq before the invasion.
While it's true that we did not find "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq (yet?), we DID find several 'caches' (for lack of a better word" of them. Need I remind you that the presence of a single one of them meant that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of some seventeen UN resolutions as well as the 1991 Gulf War cease fire?
Finally, I'd urge you to actually read the Congressional Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In Iraq that Congress voted on and passed in 2003. If memory serves, there were some 23 or 24 separate and distinct justifications for using the military in Iraq and only >THREE< even mentioned WMDs at all. WMDs were not a primary reason for us going to war, though the fact that this single justification proved, in hindsight, to be wrong does give you an effective, if disingenuous, bludgeon to weild against the President.
Yours is the typical LIEberal position: history did not exist before January 20th, 2001.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 6, 2007 15:37:04 GMT -5
Speaking of LIEberals, check this site out. Just stumbled across it yesterday but it seems decent enough.
|
|