|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 11:43:31 GMT -5
So the fact that he gets all of his information from different scientists makes him different from you ...how? Oh, I know...He is actually linking his research to scientists, and you are not backing your thoughts up with anything. Here are the sources:
References
(1) A scientific Discussion of Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
(2) The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives
(3) Statement Concerning Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(4) Excerpts from,"Our Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate Change Campaign
(5) Testimony of John R. Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.
(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
(8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.
Additional Reading
Understanding Common Climate Claims: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global Emergencies.
Geological Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format presentation. 8.5 MB.
Thoughts of Global Warming: "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.
NOAA Paleoclimatology: An educational trip through earths distant and recent past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the causes of climate change.
Cracking the Ice Age: From the PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global warming.
Little Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2 Science."
Solar Variability and Climate Change: by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000
Earth's Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"
I loved this quote the best!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 11:47:20 GMT -5
blondie just ONE shred of evidence that humans have taken control over the atmosphere, just ONE? i asked many weeks ago and while you have made many posts, sorry "i heard it on TV" just isnt evidence! i have made several POINTS about the science, YOU blondie have made ZERO points in relation to science! Why do I have this lingering feeling that your "points" have been addressed by experts that regular people like me trust.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 7, 2007 11:50:36 GMT -5
The only quackery is people who think that with the tons of co2 we are dumping in the atmosphere is just harmlessly dissipating and not causing any changes in our climate. I don't think we are doing anything that isn't reversible but we are having an effect. The earth itself goes though climate changes like the seasons, just on a much longer time scale.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 11:51:09 GMT -5
blondie just ONE shred of evidence that humans have taken control over the atmosphere, just ONE? i asked many weeks ago and while you have made many posts, sorry "i heard it on TV" just isnt evidence! i have made several POINTS about the science, YOU blondie have made ZERO points in relation to science! Why do I have this lingering feeling that your "points" have been addressed by experts that regular people like me trust. I think blondie is proving to be the "strawman" around here.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 11:56:11 GMT -5
I think blondie is proving to be the "strawman" around here. I know for a fact that Rush Limbaugh and followers are pushing an agenda and the GW fake debate is part of it. That's not a straw man. Please don't respond with Al Gore.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 7, 2007 11:57:08 GMT -5
blondie, i have no idea why you would have that feeling, BUT if it was true then you MUST have read those rebuttals to have formed such a strong opinion.
why dont YOU present ONE shred of evidence that rebuts just ONE point.
for example IF co2 is capable of blocking IR waves heading out to space, wouldnt co2 ALSO have that SAME ability to block those same type waves as the come IN from the sun?
OR in a system as complex as the earths atmoshpere,orbit, and sun's output, how could such a TINY part of the equation, co2, have taken total control and be the ONLY factor involved in any recent warming?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:00:38 GMT -5
Al Gore? Didn't he create the internet?
The information I posted did not come from the political crowd. It came from SCIENTISTS.
Your statement is almost as dumb as PETA claiming that global warming is because we eat meat.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 12:14:15 GMT -5
blondie, i have no idea why you would have that feeling, BUT if it was true then you MUST have read those rebuttals to have formed such a strong opinion. why dont YOU present ONE shred of evidence that rebuts just ONE point. for example IF co2 is capable of blocking IR waves heading out to space, wouldnt co2 ALSO have that SAME ability to block those same type waves as the come IN from the sun? The answer.............the greenhouse effect. I don't claim to know anything about this but that's a horrible point. Do people actually fall for that? OR in a system as complex as the earths atmoshpere,orbit, and sun's output, how could such a TINY part of the equation, co2, have taken total control and be the ONLY factor involved in any recent warming? Hmm. I wonder what the EPA says about this? "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. For more information on CO2 trends in the atmosphere, visit the page on Atmosphere Changes."I heard Rush Limbaugh say that humans produce only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere yet the EPA says: "The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources."Billt, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. I'm used to this kind of arguing from creationists. That's why I'm asking for a legitimate institution or study group, with no political agenda, that denies global warming. I'm beginning to think no such entity exists.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:21:36 GMT -5
www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html NOTE: Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (368 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished." Yup, blondie, everyone who says co2 is a HUGE problem is correct
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 12:24:08 GMT -5
how could such a TINY part of the equation, co2, have taken total control and be the ONLY factor involved in any recent warming? Holy moly, you really don't have a clue. This is from the EPA too: The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (“High GWP gases”).
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:26:36 GMT -5
How about Dr William Gray?
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction ) (in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 12:26:56 GMT -5
www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html NOTE: Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (368 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished." Yup, blondie, everyone who says co2 is a HUGE problem is correct Do you understand that this is not even a point?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 7, 2007 12:31:36 GMT -5
your source is the EPA??
hilarious, you do know there mega study about SHS was thrown out in court dont you?
BECAUSE it was flawed and LIED about the actual results!
the earth is NOT a greenhouse by the way, they work because they have GLASS that blocks the CONVECTION of heat, the earth has no such barrier.
""The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources."
that line YOU posted is a total LIE by the EPA, humans are NOT the largest source of co2 by any measurement.....thak you for posting just how DIShonest the epa is!
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:33:16 GMT -5
www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html NOTE: Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (368 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished." Yup, blondie, everyone who says co2 is a HUGE problem is correct Do you understand that this is not even a point? How is this not a point? Are you just too thick to understand that YOU are stating, based on the clap trap junk you are reading and posting, that co2 is the cause of global warming and that humans are causing this. These numbers clearly (and scientifically) show that you are wrong. You can't accept that so you keep digging your hole deeper.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:36:07 GMT -5
billt, this is from the above link. The numbers are from the Department of Energy. They show that you are correct. Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 7, 2007 12:40:59 GMT -5
No, Dixie...the EPA are LIARS!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 12:42:00 GMT -5
How about Dr William Gray? "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction ) (in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999) Nice try. I really appreciate the effort. I'm sure there are a few skeptics in academia on all subjects. But on global warming, they've already been scrutinized: "Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review."www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 12:45:42 GMT -5
Are you just stupid or do you have a reading comprehension problem? From YOUR quote above:
"Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review."
That IF means it hasn't been subjected to peer review.
Oh, excuse me..I read the link..This is another post of someones OPINION that you are trying to pass off as fact.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 12:47:53 GMT -5
No, Dixie...the EPA are LIARS!!!!!!!! NASA, the EPA, all the other objective sources using the tough rigors of science. This is why so many believe things that aren't true. A basic lack of objective reasoning skills.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 7, 2007 13:10:21 GMT -5
blondie - I was being facetious. This debate doesn't interest me that much because EVEN if global warming was occuring due to human actions, like Social Security, the government will continue to wait and do nothing or at the least do stuff that costs a lot of money but still results in the world tipping this "warming balance" beyond the point of no return as we have been told has occured a couple of times already.
I showed the solution to this problem in post #17 above....the government builds a gigantic aresol can and we spray it into the air. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 14:22:10 GMT -5
Still a good place to end this.
When I saw billt's "evidence" and DixiPixie's "if" I gave up on getting anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 7, 2007 15:34:52 GMT -5
Nothing says foaming at the mouth propaganda like NBC and ABC. Oh, that's right. I'm not a looney, right-wing, nut-case conspiracy theorist. Once again: I'm really open to any legitimate organization that doesn't believe that global warming is happening and caused by humans. Just one little link. I ain't asking for much. Wonderful response. I love how you are already stooping to veiled insults. A true sign of intelligence. Even though you have twice failed to respond to my observation "dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof" even after I specifically asked you to, I will try my best to dig up some links for you. I probably won't be able to do it until this evening but I just wanted to post here that I would so I could show you that I'm not here to insult people's intelligence and then fail to support any claims I make.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 7, 2007 15:38:43 GMT -5
Still a good place to end this. When I saw billt's "evidence" and DixiPixie's " if" I gave up on getting anywhere. Well, the world isn't waiting for us on this forum to come up with a definitive answer as to whether or not Global Warming is attributed to humans nor a solution to the problem if there even is one. I will sleep at night.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 7, 2007 15:42:42 GMT -5
That's why I'm asking for a legitimate institution or study group, with no political agenda, that supports global warming. I'm beginning to think no such entity exists. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate sentence.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 7, 2007 18:16:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 7, 2007 20:22:47 GMT -5
Yes, we all know that ABC is a fountain of truth free from any bias or hidden agenda. /sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 20:32:02 GMT -5
Homeboy has quite a curl going down. ;D
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 7, 2007 20:32:24 GMT -5
Name a source that is free of bias or any agenda
All the things Lester Brown discusses on the video are good for America. Energy independece. Freedom from dependence on foriegn oil. Its fiscally responsible and excellent for the environment.
I think thats a bias we can all agreee on.....unless you have something to add besides your sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 7, 2007 20:41:28 GMT -5
These are a money saving NO BRAINER!! ;D
CFL: The better bulb
Compact florescent bulbs (CFLs) are those swirley little guys that look like soft-serve ice cream cones. Actually, they come in a myriad of different shapes, sizes, and colors of light. Economically speaking, they’re a great deal, too. CFLs cost a bit more than an incandescent, but use about a quarter as much energy and last many times longer (usually around 10,000 hours). It is estimated that a CFL pays for its higher price after about 500 hours of use. After that, it’s money in your pocket. Also, because CFLs release less heat, not only are they safer, but your cooling load is less in the summer. CFLs aren’t hard to find anymore, and many cities will give them away for free. Wal-Mart has plans to sell 100 million of them.
|
|