|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 11:38:56 GMT -5
"Co2 is Not pollution!!!!, blah blah blah blah blah"
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 11:42:28 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the 2,000 UN scientists can read graphs?
Maybe you could show them that they are reading it backwards.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 11:51:23 GMT -5
thank you rich for illustrating and making my point.
the UN is NOT a group of scientists.
suggestion for rich and others YOU LOOK at the graphs and see for yourselves.
YOUR SIDE admits that the graphs show warming FIRST then co2 rises, THEY AGREE with my reading of them!
reasonable people would look at the graphs and draw their own conclusions, do some research and study BEFORE posting on the forum.
those with an agenda dont care for research and scientific method!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 11:56:59 GMT -5
If your info is so indisputable, why waste it on all of us UNREASONABLE people and take it to the REAL scientists?
So the UN didn't use real scientists?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 12:13:01 GMT -5
The bottom line is that you can take Global warming off the table and the things we need to do in this country remain the same. End dependence on the Middle East, put that money into the US, become more energy effecient and save money while you do it. Thats why many corporations and municipal governments are leading the way, it SAVES them money. Its the ultimate flower of capitalism, unlike the claim by neo-cons that it is some conspiracy to destroy capitalism. www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/opinion/14mon2.html
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 12:13:26 GMT -5
those using science already agree with me rich, those IGNORING scientific method are on your side.
links to the 1000's of scientists on my side of this debate have been presented repeatedly and IGNORED.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 12:16:49 GMT -5
Thats your whole problem BillT. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is not "reasonable", "lacks basic understanding", are not using "the scientific method", or are part of some conspiracy. Do you really believe that the TWO THOUSAND SCIENTISTS the UN used didn't use the scientific method? They were just screwing around, through together a multi year study and presented to the world?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 12:30:20 GMT -5
rich you made your point long ago....it is personal you dont like me, i grasp that.
and after checking with my wife it seems your opinion of me matters roughly ZERO!
you also made MY point, those with intelligence and knowledge discuss issues, those lacking discuss PEOPLE!
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 13:24:29 GMT -5
here is a link to scientists that USED to believe in human causation, that is until they EXAMINED the actual science, they NOW have a very different view. epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id"The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added."
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 13:37:38 GMT -5
seems a layman using real science posted right HERE months ago there is ZERO evidence of humans being the cause of any warming.....the evidence shows NATURAL cycles of warming and cooling.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 16, 2007 19:03:16 GMT -5
like arguing with a stop sign.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 16, 2007 20:07:50 GMT -5
i accept that analogy, indeed stop signs ARE "correct" you should stop and look before you go into intersections where traffic is already moving, it is pointless to argue with something that IS correct and inanimate......and further is shows a lack of common sense to argue against the obvious truth.
good analogy rich!
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 17, 2007 8:03:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 17, 2007 8:37:15 GMT -5
Jimbo,
Bet ya' a million dollars all those "facts" won't have an effect on him.
Billt,
I think the burden of proof should be on you guys to explain the international conspiracy. We all know what the scientists say. The question is: why are they lying?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 17, 2007 8:52:40 GMT -5
Ha, ha. That's a great link. I remember the warming of Mars was the smoking gun the other week.
"There are two big problems with this idea: the evidence for warming on Mars and Pluto is sketchy, while the Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto."
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 17, 2007 12:18:22 GMT -5
Scientists aren't arguing. Yes, they are...
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 17, 2007 12:36:13 GMT -5
nowhere have i claimed there is any "conspiracy" in FACT i have a few times mentioned that is does NOT require a conspiracy for differing groups of people with the same goals to work towards those goals.
STILL waiting for any rebuttal of my points.....the link above was humorous in its attempts to explain away the FACTUAL data that shows human causation is SILLY!
in trying to explain away the FACT that more co2 makes plants grow better, they did experiements and indeed those experiments DID SHOW increased growth up to 30%, BUT then it levels off at that level......so neoscientist tries to say that because the growth leveled off other factors are invovled.....BUT the FACT remains the data showed exactly what they claim was a "myth" that more co2 makes plants grow better....IT DOES!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 17, 2007 13:36:52 GMT -5
Scientists aren't arguing. Yes, they are... No science organization rejects global warming anymore.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 17, 2007 13:53:46 GMT -5
nowhere have i claimed there is any "conspiracy" in FACT i have a few times mentioned that is does NOT require a conspiracy for differing groups of people with the same goals to work towards those goals. If virtually every scientist on the planet is hiding or distorting the evidence it's a conspiracy. That's what you're claiming. No one believes what you preach except right-wing pundits and the uninformed. I believe the goal of most scientists is an objective study of the natural world. STILL waiting for any rebuttal of my points.....the link above was humorous in its attempts to explain away the FACTUAL data that shows human causation is SILLY! You better sit down for this. Maybe the editors at New Scientist know what they're talking about and you don't. They seem to have covered all of your points pretty well. in trying to explain away the FACT that more co2 makes plants grow better, they did experiements and indeed those experiments DID SHOW increased growth up to 30%, BUT then it levels off at that level......so neoscientist tries to say that because the growth leveled off other factors are invovled.....BUT the FACT remains the data showed exactly what they claim was a "myth" that more co2 makes plants grow better....IT DOES! If the co2 rises and the temperature also rises the plants will still die. But that doesn't matter because we'll be dead too. So basically your point, if true, doesn't support your argument. Do you believe cars and factories pollute? Do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Do you believe scientists can measure air quality? Do you believe humans can only survive under very limited conditions?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 17:48:42 GMT -5
Blondie has the distinction of being both correct and disingenuous at the same time- that's not a feat easily pulled off.
Where she's right is that no one disputes the fact that the earth is warming and has been for the past, oh, 150 or so years (since the end of the "Little Ice Age").
Where she is trying to 'move the goalposts' is by not addressing the fact that the dbate- and yes, there >IS< a debate- is over how much humans and their activities contribute to global warming, if any.
The debate is over anthropogenic global warming.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 18, 2007 17:52:01 GMT -5
Curious.....when did ''we'' establish for a fact that 'blondie' is a she? I missed that!?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 18, 2007 17:57:00 GMT -5
blondie's first 3 questions, all YES and NONE of them have anything to do with this debate.
question 4 about humans having a very limited condition to survive....NO and i have proof.
here now people live in deserts where daily temps can reach 130 degrees they also live in very cold areas where nightly temps can fall to 50 below zero.....so it is observable that human life can survive a temperature range of nearly 200 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 18, 2007 21:56:44 GMT -5
Has anyone given any thought to the events lately of poisoning to our pet food and medicine at the hands of the chinese? This is a MUST read. Kinda long so I will just put up the link. PS.....glad to find out the forum is still here. I did not know until tonight! Happy to be back! www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/world/americas/06poison.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin May 6, 2007 From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 22:23:27 GMT -5
dixie-
While I'm sure that the Chinese will tell us it's just an honest mistake, I think we have ample reason to be skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 23:23:23 GMT -5
If this is what you mean by debate I can't disagree: Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.
This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.htmlI guess we can also dismiss National Geographic as part of that international conspiracy that involves every scientific institution on the planet: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070517-carbon-oceans.html
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 19, 2007 9:26:51 GMT -5
I heard about this last year. I do not know anything about this web site, but if anyone can translate the articles that they list into english it would be interesting to see what they say. Look at the amount of water this aqifer has the potential of producing! The next oil will be water. www.teambio.org/2006/10/bush-family-98842-acres-and-a-mule/October 19th, 2006 Bush Family–98,842 acres and a Mule by Steve O @ 12:00 am It has been reported that George W. Bush has recently purchased a 98,842 acre farm in Northern Paraguay. What on earth does the President of the United States need a 98,000+ acre farm in Northern Paraguay for? On the surface it looks all very innocent, but lets add the very quiet trip that Jenna Bush made to the country earlier this month in which she met Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and his family at their official residence. She also met with U.S. Ambassador James Cason. Could it be that our little drunken Jenna is all grown up and playing diplomacy? This all still seems very innocent on the surface, but now lets add the five hundred U.S. troops that arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. Neighboring countries and human rights organizations are concerned the massive air base at Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay is potential real estate for the U.S. military. Does Bush plan on being charged with something in the future? Does Bush foresee a collapse of the United States and feels a strong need to have a place to cut and run to, or does Bush just need a nice secret little place other than Gitmo where he can send people he doesn’t like? Now things don’t look so innocent. Mr. Bush, could you please tell us what your intentions are and whether these intentions are hostile toward the people of the United States, or do you just intend on retiring to Paraguay? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaran%C3%AD_Aquifer The Guaraní Aquifer, located beneath the surface of the original four Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), is one of the world's largest aquifer systems and an important source of fresh water for its people [1]. Named after the Guaraní tribe, it covers 1,200,000 km², with a volume of about 40,000 km³, a thickness of between 50 m and 800 m and a maximum depth of about 1,800 m. It is estimated to contain about 37,000 km³ of water (arguably the largest single body of groundwater in the world), with a total recharge rate of about 166 km³/year from precipitation. It is said that that this vast underground reservoir could suppy fresh drinking water to the world for 200 years. Due to an expected shortage of fresh water on a global scale, which environmentalists suggest will become critical in under 20 years, this important natural resource is rapidly becoming politicized, and the control of the resource becomes ever more controversial. Contents [hide] 1 Geology of the aquifer 2 Concerns of U.S. strategic presence 3 References 4 External links [ edit] Geology of the aquifer The Guaraní Aquifer consists primarily of sedimented sandstones deposited by fluvial and eolian processes during the Triassic and Jurassic periods (between 200 and 130 million years ago), with over 90% of the total area overlaid with igneous basalt of a low-permeability, deposited during the Cretacous period, acting as an aquitard and providing a high degree of containment. This greatly reduces the rate of infiltration and subsequent recharge, but also isolates the aquifer from the Vadose zone and subsequent surface-associated losses due to evaporation and evapotranspiration. Research and monitoring of the aquifer in order to better manage it as a resource is considered important, as the population growth rate within its area is relatively high — resulting in higher consumption and pollution risks. [ edit] Concerns of U.S. strategic presence The Argentine film called Sed, Invasión Gota a Gota ("Thirst, Invasion Drop by Drop"), directed by Mausi Martínez, portrays the military of the United States as slowly but steadily increasing its presence in the Triple Frontera (Triple Frontier, the area around the common borders of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil). The overt reason for the increasing presence of U.S. troops and joint exercises, mainly with Paraguay, is to monitor the large Arab population which resides in the area. However, Martínez alleges that it is the water which brings the Americans to the area, and she fears a subtle takeover before the local governments even realize what is going on. Similar concerns were lifted following both the signature of a military training agreement with Paraguay, which accorded immunity to U.S. soldiers and was indefinitely renewable (something which had never been done before, while Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Paraguay and, for the first time ever, Paraguayan president Nicanor Duarte Frutos went to the White House), and the construction of a U.S. military base near the airport of Mariscal Estigarribia, within 200 km of Argentina and Bolivia and 300 km of Brazil. The airport can receive large planes (B-52, C-130 Hercules, etc.) which the Paraguayan Air Force does not possess. [2] [3]. The governments of Paraguay and the United States subsequently ostensibly declared that the use of an airport (Dr Luís María Argaña International) [1] was one point of transfer for few soldiers in Paraguay at the same time. According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the U.S. military base is strategic because of its location near the Triple Frontier, its proximity to the Guaraní Aquifer, and its closeness to Bolivia (less than 200 km) at the same "moment that Washington's magnifying glass goes on the Altiplano [Bolivia] and points toward Venezuelan [president] Hugo Chávez — the regional devil according to the Bush administration — as the instigator of the instability in the region" (El Clarín [3]). The U.S. State Department firmly [denies] [2] these allegations. [ edit] References ^ News from the BBC ^ "U.S. Military Moves in Paraguay Rattle Regional Relations", International Relations Center, December 14, 2005. Retrieved on April 2006. ^ a b US Marines put a foot in Paraguay, El Clarín, September 9, 2005 (Spanish) [ edit] External links Official Site for the book about the Aquifer, by Nadia Rita Boscardin Borghetti, José Roberto Borghetti and Ernani Francisco da Rosa Filho (in Brazilian Portuguese) Retrieved from " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaran%C3%AD_Aquifer" Categories: Aquifers | Water and politics | Geography of South America
|
|