Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by cityboy View Post
    have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.
    No. It hasn't paused.
    All of those "15 year pause" calculations use the same starting point of 1998.
    1998 was a record high temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is +0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend. 15 years isn't really long enough to get any meaningful trend.

    Look, I'd love to keep refuting your arguments. I probably will continue to do so. But it makes me wonder, just what kind of evidence would you require to be convinced?

    That's not a rhetorical question. I really mean it. What evidence would you have to see in order to be convinced climate change is real?
    He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
      No. It hasn't paused.
      All of those "15 year pause" calculations use the same starting point of 1998.
      1998 was a record high temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is +0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend. 15 years isn't really long enough to get any meaningful trend.

      Look, I'd love to keep refuting your arguments. I probably will continue to do so. But it makes me wonder, just what kind of evidence would you require to be convinced?

      That's not a rhetorical question. I really mean it. What evidence would you have to see in order to be convinced climate change is real?
      Most measures of the pause begin in 1997 for the very reason you mention. The "rise" is outside of the confidence bands therefore statistically 0. Even the IPCC acknowledges the pause so you're an exception. Also if there is no pause why all the papers trying to explain it? And that long term trend you mention works out to 1.4 per century well below the 2c level that the IPCC says will be catastrophic.
      As for the time period. It is generally acknowledged that the manmade warming phase was roughly 1975 to 2000. That's at most 25 years. It was also stated by top Climatologists that a 15 year pause would be very rare and a cause of concern.

      As for your question. My answer is very simple. To change my mind I would need to see temperatures rise to at or above the model predictions. And I would need to see that trend last at least 15 years.

      Now what would cause you to change your mind?
      Last edited by cityboy; 03-17-2014, 03:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Limekiln View Post
        That's one way to look at it, but I don't think Al Gore is as pure as you think he is.
        I don't think anyone is pure. However He is certainly not the person that critics of climate change try to paint him. As far as a politician goes I believe he was more honest than most, more so than Reagan, Clinton, W Bush and Obama by a long shot.

        Her was certainly warning about climate change long before anyone ever thought of setting up companies and technology to deal with it.

        And the bottom line is pure or not, as time goes on, it's proving he is right, and that won't change whether he is pure or impure.
        "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by cityboy View Post

          Now what would cause you to change your mind?
          What would cause me to change my mind is a reversal of my personal observations over the last 70 years.

          It it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
          "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

          Comment


          • #35
            A Long Response

            "So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science.

            I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!"



            My first two questions Glen are this: Are you addressing me? And secondly, are you Mr. Redhawk's mouthpiece?

            My work takes me different places at times other than yours does so I have to wait until I get home from work to respond to your inquiries.

            My next question is this. What is your point? Are you attempting to debate?
            If you showed up looking for a battle of wits I must politely withdraw as I can see that you have arrived unarmed.

            You are preaching to the choir who like you has no power at all. Are you campaigning for a particular political party? Are you running for office?

            If you have a hidden agenda I would like to know what it is.

            I wasn't aware that Dr. Muller had changed his stance because I received the knowledge of his first point via email last week. So I may owe you an apology because of lack of awareness on my part regarding the change in his original opinion.

            However, he did not refute his original point, and his second opinion is based on guess what? Another opinion. The planet has been heating up? If that's true is it caused by man or does this occur as a natural consequence of being what it is? Neither you or anyone else has convinced me that your statement is true.

            When I say that you are preaching to the choir please know that I AM concerned about how some people treat our precious planet but other than my attempts to influence others to become better stewards of our resources I am as powerless as you to influence China to stop creating pollution and not doing anything to remedy it. How can I convince Ohio and other states west of here to stop incinerating medical wastes and other hazardous materials which have increased acidity in our lakes and streams. How can I convince Canada of the same? How can you or I reverse the mercury or pcp's in our game fish?

            My point is that greed and selfishness caused many of our problems and I am not convinced that Mr. Gore has not taken advantage of our predicament to line his pockets as a result. So let me finish by offering to apologize to you and/or Mr. Gore if it turns out that I am wrong. However, let us look into Mr. Gore's past performance and history.

            Heres some more "cherry picking" Glen.


            FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY—

            1. Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

            2. "At the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gaving a moving speech about his only sister's painful death from lung cancer. And since then he has pushed the administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

            What Gore didn't mention is that he grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and continued to accept checks from that farm for years after his sister died. In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote up above: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.') He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

            3. Here are some of Al's business associates:

            Convicted cocaine smuggler Jose Cabrera
            Howard Glicken, who admitted soliciting and laundering foreign campaign contributions
            Franklin Haney, indicted for illegal campaign contributions
            1990. Mr. Gore was also accused of making fund raising call from his office. He has raised millions of dollars for his political party. Can you forget his Illegal Fundraising At a Buddhist Temple (and Weaseling About It Afterwards)

            4. Environmental Hypocrisy

            One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.

            5. Al Gore-backed (and US government-backed) Fisker Automotive delivers $100,000 plug-in hybrid lemon to Consumer Reports; inexplicably broke down after 180 miles of testing, which only serves as further evidence that nearly all computer models cannot be relied upon.

            6. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lowers the Boom on Al Gore’s Big Lie that the humble, beneficial gas – CO2 – causes global warming. NASA states absolutely that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Global Coolant and massively cools the Earth.

            You can bet that the NASA scientists designed, built, launched and placed in Earth orbit the satellite machinery to prove it, too.

            So, there we have it. In addition, the Earth has not gotten any warmer for 17 years. NASA has finally pulled the plug on Gore’s Big Lie and ended the gigantic, world wide charade on CO2.

            7. Al Gore lied about his role in Vietnam. He was a reporter and was NEVER in a combat situation. He asked for an early out because he told them he wanted to go to the seminary which he dropped out soon after. Here is a copy of a letter from a real Vietnam Vet describing a photo that Al Gore showed while carrying an m-16.

            My name is James Welborn. I served with the 25th Infantry Division in
            Viet Nam at about the same time Al Gore was supposedly there. I was
            stationed at Cu chi, somewhat to the north of Bein Hoa. I was sent a photo some
            time ago that was titled," Al Gore, gun safety advocate".

            While I laughed until tears were streaming down my face I did not at
            that time look very close at the photo until a few days later. This photo
            was on Al's own website, supposedly showing Al in Viet Nam. The photo is of
            Al. But it ain't Viet Nam. Why?...

            1. The photo is supposedly Al, out in the, "field". If this is so, why
            is his weapon unloaded? And why does he have no ammo at all. If I, as a
            photog for 25th Infantry attempted to go outside the wire with a patrol,
            without ammo, two things would happen. First, the team I was going out
            with would refuse to bring me along. And secondly, I would probably be
            brought up on charges because such stupidity puts the rest of the patrol in
            danger.

            2. Al has only one canteen. There was no time of year in that area of
            Viet Nam where you would not carry as much water as you could with you.
            Drinking fountains were thin on the ground in the bush.

            3. Al has a rubberized jacket of some sort on, over his fatigues. Aside
            from the fact that you would keel over after about 5 minutes wearing
            such a thing in the heat and humidity of that country, no such thing was
            issued to troops incountry. Rain cover was provided by a poncho liner and
            poncho, (a tent half with a hood in the center of it.) Enlisted troops were
            not authorized to make up their own version of the field uniform. Nor were
            officers for that matter.

            4. Notice in the photo that Al has what looks to be a winter sleeping bag on
            his "ruck." Try sleeping in one of these in Viet Nam and you would have
            a very hot and wet night inside the bag.

            5. Wasn't Al supposed to be a journalist or something? But he has no
            camera, no cassette recorder. No film. And if he was acting a regular
            "grunt," then he would be carrying lots of ammo, both for himself and
            for the M-60, belt fed that goes out with any medium to large patrol.

            6. No food.

            7. No grenades.

            8. Maybe in the special forces and seals, an enlisted man would be
            allowed to go to the field with a boonie hat on. Nowhere else. Troops were
            required to wear the steel pot and liner and you could be brought up on
            charges for not doing so.

            Sooooo, this is a photo of Al acting stupid in some basic training
            center in the US, where you would go to the field without ammo, water and
            food, and with clothes that were not authorized for use in Viet Nam. Al is
            lying again. He might have been in Viet Nam, but this photo was not taken
            there.

            So Glen, What are we to think about your hero Al Gore? You accuse me of cherry picking? I am just trying to reach an intelligent decision as I am sure many other members are as well. Have a good day.
            Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by redhawk View Post
              What would cause me to change my mind is a reversal of my personal observations over the last 70 years.

              It it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
              Sometimes it is just Sy Robertson.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Schultzz View Post
                "So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science.

                I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!"



                My first two questions Glen are this: Are you addressing me? And secondly, are you Mr. Redhawk's mouthpiece?

                My work takes me different places at times other than yours does so I have to wait until I get home from work to respond to your inquiries.

                My next question is this. What is your point? Are you attempting to debate?
                If you showed up looking for a battle of wits I must politely withdraw as I can see that you have arrived unarmed.

                You are preaching to the choir who like you has no power at all. Are you campaigning for a particular political party? Are you running for office?

                If you have a hidden agenda I would like to know what it is.

                I wasn't aware that Dr. Muller had changed his stance because I received the knowledge of his first point via email last week. So I may owe you an apology because of lack of awareness on my part regarding the change in his original opinion.

                However, he did not refute his original point, and his second opinion is based on guess what? Another opinion. The planet has been heating up? If that's true is it caused by man or does this occur as a natural consequence of being what it is? Neither you or anyone else has convinced me that your statement is true.

                When I say that you are preaching to the choir please know that I AM concerned about how some people treat our precious planet but other than my attempts to influence others to become better stewards of our resources I am as powerless as you to influence China to stop creating pollution and not doing anything to remedy it. How can I convince Ohio and other states west of here to stop incinerating medical wastes and other hazardous materials which have increased acidity in our lakes and streams. How can I convince Canada of the same? How can you or I reverse the mercury or pcp's in our game fish?

                My point is that greed and selfishness caused many of our problems and I am not convinced that Mr. Gore has not taken advantage of our predicament to line his pockets as a result. So let me finish by offering to apologize to you and/or Mr. Gore if it turns out that I am wrong. However, let us look into Mr. Gore's past performance and history.

                Heres some more "cherry picking" Glen.


                FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY—

                1. Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

                2. "At the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gaving a moving speech about his only sister's painful death from lung cancer. And since then he has pushed the administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

                What Gore didn't mention is that he grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and continued to accept checks from that farm for years after his sister died. In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote up above: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.') He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

                3. Here are some of Al's business associates:

                Convicted cocaine smuggler Jose Cabrera
                Howard Glicken, who admitted soliciting and laundering foreign campaign contributions
                Franklin Haney, indicted for illegal campaign contributions
                1990. Mr. Gore was also accused of making fund raising call from his office. He has raised millions of dollars for his political party. Can you forget his Illegal Fundraising At a Buddhist Temple (and Weaseling About It Afterwards)

                4. Environmental Hypocrisy

                One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.

                5. Al Gore-backed (and US government-backed) Fisker Automotive delivers $100,000 plug-in hybrid lemon to Consumer Reports; inexplicably broke down after 180 miles of testing, which only serves as further evidence that nearly all computer models cannot be relied upon.

                6. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lowers the Boom on Al Gore’s Big Lie that the humble, beneficial gas – CO2 – causes global warming. NASA states absolutely that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Global Coolant and massively cools the Earth.

                You can bet that the NASA scientists designed, built, launched and placed in Earth orbit the satellite machinery to prove it, too.

                So, there we have it. In addition, the Earth has not gotten any warmer for 17 years. NASA has finally pulled the plug on Gore’s Big Lie and ended the gigantic, world wide charade on CO2.

                7. Al Gore lied about his role in Vietnam. He was a reporter and was NEVER in a combat situation. He asked for an early out because he told them he wanted to go to the seminary which he dropped out soon after. Here is a copy of a letter from a real Vietnam Vet describing a photo that Al Gore showed while carrying an m-16.

                My name is James Welborn. I served with the 25th Infantry Division in
                Viet Nam at about the same time Al Gore was supposedly there. I was
                stationed at Cu chi, somewhat to the north of Bein Hoa. I was sent a photo some
                time ago that was titled," Al Gore, gun safety advocate".

                While I laughed until tears were streaming down my face I did not at
                that time look very close at the photo until a few days later. This photo
                was on Al's own website, supposedly showing Al in Viet Nam. The photo is of
                Al. But it ain't Viet Nam. Why?...

                1. The photo is supposedly Al, out in the, "field". If this is so, why
                is his weapon unloaded? And why does he have no ammo at all. If I, as a
                photog for 25th Infantry attempted to go outside the wire with a patrol,
                without ammo, two things would happen. First, the team I was going out
                with would refuse to bring me along. And secondly, I would probably be
                brought up on charges because such stupidity puts the rest of the patrol in
                danger.

                2. Al has only one canteen. There was no time of year in that area of
                Viet Nam where you would not carry as much water as you could with you.
                Drinking fountains were thin on the ground in the bush.

                3. Al has a rubberized jacket of some sort on, over his fatigues. Aside
                from the fact that you would keel over after about 5 minutes wearing
                such a thing in the heat and humidity of that country, no such thing was
                issued to troops incountry. Rain cover was provided by a poncho liner and
                poncho, (a tent half with a hood in the center of it.) Enlisted troops were
                not authorized to make up their own version of the field uniform. Nor were
                officers for that matter.

                4. Notice in the photo that Al has what looks to be a winter sleeping bag on
                his "ruck." Try sleeping in one of these in Viet Nam and you would have
                a very hot and wet night inside the bag.

                5. Wasn't Al supposed to be a journalist or something? But he has no
                camera, no cassette recorder. No film. And if he was acting a regular
                "grunt," then he would be carrying lots of ammo, both for himself and
                for the M-60, belt fed that goes out with any medium to large patrol.

                6. No food.

                7. No grenades.

                8. Maybe in the special forces and seals, an enlisted man would be
                allowed to go to the field with a boonie hat on. Nowhere else. Troops were
                required to wear the steel pot and liner and you could be brought up on
                charges for not doing so.

                Sooooo, this is a photo of Al acting stupid in some basic training
                center in the US, where you would go to the field without ammo, water and
                food, and with clothes that were not authorized for use in Viet Nam. Al is
                lying again. He might have been in Viet Nam, but this photo was not taken
                there.

                So Glen, What are we to think about your hero Al Gore? You accuse me of cherry picking? I am just trying to reach an intelligent decision as I am sure many other members are as well. Have a good day.
                Schultzz, nobody in this argument has claimed Mr. Gore is a saint. That's hardly the point but you appear to have a real problem with him which looks to me like it colors your argument.

                You might want to read the following, which lays out the history of thought on climate change: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
                Note that nobel prizewinners and scientific luminaries of the 19th century knew enough about the absorbtion properties of CO2 to realize too much of it in our atmosphere could be a problem. So now here we are 120 years later. In that time approximately 500 billion tons of CO2 has been produced by man from burning carbon based compounds. Approximately 1/3 of that has been absorbed by our oceans, raising the pH measurably. So, Mr. S, is this a problem to you? Do you consider it wise and prudent to continue on the path we're on? I'd note that the scientific community generally gets it right with minor deviations on the path to truth. You can't make a similar claim about industries that make their livlihood by providing carbon based fuels or from burning them.
                Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

                Comment


                • #38
                  Schultzz,

                  That's quite a rant. Unfortunately your premise is that I am defending Al Gore, when instead it is about climate science. So we get it, if Al Gore is for it, you're against it. You could have said that with a lot less bandwith. Sorry you are so angry. Have a nice day.
                  “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                  ― Cormac McCarthy

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by vtflyfish View Post
                    Note that nobel prizewinners and scientific luminaries of the 19th century knew enough about the absorbtion properties of CO2 to realize too much of it in our atmosphere could be a problem. So now here we are 120 years later.
                    And in 120 years from now we will still be in the same place. Three predictions:

                    1. There will never be a worldwide CO2 agreement
                    2. CO2 levels will decline at some point in that timespan (120 years)
                    3. Green technology will only have a minor part in the decline since it will be because of a reduction of coal use (China, India, and other developing countries) as Fracking of Natural Gas and Oil expands.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Glen View Post
                      it is about climate science.
                      Yeah, let's stick with climate science.

                      There are so many variables in studying climate it makes you wonder which is the most fraught with difficulties, climate science or psychology.
                      The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yeah, seriously, who cares about Al Gore?

                        What would it take convince me?

                        The data would have to show:

                        That humans aren't responsible for CO2 increases (which we are)
                        That CO2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas (which it does)
                        That temperatures are not rising (which they are)

                        I'm not sure why it matters whether reality perfectly matches the models. If you're sick and the doctor says "I predict you will have a fever of 104 by the end of the day", and at the end of the day you have a fever of only 103.7, that doesn't mean you don't have a fever. The model was wrong, but reality is always right.
                        He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
                          Yeah, seriously, who cares about Al Gore?

                          What would it take convince me?

                          The data would have to show:

                          That humans aren't responsible for CO2 increases (which we are)
                          That CO2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas (which it does)
                          That temperatures are not rising (which they are)

                          I'm not sure why it matters whether reality perfectly matches the models. If you're sick and the doctor says "I predict you will have a fever of 104 by the end of the day", and at the end of the day you have a fever of only 103.7, that doesn't mean you don't have a fever. The model was wrong, but reality is always right.
                          I agree that Humans are responsible for CO2 increase but I'm not sure about how much.

                          I agree CO2 acts as a Greenhouse gas to the tune of 1.1c per doubling.

                          I agree that temperatures rose from 1850 (why wouldn't they it was the end of the Little Ice Age). I also agree that temps rose from 1979 till 1999. But they have not risen since.

                          "I'm not sure why it matters whether reality perfectly matches the models".

                          Was this a Freudian slip? The correct statement should be that the models match reality.

                          So you feel that model validation is not important? I strongly disagree. If a prediction is made for a 100 years in the future I need to see a reasonable fit to the data along the way.

                          So if I may summarize your position. The science is settled and the debate over.

                          In any event I think we both can agree that Climate Change is both interesting and important. We disagree as to why. You feel its important for the Environmental Field and I feel it is important for the Psychology field.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                            I agree that Humans are responsible for CO2 increase but I'm not sure about how much.
                            Actually, this is one of the easier calculations to make. If you look through the article on climate change research I posted it's all there. The alarming thing to me is how much carbon based fuel has been burned in the last 30 years as other countries started consuming fossil fuels at the same rate we do.

                            My take is that we humans will probably survive climate change but predict that there will be a lot of tumoil and upheaval in the process. Like NYC being completely under water...
                            Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Glen View Post
                              Schultzz,

                              That's quite a rant. Unfortunately your premise is that I am defending Al Gore, when instead it is about climate science. So we get it, if Al Gore is for it, you're against it. You could have said that with a lot less bandwith. Sorry you are so angry. Have a nice day.
                              Hi Glen,

                              Thanks for your comment. I am not angry I was just defending myself. There are so many conflicting arguments both for and against the science that it can get confusing. I respect your right to your opinion. Take care.
                              Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by vtflyfish View Post
                                Schultzz, nobody in this argument has claimed Mr. Gore is a saint. That's hardly the point but you appear to have a real problem with him which looks to me like it colors your argument.

                                You might want to read the following, which lays out the history of thought on climate change: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
                                Note that nobel prizewinners and scientific luminaries of the 19th century knew enough about the absorbtion properties of CO2 to realize too much of it in our atmosphere could be a problem. So now here we are 120 years later. In that time approximately 500 billion tons of CO2 has been produced by man from burning carbon based compounds. Approximately 1/3 of that has been absorbed by our oceans, raising the pH measurably. So, Mr. S, is this a problem to you? Do you consider it wise and prudent to continue on the path we're on? I'd note that the scientific community generally gets it right with minor deviations on the path to truth. You can't make a similar claim about industries that make their livlihood by providing carbon based fuels or from burning them.
                                So you are saying that the acidity in our lakes does not come from facilities West and North of us and comes solely from man burning "carbon based compounds"? That is a theory which is akin to Ostrich Syndrome. (head in sand), AND contradicts your point, (whatever that is). My point is not that I am disagreeing with the fact that we have environmental problems brought on by others having priorities other than concern for our planet but the fact that my opinion or yours has absolutely no bearing on a remedy for the problem.

                                Cap and Trade agreements and greedy people like Al Gore who present unethical practices are NOT the answer either.
                                What can we do to change the trend? You tell me. What is all your ranting and semantic point making doing to help eliminate processes which cause greenhouse gasses? Nothing.

                                I was making a point about a man which Redhawk was attempting to glorify. It has nothing to do with politics on my part. I realize that Global Warming indicators are not associated with our current Ole Man Winter, but the problem is not that I do not recognize global warming it's just that I question what brings it about. And please delineate between what is Science and what is B.S. The radical professor from Rochester to me lacks credibility because of his past actions. The same with Gore.

                                How can you know for sure about the earth's capabilities for absorption based on NASA's scientific evidence that C02 does NOT bring about global warming but instead acts as a coolant? I am not sure that the scientific community is getting it right because they continually contradict themselves. Yes, we have problems. Please tell me how we can remedy those problems. I don't think you can.
                                Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X