kallend 1,623 #26 November 24, 2009 QuoteComing from someone with an actual understanding of thermodynamics. "As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent."; -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer UCLA does NOT offer a major at either the undergraduate or graduate level in Thermodynamics, nor in Heat & Mass Transfer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #27 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteComing from someone with an actual understanding of thermodynamics. "As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent."; -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer UCLA does NOT offer a major at either the undergraduate or graduate level in Thermodynamics, nor in Heat & Mass Transfer. I thought that name was familiar. He may or may not have Engineering degrees from UCLA, but what he did with the knowledge is anybody's guess. This letter he wrote to the Las Vegas Sun tells a lot. www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/25/electric-cars-arent-improvement/HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #28 November 24, 2009 Quotedoubletap Is that a threat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffwxyz 0 #29 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Jack, I have a problem with your post. First, all of the above are true, but to jump to the point to say that humans are the sole cause of the increase of the concentration of CO2 is stretching the facts. It also leaves out facts that can show that humans have nothing to do with it. When you jump into the GW argument, please look at the context. This thread's title includes the word "Anthropogenic". The same needs to be said to almost every major media outlet. They jump from point A to Z in every GW article published. Further, to just state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is misleading because it does not state all of the facts. In particular it is misleading because it does not take in to account that the concentration level of CO2 to become a probem is still disputed. Your statement is no different than saying that "since we launch rockets into space, we are therefore altering the orbit of the planet from the reaction. Therefore, this will affect life on the panet" The first half is true, the second half is stretching the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #30 November 24, 2009 QuoteFirst, all of the above are true, but to jump to the point to say that humans are the sole cause of the increase of the concentration of CO2 is stretching the facts. It also leaves out facts that can show that humans have nothing to do with it. Humans burn fossil fuels do they not? Fossil fuels add a net increase of CO2 to the atmosphere do they not? In fact 75% of the net atmospheric CO2 increase is due to humans burning fossil fuels. The rest is mostly due to deforestation. link Quote Further, to just state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is misleading because it does not state all of the facts. In particular it is misleading because it does not take in to account that the concentration level of CO2 to become a problem is still disputed. Nevertheless, the radiative forcing due to CO2 is well understood and is the largest of any of the greenhouse gases primarily due to the relative concentrations. link Quote Your statement is no different than saying that "since we launch rockets into space, we are therefore altering the orbit of the planet from the reaction. Therefore, this will affect life on the panet" The first half is true, the second half is stretching the facts. That what AGW research is all about. The mechanism is as simple as I have said it is and is indisputable fact; it is the extent and the consequences of that mechanism and the complicated and chaotic interactions with other factors in the environment that are the subject of investigation. But if you force even the most chaotic system in a certain direction, eventually and on average it will tend towards that direction. Fact. But the whole AGW discussion has just turned into a pissing contest now. It's pointless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #31 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe cards are fixen to fall for the whole AGW crowd. We will soon see who is reasonable, (when confronted with new information, change their mind) and who the kool aid drinkers are. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas Using the term "greenhouse gas" denotes a political, rather than technical, standpoint. It may or not be "false," but it certainly is junk science. b) The concentration of atmospheric aCO2 is increasing As you surely have no idea, this is a self-correcting problem. c) Thermodynamics works The fact that you chose the discipline of Thermodynamics (better described as "ThermoStatics"), rather than Radiation Heat Transfer, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. The Holy Grail of Systems Theory is SISO - Single Input/Single Output. When followers of Algore present their scenario of SISO disaster, it may be dismissed out of hand. There are problems, sure, but addressing this nonsense is a waste of time. Al Gore is a moron, and anything he says is likely wrong. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #32 November 24, 2009 Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 197 #33 November 24, 2009 Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #34 November 24, 2009 > Climategate: the final nail in the coffin 11 years later, and there are still "final nails" being driven in the "coffin." I have this vision of an elderly RushMC posting something in 2031: "2029 - the year global warming was disproven! This will REALLY be the final nail in the coffin of AGW." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #35 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem. Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Plus, I suspect the economic interests of the oil/gas/auto/coal industries are somewhat more robust than that of the research community. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 197 #36 November 24, 2009 QuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #37 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteComing from someone with an actual understanding of thermodynamics. "As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent."; -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer UCLA does NOT offer a major at either the undergraduate or graduate level in Thermodynamics, nor in Heat & Mass Transfer. It is fortunate they don't, if this is supposed to be a graduate. He is apparently confusing heat capacity with infrared absorptivity. For a given change in temperature approximately 0.25% of the change in heat content of the atmosphere would be due to the change in heat content of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but that is irrelevant. The issue is how much outgoing radiation it will trap, and that is around 9-26% of the total. It is like arguing that fiberglass won't insulate a house, since its heat content is only a fraction of the heat content of the whole house. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #38 November 24, 2009 >Using the term "greenhouse gas" denotes a political, rather than technical, >standpoint. A greenhouse gas is a term used to indicate a gas that is transparent to short wavelength radiation but opaque to longer wavelength radiation. It is akin to calling a gas "inert." It refers to a physical property of the gas, not a political decision involving its actions. >>The concentration of atmospheric aCO2 is increasing >As you surely have no idea, this is a self-correcting problem. In the long term, yes. Of course, this is true in many other fields; "all bleeding stops" is a common phrase used in the ER. Doesn't mean you will like how that comes to pass, or what happens in the meantime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #39 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #40 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 FOX distorted the story Say it ain't so!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #41 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem. NOAA and NASA are funded regardless. What do their scientists say?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #42 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Who is this "they" you speak of? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #43 November 24, 2009 >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay scientists to say? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #44 November 24, 2009 Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuotedoubletap Is that a threat? No, it was a double post. Paranoid much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #46 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 FOX distorted the story Say it ain't so! Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #47 November 24, 2009 Quote What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Evidently, that global warming is a very serious problem and we must act now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ion01 1 #48 November 24, 2009 Quote Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. but... but.... the government is the only one we can trust! Its the CEO's who are evil lyers! This is just a false attack by those fear mongers and right wing extremists! They are just doing what is necessary to save us all....if it takes a couple lies to save the planet then the end justifies the means....right? Its about whats best for society right???? Sure, lets just keep trusting the ultimate power which corrupts ultimately that is the government! Lets just go ahead and give them healthcare! They said they won't ration it......why not just believe them? They said you can keep your doctor or your current healthcare......why not just believe them? Just continue to ignore the facts just like people did with AGW and take thier word for it. And for goodness sakes! Don't read the healthcare bill. If they said something why can't you just believe it? Obama has kept all his promises so far right? He said the first thing he would do was to get us out of Iraq and he did it....... and there would be no more ear marks in bills and he made sure of that.... and his government would be the most transparent ever and he did that (ignore the made up counties in oklahoma that made jobs with stimulus money....they didn't exist!!!)..... and he said he would put science in its rightful place and he is doing that..... and that if his stimulus passed unemployment wouldn't go over 8% and it didn't..... and.... and..... and..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ion01 1 #49 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Lets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #50 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Lets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Consumers won't do a damned thing. You know that. Business has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. We are screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
livendive 8 #32 November 24, 2009 Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #33 November 24, 2009 Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #34 November 24, 2009 > Climategate: the final nail in the coffin 11 years later, and there are still "final nails" being driven in the "coffin." I have this vision of an elderly RushMC posting something in 2031: "2029 - the year global warming was disproven! This will REALLY be the final nail in the coffin of AGW." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #35 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem. Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Plus, I suspect the economic interests of the oil/gas/auto/coal industries are somewhat more robust than that of the research community. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #36 November 24, 2009 QuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #37 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteComing from someone with an actual understanding of thermodynamics. "As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent."; -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer UCLA does NOT offer a major at either the undergraduate or graduate level in Thermodynamics, nor in Heat & Mass Transfer. It is fortunate they don't, if this is supposed to be a graduate. He is apparently confusing heat capacity with infrared absorptivity. For a given change in temperature approximately 0.25% of the change in heat content of the atmosphere would be due to the change in heat content of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but that is irrelevant. The issue is how much outgoing radiation it will trap, and that is around 9-26% of the total. It is like arguing that fiberglass won't insulate a house, since its heat content is only a fraction of the heat content of the whole house. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #38 November 24, 2009 >Using the term "greenhouse gas" denotes a political, rather than technical, >standpoint. A greenhouse gas is a term used to indicate a gas that is transparent to short wavelength radiation but opaque to longer wavelength radiation. It is akin to calling a gas "inert." It refers to a physical property of the gas, not a political decision involving its actions. >>The concentration of atmospheric aCO2 is increasing >As you surely have no idea, this is a self-correcting problem. In the long term, yes. Of course, this is true in many other fields; "all bleeding stops" is a common phrase used in the ER. Doesn't mean you will like how that comes to pass, or what happens in the meantime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #39 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #40 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 FOX distorted the story Say it ain't so!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem. NOAA and NASA are funded regardless. What do their scientists say?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #42 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnly science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Who is this "they" you speak of? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #43 November 24, 2009 >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay scientists to say? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #44 November 24, 2009 Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuotedoubletap Is that a threat? No, it was a double post. Paranoid much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Are you suggesting that they don't know if there is a problem? Hasn't been their position so far. Scientists know that AGW is real and is a problem. This is just another example of the depths to which FOX will go in order to generate noise and dangerous propaganda based on concepts they don't understand taken out of context.. http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017 FOX distorted the story Say it ain't so! Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 November 24, 2009 Quote What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Evidently, that global warming is a very serious problem and we must act now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #48 November 24, 2009 Quote Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. but... but.... the government is the only one we can trust! Its the CEO's who are evil lyers! This is just a false attack by those fear mongers and right wing extremists! They are just doing what is necessary to save us all....if it takes a couple lies to save the planet then the end justifies the means....right? Its about whats best for society right???? Sure, lets just keep trusting the ultimate power which corrupts ultimately that is the government! Lets just go ahead and give them healthcare! They said they won't ration it......why not just believe them? They said you can keep your doctor or your current healthcare......why not just believe them? Just continue to ignore the facts just like people did with AGW and take thier word for it. And for goodness sakes! Don't read the healthcare bill. If they said something why can't you just believe it? Obama has kept all his promises so far right? He said the first thing he would do was to get us out of Iraq and he did it....... and there would be no more ear marks in bills and he made sure of that.... and his government would be the most transparent ever and he did that (ignore the made up counties in oklahoma that made jobs with stimulus money....they didn't exist!!!)..... and he said he would put science in its rightful place and he is doing that..... and that if his stimulus passed unemployment wouldn't go over 8% and it didn't..... and.... and..... and..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #49 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Lets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #50 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No >funding necessary if there isn't a problem. And Exxon, Shell et al are vying for trillions of dollars - which they start to lose if it is shown that CO2 emissions have negative effects on the environment. Which group has more power overall, do you think? What do you think they will pay pseudoscientists to say? There. I fixed that for you Lets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Consumers won't do a damned thing. You know that. Business has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. We are screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
