I hate Bush..But I have enough sense to know that life on earth is not black and white..He is actually capable of doing good things..And I stress that the good things he did for the environment, he did it quietly..Hate to repeat myself, but if it were merely for his image, he would have made a big to-do about it, not kept it quiet.
He's made it quite clear he is not a fan of the environment. If he's done anything, and I've heard of a couple things, it's because he's pretty much forced to out of image.
Nuclear is cheap abundant energy.
Recycling garbage by heating it in extreme indirect temps, a la mother earth, only faster..instead of making God aweful biofuel of it, is heaps of abundant and cheap as hell, and the only digging it requires is digging up landfills, and this process, while already being used in Japan, is blocked in the U.s. by environmentalist groups. Cheap and abundant equals bad according to them. And not because of coal..LoL..I have quotes from those folk that clarify their reasons. Coal was never mentioned.
Environmentalists are all about reusing and recycling. I don't know where you're getting your info, but they're certainly not against recycling garbage. The process is organic and one less step from overfilling our already full landfills. It is not blocked in the U.S. as it's just emerging.
My grandad was a coal miner, and my fam on my dad's side live right near a coal mine in PA. Do you really want to take it there?
I know enough that these mine workers are willing to put their health (and their family's) at stake for income and a lot won't speak badly about the industry as many of these workers have been doing all their lives and have nothing else. How is the air quality where your Dad's fam lives? You must have visited.
Regarding the hurricanes..sources? I really gotta see this bs.
It's simple science, no friction in the air equals no hurricanes/tornados. What causes friction, periodic el nino and la nina as you mentioned, that have been occuring since long before we went industrial, and....cold air.
Considering there was no el nino or la nina during the most recent freak hurricane season, guess whats left as the cause...
Cyclical, it's all I'm pointing out? Are you serious..Try cyclical since before the industrialised world, which leaves us out as the culprit. Common sense.
You know what else is common sense? If 1998 was the hottest, and today is not, then we are cooler today than in 1998. I don't need a bloody source for that one. You got to be right fucking retarded to not figure that out.
The link between changes in the temperature of the sea's surface and increases in North Atlantic hurricane activity has been quantified for the first time. The research - carried out by scientists at UCL (University College London) and due to be published in Nature on January 31 - shows that a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature can be associated with an approximately 40 per cent increase in hurricane activity.
The study, conducted by Professor Mark Saunders and Dr Adam Lea of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre and the UCL Tropical Storm Risk forecasting venture, finds that local sea surface warming was responsible for about 40 per cent of the increase in Atlantic hurricane activity (relative to the 1950-2000 average) between 1996 and 2005.
The study also finds that the current sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to sea surface warming is large, with a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature being associated with a ~40 per cent increase in hurricane activity and frequency.
Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
Bush was pressured to not make the area protected, by big oil, and by folk who live there including organisations representing them.
When he passed the Clear skies Initiative, greens were criticising him for it..Doesn't sound like their were pushing him into it too much to me?
Cos the garbage deal creates abundant cheap energy. They don't like that.
We've already had too much economic growth in the U.s.
Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
Paul Ehrlich, an esteemed Environmentalist and Academic.
Another one from him- Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy.
Amory Lovins, Professional Environmentalist and Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Told you they don't like cheap clean energy..
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species upon the rest of the natural world.
John shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.
And before you agree with him, realise you are on a computer.
They don't like humans much either- To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
Dr.LaMont Cole, another esteemed environmentalist, and professor at Yale.
When asked about the millions of Africans who died after DDT was banned based on falsified data, Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said- This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.
Bono would have a shit fit if he read those..
The air was fine last time I was in PA. Heaps of trees around. The air was a nice relief from the stink of sweaty people in Miami. I don't remember the other 2 times I been at ages 7 and 1. The only health problems my grandad ever had was related to his smoking pipes and cigars heavily since he was a teen.
Regarding the heat...based on what? Again, without a global mean surface temp measurement, the info is compromised, incomplete, and innacurate. I was being a cynical ass with my comments about 1998. I can't know what it really was any more than anyone else, scientist or not.
The sources were the folk who said it..I have an annoying habit of hoarding stuff like that. Greenpeace isn't a viable source for the weather, but they are a viable source for understanding the mindset of the Environmentalists, and the tactics used by these huge organisations, such as themselves, to bully businesses, scientists, and the media.
The climate alarmist, Dr.stephen schneider, is a professional environmentalist, Climatologist, and Professor for the Department of Biological sciences at stanford. I do not/will not mention anyone who is not of this sort esteem.
I quoted 4 climate scientists, 2 professional environmentalists, and a co-founder of one of, if not the, largest environmentalism organisations.
In this post I have quoted a Nobel scientist who has worked with immunology and chemotherapy, yet hates humans and feels that the more of us that die, the better (gives me great confidence in the scientists working to cure our diseases to keep us alive..), and 3 climate scientists, and an environmentalist.
Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
It's times like now, -15 F where I'm at, that makes me want to root for global warming..
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the root of the problem is not what we are putting into the atmosphere, but how many of us fuckers are spreading across the globe. In my lifetime, 30 years, the human population has doubled!
Just look at that number and think, only 30 years ago we were doing half as much damage as now.. and 30 before that, probably less than a quarter damage we are doing now.
Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
When he passed the Clear skies Initiative, greens were criticising him for it..Doesn't sound like their were pushing him into it too much to me?
That's because the clear skies initiative weakens the clean air act which would result in significantly fewer reductions of air pollutants. The misnamed "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system so some communities will get cleaner, but many communities will lose out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 - an increase of 68 percent more NOx pollution.
Cos the garbage deal creates abundant cheap energy. They don't like that.
Recycling garbage is right up environmentalist's alley, for the second time. You can't seem to get that.
We've already had too much economic growth in the U.s.
Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
Paul Ehrlich, an esteemed Environmentalist and Academic.
Another one from him- Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
I agree with him. Nuclear is not the answer for the future.
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy.
Amory Lovins, Professional Environmentalist and Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Talk about taking it out of context. The real quote by Lovins is this: "If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other."
Told you they don't like cheap clean energy..
Nope.
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species upon the rest of the natural world.
John shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.
And before you agree with him, realise you are on a computer.
Yep, agree. Do you really think that technology will expand and lengthen human existence? If anything technology and depleting the world's resources will make our existence even shorter. The key to our existence is working with our environment, not destroying it. Look at the few tribes that still exist in the world. They live off the land. Because they haven't let technology and capitalism take over their existence, their hunting and gathering way of life that have lasted hundred of years prove that their ideals have longer lasting power.
They don't like humans much either- To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
Dr.LaMont Cole, another esteemed environmentalist, and professor at Yale.
When asked about the millions of Africans who died after DDT was banned based on falsified data, Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said- This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.
Bono would have a shit fit if he read those..
I know where you're getting these quotes. From those nutjob websites that take many quotes out of context and try to further their agenda for global warming. You're right there with them, which is sad. They're certainly not science based, rather opinion based and easily influenced people fall for it. I'd really like to see some concrete scientific evidence from you that proves your theory. The quotes really don't mean anything because they're easily twisted and taken out of context on the web.
likeanocean- LoL...But bear in mind, even the most populated countries, India and China, have heaps of untouched land. We aren't as plentiful as some would think. We could all stuff into texas and still have about 800-1200 square feet for each of us. spread the world pop across the u.s. and it'd be like living in the city.
jeanwah-are you completely skipping over each time where I repeat how he did it quietly. Hardly anyone knew about either deal. It has jack to do with his image.
The 2 stage plan isn't even fully in place, yet 2003-2005 had the lowest ozone on record. seems like it did it's job to me, with less regs or not. The greens were just pissed they didn't have a greater chokehold on our freedoms.
It's not up their alley cos it's too cheap and too abundant. I find it amusing that you say they are in favour of that, then find the rest of that statement showing they think we'll do mischief with it? You are contradicting yourself. I didn't post all of it cos it wasn't necessary to type the whole bloody thing out when it is still in the same context. They don't want us to have clean abundant energy. That was what I was trying to show, and that is what he meant by it.
Why is nuclear not the answer? They use it in Japan. Works out wonderfully.
Well then you take the first step towards de-industrialisation...donate your computer. And tv, and radio, and car, and home, and all your valuables and money. Why do I somehow doubt you will do this?
Think about the times before industrialisation. People died from pnuemonia and smallpox and many other ailments that are easily prevented today. In Africa, they still die from things like Malaria. DDT is a solution..blocked by the greens bs research. When treated, they don't die from it. Treatment for something like that back in the day was not possible. People froze in the winters, died from unclean water, and generally had very hard lives that led to far shorter lifespans than we enjoy today. You are so very painfully mistaken on this point. Longer lifespans, better treatments, taller people (attributed to better health and happiness)..
Um, no. I am subscribed to every science mag available, and regularly read up on various scientists, along with having a library of science books and more pertinent to this case, books about scientists (I don't do fiction)..
They got any quotes from the likes of Dr.Hawass, or Dr.C.Brace? I have plenty of others that I am certain they have nowt about. And I have plenty of odd ball, and/or alarming statements from them.
A direct quote from someone shows plenty. It shows how they feel about the subject in question. When enough of the top ranking folk on a subject share the same sentiments, it shows what they would/wouldn't be doing for it based on their beliefs. My opinion on lizards is positive, therefore, I would not kill one intentionally. see how that works? Their own words mean a lot.
Tell me, genius, how one takes out of context the statements about starving children and Africans dying? You act as tho I have yet to post anything regarding the real science behind what I'm stating. Don't twist me like that. I haven't done that shit to you.
likeanocean- LoL...But bear in mind, even the most populated countries, India and China, have heaps of untouched land. We aren't as plentiful as some would think. We could all stuff into texas and still have about 800-1200 square feet for each of us. spread the world pop across the u.s. and it'd be like living in the city.
Source, please. You obviously don't understand how overpopulated the world is.
jeanwah-are you completely skipping over each time where I repeat how he did it quietly. Hardly anyone knew about either deal. It has jack to do with his image.
Any idiot knows that Bush is not Green. Are you on glue?
Well then you take the first step towards de-industrialisation...donate your computer. And tv, and radio, and car, and home, and all your valuables and money. Why do I somehow doubt you will do this?
Let's see...well, living green is living with less, reusing and recycling more, which I do, but don't have to prove it to you...just because I own a computer does not mean I treat the earth like it's a dumping ground and buy all the latest crap. Consumerism is the anti-green. So that would be you seeing you hate everything environmental.
"Green BS research" you say, and you subscribe to every science mag available? YOU HAVE NOT LISTED ONE RESOURCE FROM A SCIENCE BASED WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE. Like I said before the quotes you're listing are taken from bogus biased websites that take quotes out of context. You are not listing direct quotes, see your last post which I had to correct. You know what else you're doing? You won't answer my questions and will change the topic to please yourself. Do something, read a science journal why don't you? You have a clear anti-environmental agenda that you have no problem making anything that helps the earth, evil. Go pollute some more, ya Republican.
Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
Where are you getting your info?
There was a paper published by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that a few newspapers picked up last year. Erroneous temperature calculations that reported inflated temperatures after the year 2000 were corrected and the top 10 hottest years in US history were revised to reflect the changes. The paper also notes that anomalies such as the decommissioning of half of the former USSRs weather stations and the relocation of several Chinese weather stations introduce error when comparing current global temperature data with historical data. I think that GISS supports current global warming theories (ie GHG effects, etc) though.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
jeanwah- source = me
The area of Texas is 261,797 square miles. converted to square feet is 7,298,481,484,800. The world pop is currently 6.7 billion. The square footage divided by the population equals 1089.3 square feet per person.
so no...there are not that many of us.
Nah, he's not greenpeace..big difference. You know his ranch is more green than Al Gores energy-draining mansion?
Don't assume for one second that you know the first thing about me and how I live my life. I'm for true environmentalism..Not the force fed shit you are lapping up. You know what else you are doing typical to green style? You talk about how indigenous tribal people do it right, but you won't live like them. Professional greens carry on about how bad energy use is, then hop in their suv's to drive back to their beverly hills homes. If they don't practice what they preach, then things must not be as bad as they want you to believe..
I listed where I got my info..Maybe not all...I'll come back and do that. so take you bogus sites bullshit and stick way up your ass.
I also listed a couple of journals. Why do you people who argue with me like to pretend I didn't say certain things like I have forgotten what I wrote? LoL..I'll go back and copy/glue them so you can roll in your idiocy..kay?
I am not republican. I voted Nader, thank you very much.
none of that implies we should ignore the global climate change signs.
its very simple.
scientists have determined that humans have been responsible for altering the earths climate. we've changed the system. so our course of action seems very simply to me.
we must limit our impact on the environment. it really is that simple. denying global warming gives companies excuses to continue polluting the environment...which they don't really need. they have laws and nafta and the wto and so on, they can literally get away with pumping toxic waste into the local river. what we need to do as a species is recognize the damage we are doing to our environment and try to limit that as much as possible.
I can't imagine defending the idea that humans have no impact on our environment. the definition of insanity.
The bit about 1998 came from Gore's retarded hockey stick graph. (I did not previously list this, but I am now..)
The Greenpeace fill-in-the-blank press release came from the Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 May 2006
I specfied 3 years of IPCC reports.
What I wrote about biofuel came from Dr.Mark Jacobson of stanford University.
I listed the 2004 articles in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Listed the NOAA.
showed a graph of temps.
The Kyoto Protocol
statement from stephen schneider was in Discover Oct 1989 issue
from Petr Chylek was in Halifax Chronical-Herald on 22 Aug 2001
I am a huge fan of Richard Lindzen, I have been following his work for a long time. Comment from him was his Testimony before the U.s. senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works 10 June 1997
Henrik svensmark's came from the Copenhagen Post 4 Oct 2006
Gregg Easterbrook, "Return of the Glaciers," Newsweek 23 Nov 1992
Dr.Patrick Moore's came from Newswire 21 sept 2006
Paul Ehrlich's first one came from his one publication, the spectacularly disproven Population Bomb and Population Explosion
Paul Ehrlich's other one- An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
Amory Lovins' was in The Mother Earth Plowboy Interview 1977
John shuttleworth- his own publication..
Dr.LaMont Cole's and Charles Wursta's came from Toxic Terror by Elizabeth Whelan. she lists her sources, I can't find the bloody book..
so don't tell me I don't list sources and I get my stuff from alarmist websites. The majority of these I did list in those posts. Don't cherry pick, people look stupid doing that. Anyone can go back through and see that.
Oh and I thought the number of climate scientists there were in the world was impossible and it turns out after a little searching, I found I was right. There are all of 80 of them in the U.s. and a few hundred more throughout the rest of the world. Not the 5000 that Gore claimed there were.
The green's rock star is Dr.James Hansen. Often claiming this info, or that info, is wrong from the scientists trying to show their evidence that GW is not real. I would like to know on what authority he has to make such claims. He is a fuckin astronomer and chemist.
In the medieval warming period, the vikings grew forbs or grasses for their livestock in their Greenland settlements. That means it was warmer then and more ice melted.
I have soooooo much more I want to post but am dead tired. I'll post tomorrow. Good excuse to take time away from mind numbing paperwork
But one thought I want to state..If it's settled that GW is real, why do they continue to use 5 billion in taxes for to research if it is real or not?
scientists have determined that humans have been responsible for altering the earths climate. we've changed the system. so our course of action seems very simply to me.
Really? Which ones? Cos only one actual climate scientist in the nited states has stated any such thing. so one opinion from an actual authority on the subject is more important and difinitive than 79 others? Hah!
We have an impact..A very very infantismal one. On local climates, not overall climate.
And I made a post myself about why the greenies "solutions" do more harm. Cutting down rainforests, adding more smog..etc. I'm all for reducing what tiny little impact we contribute. I'm also all for forcing the greens to tell the truth so we can start to look at real solutions.
There was a paper published by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that a few newspapers picked up last year. Erroneous temperature calculations that reported inflated temperatures after the year 2000 were corrected and the top 10 hottest years in US history were revised to reflect the changes. The paper also notes that anomalies such as the decommissioning of half of the former USSRs weather stations and the relocation of several Chinese weather stations introduce error when comparing current global temperature data with historical data. I think that GISS supports current global warming theories (ie GHG effects, etc) though.
LoL..I love it..I knew it was total crap about the 2007 business, but didn't research it. All I had was the bit on how the 90's data was not reliable cos of the shutting down of the stations. That graph I posted was from GIss as well..but unfortunately, aside from a few reports that contradict them, they are on board the man-made GW wagon :(
You're certainly no scientist and have nothing published in any respected journal or magazine. The sources you list? OMG, laughable. Provide websites so I can read it right here, right now. What you're doing is trying to make yourself look good by not providing actual scientific info we can access on the web. Oh, and the "Plowboy" article? Hello, it's Playboy. Pay attention. AND, for someone to defend Bush's environmental says a lot about just who you are.
Not to mention completely oblivious and judgmental as to what exactly environmentally minded folks do and how they live:
I'm for true environmentalism..Not the force fed shit you are lapping up. You know what else you are doing typical to green style? You talk about how indigenous tribal people do it right, but you won't live like them. Professional greens carry on about how bad energy use is, then hop in their suv's to drive back to their beverly hills homes. If they don't practice what they preach, then things must not be as bad as they want you to believe..
I am not republican. I voted Nader, thank you very much.
BTW, Nadar is one of those Greens that you hate so much, another reason you're very transparent. What a contradicting statement to say you voted the Green Party when you so obviously hate them so much.
source = me on the basic math of world pop vs. Texas..
My sources are solid...go order back issues. You are a joke..you want sources that aren't websites, and when I provide them you ask for websites. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I listed scientific information, including 2 journals..You don't wanna go to them, that's your problem, but don't claim I didn't like everyone else here is blind and stupid.
Plowboy...not Playboy...Plowboy. Grow up.
Yea it shows I can see the gray, not black and white. You have no in between either a person is good, or they are bad. That's not how the world works doll. How old are you....seriously...without making up an age.
Are you a professional environmentalist..Well from the crap you spew, I'd possibly say yea, but without assuming the worst..I'll say no, which means what I wrote about beverly hills and suv's was not about you. Glad you think so highly of yourself tho That leaves stone out of it too.
Nader has sound ideas, not that crap that only makes things worse.
You know he criticised the dems for how they are with the environmentalists, along with how they only added more damage to the economy on top of what the reps already managed..He discussed it on that Bill O'Reilly show..sure it's fox, but his own words are his own words, not something made up by the media..And no..I don't watch fox..I occassionally watch O'Reilly, but that's it..Don't watch CNN either. Both are a waste of time.
From the way I have written about them, it should have been obvious that whenever I say greens, I mean the proffessional environmentalists. My apologies for giving you too much credit, thinking you had the capabilities of using common sense.
source = me on the basic math of world pop vs. Texas..
My sources are solid...go order back issues. You are a joke..you want sources that aren't websites, and when I provide them you ask for websites. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I listed scientific information, including 2 journals..You don't wanna go to them, that's your problem, but don't claim I didn't like everyone else here is blind and stupid.
Plowboy...not Playboy...Plowboy. Grow up.
Yea it shows I can see the gray, not black and white. You have no in between either a person is good, or they are bad. That's not how the world works doll. How old are you....seriously...without making up an age.
Are you a professional environmentalist..Well from the crap you spew, I'd possibly say yea, but without assuming the worst..I'll say no, which means what I wrote about beverly hills and suv's was not about you. Glad you think so highly of yourself tho That leaves stone out of it too.
Nader has sound ideas, not that crap that only makes things worse.
You know he criticised the dems for how they are with the environmentalists, along with how they only added more damage to the economy on top of what the reps already managed..He discussed it on that Bill O'Reilly show..sure it's fox, but his own words are his own words, not something made up by the media..And no..I don't watch fox..I occassionally watch O'Reilly, but that's it..Don't watch CNN either. Both are a waste of time.
From the way I have written about them, it should have been obvious that whenever I say greens, I mean the proffessional environmentalists. My apologies for giving you too much credit, thinking you had the capabilities of using common sense.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I posted a lot about things that the "greens" are doing that are harmful, how they are lying, and a few things we can do that would really be helpful, if only we could stop buying into the lies Gore and his people spew.
I posted a lot about things that the "greens" are doing that are harmful, how they are lying, and a few things we can do that would really be helpful, if only we could stop buying into the lies Gore and his people spew.
And you completely overlook your personal attack responses, Again how is that helpful? The post I quoted above seems to me to go against the first 4-5 guidelines. Meh , what the fuck do I know.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I posted a lot about things that the "greens" are doing that are harmful, how they are lying, and a few things we can do that would really be helpful, if only we could stop buying into the lies Gore and his people spew.
And you completely overlook your personal attack responses, Again how is that helpful? The post I quoted above seems to me to go against the first 4-5 guidelines. Meh , what the fuck do I know.
Because I asked what is wrong with him, told him to grow up cos his mind was on playboy, and added a cute little emoticon? Have you read any of the crap coming from him? This was nothing. The only thing that prolly violates any of the rules was the emoticon.
I didn't overlook my responses..I have refrained as best as possible from personal attacks, I'll have to look to see how often I did, not much tho, I promise you that. I have not, however, refrained from attacking his statements, nor have others on here. That is not a personal attack or "flaming."
EDIT: there I removed the emoticon. Happy?
And just as I thought, I got a tiny bit testy in one post on page 3 in answer to his flaming me, and then there was the emoticon on this page. Don't get it twisted...almost everything, in all my posts, has been pure information, with a little opinion thrown in regarding the subject, not the individual posting about it.
And you completely overlook your personal attack responses, Again how is that helpful? The post I quoted above seems to me to go against the first 4-5 guidelines. Meh , what the fuck do I know.
Because I asked what is wrong with him, told him to grow up cos his mind was on playboy, and added a cute little emoticon? Have you read any of the crap coming from him? This was nothing. The only thing that prolly violates any of the rules was the emoticon.
I didn't overlook my responses..I have refrained as best as possible from personal attacks, I'll have to look to see how often I did, not much tho, I promise you that. I have not, however, refrained from attacking his statements, nor have others on here. That is not a personal attack or "flaming."
so take you bogus sites bullshit and stick way up your ass.
If you can't debate civilly, don't debate at all. Your personal attacks just show that you can't take it. If you can't take it, get out of the debate than childish name calling. You are breaking guidelines.
EDIT: there I removed the emoticon. Happy?
And just as I thought, I got a tiny bit testy in one post on page 3 in answer to his flaming me, and then there was the emoticon on this page. Don't get it twisted...almost everything, in all my posts, has been pure information, with a little opinion thrown in regarding the subject, not the individual posting about it.
Then, why do you have such a difficult time posting website sources to back up your info? Pure information? Some of the info you've posted say that YOU are the source. That's subjective opinion, not information. And I'm not a guy btw.
I'm not really sure one way or the other on global warming. I mean with record-breaking low temps and snowfall in the south I've kinda got my doubts. For every article I read that melting is accelerating, I read a study that says growth is accelerating. I don't know who to believe, honestly. I can be convinced either way at this point.
I clearly stated I got testy on one post. You have done plenty of name calling and made plenty of childish statements. But I am not an 8 year old boy saying na na na na na..Anyone can go back and see all of it.
I said I was the source for one, count it..one basic math solution. I even specified that in a later post..Do you really think people are dumb enough to not catch what you are making a failed attempt at doing?
I can't post websites cos it comes from books and journals and newspapers and science/news magazine articles. This is not rocket science.
My apologies for the assumption you are a guy.
EDIT:
source = me on the basic math of world pop vs. Texas..
I was very specific on what I named myself as a source for.
I'm not really sure one way or the other on global warming. I mean with record-breaking low temps and snowfall in the south I've kinda got my doubts. For every article I read that melting is accelerating, I read a study that says growth is accelerating. I don't know who to believe, honestly. I can be convinced either way at this point.
The only journal Gore's buddies can get any of their articles published is one very unrespected journal founded by John shuttleworth. It has zero respect cos shuttleworth is not even a scientist, he is an author. And cos the articles are not properly scrutinised by scientists in that field. And cos the scientists submitting the articles are not even climate scientists. To call it a journal is a disgrace.
Articles published by actual climate scientists in respected peer-reviewed journals all show the ice is building up. Even a few reports from the green's camp show it's growing back, despite what they want you to believe.
Not to mention all the freakishly cold weather we've had over the past year. In some places reaching temps we had back in 1971 when the same "experts" were claiming we were racing into an ice age for which the death toll by 1980 will be astonishing, and it's manmade..We are all going to freeze to death.
Then in 92, again we were on the verge of going into another massively life-claiming manmade ice age, but by 98 we had a fever higher than ever before!
They really can't seem to make up their minds on if we are going to freeze or fry. The only thing they have settled on is that either way it's our fault, and we must surrender our freedoms to them cos only they know what is best for us and the planet.
Comments
Environmentalists are all about reusing and recycling. I don't know where you're getting your info, but they're certainly not against recycling garbage. The process is organic and one less step from overfilling our already full landfills. It is not blocked in the U.S. as it's just emerging.
I know enough that these mine workers are willing to put their health (and their family's) at stake for income and a lot won't speak badly about the industry as many of these workers have been doing all their lives and have nothing else. How is the air quality where your Dad's fam lives? You must have visited.
Hurricanes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130647.htm
As for 1998, it's not the hottest, it ties with 2007 for being the 2nd hottest. 2005 was the hottest.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114150.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154533.htm
Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
When he passed the Clear skies Initiative, greens were criticising him for it..Doesn't sound like their were pushing him into it too much to me?
Cos the garbage deal creates abundant cheap energy. They don't like that.
We've already had too much economic growth in the U.s.
Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
Paul Ehrlich, an esteemed Environmentalist and Academic.
Another one from him-
Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy.
Amory Lovins, Professional Environmentalist and Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Told you they don't like cheap clean energy..
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species upon the rest of the natural world.
John shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.
And before you agree with him, realise you are on a computer.
They don't like humans much either-
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
Dr.LaMont Cole, another esteemed environmentalist, and professor at Yale.
When asked about the millions of Africans who died after DDT was banned based on falsified data, Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said-
This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.
Bono would have a shit fit if he read those..
The air was fine last time I was in PA. Heaps of trees around. The air was a nice relief from the stink of sweaty people in Miami. I don't remember the other 2 times I been at ages 7 and 1. The only health problems my grandad ever had was related to his smoking pipes and cigars heavily since he was a teen.
Regarding the heat...based on what? Again, without a global mean surface temp measurement, the info is compromised, incomplete, and innacurate. I was being a cynical ass with my comments about 1998. I can't know what it really was any more than anyone else, scientist or not.
The sources were the folk who said it..I have an annoying habit of hoarding stuff like that. Greenpeace isn't a viable source for the weather, but they are a viable source for understanding the mindset of the Environmentalists, and the tactics used by these huge organisations, such as themselves, to bully businesses, scientists, and the media.
The climate alarmist, Dr.stephen schneider, is a professional environmentalist, Climatologist, and Professor for the Department of Biological sciences at stanford. I do not/will not mention anyone who is not of this sort esteem.
I quoted 4 climate scientists, 2 professional environmentalists, and a co-founder of one of, if not the, largest environmentalism organisations.
In this post I have quoted a Nobel scientist who has worked with immunology and chemotherapy, yet hates humans and feels that the more of us that die, the better (gives me great confidence in the scientists working to cure our diseases to keep us alive..), and 3 climate scientists, and an environmentalist.
Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the root of the problem is not what we are putting into the atmosphere, but how many of us fuckers are spreading across the globe. In my lifetime, 30 years, the human population has doubled!
Just look at that number and think, only 30 years ago we were doing half as much damage as now.. and 30 before that, probably less than a quarter damage we are doing now.
My advice..
Wear a condom.
That's an environmentalist! For reals for real.
That's because the clear skies initiative weakens the clean air act which would result in significantly fewer reductions of air pollutants. The misnamed "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system so some communities will get cleaner, but many communities will lose out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 - an increase of 68 percent more NOx pollution.
Recycling garbage is right up environmentalist's alley, for the second time. You can't seem to get that.
I agree with him. Nuclear is not the answer for the future.
Talk about taking it out of context. The real quote by Lovins is this: "If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other."
Nope.
Yep, agree. Do you really think that technology will expand and lengthen human existence? If anything technology and depleting the world's resources will make our existence even shorter. The key to our existence is working with our environment, not destroying it. Look at the few tribes that still exist in the world. They live off the land. Because they haven't let technology and capitalism take over their existence, their hunting and gathering way of life that have lasted hundred of years prove that their ideals have longer lasting power.
I know where you're getting these quotes. From those nutjob websites that take many quotes out of context and try to further their agenda for global warming. You're right there with them, which is sad. They're certainly not science based, rather opinion based and easily influenced people fall for it. I'd really like to see some concrete scientific evidence from you that proves your theory. The quotes really don't mean anything because they're easily twisted and taken out of context on the web.
jeanwah-are you completely skipping over each time where I repeat how he did it quietly. Hardly anyone knew about either deal. It has jack to do with his image.
The 2 stage plan isn't even fully in place, yet 2003-2005 had the lowest ozone on record. seems like it did it's job to me, with less regs or not. The greens were just pissed they didn't have a greater chokehold on our freedoms.
It's not up their alley cos it's too cheap and too abundant. I find it amusing that you say they are in favour of that, then find the rest of that statement showing they think we'll do mischief with it? You are contradicting yourself. I didn't post all of it cos it wasn't necessary to type the whole bloody thing out when it is still in the same context. They don't want us to have clean abundant energy. That was what I was trying to show, and that is what he meant by it.
Why is nuclear not the answer? They use it in Japan. Works out wonderfully.
Well then you take the first step towards de-industrialisation...donate your computer. And tv, and radio, and car, and home, and all your valuables and money. Why do I somehow doubt you will do this?
Think about the times before industrialisation. People died from pnuemonia and smallpox and many other ailments that are easily prevented today. In Africa, they still die from things like Malaria. DDT is a solution..blocked by the greens bs research. When treated, they don't die from it. Treatment for something like that back in the day was not possible. People froze in the winters, died from unclean water, and generally had very hard lives that led to far shorter lifespans than we enjoy today. You are so very painfully mistaken on this point. Longer lifespans, better treatments, taller people (attributed to better health and happiness)..
Um, no. I am subscribed to every science mag available, and regularly read up on various scientists, along with having a library of science books and more pertinent to this case, books about scientists (I don't do fiction)..
They got any quotes from the likes of Dr.Hawass, or Dr.C.Brace? I have plenty of others that I am certain they have nowt about. And I have plenty of odd ball, and/or alarming statements from them.
A direct quote from someone shows plenty. It shows how they feel about the subject in question. When enough of the top ranking folk on a subject share the same sentiments, it shows what they would/wouldn't be doing for it based on their beliefs. My opinion on lizards is positive, therefore, I would not kill one intentionally. see how that works? Their own words mean a lot.
Tell me, genius, how one takes out of context the statements about starving children and Africans dying? You act as tho I have yet to post anything regarding the real science behind what I'm stating. Don't twist me like that. I haven't done that shit to you.
Any idiot knows that Bush is not Green. Are you on glue?
Let's see...well, living green is living with less, reusing and recycling more, which I do, but don't have to prove it to you...just because I own a computer does not mean I treat the earth like it's a dumping ground and buy all the latest crap. Consumerism is the anti-green. So that would be you seeing you hate everything environmental.
"Green BS research" you say, and you subscribe to every science mag available? YOU HAVE NOT LISTED ONE RESOURCE FROM A SCIENCE BASED WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE. Like I said before the quotes you're listing are taken from bogus biased websites that take quotes out of context. You are not listing direct quotes, see your last post which I had to correct. You know what else you're doing? You won't answer my questions and will change the topic to please yourself. Do something, read a science journal why don't you? You have a clear anti-environmental agenda that you have no problem making anything that helps the earth, evil. Go pollute some more, ya Republican.
There was a paper published by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that a few newspapers picked up last year. Erroneous temperature calculations that reported inflated temperatures after the year 2000 were corrected and the top 10 hottest years in US history were revised to reflect the changes. The paper also notes that anomalies such as the decommissioning of half of the former USSRs weather stations and the relocation of several Chinese weather stations introduce error when comparing current global temperature data with historical data. I think that GISS supports current global warming theories (ie GHG effects, etc) though.
The area of Texas is 261,797 square miles. converted to square feet is 7,298,481,484,800. The world pop is currently 6.7 billion. The square footage divided by the population equals 1089.3 square feet per person.
so no...there are not that many of us.
Nah, he's not greenpeace..big difference. You know his ranch is more green than Al Gores energy-draining mansion?
Don't assume for one second that you know the first thing about me and how I live my life. I'm for true environmentalism..Not the force fed shit you are lapping up. You know what else you are doing typical to green style? You talk about how indigenous tribal people do it right, but you won't live like them. Professional greens carry on about how bad energy use is, then hop in their suv's to drive back to their beverly hills homes. If they don't practice what they preach, then things must not be as bad as they want you to believe..
I listed where I got my info..Maybe not all...I'll come back and do that. so take you bogus sites bullshit and stick way up your ass.
I also listed a couple of journals. Why do you people who argue with me like to pretend I didn't say certain things like I have forgotten what I wrote? LoL..I'll go back and copy/glue them so you can roll in your idiocy..kay?
I am not republican. I voted Nader, thank you very much.
its very simple.
scientists have determined that humans have been responsible for altering the earths climate. we've changed the system. so our course of action seems very simply to me.
we must limit our impact on the environment. it really is that simple. denying global warming gives companies excuses to continue polluting the environment...which they don't really need. they have laws and nafta and the wto and so on, they can literally get away with pumping toxic waste into the local river. what we need to do as a species is recognize the damage we are doing to our environment and try to limit that as much as possible.
I can't imagine defending the idea that humans have no impact on our environment. the definition of insanity.
The bit about 1998 came from Gore's retarded hockey stick graph. (I did not previously list this, but I am now..)
The Greenpeace fill-in-the-blank press release came from the Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 May 2006
I specfied 3 years of IPCC reports.
What I wrote about biofuel came from Dr.Mark Jacobson of stanford University.
I listed the 2004 articles in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Listed the NOAA.
showed a graph of temps.
The Kyoto Protocol
statement from stephen schneider was in Discover Oct 1989 issue
from Petr Chylek was in Halifax Chronical-Herald on 22 Aug 2001
I am a huge fan of Richard Lindzen, I have been following his work for a long time. Comment from him was his Testimony before the U.s. senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works 10 June 1997
Henrik svensmark's came from the Copenhagen Post 4 Oct 2006
Gregg Easterbrook, "Return of the Glaciers," Newsweek 23 Nov 1992
Dr.Patrick Moore's came from Newswire 21 sept 2006
Paul Ehrlich's first one came from his one publication, the spectacularly disproven Population Bomb and Population Explosion
Paul Ehrlich's other one- An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
Amory Lovins' was in The Mother Earth Plowboy Interview 1977
John shuttleworth- his own publication..
Dr.LaMont Cole's and Charles Wursta's came from Toxic Terror by Elizabeth Whelan. she lists her sources, I can't find the bloody book..
so don't tell me I don't list sources and I get my stuff from alarmist websites. The majority of these I did list in those posts. Don't cherry pick, people look stupid doing that. Anyone can go back through and see that.
Oh and I thought the number of climate scientists there were in the world was impossible and it turns out after a little searching, I found I was right. There are all of 80 of them in the U.s. and a few hundred more throughout the rest of the world. Not the 5000 that Gore claimed there were.
The green's rock star is Dr.James Hansen. Often claiming this info, or that info, is wrong from the scientists trying to show their evidence that GW is not real. I would like to know on what authority he has to make such claims. He is a fuckin astronomer and chemist.
In the medieval warming period, the vikings grew forbs or grasses for their livestock in their Greenland settlements. That means it was warmer then and more ice melted.
I have soooooo much more I want to post but am dead tired. I'll post tomorrow. Good excuse to take time away from mind numbing paperwork
But one thought I want to state..If it's settled that GW is real, why do they continue to use 5 billion in taxes for to research if it is real or not?
Really? Which ones? Cos only one actual climate scientist in the nited states has stated any such thing. so one opinion from an actual authority on the subject is more important and difinitive than 79 others? Hah!
We have an impact..A very very infantismal one. On local climates, not overall climate.
And I made a post myself about why the greenies "solutions" do more harm. Cutting down rainforests, adding more smog..etc. I'm all for reducing what tiny little impact we contribute. I'm also all for forcing the greens to tell the truth so we can start to look at real solutions.
LoL..I love it..I knew it was total crap about the 2007 business, but didn't research it. All I had was the bit on how the 90's data was not reliable cos of the shutting down of the stations. That graph I posted was from GIss as well..but unfortunately, aside from a few reports that contradict them, they are on board the man-made GW wagon :(
Not to mention completely oblivious and judgmental as to what exactly environmentally minded folks do and how they live: We drive SUVs and live in Beverly Hills, LOL...while Green hating people like you actually care how they live. LMAO.
http://evergreenfilm.org/archives/2008/ ... -_driving/
BTW, Nadar is one of those Greens that you hate so much, another reason you're very transparent. What a contradicting statement to say you voted the Green Party when you so obviously hate them so much.
My sources are solid...go order back issues. You are a joke..you want sources that aren't websites, and when I provide them you ask for websites. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I listed scientific information, including 2 journals..You don't wanna go to them, that's your problem, but don't claim I didn't like everyone else here is blind and stupid.
Plowboy...not Playboy...Plowboy. Grow up.
Yea it shows I can see the gray, not black and white. You have no in between either a person is good, or they are bad. That's not how the world works doll. How old are you....seriously...without making up an age.
Are you a professional environmentalist..Well from the crap you spew, I'd possibly say yea, but without assuming the worst..I'll say no, which means what I wrote about beverly hills and suv's was not about you. Glad you think so highly of yourself tho
Nader has sound ideas, not that crap that only makes things worse.
You know he criticised the dems for how they are with the environmentalists, along with how they only added more damage to the economy on top of what the reps already managed..He discussed it on that Bill O'Reilly show..sure it's fox, but his own words are his own words, not something made up by the media..And no..I don't watch fox..I occassionally watch O'Reilly, but that's it..Don't watch CNN either. Both are a waste of time.
From the way I have written about them, it should have been obvious that whenever I say greens, I mean the proffessional environmentalists. My apologies for giving you too much credit, thinking you had the capabilities of using common sense.
I wonder how helpful any of your posts are?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I posted a lot about things that the "greens" are doing that are harmful, how they are lying, and a few things we can do that would really be helpful, if only we could stop buying into the lies Gore and his people spew.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Because I asked what is wrong with him, told him to grow up cos his mind was on playboy, and added a cute little emoticon? Have you read any of the crap coming from him? This was nothing. The only thing that prolly violates any of the rules was the emoticon.
I didn't overlook my responses..I have refrained as best as possible from personal attacks, I'll have to look to see how often I did, not much tho, I promise you that. I have not, however, refrained from attacking his statements, nor have others on here. That is not a personal attack or "flaming."
EDIT: there I removed the emoticon. Happy?
And just as I thought, I got a tiny bit testy in one post on page 3 in answer to his flaming me, and then there was the emoticon on this page. Don't get it twisted...almost everything, in all my posts, has been pure information, with a little opinion thrown in regarding the subject, not the individual posting about it.
Then, why do you have such a difficult time posting website sources to back up your info? Pure information? Some of the info you've posted say that YOU are the source. That's subjective opinion, not information. And I'm not a guy btw.
You are really grasping at straws now.
I clearly stated I got testy on one post. You have done plenty of name calling and made plenty of childish statements. But I am not an 8 year old boy saying na na na na na..Anyone can go back and see all of it.
I said I was the source for one, count it..one basic math solution. I even specified that in a later post..Do you really think people are dumb enough to not catch what you are making a failed attempt at doing?
I can't post websites cos it comes from books and journals and newspapers and science/news magazine articles. This is not rocket science.
My apologies for the assumption you are a guy.
EDIT: I was very specific on what I named myself as a source for.
The only journal Gore's buddies can get any of their articles published is one very unrespected journal founded by John shuttleworth. It has zero respect cos shuttleworth is not even a scientist, he is an author. And cos the articles are not properly scrutinised by scientists in that field. And cos the scientists submitting the articles are not even climate scientists. To call it a journal is a disgrace.
Articles published by actual climate scientists in respected peer-reviewed journals all show the ice is building up. Even a few reports from the green's camp show it's growing back, despite what they want you to believe.
Not to mention all the freakishly cold weather we've had over the past year. In some places reaching temps we had back in 1971 when the same "experts" were claiming we were racing into an ice age for which the death toll by 1980 will be astonishing, and it's manmade..We are all going to freeze to death.
Then in 92, again we were on the verge of going into another massively life-claiming manmade ice age, but by 98 we had a fever higher than ever before!
They really can't seem to make up their minds on if we are going to freeze or fry. The only thing they have settled on is that either way it's our fault, and we must surrender our freedoms to them cos only they know what is best for us and the planet.