Global warming BS?

Flutter Girl

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.

Commy

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.

Flutter Girl

my sources-

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?

Flutter Girl

Commy wrote:

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.

Flutter Girl

Songburst wrote:

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 :(

Jeanwah

RM291946 wrote:

jeanwah- source = me

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..

We drive SUVs and live in Beverly Hills, LOL...while Green hating people like you actually care how they live. LMAO. Take it up with Stone about this.
http://evergreenfilm.org/archives/2008/ ... -_driving/

RM291946 wrote:

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.

Flutter Girl

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.

mickeyrat

RM291946 wrote:

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.

I wonder how helpful any of your posts are?

Flutter Girl

mickeyrat wrote:

I wonder how helpful any of your posts are?

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.

mickeyrat

RM291946 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I wonder how helpful any of your posts are?

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.

Flutter Girl

mickeyrat wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I wonder how helpful any of your posts are?

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.

Jeanwah

RM291946 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

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."

RM291946 wrote:

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.

tenforthewin

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.

Flutter Girl

Jeanwah-
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:

source = me on the basic math of world pop vs. Texas..

I was very specific on what I named myself as a source for.

Flutter Girl

tenforthewin wrote:

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.