huh industrialisation hasnt changed the climate?

did you see the poor air quality at the bejing olympics? even after the government shut down all the smoke stacks two months before the games.

did anyone watch the formula one race in india last week? the sun couldnt be seen through the haze of smog

cant find a blue sky in the new industrialzed pacific rim

ever wonder why all the pics of japenese people have face masks on?


and the GOP wants to kill the EPA here so we can end our blue skys.
shame shame

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
huh industrialisation hasnt changed the climate?

did you see the poor air quality at the bejing olympics? even after the government shut down all the smoke stacks two months before the games.

did anyone watch the formula one race in india last week? the sun couldnt be seen through the haze of smog

cant find a blue sky in the new industrialzed pacific rim

ever wonder why all the pics of japenese people have face masks on?


and the GOP wants to kill the EPA here so we can end our blue skys.
shame shame

The argument was whether the burning of fossil fuels has warmed the planet and to what extent. There is no doubt that air quality in localized areas has been affected. And I never said that the EPA should be killed. That is simply not my belief. I just don't believe in making decisions based on unsupported claims.

i'm right there with ya bucky!

i'm just going to hedge my bet that all those smoke stacks ARE having an effect.

the COST of what IF your WRONG bucky is too high to pay.

taking better care of mother earth is ALWAYS in the best interest of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

"unexplained cycles".

Ummm. Changes that they cannot explain. I'm not sure how to make that clearer. Larry, I can't tell you where I read something last week, let alone last month or last year. I tend to read a lot. But not all from one source.

In God we trust. All others bring data.

As Clara Beller was wont to say, "Where is the Beef" Bucky I don't seen any data. All I'am seeing is your word for it.

There is plenty of data that supports either side of this argument, and none of it is conclusive. You don't need to trust me because you aren't going to base any action off of my opinion (and opinions are about all there are on this topic), and then there is no reason to "trust" anything anyone says on this....because there isn't any conclusive data. Mostly leaps of faith. Believe what you want Larry, but if you want studies that are able to show conclusively the exact amount that humans are responsible for climate change, good luck.

Once again, show me exactly where, who and what you are reading to arive at your point of view. I really would like to know what science you are reading that brings you to your conclusions.

In the current disscussion of Dr. Muller we have seen five or six different studies that all agree within a few tenths of a degree. How exact do you need? What are you waiting for, god to come and tap you on the shoulder and tell you it's real?

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
i'm right there with ya bucky!

i'm just going to hedge my bet that all those smoke stacks ARE having an effect.

the COST of what IF your WRONG bucky is too high to pay.

taking better care of mother earth is ALWAYS in the best interest of the people.

I agree that you have to consider that for sure.

Without some control of potential industrial polluters, our country would have been like China years ago and was in many parts.

Technology has really helped the situation dramatically.

What would we profit if we could not breathe the air?

Anyone who believes man does not have a real big impact on our environment is just plain ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by BD:
Without some control of potential industrial polluters, our country would have been like China years ago and was in many parts.

Technology has really helped the situation dramatically.

What would we profit if we could not breathe the air?

Anyone who believes man does not have a real big impact on our environment is just plain ignorant.

No one is arguing anything other than the temperature of the earth being changed, and by how much by the burning of fossil fuels. I am very supportive of specific regulations and know they are needed.

Velly telling that the left-wing lame stream moron media gloms onto one guy, wonder how big a government grant he got to change, who changes his stance on man-made global warming and never bothers to mention the hundreds of REAL scientists that have now dismissed the hoax for what it is???????????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Velly telling that the left-wing lame stream moron media gloms onto one guy, wonder how big a government grant he got to change, who changes his stance on man-made global warming and never bothers to mention the hundreds of REAL scientists that have now dismissed the hoax for what it is???????????????????????

I really think that there is still a lot of work to do to prove anything conclusively. Again, it is a good think to reduce burning of fossil fuels for OTHER reasons, but it has to make sense to do so before we jump in with both feet. For every scientist or web site showing impending doomsday, there is a scientist or web site showing that there is no basis to the claims.
There is very good reading on both sides of the isle with a simple search. If you only want to read opinions on one side, that is the only supporting data you will see Larry. If you want to read some arguments against all the "facts" that are in the previous article, here is one of many readings: http://www.globalwarminghyster...s-of-global-warming/
It was the first one that came up on the first search I did.

The question of Global warming/climate change is one that time will only prove or disprove...its up to ALL us to make honest choices to keep our planet clean..

But....our enforcement agencys make no sense in what they enforce...just an example...natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel...right out of the ground..an gas compressors are forced to hold some of the most strictest emissions standards...ironically...the generator running the equipment to run the test spews more emissions during the test that the unit does in 24 hours...an they just go from unit to unit doing tests 5 days a week...its just pick an choose on enforcement...its all about fines an a political agenda as far as I'm concerned...

Hers is where I see such a double standard in our government...GA-zillions of dollars has been spent on keeping America clean but we buy products from countries that have no type of EPA agency...all the while the Green agenda is crammed down our throats an our own government just ignores the pollution in other places. Are we doing the right thing..ABSOLUTLY!! but shouldn't every environmental wacko be up in arms about buying products from say China who has no form of regulation on pollution? if they are truly a environmental wackos...

quote:

Hers is where I see such a double standard in our government...GA-zillions of dollars has been spent on keeping America clean but we buy products from countries that have no type of EPA agency...all the while the Green agenda is crammed down our throats an our own government just ignores the pollution in other places. Are we doing the right thing..ABSOLUTLY!! but shouldn't every environmental wacko be up in arms about buying products from say China who has no form of regulation on pollution? if they are truly a environmental wackos...

Completely agree.

quote:

our enforcement agencys make no sense in what they enforce

The federal goverment doesnt even follow their own standards for recording the tempature.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Velly telling that the left-wing lame stream moron media gloms onto one guy, wonder how big a government grant he got to change, who changes his stance on man-made global warming and never bothers to mention the hundreds of REAL scientists that have now dismissed the hoax for what it is???????????????????????

There is very good reading on both sides of the isle with a simple search. If you only want to read opinions on one side, that is the only supporting data you will see Larry. If you want to read some arguments against all the "facts" that are in the previous article, here is one of many readings: http://www.globalwarminghyster...s-of-global-warming/
It was the first one that came up on the first search I did.

http://www.globalwarminghyster...s-of-global-warming/

Bucky, is the above link what you consider to be science?

It is poorly disguised attempt to enrich the author, of the book being sold at the right side of the page. The sole "source" and I use the term in this case advisedly, of the list of myth's and facts from the link, is listed as "Friends of Science", the page is copyright 2007 by none other than the author of the book being sold at right.

Bucky are you capable of asking the question, is this true, for every statement of supposed fact given on this page. Or, are you simply going to except what is written as gospel fact with about as much inquiry as goes into discerning the truth of what is written in the bible, or are you going to except it in the same way the Bible is accepted, on faith.

The link below is what real science looks like. Do you see the difference? For one thing, they're not trying to sell you anything, they're not begging for donations, and they are not funded by oil and coal companies. The link below comes from a search of Google Scholar with the search parameters of "climate" and citations of papers from 2009 forward. There are roughly 178,000 papers produced by the search.

http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/t.../cox_etal_nat_00.pdf

Here is the link to the search itself, start reading.

http://scholar.google.com/scho...tf=&as_sdts=10&hl=en

Does it sound like there is a debate going on here, if, there is climate change? No, its how much and how soon.

Why is it that less than 10% of the places where the federal goverment monitors the temps dont meet their standards. Oh I forgot, who cares there is money to be made off this deal.

Climate will continue to change. In by 2015 we should be in a cooling trend.

oh no OPEC takes aim at the coal industry!

world emissions of carbon dioxide may rise by 43 percent between 2010 and 2035 as fossil fuels remain the main source of energy and coal becomes the number one fuel,according to OPEC

my wall street tip of the day today is

buy peabody energy corporation (BTU)
i think i made 85 cents a share last month?

buy buy buy! big coal is spending big $ in washington!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:
Why is it that less than 10% of the places where the federal goverment monitors the temps dont meet their standards. Oh I forgot, who cares there is money to be made off this deal.

Climate will continue to change. In by 2015 we should be in a cooling trend.

Care to point us in a direction that might support the varasity of the statements you have made?

To all the people who don't believe we are messing with our climate and planet, go out and start your "non polluting" car in your garage with the door closed, read a good book and call us in the morning. What a bunch of dumb a**es.

Lets all check the "VARASITY" of the heathens bull shyt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by drag57:
To all the people who don't believe we are messing with our climate and planet, go out and start your "non polluting" car in your garage with the door closed, read a good book and call us in the morning. What a bunch of dumb a**es.

Dude that had the wife and I both laughing....not saying I agree one way or another. But damn that analogy is a good an argument as I have heard.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Garceau:

quote:

Originally posted by drag57:
To all the people who don't believe we are messing with our climate and planet, go out and start your "non polluting" car in your garage with the door closed, read a good book and call us in the morning. What a bunch of dumb a**es.

Dude that had the wife and I both laughing....not saying I agree one way or another. But damn that analogy is a good an argument as I have heard.

Must be rocket scientists here. Ok, turn the oven on and climb inside and read a book. Now, if you don't think we are warming the planet with what we are doing and burning then......well you must be thinking.

The argument isn't that what we do as humans has NO affect on the environment. Cow ****s hurt the ozone layer. Making crutches for crippled kids takes energy that warms the environment. Making puppy food warms the environment. The argument is that the amount of the effect is neglishable. Do we get rid of cows, crippled kids and puppys because they may have some micro affect on the environment? Of course not. And we shouldn't made decisions about how the word runs based on studies that have very arguable results and data. Should we ramp up production of batteries to go in Prius cars so we burn less fossil fuels? Is this going to have an adverse affect on the environment also? We need to put some careful thought into these things before we jump. Otherwise we can jump from the pot right into the fire.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bucky,