CV "COME ON MAN!"
What ever happened to acid rain?

I'll bet your fingers didnt like what they found when you googled "acid rain"?

I know it's more fun to be funny than to take a serious look at the facts.

This link explains the conservative position.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...html?ref=mostpopular

This link explains acid rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

And this as well
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/

The first link explains alot of the posts i find here on DRR!

Acid rain, like the smog in China, was a localized phenomenon and did not impact the global environment! It can also occur natural as the result of volcanic activity.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:
Acid rain, like the smog in China, was a localized phenomenon and did not impact the global environment! It can also occur natural as the result of volcanic activity.

True! to a point!

You might ask the people who lived in the eastern US and canada who had their paint jobs ruined their lakes that died and their trees that died because of "rust belt" acid rain producers!

Local? really?
Which way does the weather move? why did what went into the air in michigan kill lakes in maine?

You silly kalifornia surfer dudes never had chicago smoke stacks blowing your way!

Oh yea why does every japanese person wear a mask when they are outdoors now?

WEIRD HUH!

I know! look to the west and you will find the "LOCAL" CHINESE AIR POLLUTION IS THE REASON!

LOCAL? REALLY?

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
Oh yea why does every japanese person wear a mask when they are outdoors now?

Why do so many Japanese people where mask on airplanes? Same answer... it has more to do with preventing illnesses like the flu or common cold due to crowded conditions. If you're ever in Japan, take a drive through the country and report back how many people you see wearing mask outside the metropolitan areas or trains.

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers: You might ask the people who lived in the eastern US and canada who had their paint jobs ruined their lakes that died and their trees that died because of "rust belt" acid rain producers!

Local? really?
Which way does the weather move? why did what went into the air in michigan kill lakes in maine?

You silly kalifornia surfer dudes never had chicago smoke stacks blowing your way!

Less than 1000 miles is LOCAL in global terms. Especially when you're talking about areas that are being impacted by the same weather systems.

OOPS!
I do ALOT of business in japan!
I've sold hundreds of harleys and their parts there over the last 25 years.
I've been in dozens of their rags with my custom bikes,frames and hand made parts!

check this out!
http://www1.american.edu/TED/chincoal.htm

Acid rain became the instant next thing that was going to destroy humanity not long after millions of cars were manufactured with the first generation of catalytic converters and disappeared just as fast after catalytic converters were refined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the early 90's acid rain was a forgotten boogey man by the greenie whackados!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Acid rain became the instant next thing that was going to destroy humanity not long after millions of cars were manufactured with the first generation of catalytic converters and disappeared just as fast after catalytic converters were refined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the early 90's acid rain was a forgotten boogey man by the greenie whackados!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks bill! Always enjoy your scientific analysis.

.

super bowl commercial 2011 - Nissan Leaf - Polar Bear









Gene Simmons Military Tribute

Zell/Granny 2012

Project Augusta


Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

Hey bill i got some of that solyndra cash and i bought a volt with it.
Reworking the power supplys and the electric motor man is going to be a quiet bracket car!
I think i'm going to call her koski's kash!

I think i need to switch my NOS to medical grade,i cant find anyplace to use it under the hood?

quote:

Hey bill i got some of that solyndra cash and i bought a volt with it.

"I know it's more fun to be funny than to take a serious look at the facts."
Doh!

duped boob RETARD #3 can look at the FICA he pays in and KNOW that between my wife and I we are getting every dime of it! PLUS every dime of duped boob RETARD #2's also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How's that for a laugher????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
duped boob RETARD #3 can look at the FICA he pays in and KNOW that between my wife and I we are getting every dime of it! PLUS every dime of duped boob RETARD #2's also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How's that for a laugher????????????????

Weird? i was just talking to one of my buddies out there and he was telling me how 2 out of 3 people in nevada who are getting help from the government STILL go days without food.
I thought of my friend bill and was worried about you!
Man i'd be glad to get a gift card together where do you shop? smith's or costco i know is close to you?
I cant bear to see americans going hungry i'd be glad to help since i've been knocking the hide off the ball in real estate out there.

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
Man i'd be glad to get a gift card together where do you shop? smith's or costco i know is close to you?

How about Summitt? I'll send ya my address!!


LMAO

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:
I am laughingly amazed at Larry's constant portrayal of theory as fact.

And sadly amazed at his incessant need to immediately apply biblical reference to someones comments. Which in turn leads to his ranting about the lunacy (as perceived by him) of religious beliefs... whether topic oriented or not. Especially when his own belief in man-made global warming borders on religion or cult.

In his post above, Larry asserts the Butterfly Effect which is part of Chaos Theory to substantiate the arrogance that man does in fact control the earth.

Graphs that postulate to track the exact average temperature of the earth 10' or 100's of thousands of years before recorded history are all based on theory and speculation... not actual temperature data. Why don't these graphs include an accuracy tolerance? Because if they did, the margin for error would be outside the acceptable realm to support the theoretical values their BELIEFS are based on.

Yes, scientist can take core samples and make hypothesis and marginally accurate predictions of what the climate was like during those periods. But once again, it is arrogant to believe they can provide the kind of accuracy they or Larry asserts.

And Larry has always conveniently avoided the subject of how the "man-made" global warming supporters abruptly changed from CO to CO2 as the scourge of the planet a few years ago. Or how they are now moving on to other "green house" gases as the reason.

The biggest problem with Larry and those like him is that they completely ignore or minimize more influential forces, like solar activity, or tectonic plate activity, or polar axis shift.

Should man do all we can to be good stewards of the environment. Absolutely!! But to continue to have delusions of grandeur about our ability to control the planet is just laughable!

Greg:
"I am laughingly amazed at Larry's constant portrayal of theory as fact."

Ahh yes, Greg is showing his remarkable level of ignorance yet again, or is it stupidity? Ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is continuing to say, do or think things once one has been educated about the facts. I can‘t remember if I have explained this for you before, so we will just call it ignorance, for now. Anyway, you make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night, as has been famously said before; by Isaac Asimov. Theory has a specific meaning in science; a theory is not a guess, or a hunch. A theory is a well substantiated and well supported, well documented explanation for empirical observations. You know, all that tedious science stuff I post and you apparently don’t read or when you do read it you apparently don’t understand half of what is presented, the other half of which it seems you simply reject outright with no obvious reason given. I partially assume this because you don’t seem to have a correct understanding of the precise meanings of many words, such as how the word “theory” is used in this case. Greg you sound exactly like some of the ignorant creationists buffoons who try to disparage Darwin’s "Theory" of Evolution by Natural Selection by using this old hoarse apple, "it's only a theory" much like you have tried to do above. Try again bumpkin, theory is what you arrive at after the facts about the natural world have been gathered, not what you start out with and try and prove by any means available. Care to have a go at the Theory of General Relativity, maybe Germ Theory, I know how about the Theory of Special Relativity, how about the Standard Model that ones also known as the Standard Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Evolutionary Theory, they are all very sound theories supported by a multitude of solid FACTS.

Greg:
"And sadly amazed at his incessant need to immediately apply biblical reference to someones comments. Which in turn leads to his ranting about the lunacy (as perceived by him) of religious beliefs... whether topic oriented or not. Especially when his own belief in man-made global warming borders on religion or cult."

Number one it’s not a need, it is simply so much fun pointing out the silly/stupid things people believe, and in this day and age things they should know better about, particullary religion. If someone gets all hoppy about it, so much the better. If I get to rub their nose in it often enough, they might just open their eyes long enough to look rationally at their beliefs to figure out there beliefs, particularly about religion, are pure unsupported BS. Further if it's not pure BS then let them support it with reproducible verifiable hard factual evidence. If they can do that, I might just change my position on their sky fairy fantasies. With regard to evidence I specifically do not consider evidence to be the battsh1t craziness that comes out of the bible and other religious text or a rehashed spewed by some ignorant and scientifically illiterate preacher to suit his own personal proclivities. Number two, it’s called ridicule, and if that is what it takes to get people to think rationally about religion, of any stripe or verity, instead of simply believing what every mummy and daddy told them or their preacher guilted or scared them into believing, so be it. Ridicule is a wonderful tool for change. How much ridicule do you think people who believe in a flat earth or geocenterism deserve? Religion once demanded that people believe this and other non-sense. What I do is sort of like rubbing your new puppy's nose in his own poop so he learns not to krap on the rug or in the house. For hundreds of years religion has been losing the argument to science on every front imaginable, in every conceivable way. So I will as often as I see fit continue to do as much rubbing of religious noses in their own poop, just for may own sh1ts and giggles. Don't like it? TS! Get over it.

Greg:
"In his post above, Larry asserts the Butterfly Effect which is part of Chaos Theory to substantiate the arrogance that man does in fact control the earth."

When I look at “the arrogance that man” as you use it, I see that as just another one of the preacher tradecraft patters (Patter is a prepared and practiced speech, that is designed to produce a desired response from his audience. Generally not designed to produce a rational thought process by the way. It‘s origin comes from the term “Pater Noster” a religious term for mumbling prayers with no thought of their meaning) it comes through and shows just who is doing the thinking, an it's apparently from my point of view not you. Seems you tend to say the same things over and over again no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that you are full of it, but we will get to that further on. For now let’s get back to the Butterfly Effect part of chaos theory (remember its the science definition of theory, not your type of theory, like the theory your wife is beautiful and all your kids are geniuses), while the name is rather whimsical it is intended was to point out that very small actions can produce very large outcomes. Apparently the yearly addition of some 4000 cubic miles of CO2 into the atmosphere is so small, at least by your lights; it escapes even the possibility of having any affect, butterfly or otherwise and is not going to do a damn thing. Did I get that right, no affect?

Once again I have just recently pointed out only a small number of the many instances where man is indeed controlling his environment, the earth, in larger and larger areas, outside of anthropomorphically induced warming, quite markedly and in ways that are not particularly good for the earth. Do you dispute that there are man made dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico 10000 square miles or there about in extent or that the Cod fish in the northeast are commercially extinct and close to actual extinction, that the oceans as a whole have had a population decreased of many commercially harvested fish stocks of around 85% over rather recent historical levels or that the oceans are acidifying do to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed into the oceans? These statements are all based on quantified empirical data. Data that absolutely points out that we humans do control this planet, not often in a positive way or in ways that indicate a rational preconceived intent, but control none the less.

Finally please do enlighten us as to the specifics of why the Butterfly Effect is inoperative in this context. What about the sensitive dependence on initial conditions does not contribute to this situation. The point is that we are doing a he11 of a lot more than the metaphoric flapping of the wings of a butterfly with regard to the amount of CO2 we reject into the atmosphere, are we not?

Greg:
"Graphs that postulate to track the exact average temperature of the earth 10' or 100's of thousands of years before recorded history are all based on theory and speculation... not actual temperature data. Why don't these graphs include an accuracy tolerance? Because if they did, the margin for error would be outside the acceptable realm to support the theoretical values their BELIEFS are based on."

I guess we are now well and truly past the point where I can just call you ignorant and I have to start calling you stupid. I can’t call you ignorant because I just explained about the graphs and their accuracy not a whole lot more than a few days ago. So, here you go once again.

“Implicit in all the graphs, I have previously provided, is that they are typically accurate to at least 5%, if not more so, or if less accurate they generally come with error bars showing the range of possible values, meaning that the values shown in the graphs are known to be accurate to +/- 5% of the shown value.”

Particularly those from peer review sources, which I do strive to use.

As to beliefs, I find the connotations in the use of that word unsatisfactory; please remember I try to use words with as specific and narrow a meaning as I can, as often as I can. In this case I would say I hold a "well considered position" based on data and well founded theory. My position may change as the facts dictate, not that I have seen you posting any verifiable facts. I do not hold absolute or rigid beliefs, as you appear to. Beliefs for me hold the connotation that the user has little or no basis in fact for holding their beliefs, i.e. they simply have faith that their position is correct or true. Faith has a number of definitions one of which is the belief in something not based on proof; you know much the same way people have a belief in god, no proof, simply faith. In my thesaurus, belief and faith are quite nearly synonyms, neither of which I find much use for.

Greg:
Yes, scientist can take core samples and make hypothesis and marginally accurate predictions of what the climate was like during those periods. But once again, it is arrogant to believe they can provide the kind of accuracy they or Larry asserts.

It is once again stupid on your part to think that man does not drastically affect the earth given the examples I have provided which show quite clearly that we do just that. By the way it is a he11 of a lot more than just core samples that are used for temperature proxy production, they use multiple interlocking sources of information that mutually support each other producing a fully internally consistent whole. If you desire absolutes, check with your preacher, I am sure he has plenty to go around.

Greg:
And Larry has always conveniently avoided the subject of how the "man-made" global warming supporters abruptly changed from CO to CO2 as the scourge of the planet a few years ago. Or how they are now moving on to other "green house" gases as the reason.

In this statement you have gone from making stupid statements, to bald faced lying. I have addressed this issue with you as far back as 15 Oct of 2010 your original statements were and I quote:

Greg:
" First it as Carbon-Monoxide being emitted from tailpipes. When they realized that the amount of CO being emitted from tailpipes was such a miniscule percentage of the overall CO present in the atmosphere and that the current levels were consistent with those from samples for eons past, they had to find a new boogie man.

Enter Carbon-Dioxide! They jumped on CO2 because it makes up a large percentage of the atmosphere. Never mind that all life on earth basically depends on CO2! No, CO2 is bad!!

Looks like they need a new boogie man now so they are moving on to N2O!?!?


Greg Stanley
I have a plan and I'm going to stick to it!"

https://drr.infopop.cc/eve/foru...52/m/1791042992/p/93

To which I replied:

https://drr.infopop.cc/eve/foru...52/m/1791042992/p/93

And more recently once again. Where I pointed out that you were lying about Carbon Monoxide and your working "in the field".

https://drr.infopop.cc/eve/foru...2/m/1791042992/p/104

Greg:
"See, I work in the field that has been a major propagator of the man made global warming narrative. And originally CO was the main focus because they wanted to target the internal combustion engine and the burning of fossil fuels as the "culprit". But when the science that was suppose to back up this narrative showed that the amount of CO in the atmosphere had not changed by any significant amount in the last 100+ years it shot their narrative all to hell."

To which I replied:
No, you don't work in the "field"; you're a Facilities (maintenance) manager for the JGI people (Joint Genome Institute) it appears the people in your building do genetics sequencing projects/research. That doesn't seem to get you in the know about global warming. Sounds like you are spinning yarns Greg."

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-stanley/35/b67/417

So at this point it I having now responded to your continued and repeated nonsense about CO three times. I can therefore only conclude from this that you are compulsive liar!

Once again CO is bad mostly for public health reasons, it can and does kill people at quite low concentrations, and is a large part of the reason we have catalytic converters on most cars. Not because CO has ever had much to do with climate change or was ever thought the most proximal cause. If this statement is in factual error please do provide sources of scientifically based data that disputes this. Sources do not mean some rightwing controversy mill that's only real concern is increasing its traffic or readership, by spewing any and every form of misstatements they can remotely contrive to manufacture. Something from a peer reviewed source would be quite satisfactory, if you don't mind.

Greg:
"The biggest problem with Larry and those like him is that they completely ignore or minimize more influential forces, like solar activity, or tectonic plate activity, or polar axis shift."

Please do be specific as to where and when any of these particular component parts of climate change theory and predictions derived thereby are being ignored or how they are more influential than CO2 and by whom? I certainly don't disregard them. Are you truly so stupid to think that the people that do this type of science haven't already taken these things fully into consideration? You know, the sources you use as the basis of the statements you make would be nice, given that you appear to be a compulsive liar; therefore all of what you say becomes suspect, and support for what you say is even more critical before anyone, much less myself, will believe what you have to say. Yes I know there are a good number of people that will swallow whole, the horse sh1t you serve up and think they are getting bon-bons, be that as it may, I do not.

Greg:
"Should man do all we can to be good stewards of the environment. Absolutely!!

Sure, you are an "all we can" "steward" of the planet so long as you don't have to do anything and it doesn't cost you anything, or your lifestyle doesn't have to change one iota. Is that pretty much it, Mr. all we can steward of the environment? But when science says these are the things that we need do, you first and foremost say, "man is arrogant" to even suggest that this is possible or you start trying to nit picking details that do not invalidate what is obviously a very well founded theory. It seems quite apparently "all we can" in the conservative lexicon of these parts amounts to nothing at all.

Greg:
"But to continue to have delusions of grandeur about our ability to control the planet is just laughable!"

I have to ask you, did you get this patter from your preacher, sure seems like it to me. You keep blabbing it over and over again (Pater Noster), almost like a mantra the same way many a preacher does; it surely seems you have been well and truly inculcated, with this bit of BS for sure. Further I have to question just who it is that is actually delusional here, you keep making bald assertions without the slightest hint of support for them by any fact, in particular with regard to CO, with no supporting citations at all, or even a link to any source, good bad or otherwise, whatever. You continue to make the same statements over and over even after I have provided reasonable documentation that the statements you are making are factually in error. Then further you lie that I have not spoken specifically and directly to your faulty CO suppositions into the bargain. You seem to be sticking your fingers metaphorically into your ears and repeating la la la la I can't hear you over and over.



Greg you are a real piece of work.

little man larry heathen, do you actually think anybody bothers to read all the propaganda gibberish you post???????????????????
You're simply wasting cyber space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So let me get this straight. Greg is ignorant, because he disagrees with your conclusion based on evedence gathered to support a given conclusion, and simply looking at that and little else. Greg doesn't sound like the ignorant one to me.

Believe what you will...........

-------------------
"An editorial signed by 16 prominent scientists in the Wall Street Journal takes sharp issue with calls for drastic action against global warming, asserting that the threat is far from “incontrovertible” as alarmists claim.

“A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming,’” the article states.

“Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”

The scientists point to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society in September due to the organization’s position that the evidence for global warming is “incontrovertible” and the threat requires “mitigating actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 16 scientists — including Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton — say in the Journal piece: “In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the ‘pollutant’ carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever.

“The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.”

The “most inconvenient” fact cited by the scientists is the lack of global warming over the past 10 years.

Also, in the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began issuing projections, warming has consistently been less than predicted.

This suggests that “computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2,” the Op-Ed article states.

Why then does the call for action against global warming persist? The scientists say: Follow the money.

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow,” they declare.

“Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

They conclude: “Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world's economy.

“Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.”

Other scientists who signed the editorial include aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Michael Kelly, professor of technology at the University of Cambridge; and Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University.

Temperatures in some areas in Europe on Thursday sank to minus 26.5 F. Parts of the Black Sea froze near the Romanian coastline and rare snow fell on Croatian islands in the Adriatic Sea."

---------------------------
Of particular interest is the above quoted "This suggests that “computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause." You know you can make more horsepower with your 502 inch bracket motor than W.J. if you keep increasing the rpm, valve size, cam, etc,. etc. on your desktop dyno!
Now I hope this finally settles this issue and you boys can go back to playing nice. Or is my Mother the only one that said that?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: Greg:
"See, I work in the field that has been a major propagator of the man made global warming narrative. And originally CO was the main focus because they wanted to target the internal combustion engine and the burning of fossil fuels as the "culprit". But when the science that was suppose to back up this narrative showed that the amount of CO in the atmosphere had not changed by any significant amount in the last 100+ years it shot their narrative all to hell."

To which I replied:
No, you don't work in the "field"; you're a Facilities (maintenance) manager for the JGI people (Joint Genome Institute) it appears the people in your building do genetics sequencing projects/research. That doesn't seem to get you in the know about global warming. Sounds like you are spinning yarns Greg."

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-stanley/35/b67/417

Larry,

You are right! Technically, my position is not one whereby I am personally researching global warming. But if you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research on what the JGI does, you'd know that the mission statement reads as follows: The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI) is to advance genomics in support of the DOE missions related to clean energy generation and environmental characterization and cleanup.

You'd also know that the Director and many of the leading researchers at the JGI are widely acknowledged for their studying of the causes of "climate change". Or that the former Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (which the JGI is part) is our current Secretary of Energy.

So yes, my field of expertise is not in "global warming". But anyone arguing against the idea that working in such close proximity to these type of people doesn't give you a unique perspective and insight into the inner-workings or motivations is not someone to be given much credence.

And forgive me if I don't read your responses that come 10 or more days later as you've linked to above. I'll stand corrected on the my statement that you never respond.

You're not doing very good research if you can't find the FACT that the focus was shifted from CO to CO2 a few years ago. Once again, my unique perspective gave me a front row seat in meeting where the transition was discussed.

As to your 5% accuracy/margin for error claim... I've gone back and looked at all the graphs you've posted and none of them indicate any such thing but I'll take your word for it. That being said... as I stated, when talking about such small numbers a 5% margin for error puts any theorized temperature data into the realm of being meaningless except for getting an approximate idea of what conditions were like.

One last comment in response to your post... When was the last time you ever heard a man-made global warming believer blame any natural force for any variations in our recent climate patterns!?