quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:
After 86 pages you just don't get it do you? I've learned better than to waste my time holding your hand and explaining it to you like an elementary school student.

You aren't holding my hand on anything Jeremy, and if you want to talk education level then we can go that route. You can't see the damn trees for the forest that is in front of you. You are so hell bent on proving something so go ahead. Then tell me why it matters that you have a hot month in Fla and it makes any defense of Global warming.

Boz, TWICE since the start of the year I have told you what I think about the issue. And YES, you read it because you replied to it. Go look it up. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time.

BTW, it's been more than just one hot month in FL.

To paraphrase, S.D. Weitzenhoffer, debating and particularly around here, and I do use the term debating very loosely in this venue, any topic, is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, kraps on the board, and flies back to its flock and claims a stunning victory."

Climate Change and National Security?

Comments?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:
To paraphrase, S.D. Weitzenhoffer, debating and particularly around here, and I do use the term debating very loosely in this venue, any topic, is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, kraps on the board, and flies back to its flock and claims a stunning victory."

Climate Change and National Security?

Comments?

Quotes from your youtube:

I'm sorry but you would have to be a idiot to believe that man made climate change is real, why was the medievle age so much hotter than today? to many cows ****ing? it's a bust, get over it and start thinking for yourself, IT'S BULL****! = Funny, has a point but to blunt for most to understand


We are funding our own funeral." Hey, you are making the argument FOR carbon credits. The idea is to get off of foreign oil and become energy independent. That is the goal of a carbon tax. Fund the development of our own clean energy infrastructure. Keep both the money and the jobs in the US. That is EXACTLY what the green movement is about. = So tax every company with a 'non value add', put the money in the governements hands, when they have shown the ability to manage NOTHING, and use that tax to fund our own clean energy infrastructure, Like the government isn't doing that already with our tax dollars. So you think you are going to gain jobs and put more money in our economy with a tax???? STUPID
robhoneycutt 6 days ago

Also, as pointed out in one of greenman's previous videos, electric cars have this huge advantage in that they will be recharged during off peak hours when most power plants are running spin reserve. That smoothes out the demand cycle for energy and means, according to several studies, we could convert nearly the entire US fleet of automobiles to electric and NOT have to add even one additional power plant as a result. That is a win-win all around. Oh, except for oil companies.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago = So now they would be putting out more polutants than they normally would since they will be running more. During peak times they will continue to run as they do today.


I do believe that it is a national security issue that we have so much dependence on foreign oil. I would like to see us tap our own reserves and continue research and development on alternatives. But to leave those reserves untapped and force everyone to a renewable is not smart economically at any time where the disparity between what is actually available and its costs compared to what is possible and its cost. We have area's that are untapped because the extremists, why do you guys support those extremists. Remember, they could be keeping Americans from jobs that could help rebuild our economy.

quote:

Originally posted by The Bozman:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:
To paraphrase, S.D. Weitzenhoffer, debating and particularly around here, and I do use the term debating very loosely in this venue, any topic, is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, kraps on the board, and flies back to its flock and claims a stunning victory."

Climate Change and National Security?

Comments?

Quotes from your youtube:

I'm sorry but you would have to be a idiot to believe that man made climate change is real, why was the medievle age so much hotter than today? to many cows ****ing? it's a bust, get over it and start thinking for yourself, IT'S BULL****! = Funny, has a point but to blunt for most to understand

The fact is, the medieval warming period was not warmer, much less, "so much hotter than today".




No, no my poor boy, I do not say simply because something is conveyed via YouTube it is true, as you seem to be trying to do above. It would be nice to know who said this and in what context, to be able to make some semblance of a meaningful decision on how much validity to give the statements. Simply because something is posted on YouTube does not necessarily make it so, as can be seen above, nor necessarily wrong.

But then of course the point, climate change, is moot, as the whole of the world scientific community has long since come to consensus that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality. The point I was making by using the previous clip is that men of impeccable conservative credentials have moved on, there is no longer debate even among these people, but statements on what the effects will be and how to deal with them. It is apparently you, among others, in this venue who are simply stuck in the past.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Bozman:
Also, as pointed out in one of greenman's previous videos, electric cars have this huge advantage in that they will be recharged during off peak hours when most power plants are running spin reserve. That smoothes out the demand cycle for energy and means, according to several studies, we could convert nearly the entire US fleet of automobiles to electric and NOT have to add even one additional power plant as a result. That is a win-win all around. Oh, except for oil companies.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago = So now they would be putting out more polutants than they normally would since they will be running more. During peak times they will continue to run as they do today.[QUOTE]

Why yes, of course there would be more pollution at electric generation plants, so let's look at the differentials. New gas powered cars now days get roughly 30 MPG; cost of fuel is roughly $3.00/gal, and going up, so right now it cost roughly 10 cents per mile, for a new IC car, and more for older ones. So if your gas engine was 100% efficient you would go about 120 miles on a gallon of gas. A gallon of gas contains about 32.9 kilowatt-hours of energy. Electric motors are far more efficient than a gas engine at somewhere over 90% efficiency at turning electric power into mechanical energy, this, times battery charging efficiency of about 90% means you get and over all efficiency of about 80%. Consumer cost of a kilowatt of juice to charge your electric car is about $0.10 kW/Hr, this means for $3.29 you can drive 96 miles or it cost roughly 3.4 cents per mile to drive your electric car, again roughly three times as efficient.

Put another way this means you would have to drive over three times as far in an electric car to produce the same amount of equivalent gas pollutants as a gas powered car. Not to mention the efficiency factor of large electric generation plants over that of a small IC engines with respect to pollution generation. So for every electric car put on the road in place of an IC car we decrease fuel use by roughly two thirds and decrease pollution by that same two thirds, plus the efficiency differential between IC engines and electric generation plants. Further, still, we need to think about the cost differential between transporting fuel to fuel stations and transmission of electrical power over the grid. I'm pretty sure there's a positive differential there as well. As well, fossil fuel power generation plants could more appropriately balance there loads and thereby achieve higher operating efficiencies and less pollution, until they are replaced by other non-polluting sources of power, atomic, wind, solar, at which point we do away with this form of pollution all together.

All this is simple quibbling on your part, that in no way changes the fact that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality, that even conservatives now hold to be true. You can argue details till he11 won't have it anymore, and its not going to change the facts.

BOXO dont deal with facts very good,he deals more in limpball and fakenews.com.

OK, so tell me how much of the data that was collected prior to 1550?

Everything else is hypothetical. So how much polutants do we have with the plants that create the batteries in electric cars? How about the aftermath of the batteries and all the acid that is produced. You missed the boat Larry, I think it is a great idea to find more effecient means of transportation and anything else that helps our environment. But, until it is affordable, you aren't going to be able to do anything about it other than research.

The other issue that no one is looking into is the other affects that moving in that direction will cause. There is never a win-win as that rosey picture is presented.

I noticed that you left out the part about carbon credits. That is answer enough.

How about going back 12000 years or 100000 years, then see what the averages are. Here is the FACTS
"Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The instrumental record and the unsmoothed annual value for 2004 are shown in black.

1997 seemed to be hotter than any year, then dropped. So if you took the temp from 1997 to now it would show a average drop. The data can be skewed to reflect anything you want it to. Is there a global warming trend going on, probably, is it all because of man made polutants, absolutly not, read up on how much one volcano puts into the atmosphere. Then explain all the oil wells that were set on fire in the middle east in 1991 and tell me why 1992 and 1993 were some of the lowest on record. These are all events that have put the most polutants into the air, as described and defined by the greeenie's.

"Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, has partially counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present.[51] The main cause of this dimming is aerosols produced by volcanoes and pollutants. These aerosols exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane."

So now the aerosols, with a lifetime of one week (another contradiction to what was previously believed that aerosols stay in teh atmosphere and eat away at the Ozone) are keeping the temps in check.

You can take what ever stance you want, but the extermiest view is not the correct one however you choose to support it.

I also noticed that you used a scale that went to zero years, as in AD/BC years. Anything ****her back than that or is that just conjecture/speculation?


BoobJ, you have zero input into the conversation, don't you have some website where you sit in mens bathroom stalls with other men talking about your man crushes.

Bozman:
"OK, so tell me how much of the data that was collected prior to 1550?"

You are quibbling again. And no I am not going to answer all your quibbles, again, for you.

None the less, and once again, as I have addressed this previously, science has a host of ways to accurately and reproducibly determine past temperatures, without use of a thermometer, they are called "climate proxies". The most notable methods are ice cores, from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and benthic sediments. Ice sheet data goes back at least 400,000 years, that I know of, likely more.

Climate Proxies

Bozman:
"You can take what ever stance you want, but the extermiest view is not the correct one however you choose to support it."

Again, no no, my poor fellow, I am not the one with the extremist viewpoint, I agree with the position that virtually the whole of science has come to consensus about, quite a while ago in fact, namely, that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality. When one agrees with the whole of the established scientific community on a given topic, that is not an extreme point of view. By definition extreme points of view are those held by those who disagree with the consensus.

I suppose those gentleman from the clip that I provided, are all also extremists? Naaa I don't think so. But that was the point I was making, wasn't it! So now you're going on with the same old tired tap dance routine, you want this point clarified or you don't understand that point, you don't believe this you don't believe that you don't believe the next thing. It is all just quibbling on your part, in a vain attempt to squirm away from what has become an undeniable fact.

Climate change is real, it's here, and you don't want to have to deal with the consequences. This seems in your case because some of the cost of dealing with it might have to come out of your back pocket, that, is what you are deadly afraid of primarily, and secondarily that your lifestyle might have to change as a result, pity that! I can't properly attribute the quote, but someone said, "The only true constant, is change".

Now there is a word we should home in on, change. Change is the thing that most conservatives, such as yourself I assume, wish to have no part of. After all that is the archetypal ethos of a conservative, the resistance to change, keeping the status quo. Unfortunately, when any species, man or otherwise, that has or shows an inability to accommodate or undergo change, well that usually precedes their extinction. Unfortunately we are not talking about a localized population of minnows in a pond out in Death Valley, or some such; the species we are talking about is global in nature and it's us!

Change is coming, and the ride I fear is not going to be at a particularly sedate pace, nor a particularly smooth one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Larry Heath,

Lets see, the last time I heard someone standing on the value of Change was about 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS ago, no nationalized health care and a larger government. That is a different conversation but amazing how that was the word you choose.

It is great that wikipedia is there for you to get a great education on anything you want. A lot of the data there is accurate, but there is also data there that is not accurate or not complete. Do I bleieve the atmophsere is getting warmer, in the past 10 years yes, over the past 15 no, actually cooler based on averages and skews of peaks and valley's (and this is based off of the data in the site you provided yoru data from). What are the true issues, what is causeing them and is this a natural cycle, that is the true question. Everything is conjecture. We can use a lot of tools to try and define age, temperature, climate, etc. But how accurate are they, really?
You have Radiometric dating , Carbon -14 dating, Rb, Rubidium-Strontium, Isochron, etc... So if these are multiple ways of dating that come up with different answers then how can we be sure that what is being presented is accurate. Remember when the earth was flat? The fact is we are talking about tenths of a percent of increase in temperature over spans of years, then we want to throw in the fact that we are looking at 10's, or 100's or thousands and even tens of thousands of years. Do I think there is credence in some of the studies, absolutly, do I take them as the holy grail as some have, not a chance in He11.

On top of the fact that there continues to be data that comes out to show some of the data is not supported, has been manufactured or has left out additional data because it didn't fit the cause is also reason to doubt. A HUGE reason to doubt is that this has become a political issue, not a scientific issue, when it becomes a political issue it seems that facts are thrown out, ignored or manipulated in order to present the "perceived" result of the author, this is not scientific. The fact that grants are given based on the preconcieved outcomes the studies are not reliable from the start.

Amazing that the duped boobs still on board the "man-made global warming fraud train" can casually dismiss the fact that with the E-mail discovery from East Anglican the entire scheme was exposed as a sham!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLUS, the FACT has been established that the manipulators have been moving the temperature sensing devices to the optimum locations to show temperature increases!
Supposedly scientific people routinely state that the "CONCENSUS" is that "man-made global warming" is happening!
Science doesn't rely on "CONCENSUS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Portland police interviewed "crazed sex poodle" algore in San Francisco last week about his sexual assault on a massage therapist!
Word is they were looking for a talking dog to take along as an interpeter in case algore went into his "crazed sex poodle" state!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Portland police interviewed "crazed sex poodle" algore in San Francisco last week about his sexual assault on a massage therapist!
Word is they were looking for a talking dog to take along as an interpeter in case algore went into his "crazed sex poodle" state!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atta boy, way to address the topic at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Portland police interviewed "crazed sex poodle" algore in San Francisco last week about his sexual assault on a massage therapist!
Word is they were looking for a talking dog to take along as an interpeter in case algore went into his "crazed sex poodle" state!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atta boy, way to address the topic at hand.

Way to go JJ, the pot calling the kettle black!!!

Ahhh, yes I see Boz, more tap dancing around the facts and obfuscations, quibbling, also some cherry picking!

Hottest June(Weather)in Recorded History!

P.S

Part Two

More quibbling?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Larry Heath,

Why wouldn't the fraud proponents temperatures be above normal?
After all, as documented, they are dragging the sensors hither and yon to get their desired readings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boz, you forgot the part about Al Gore making money off this deal.....