thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Follow the money my friend. Follow the money. Let's do follow the money. There is about another $4 Trillion in fossil fuels still in the ground. The total amount spent by scientists studying the effects of that amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere pales in comparison.
Calm Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I find that people seem to fall into 2 categories. Those who see the Earth as Garden to till and care for and those who see it as a wilderness to either not disturb or to minimize one's footprint.I think there is another...those who see it as an endless resource that is too big to pay attention to and as long as what goes on is out of their site, using it as a garbage dump or candy store without regard to impact is their SOP.I am not claiming anyone here is in that category. Edited March 23, 2015 by calmoriah 1
gclayjr Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Pollution is just another name for POISON. Can you think of even one reason, other than making more money, for adding POISON into our air? I don't know... Maybe Breathing! I remember back in 70s when the government was talking about CO (Carbon-Monoxide) emissions from cars, and a need to regulate the emissions of CO. This is truly a poison, and we are probably better off as a result of the changes made to reduce or eliminate CO emissions... However, the environmentalists can never declare victory and quite. so then they started defining CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as a pollutant (Who notices the difference in rhetoric between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?). Name sounds similar, but CO2 is VERY different from CO. CO2 is actually necessary for life. Plants actually do BETTER with high concentrations of CO2. We breath out CO2. Since the left wants to regulate life itself, how better to do that than to regulate that which is necessary for life itself. The Man made Global warming theory provides the vehicle for doing just that. Regards, George Clay 2
ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I wonder what the normal temperature of earth is supposed to be. Does any one even know. Can anyone even answer that? What is normal? I would think that your location would make a huge difference. If one were in the middle of a volcano it would be much warmer than at one of the polar regions. Edited March 23, 2015 by ERayR
ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Let's do follow the money. There is about another $4 Trillion in fossil fuels still in the ground. The total amount spent by scientists studying the effects of that amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere pales in comparison. You forgot to mention those huge government grants and the carbon taxes. Edited March 23, 2015 by ERayR 3
Mormonmaniac Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I would think that your location would make a hugh difference. If one were in the middle of a volcano it would be much warmer than at one of the polar regions.Timing has an effect also. If you are trying to measure it when the second coming happens its going to be really hot with the people burning and stuff.
pogi Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 hugh government grants I didn't know that Hugh Grant's middle name is Government. ba-dum-bum-ching! 4
ERayR Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I didn't know that Hugh Grant's middle name is Government. ba-dum-bum-ching! Get in a hurry and I misspell every time. I guess there is something to "slow down and live".
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 TSS, out of courtesy an curiosity, I watched your video. It did not address my points at all. In fact, it deceptively made it seem as if C02 has historically preceded climate change (it hasn't). Very misleading! Please, no more videos except as references only. Use your own words. You know you lost the debate when you have to resort to redefinition of your argument (global worming to climate change) and when you have to start calling names "How to talk to an ostrich" and "You are a climate change denier". Which in and of it's self is a straw man. Typical leftist tactics. Can't defend the argument so attack the people, personally. Saul Alinsky anyone? There is nothing to defend because the Al Gore's of the world got it wrong and it has been proven wrong. 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I would think that your location would make a huge difference. If one were in the middle of a volcano it would be much warmer than at one of the polar regions.Well, if I were talking about were people don't live, then yeah. But lets take the US, as a whole, The lower 48. What is the normal temp of the lower 48?
Calm Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Get in a hurry and I misspell every time. I guess there is something to "slow down and live".Stop and spell the roses? 2
longview Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 You know you lost the debate when you have to resort to redefinition of your argument (global worming to climate change) and when you have to start calling names "How to talk to an ostrich" and "You are a climate change denier". Which in and of it's self is a straw man. Typical leftist tactics. Can't defend the argument so attack the people, personally. Saul Alinsky anyone? There is nothing to defend because the Al Gore's of the world got it wrong and it has been proven wrong. Pogi is right. I have received references to web sites from TSS and MFT that were totally unrelated to the discussion at hand (such as AGW, evolution, DNA, etc). This is Mendacity Phd (piled higher and deeper). Gore has got it BAD. All the scientists supporting him have it BAD. All the bureaucrats just ITCHING for this ruse to control the common people have got it the WORSE. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) I don't know... Maybe Breathing! I remember back in 70s when the government was talking about CO (Carbon-Monoxide) emissions from cars, and a need to regulate the emissions of CO. This is truly a poison, and we are probably better off as a result of the changes made to reduce or eliminate CO emissions... However, the environmentalists can never declare victory and quite. so then they started defining CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as a pollutant (Who notices the difference in rhetoric between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?). Name sounds similar, but CO2 is VERY different from CO. CO2 is actually necessary for life. Plants actually do BETTER with high concentrations of CO2. We breath out CO2. Since the left wants to regulate life itself, how better to do that than to regulate that which is necessary for life itself. The Man made Global warming theory provides the vehicle for doing just that. Regards, George Clay The main constituent the car exhaust is not CO but CO2. CO is produced by the incomplete combustion of the fuel. Neither one is good for animals. For a host of chemical reasons CO is more deadly than CO2 at any given concentration. However BOTH are poisonous to animals.CO2 is not necessary for animal life. CO2 prevents oxidation including the oxidation of the food we eat that keeps us alive. Plants do not do better at high levels of CO2.SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/plants_need_co2_to_live_so_isnt_more_of_it_a_good_thing Plants metabolize sugars the same way we do at night. SEE http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860 I don't know what you mean by regulating life itself. Of course we do need laws that regulate the actions of people. Imagine trying to drive on the public roads and highways if there were no regulations/laws governing it. Global Warming is a FACT. The explanation of that FACT is the Theory. CO2 is a green house gas. In that it holds in heat. That was established as FACT in the 1880 long before there was a political left in this country. Ps; Dr. Richard Alley is a republican.SEE Edited March 24, 2015 by thesometimesaint
longview Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 The main constituent the car exhaust is not CO but CO2. CO is produced by the incomplete combustion of the fuel. Neither one is good for animals. For a host of chemical reasons CO is more deadly than CO2 at any given concentration. However BOTH are poisonous to animals.CO2 is not necessary for animal life. CO2 prevents oxidation including the oxidation of the food we eat that keeps us alive.There you go again. Propagandizing by using loaded and emotional terms such as pollution and poison. CO2 is a natural byproduct of necessary biological functions. It is recycled back and forth between animals and plants and other natural subsystems. The Earth is self regulating or gently moderated by the Good Lord.It is grossly irresponsible for the EPA to try to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It is nothing less than JUNK science. It is frightful that several government bureaucracies are agitating and scheming for ever more freedom-robbing regulations that do nothing but give more power to bureaucrats. Global Warming is a FACT. The explanation of that FACT is the Theory. CO2 is a green house gas. In that it holds in heat. That was established as FACT in the 1880 long before there was a political left in this country.There you go again. Agitating for the surrender of the common people to the dictates of the Orwellian bureaucracy. CO2 has less than 1% of the heat retention of the two more common greenhouse gasses: water vapor and methane gas (see George Clay's post # 363). 2
JLHPROF Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Luddite. I have been called that 3 times in my life, once by a college professor. Yep, proud Luddite.
mfbukowski Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 1) do you think that you could get any research money to demonstrate that Man made Global warming has a negligible effect on the climate? That's the bottom line. And as you point out with your avatar clearly it is all caused by the Amish and all that horse poop.
mfbukowski Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Now we're talking! Can I get an Amen?No, but maybe an A-mish.
mfbukowski Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 TSS, out of courtesy an curiosity, I watched your video. It did not address my points at all. In fact, it deceptively made it seem as if C02 has historically preceded climate change (it hasn't). Very misleading! Please, no more videos except as references only. Use your own words. Uh oh. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 There you go again. Propagandizing by using loaded and emotional terms such as pollution and poison. CO2 is a natural byproduct of necessary biological functions. It is recycled back and forth between animals and plants and other natural subsystems. The Earth is self regulating or gently moderated by the Good Lord.It is grossly irresponsible for the EPA to try to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It is nothing less than JUNK science. It is frightful that several government bureaucracies are agitating and scheming for ever more freedom-robbing regulations that do nothing but give more power to bureaucrats. There you go again. Agitating for the surrender of the common people to the dictates of the Orwellian bureaucracy. CO2 has less than 1% of the heat retention of the two more common greenhouse gasses: water vapor and methane gas (see George Clay's post # 363). Pollution and poison are used frequently in the Scriptures. The good Lord can do whatever he wants, but to say that man can do whatever he wants without consequence is the height of hubris. SO WHAT? Water is natural, yet too much water isn't good for you. Just ask Noah. Cyanide is natural, and is necessary in the formation of the key "B vitamin" B-12. Yet too much cyanide isn't good for you. The earth doesn't self regulate CO2 with enough precision when man pumps more of it in than the earth can use quickly enough.SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ CO2 is a pollutant to animals. If you don't believe it try holding your breath. BTW The US Courts have agreed with the EPA that CO2 is a pollutant. That is modern day right wing twaddle.SEE Water vapor is a trailing indicator, and methane is about 20x's more potent a greenhouse gas not 100x's.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htmSEE http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
mfbukowski Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I don't know... Maybe Breathing! I remember back in 70s when the government was talking about CO (Carbon-Monoxide) emissions from cars, and a need to regulate the emissions of CO. This is truly a poison, and we are probably better off as a result of the changes made to reduce or eliminate CO emissions... However, the environmentalists can never declare victory and quite. so then they started defining CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) as a pollutant (Who notices the difference in rhetoric between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?). Name sounds similar, but CO2 is VERY different from CO.I do some commercial real estate occasionally and there are requirements for CO detectors in apartments and homes. Virtually universally in the business, they are called "CO2 alarms". I have actually had people try to correct my usage of "CO" as being incorrect.
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I have been called that 3 times in my life, once by a college professor. Yep, proud Luddite.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LudditeNot exactly what I call a Badge of Honor.
JLHPROF Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LudditeNot exactly what I call a Badge of Honor. Oh I know what a Luddite is historically. But just as Mormon started off as an insult, so we can change the connotation of Luddite.
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Oh I know what a Luddite is historically. But just as Mormon started off as an insult, so we can change the connotation of Luddite. I'm a bit of a stickler for the definitions of words. I really dislike the idiosyncratic use of words. However I suppose that that is technically possible to happen. Stranger things have happened. PS. Myself prefer the use of the term Latter-day Saint to Mormon. As a GA recently said the hardest thing to do is get a bunch of Mormons to be Latter-day Saints. Edited March 24, 2015 by thesometimesaint
pogi Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Luddite. Luddite: Against industrialization (reduced C02 emissions, curbing global warming). Against big business replacing high skilled, high-paid workers with less-skilled, low-wage workers thereby increasing the income gap, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. (I know your feelings about this from another thread). I am starting to suspect that you just might be a Luddite yourself. Edited March 24, 2015 by pogi 1
ERayR Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Luddite. It seems the ones standing in the way are the GW protagonists. 2
Recommended Posts