Gargamel wrote:cjhsa wrote:You should ask Al Gore that question.
Even YOU don't know what you're talking about. At least we all have that in common.
No, really, you should ask Mr. Carbon Offset Credit himself.
Seriously, Clinton and Gore were at the forefront of globalization, and were a huge part of organizations (WTO, IMF) that absolutely shaft third-world (non-industrial) nations.
You could at least be a better bullshitter. You just have no idea what you are talking about, on any level whatsoever.
You might want to crawl out from under that rock more often.
cjhsa wrote:Gargamel wrote:cjhsa wrote:You should ask Al Gore that question.
Even YOU don't know what you're talking about. At least we all have that in common.
No, really, you should ask Mr. Carbon Offset Credit himself.
Why insinuate? Come right out and say what you mean, provide a link.
I could call you an idiot, but we already all know that.
Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:27 pm Walt discovers the "Quote" button.
Outwitting and embarrassing rednecks has lost its charm for the day.
Until next time, Cletus.
I'm really curious and quite concerned about all of you. Why don't you go after Ramafuchs, Zippo, and all the other left wing lunatics that post fringe **** here all the time?
Huh?
I dispute global warming - and it's an easy target, and you're all over me like a cheap whore. Why not go after the real creeps?
I know why. Because my viewpoint scares you - because it is against your goal of destroying the status quo. It involves personal freedom and responsibility - which you fear.
More and more scientists are not afraid to publish data and information CONTRARY to the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
I wish this hadnt been so politicized so early. As much as Id have liked to see AL Gore as president now, I find his arguments about GW inconsistent and lacking in historical evidence.
As a geologist, I see the raw data that weve read from the planets own chrono-fingerprints and Im always amazed at how we , as a species, go ping-ponging from one disaster scenario to another.
Rich Alley (one of the most respected paleoclimatologists ) has computed a Carbon budget from evidence from the Sangamon Ice cores of the Greenland Shield. Hes seen that , taking away all natural carbon that is incorporated in the atmosphere during the last 2 glacial cycles, we can only ascribe less than 0.25% to human activities.
Solar cycles and natural planetary exudates of CO2 and CArbonic acid are 3 orders of magnitude higher than all our cars and fossil burners and tree cutting and clear cut-burning.
Thats an inconvenient truth that faces me as a scientist.
As much as Cj and I disagree on just about anything, Im in his corner on this one (just not as ill mannered)
Gargamel wrote:Outwitting and embarrassing rednecks has lost its charm for the day.
Until next time, Cletus.
Tired of playing with yourself?
Finally, dude.
Why wait until I start talking ****? Damn that's annoying.
I'll check these out. And probably laugh. But I'll try to give it a fair shot.
farmerman wrote:More and more scientists are not afraid to publish data and information CONTRARY to the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
I wish this hadnt been so politicized so early. As much as Id have liked to see AL Gore as president now, I find his arguments about GW inconsistent and lacking in historical evidence.
As a geologist, I see the raw data that weve read from the planets own chrono-fingerprints and Im always amazed at how we , as a species, go ping-ponging from one disaster scenario to another.
Rich Alley (one of the most respected paleoclimatologists ) has computed a Carbon budget from evidence from the Sangamon Ice cores of the Greenland Shield. Hes seen that , taking away all natural carbon that is incorporated in the atmosphere during the last 2 glacial cycles, we can only ascribe less than 0.25% to human activities.
Solar cycles and natural planetary exudates of CO2 and CArbonic acid are 3 orders of magnitude higher than all our cars and fossil burners and tree cutting and clear cut-burning.
Thats an inconvenient truth that faces me as a scientist.
As much as Cj and I disagree on just about anything, Im in his corner on this one (just not as ill mannered)
Hmmmmm.... now I have to go and rethink this.....
Gargamel wrote:
I'll check these out. And probably laugh. But I'll try to give it a fair shot.
You can laugh all you want but the point is Al Bore is one of the owners of the carbon offset company. He's a walking, breathing conflict of interest.
One area to consider is the fact that MArs is enjoying relatively "balmy" weather for about the same period as weve been getting excited about us and greenhouse gas spewing smokestacks and halocarbons. Is the change in the SUn possibly a significantcause??
My position is NOT that GW isnt occuring. It is. However, we arent anywhere near the last max interglacial high point of about 130000-115000 years ago, when London (the area) was underwater and (for us USers)so were the areas of Long Island Manhattan all the ay to mid coastal plain NJ Md Va down to much of Florida.
I noticed the weather was getting wacky 20 years ago. It's actually been much more normal the last two years than it has for a long time. The winter of 2005-06 was completely unwinterlike.
I don't think farmerman disbelieves global warming, itself, Montana. It looks more like he's not convinced it is caused by human activity. This is a discouraging viewpoint, by the way. If we are not the cause, it's possible that we might not be able to be the cure.
I'm agreeing with an earlier post from Gargamel. What has caused it is not important. What is important is what we can do about it, if anything. I would add that we need to consider the total costs of trying to correct the situation to the costs of doing nothing.
farmerman wrote:One area to consider is the fact that MArs is enjoying relatively "balmy" weather for about the same period as weve been getting excited about us and greenhouse gas spewing smokestacks and halocarbons. Is the change in the SUn possibly a significantcause??
My position is NOT that GW isnt occuring. It is. However, we arent anywhere near the last max interglacial high point of about 130000-115000 years ago, when London (the area) was underwater and (for us USers)so were the areas of Long Island Manhattan all the ay to mid coastal plain NJ Md Va down to much of Florida.
This is my point of contention. You cannot argue that the Earth's temperature is not rising. And I don't think conservationists reacting to global warming are mere opportunists. Even if they are wrong about the source of the problem, which is debatable, is that reason enough to dismiss a more eco-friendly way of living? Does that mean we won't run out of oil this century? Does that mean we don't have air pollution? It seems to me that people who react so severely to a concerted effort to lessen mankind's impact on the planet are often pathetically married to our gluttonous, materialistic Western lifestyle, and so they intepret this gut-check as a threat to "American Values," or whatever empty phrase you'd like to insert there.
