More than 40% of our lakes are unsuitable . . .

cjhsa wrote:

I'd much rather have the heavy industry on our shores, on our side.

We were "sold down the river" in that respect. It's kinda personal.

The people you support rid of us heavy industry and limited employment to either desk or service jobs. Get real.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
The EPA already gutted our manufacturing capabilities. We buy all our heavy armour plate from offshore.

This would be hysterical if it weren't so pathetic. This man has real emotional problems and is probably a bully in real life.

And you are obviously delusional and apparently taking some kind of weird drugs.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
The EPA already gutted our manufacturing capabilities. We buy all our heavy armour plate from offshore.

This would be hysterical if it weren't so pathetic. This man has real emotional problems and is probably a bully in real life.

And you are obviously delusional and apparently taking some kind of weird drugs.

And you are obviously immature and unimaginative. Your comeback is the sort of thing fifth-graders have grown out of. In the 1930s, your phrase would have been, "so's your old man."

You need to control your temper and improve your intellection. I suggest you begin by reading.

0 Replies

I'd suggest you buy a clue, if you can trade the foodstamps for money.

0 Replies

Reviving a thread to which the conservatives have replied with their usual cavalier lack of responsibility for and triumphant enjoyment of the wreckage of our environment to say that there is mercury in the lakes and rivers of 45 of the 50 states.

I can just hear the choruses of sit back, smile and enjoy it! Mercury in the water means a healthy economy!

0 Replies

The January edition of Discover Magazine features a retrospective of the science news for the previous year. Story 4, I believe, mentions that a government commission decided that human activity is the most likely cause of global warming. No link. You're adults: research it yourself.

0 Replies

I have a HUGE problem anytime I hear the words "government" and "commission" in the same sentence. Toss in the word "report" and you've really lost any credibility with me.

0 Replies

cj -- Well, only 13% of the Republican members of Congress believe global warming is caused by human activity. Just what we need. Killers in Congress.

However, scientists around the world acknowledge global warming is real and is caused by human activity. You don't. That says more about your failings -- and those of the Republicans in Congress -- than any ignorant remarks you make here.

0 Replies

POM

Quote:

However, scientists around the world acknowledge global warming is real and is caused by human activity.

Roughly half the geo-scientists feel that evidence supports the conclusion that global warming is predominantly the result of natural earth processes. Its a cyclic event that has left its traces in the geochemical and fossil records through time (during periods of time when humans were NOT a dominant species)
The Journal of GEophysical Research (no, its not sponsored by oil companies, Its as much a respected journal as is "Science", except its audience is predominantly geophysicists) has come out and presented peer reviewed calculations that, if all protocols, including Kyoto, and all "greenhouse gases" were eliminated to levels waay below their present carbon "sink" rates, the effect on reducing measurable global warming would be about 0.13%. Thats almost a non-issue.

Please dont jump on the
all scientists worth theri salt believe in global warming". Most scientists don give a rats ass about belief. Its what evidence can support that matters.

The last Wurm stage in the Pleistocene , coincided with the interglacial stage between the Illinoian and the Wisconsin (Riss and Mindell for you Europeans), at that period of time, there were palm trees growing in the New England area and Mild temperate climate in as far North as Labrador. This evidence is supported by, isotope ratios, (stable and unstable), Palynologic data, paleoecology and sediment deposits.

I dislike when anyone tries to represent something as a general "fact" when its only a speculation based upon a committed but vocal bunch of people who merely wish to get their careers made by generating computer models , many of which cannot even be calibrated to reality.

0 Replies

(Putting on my Tony Soprano hat)

I got yer global warming right heah!

http://www.lmsal.com

Ignorance is bliss, eh pom? Humans always like to give themselves WAY too much credit.

0 Replies

farmer -- Where were the landmasses at that time? At one time land that is now at the North Pole was at the Equator. As the continents shift, so do the ocean currents.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

farmer -- Where were the landmasses at that time? At one time land that is now at the North Pole was at the Equator. As the continents shift, so do the ocean currents.

The question amuses - and calls into question the education - or lack thereof - from which it stems. Given that the Pleistocene dates from ca 1.8/2.0 Million years ago or so to about 11,500/10,000 years ago give-or-take, and that the current distribution of planetary land mass has been pretty much is it is now for something like 60-70 Million years (end of the Cenozoic), the continents of the Pleistocene were - and for scores of Millions of years had been - pretty much right where they are now give or take a few hundred yards. There is now/was then no land anywhere within hundreds of miles of the North Pole, which lies roughly at the center of the 5.5 Milion square-mile body of water known as the Arctic Ocean (or, more correctly, the Arctic Sea), a basin averaging around 3500 feet in depth-below-sea level with trenches in the neighborhood of 18,000 feet.

0 Replies

POM, Timber is correct , the difference in the polar positioning of the continental land masses in the last few hundred thousand years is fairly negligible at a parting rate of about 2.5 cm/year(lets say an inch a year, which would mean a little less than 64000 years for the cont1nents to move 1 mile apart).

The various glacial and interglacial stages vary from about 40 to 100K years apart due to various eccentricities in the earths axis and orbit (Google-up Milankovitch cycles). You should look these things up yourself and youll feel rewarded for having done so.

The evidence that has left its footprints during the same glacial/interglacial stages only relates one important fact about the sea distances, that is, whenever the glacial stages are at their max, the sea levels were about 300 feet lower than today (even considering that the coastal zones are still rebounding from the weight of the ice sheets)

I once took part in a sedimentology/pollen investigation from peat bogs in Nova SCotia and the MAdelaine Islands. The time scaleswe were looking at were from the Sangaman Interglacial (about 120000 yBP). The paleoclimatology that resulted was that this area (New Brunswick and Nova SCotia) was about as warm as Virginia today. We could see the raised beachplanes (since the ocean was about 6 meters higher then) along the shorefront near Arisaig NS. Above these beach deposits are evidences of the later glacial moraine. The pollens that we found were of wild orchids, hardwood forests , and other more southern plants.
This had nothing to do with seafloor spreading or human interference. It was a Milankovitch Maximum ( Another of which we have been entering for about the last 8 to 12000 years )

Im a confirmed liberal , however, IMHO , the entire story about man induced warming could be just a lot of kool aid that youre being asked to swallow. Theres enough reason to cut our dependency on oil and coal

1Its dirty for our lungs and we havent developed decent technology to handle it

2Soot is a carcinogen too

Ground level effects of **** like phenolics cant be good for our health

4WE dont have a lot of this fuel to last for very much longer (100 to 300 years maybe)

5 We have to begin emerging into a second stage planetessimal (thats one where we learn to harness the energy of the solar system then the galaxy )

0 Replies

Wow! Is this site wonky!

Let's see if this will post.

farmer -- Well, I don't want to dismiss humanity from blame. A real problem -- consider #s 4 and 4 on your list -- with us as a species is our general lack of self control. If we don't start respecting and admiring self control, we won't practice it and we will go the way of the dodo. While that might not be a bad thing for the planet, we do need to stiffen our upper lips if any of us intend to survive.

And totally dismissing global warming -- which is off the subject -- is not going to make the planet any cleaner, while a by-product of acting as though we accept gw as a reality is that we may clean up the place a bit.

0 Replies

you make as much sense as spendius sometimes. I like the way you quickly change topics when your points begin to disassemble in front of our eyes.

0 Replies

newbie piping in-
I don't understand how anyone can deny that we most likely are responsible for the recent global warming if CO2 is accepted as a greenhouse gas and it is known that it is roughly 30% higher in ppm because of human emissions . The terrestial globe is a big place and only heavily populated in a few areas, the atmosphere is even bigger, and we managed to raise the CO2 levels by 30% and China with 1/6th of the worlds population is just getting started. And the world population isnt getting any smaller, so I guess it comes back to my first point if CO2 is accepted by chemists as a greenhouse gas and it is accepted that we are raising CO2 level exponentially how can you deny that we have something to do with global warming?

0 Replies

I neither changed topics -- the introduction of global warming is a change of topic from the topic of this thread, and I didn't introduce it -- nor am I disassembling (which I don't think is correct).

Look, timber likes to play the macho role -- and here he did this by ridiculing me for not having straight the times of the Ice Ages and these hitherto unaccounted for periods of extreme warmth -- and seizes upon any and all chances to discredit anyone who isn't a man. So, he thinks he had the right to call me uneducated because I don't have those dates on the tips of my fingers. Well, I have news for several of you. There are many, many people -- some of them with college degrees -- who think there was only one Ice Age, which is what almost all lay people thought during the 1950s. Just because I don't know those dates, does not make me uneducated.

You come closer to being uneducated when you use words like strawman incorrectly and when your logic is wanting, but, that is fodder for another thread.

Personally, I would love to stay on the subject of water quality. But ... this is a2k.

And, even if this is a normal, cyclical warming -- which I don't believe is strictly (note the adj.) true -- why not hedge our bets and exercise some self control, starting with population control.

BTW, I do take umbrage with your suggestion to me that I look things up on my own.

0 Replies

POM, the reason I said that you should look these things up is because most information about the speed of continental drift and glacial epochs is pretty much popular knowledge that many kids know. Its not the realm of a cabal of paleoclimatologists (theyve moved on to other things).
PS-whats wrong with disassembly. My spelling can be pretty atrocious but Im usually ok with words. I did screw up enucleate and nucleate a few months ago and so , Ill never make that mistake again, so what the hell, Ill pass by your moats if you grant me my beams. (little bit o New Testament )

I dont have a copywright on "straw man" so , if you were referring to me Ill take the advice and lessen my use of it. (Actually I dont use it much at all unless we get into a drag out on types of arguments) Maybe you were aiming at Timber and hit me instead.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I neither changed topics -- the introduction of global warming is a change of topic from the topic of this thread, and I didn't introduce it -- nor am I disassembling (which I don't think is correct).

Looks as though you indeed did "introduce it":

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2510376#2510376]plainoldme wrote:

The January edition of Discover Magazine features a retrospective of the science news for the previous year. Story 4, I believe, mentions that a government commission decided that human activity is the most likely cause of global warming. No link. You're adults: research it yourself.

Quote:

Look, timber likes to play the macho role

Nonsense - I just have a very low tolerance level for ignorant bullshit.

Quote:

- and here he did this by ridiculing me for not having straight the times of the Ice Ages and these hitherto unaccounted for periods of extreme warmth

Bullshit - I did not ridicule you, I ridiculed your ignorantly-founded query.

Quote:

-- and seizes upon any and all chances to discredit anyone who isn't a man.

Bullshit - I submit you cannot demonstrate misogyny on my part, and I submit your allegation in such regard is false.

Quote:

So, he thinks he had the right to call me uneducated because I don't have those dates on the tips of my fingers.

Bullshit. I did not call you uneducated, I said your query called to question the education from which it stemmed. I presented a factual observation; as fm pointed out, at least basic knowledge of paleogeology and the glaciation cycle is Jr. High stuff. Had you that basic knowledge, a query such as that you presented would not have occurred to you; its premise is ludicrous.

Quote:

Well, I have news for several of you. There are many, many people -- some of them with college degrees -- who think there was only one Ice Age,

Irrelevant - ignorance is ignorance, and simply having a degree does not insulate one from ignorance.

Quote:

which is what almost all lay people thought during the 1950s.

Be that as it may - and I doubt that it is as you assert, but I don't care enough to chase it down right now - what folks thought half a century ago is pretty irrelevant now to anyone not stuck in the '50s.

Quote:

Just because I don't know those dates, does not make me uneducated.

Certainly, and self-evidently - it does.

Quote:

You come closer to being uneducated when you use words like strawman incorrectly

First, fm doesn't charge straw man often, if at all - its me you're after on this one. You have been challenged repeatedly to demonstrate that I have done so incorrectly. You have not met that challenge. I submit you cannot.

Quote:

and when your logic is wanting, but, that is fodder for another thread.

Do it here, do it on a differend thread, I don't care. Demonstrate that my "logoic is wanting".

Quote:

Personally, I would love to stay on the subject of water quality. But ... this is a2k.

So why did you bring up global warming?

Quote:

And, even if this is a normal, cyclical warming -- which I don't believe is strictly (note the adj.) true -- why not hedge our bets and exercise some self control, starting with population control.

All sortsa bet hedging makes sense - stewardship of the planet entails many responsibilities, and among those responsibilities would be population control, most particularly in the undeveloped world.

Quote:

BTW, I do take umbrage with your suggestion to me that I look things up on my own.

Why? Are you intimidated by freely available reference resources? Or, perhaps, do you prefer to toss up outllandish statements others easily may factcheck and expose for the ignorant bullshit they are?

0 Replies

POM, ya never want to have Timber get on your ass when your not being totally honest. He will fact check yer hide . Seems you DID bring up the global warming issue . Bet you feel foolish, I dont believe you were purposely trying to be devious.

See, about these computers, unless you take a sledgehammer to it, NOTHING DISAPPEARS, and it has a habit of "caching up" with you.

0 Replies

More than 40% of our lakes are unsuitable . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know