No such thing as a "perfect" temperature

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

Absolutely

wow. Just wow. What a short sighted man you are.

Anyway.

Nothing has been done since 1973.

I don't see anything "short sighted" about that.

But just keep apologizing for your Oil buddies.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Probably because you tried to held your source up as unassailable. Frankly, you need to develop more intellectually before posting here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

Absolutely

wow. Just wow. What a short sighted man you are.

Anyway.

Nothing has been done since 1973.

I don't see anything "short sighted" about that.

But just keep apologizing for your Oil buddies.

Thanks for your lack of comprehension (again). The short sigtedness I was referring to is your nonchalant attitude of consequenses of other power sources. Which, as you have stated, you really couldnt care less.

As far as my oil buddies go, I invest where there is profit. If green energy is profitable, I'll invest there. But, of course since I believe *I* am responsible for my own income, you will call me rich. Whatever. Youre such a whiner.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Probably because you tried to held your source up as unassailable. Frankly, you need to develop more intellectually before posting here.

No more or less unassailable than the other side. As another poster stated, it's scientists vs scientists. PJ was simply laying out an intelligent, fact filled response to the other side.

But maybe youre one of those closed minded people who discount an opposite opinion without even considering it. But of course, thats 99% of P&N. *shrug*

 

[shadow9d9]

Your last post on GW showed a fundamental misunderstanding about the phenomena and yet you post another one a day or so after? Troll.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems?" Oh really?!? I'm shocked!:roll:

I personally don't find it hard to blame people who are intellectually dishonest...not to brag, but it comes natural for me. Glad to hear that your pro-nuclear which is consistent with your position on MMGW. I'm also pro-nuclear for environmental reasons not related to alleged MMGW.

I'm just saying it's not a direct link from global warming to supporting nuclear power. I think the people who run and hide from nuclear are mistaken, but I at least understand why they think what they do.

If you or anyone else REALLY believes that GW is manmade and will destroy our planet...then they would be demanding that the world go nuclear as fast as possible. Nuclear waste would be a non-issue. I'm glad that you understand hypocrisy when you see it...I have little tolerance for it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems? It's certainly the obvious first-step solution to CO2, but it's hard to blame people for being a little concerned about it.[/quote]
QFT! If we've learned anything from our much broader understanding of the history of technological development, it's that we have to deal with the effects of any technology from its creation to its end point.

That's especially true for anything that will produce a continuous stream of waste that glows for milennia and where the word, "OOPS! can mean the destruction of all life in an area the size of a medium sized state. :shocked:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems? It's certainly the obvious first-step solution to CO2, but it's hard to blame people for being a little concerned about it.

QFT! If we've learned anything from our much broader understanding of the history of technological development, it's that we have to deal with the effects of any technology from its creation to its end point.

That's especially true for anything that will produce a continuous stream of waste that glows for milennia and where the word, "OOPS! can mean the destruction of all life in an area the size of a medium sized state. :shocked:[/quote]Let's see...medium-sized state or planet? Tough call.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Probably because you tried to held your source up as unassailable. Frankly, you need to develop more intellectually before posting here.

No more or less unassailable than the other side. As another poster stated, it's scientists vs scientists. PJ was simply laying out an intelligent, fact filled response to the other side.

But maybe youre one of those closed minded people who discount an opposite opinion without even considering it. But of course, thats 99% of P&N. *shrug*

What "other side" are you referring to? This is just stupid.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

Absolutely

wow. Just wow. What a short sighted man you are.

Anyway.

Nothing has been done since 1973.

I don't see anything "short sighted" about that.

But just keep apologizing for your Oil buddies.

Thanks for your lack of comprehension (again). The short sigtedness I was referring to is your nonchalant attitude of consequenses of other power sources. Which, as you have stated, you really couldnt care less.

As far as my oil buddies go, I invest where there is profit. If green energy is profitable, I'll invest there. But, of course since I believe *I* am responsible for my own income, you will call me rich. Whatever. Youre such a whiner.

Always diverting from the issue as usual on you and your kind's part.

I already know theconsequences of sticking with Oil.

What's your beef with renewable energy???

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's your beef with renewable energy???

Hmm... Now that you mention it, cattle and sheep farts are mostly methane, and they're a major source of greenhouse gasses. Methane's a very clean burning fuel. Maybe we could capture all that beef and lamb power for a clean energy source and slow global warming at the same time.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's your beef with renewable energy???

Hmm... Now that you mention it, cattle and sheep farts are mostly methane, and they're a major source of greenhouse gasses. Methane's a very clean burning fuel. Maybe we could capture all that beef and lamb power for a clean energy source and slow global warming at the same time.

Ehem, the image in my mind is very weird indeed. Can you see up bunch of tubes up the butts of all our livestock.....how else do we do this proposed capturing of said fuel? :shocked:

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have never seen any body of evidence of global warming. It would make sense that a scientist would have to present evidence of such a claim to the public. All I ever see are reports and predictions without any hard data. I assume it is all a bunch of hooey. Where is this evidence at and why havent I seen a body of evidence spanning 1000 years of recorded temperatures to prove it?

The reason is it does not exist.

You cannot possibly be that damn lazy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's your beef with renewable energy???

Hmm... Now that you mention it, cattle and sheep farts are mostly methane, and they're a major source of greenhouse gasses. Methane's a very clean burning fuel. Maybe we could capture all that beef and lamb power for a clean energy source and slow global warming at the same time.

Ehem, the image in my mind is very weird indeed. Can you see up bunch of tubes up the butts of all our livestock.....how else do we do this proposed capturing of said fuel? :shocked:

Collect the manure and then remove the methane. This is already being done.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems?" Oh really?!? I'm shocked!:roll:

I personally don't find it hard to blame people who are intellectually dishonest...not to brag, but it comes natural for me. Glad to hear that your pro-nuclear which is consistent with your position on MMGW. I'm also pro-nuclear for environmental reasons not related to alleged MMGW.

I'm just saying it's not a direct link from global warming to supporting nuclear power. I think the people who run and hide from nuclear are mistaken, but I at least understand why they think what they do.

If you or anyone else REALLY believes that GW is manmade and will destroy our planet...then they would be demanding that the world go nuclear as fast as possible. Nuclear waste would be a non-issue. I'm glad that you understand hypocrisy when you see it...I have little tolerance for it.

Your line of reasoning makes no sense because you are assuming that everyone who thinks that the current warming trend is caused by man is educated on the advantages of nuclear power.

 

[imported_Equinox]

If you don't know the difference between "Climate Change" which is what we are experiencing - and Global Warming - which is an inaccurate term - you have no business discussing the subject. Our climate is changing and that is a fact. I'd dredge up the 300 links to everywhere from popular science to a few things you could find on the subject of natural science, but if you don't even believe in climate change, you wouldn't understand any of those either.

Only the completely uninformed and uneducated would dispute Climate Change.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

 

[imported_Equinox]

It has been studied and researched to death. It is our planetary footprint - look at Urban sprawl cities like Atlanta. It now has worse air than Los Angeles, but people want to claim we aren't harming the environment? I guess that some people think if you keep denying the issue or dismissing it often enough it will go away. That is a direct example of petroleum exhaust having an effect because so many cars now travel on that stretch of interstate - it's used like a normal road, but by thousands of people a day. The average commute in Atlanta is an hour.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

It doesn't matter. If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your industrial greed pack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Good planets are hard to find. If we break this one, we're screwed regardless of whether it's because we do nothing or because we can't fix it in time. Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, if we really care about our own survival, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

simple, because he gets paid to make those points.

duuh.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

It doesn't matter. If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your industrial greed pack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Good planets are hard to find. If we break this one, we're screwed regardless of whether it's because we do nothing or because we can't fix it in time. Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, if we really care about our own survival, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

So lets adopt widespread nuclear power and have this problem solved within a decade or so....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

It doesn't matter. If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your industrial greed pack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Good planets are hard to find. If we break this one, we're screwed regardless of whether it's because we do nothing or because we can't fix it in time. Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, if we really care about our own survival, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

So lets adopt widespread nuclear power and have this problem solved within a decade or so....

I'd sign onto that. Or massive solar arrays. Or a mixture of both.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

It doesn't matter. If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your industrial greed pack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Good planets are hard to find. If we break this one, we're screwed regardless of whether it's because we do nothing or because we can't fix it in time. Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, if we really care about our own survival, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

So lets adopt widespread nuclear power and have this problem solved within a decade or so....

We can only dream...eventually I think it'll happen though. Just hope its soon Although it wont do a THING about alleviating our need for oil...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

simple, because he gets paid to make those points.

duuh.

Everybody is being paid by someone.

Based on your train of though the only person we should listen to is the Unabomber since no one paid him... right?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
But the cause is what is key. Are we in a naturally occurring cycle or is our planetary "footprint" bringing about the trend.

It doesn't matter. If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your industrial greed pack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Good planets are hard to find. If we break this one, we're screwed regardless of whether it's because we do nothing or because we can't fix it in time. Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, if we really care about our own survival, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

So lets adopt widespread nuclear power and have this problem solved within a decade or so....

We can only dream...eventually I think it'll happen though. Just hope its soon Although it wont do a THING about alleviating our need for oil...

Does anyone yet know what to do with that stuff called Nuclear WASTE?

Some of you conservative rednecks complain about Hybrid car batteries :laugh: