Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
On Thu, 21 May 2009 06:27:06 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote: "Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:12:04 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote: Wizard of Woodstock wrote: 'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" I am going to guess, and say Henry Waxman. Am I close? DING DING DING!! And your prize will be... NOTHING!! Can't make anything for you because of carbon emissions. Sorry. We could save some carbon emmisions and recycle the politicians? We could use the politicians carbon to make boats, at least then they would be true and useful. Political carbon fiber? No thanks. I wonder when they are going to get around to taxing breathing though - I mean there are 6 billion people on Earth - that's got to be something to consider for cap and trade. A large source of carbon emissions and, dare I say it, other "greenhouse" asses...er..gasses. I mean think about it - how many times a year do you..um..blast a real stinker - times six billion...wow, that's a lot of greenhouse gas being emitted. Espiecally after eating Chinese food. No wonder you can't see more than a 1/2 mile on the average day in Bejing. |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" Dan Quale |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand the concept of balance. The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more is better...... Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go. |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
|
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
On May 21, 11:13*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: 'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand the concept of balance. The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more is better...... Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go. But that's just the point - the science isn't settled, nobody knows what is or isn't happening.The highly vaunted MIT Global Model, out of 400 possible results, shows exactly 20 possibilities that end in the drastic scenarios being promulgated - 20 out of 400 and the assumptions made in the model are so outrageous that it defies description. James Hanson (Hockey Stick Theory) has been completely discredited, proponents of doomsday scenarios can't even settle on a way to describe this proported phenomenon and solar science is being completely ignored as part of the equation. Let's take your example as a "for instance". The Artic melts and the waters rise a minimum of six inches to over two feet inundating the worlds cities. Ok, but hasn't anybody heard of water vapor? There are sound models that suggest that if anything, the world will become a more soggy place from rain assuming, and that's a big assume, that the entire ice sheet melts - which is impossible. And let's take "temperature" creep. The core data samples used in a lot of these models are taken from areas that are largely urban in nature and mostly in industrialized areas of the world. The weather station over at the Thompson Dam is a great example. *It used to be located in a woods - it's now sitting in the middle of a parking lot. Bradley Field's (Hartford) weather system is located right next to a building on the tarmac and surrounded by black top - it reads consistently 3 degrees higher than any other reporting station in the state, but it's the "official" reporting station and it's data counts. And let's not forget that a large part of the world isn't sampled at all. Want to discuss the recent ASOS findings? Let's be reasonable - yes, man does affect the environment - can't argue that. Is it a good idea reduce air pollution, clean our waters and try to act as responsible as possible? *Certainly. Recycle, etc., good things and socially responsible. Got it - agree completely. I'm all for gas milage - it only makes sense to reduce consumption reasonably and responsiblity. Demonizing an opposing point of view that is based on science and takes a different approach to the problems isn't science - it's a political approach and doesn't help any. Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach? Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's article about the melting arctic ice sheets? How about Scientific American? http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...of-global-warm (that's a good read, you'll like it!) What do you say about the fact that there is DIRECT correlation between rising ocean temps and amounts of man-made pollution in the atmosphere? Do I know for a fact that man has caused all of this? Nope, and don't purport to. But I'm not about to sit around and do nothing until it's too late. |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
On May 21, 2:24*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach? I'm saying that they are reaching conclusions based on faulty data, personal bias, obtaining more "research" grants and an over arching need to be relevant no tto mention joining the band wagon. So yes - I'm saying that they are ignoring important evidence that contradicts thier theories and conclusions. *Which isn't sound science - it's pop science. Science of The Day I think it was once called. Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's article about the melting arctic ice sheets? Sure did - the "Ice Baby" issue. Did you happen to read the part about how the new mapping of the Artic sea floor is leading scientists to conclude that this has happened before? And that it's not quite as dramatic as you make it sound? Oh, but you make it sound as if the article was stating that warming has occured at the rate that it is now, and that's not true. Of course there is a natural cycle. But those cycles are tame and mild compared to what is happening now. And what about the correlation between warming trend vs. pollution levels? From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday. "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable." In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:01:42 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote: 'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" Certainly not Byorn Lomborg. If you've not read any of his global warming writings, get busy and do so. The guy makes good sense. http://tinyurl.com/bse67w -- John H |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Who said the following?
"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message ... 'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'" I'd put a Franklin on AlGore. steve |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|