|
Wish I could vote for...
F.O.A.D. wrote:
Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q He's not very articulate and waves a very broad brush. |
Wish I could vote for...
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:37:15 -0600, Califbill wrote: "Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't directly related to greenhouse gases. We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years ago, except for couple minor ice ages. The thing that indicates this may be somewhat man made is CO2 levels track population growth for the last 8000 years. That is traced to agriculture as much as anything else but we have been burning stuff for energy that long too. Are the global warming fear mongers ready for nuke power yet? That is the only real way to create the kind of power, upward of 10 billion people, will need in the next few decades. The CNN movie had an interesting factoid. An I phone uses at least as much power as a refrigerator when you take into account the towers and servers that make it go. We are affecting the warming but how much really are we actually affecting. And I agree, nuclear is probably the only viable energy source that can supply the energy we need. I do not see fusion on the horizon, but the ideal would be cold fusion. I think that sadly that we may not be going towards 10 billion people, but with the economic meltdown possible, and the amount of fanatics in the world, we may be on the way to killing a couple billion. |
Wish I could vote for...
|
Wish I could vote for...
|
Wish I could vote for...
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1801984088406327956.578196bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his tirades against the job makers. The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com bubble never ending. The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to be there no matter what. The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all. Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased the deficit and produced a surplus. I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started. Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued. Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars. How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia? All Clinton failures! You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia, in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed. You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan from the Dems back then. Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam? Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known Saddam abodes. Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials. No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault. He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina. Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and the warm earthers.... "Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't directly related to greenhouse gases. We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years ago, except for couple minor ice ages. Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of Rush Limbaugh? http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8 http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9 Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming, yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass. Right, ignore the scientific data, then tell someone else they are a dumbass. Got it. To what do you attribute the direct correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases and the rise in overall temperature of the earth? To what to you attribute the direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations and the sharper rise in temperature in those areas? You do realize you are even beyond FOX on this? After there hired naysayers actually studied the matter, 97% of them agreed that man is indeed causing a sharp rise in greenhouse gases and that those gases are directly responsible for warming. http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science Now instead of sticking your head in the sand, read this, then tell me what about this is not true: http://tinyurl.com/3ddpto NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus "How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels." And your bull**** about the sun leads to: When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen- 14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium- 10) through a nuclear reaction: 14N + p ? 14C + n This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays. Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans How do we know CO2 is the global warming culprit? Why not water vapor? |
Wish I could vote for...
In article 1346682265406400232.855899bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1801984088406327956.578196bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his tirades against the job makers. The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com bubble never ending. The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to be there no matter what. The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all. Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased the deficit and produced a surplus. I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started. Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued. Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars. How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia? All Clinton failures! You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia, in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed. You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan from the Dems back then. Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam? Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known Saddam abodes. Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials. No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault. He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina. Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and the warm earthers.... "Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't directly related to greenhouse gases. We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years ago, except for couple minor ice ages. Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of Rush Limbaugh? http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8 http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9 Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming, yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass. Right, ignore the scientific data, then tell someone else they are a dumbass. Got it. To what do you attribute the direct correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases and the rise in overall temperature of the earth? To what to you attribute the direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations and the sharper rise in temperature in those areas? You do realize you are even beyond FOX on this? After there hired naysayers actually studied the matter, 97% of them agreed that man is indeed causing a sharp rise in greenhouse gases and that those gases are directly responsible for warming. http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science Now instead of sticking your head in the sand, read this, then tell me what about this is not true: http://tinyurl.com/3ddpto NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus "How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels." And your bull**** about the sun leads to: When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen- 14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium- 10) through a nuclear reaction: 14N + p ? 14C + n This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays. Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans How do we know CO2 is the global warming culprit? Why not water vapor? Oh, holy ****, you're stupid. I now fully understand you either don't get science or are in denial. But really, try REAL hard to understand the data. http://tinyurl.com/ygtzcmq |
Wish I could vote for...
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1346682265406400232.855899bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1801984088406327956.578196bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his tirades against the job makers. The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com bubble never ending. The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to be there no matter what. The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all. Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased the deficit and produced a surplus. I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started. Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued. Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars. How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia? All Clinton failures! You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia, in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed. You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan from the Dems back then. Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam? Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known Saddam abodes. Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials. No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault. He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina. Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and the warm earthers.... "Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't directly related to greenhouse gases. We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years ago, except for couple minor ice ages. Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of Rush Limbaugh? http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8 http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9 Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming, yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass. Right, ignore the scientific data, then tell someone else they are a dumbass. Got it. To what do you attribute the direct correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases and the rise in overall temperature of the earth? To what to you attribute the direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations and the sharper rise in temperature in those areas? You do realize you are even beyond FOX on this? After there hired naysayers actually studied the matter, 97% of them agreed that man is indeed causing a sharp rise in greenhouse gases and that those gases are directly responsible for warming. http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science Now instead of sticking your head in the sand, read this, then tell me what about this is not true: http://tinyurl.com/3ddpto NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus "How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels." And your bull**** about the sun leads to: When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen- 14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium- 10) through a nuclear reaction: 14N + p ? 14C + n This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays. Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans How do we know CO2 is the global warming culprit? Why not water vapor? Oh, holy ****, you're stupid. I now fully understand you either don't get science or are in denial. But really, try REAL hard to understand the data. http://tinyurl.com/ygtzcmq There is still scientific controversy as to the affects of water vapor, CO2 and others. You do not seem to understand science and the use of science in investigating stuff! |
Wish I could vote for...
In article 1945577434406410446.356534bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1346682265406400232.855899bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1801984088406327956.578196bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote: On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his tirades against the job makers. The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com bubble never ending. The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to be there no matter what. The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all. Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased the deficit and produced a surplus. I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started. Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued. Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars. How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia? All Clinton failures! You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia, in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed. You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan from the Dems back then. Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam? Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known Saddam abodes. Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials. No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault. He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina. Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and the warm earthers.... "Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't directly related to greenhouse gases. We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years ago, except for couple minor ice ages. Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of Rush Limbaugh? http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8 http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9 Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming, yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass. Right, ignore the scientific data, then tell someone else they are a dumbass. Got it. To what do you attribute the direct correlation between the rise in greenhouse gases and the rise in overall temperature of the earth? To what to you attribute the direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations and the sharper rise in temperature in those areas? You do realize you are even beyond FOX on this? After there hired naysayers actually studied the matter, 97% of them agreed that man is indeed causing a sharp rise in greenhouse gases and that those gases are directly responsible for warming. http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science Now instead of sticking your head in the sand, read this, then tell me what about this is not true: http://tinyurl.com/3ddpto NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus "How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused? There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm. The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels." And your bull**** about the sun leads to: When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen- 14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium- 10) through a nuclear reaction: 14N + p ? 14C + n This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays. Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans How do we know CO2 is the global warming culprit? Why not water vapor? Oh, holy ****, you're stupid. I now fully understand you either don't get science or are in denial. But really, try REAL hard to understand the data. http://tinyurl.com/ygtzcmq There is still scientific controversy as to the affects of water vapor, CO2 and others. You do not seem to understand science and the use of science in investigating stuff! Show me ONE single scientific article that states that CO2 is not harming the ozone. |
Wish I could vote for...
On Friday, November 15, 2013 11:36:46 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 11:15 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/15/13, 11:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/15/2013 10:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q I enjoy listening to his views. Doubtful I'd ever vote for him though. Here's another YouTube for your viewing pleasu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVE0PDGSw4 He handles assholes, such as the fellow from Human Events, very well. :) I'll give him one thing. He practices what he preaches, unlike others like John Kerry who advocates for the "little guy" while making sure his 100's of millions are well protected in tax shelters. Sander's net worth is less than $500,000 and that includes a modest condo and a modest house. Kerry's net worth is over $193 million, not counting his wife's sizable assets. Add her's to the mix and it more than doubles. Like I said, I doubt I could ever vote for Sanders but I enjoy listening to his views. Its the GREEDY rich Americans that will be their own downfall when the Country folds like a House of Cards. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com