And the problem with your theory is that the majority consensus amongst scientists is that over the past 60 years sun spot activity has been at an all time low. At the same time temperatures have been rising. I hope your mind can comprehend what that does to your theory. So yes I guess National Geographic is BS, afterall it's American.Originally posted by Von_Rat:
its still prediting that it'll cause DOOM.
thus its still a prediction.
im acutually anti pollution. by that i mean the real noxious stuff we humans spew out.
unfourntunatly this co2 fairy tale gets all the attention while we get posioned be the really toxic stuff.
Set em 'up and knock 'em down! Your making this to easy for me.
Technically the most enviromentally friendly diet includes some meat, think the study was done by Princeton cant quite remember. Look it up if you want. I like to mention it to **** off vegies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:
And ice caps growing or receding isn't as much a function of how cold the winters are, as how warm the summers are, get a crap summer and not as much melts as usual.
It's colder summers that bring on ice ages, not colder winters, so with warmer summers the ice caps will shrink.
As for CO2, what about all those damned beef cattle farting Methane into the atmosphere, a far more powerful greenhouse gas, beware, Mr. Gore will take away your burgers, and make you become vegetarians..........![]()
Caveman diet or something...pass the locally raised lamchops please.![]()
No kidding, plus the fact consumption taxes hardly affect the rich at all so it's the middle and working classes that get stiffed.Originally posted by Badsight-:
home & residential users need to cut down on Co2 ?
the greens in politics know how hard it is to curb industry , so they go after ordinary citizens instead![]()
Back onto the OP, this sort of reporting really p*sses me off. If you really want to split hairs over CO2 production, pretty much EVERYTHING modern society does has a CO2 footprint, even flushing a toilet. I'd love to see CO2 footprint stats on flushing your toilet! Soon well all back to using outhouses!!!
BTW, I does depressed me that I participate in this CO2 mess but I really have no choice. At least our home has solar cells on its roof and we use CFL lightbulbs (but really, this is no better than drinking diet coke while scarfing down a pepperoni pizza). Stone-age living anyone?
Well youve probably reduced a good portion of you CO2 production with the solar panels. Im an optimist, as long as polutants can be minimized to a degree whereby we'll get through this century without ****ing things up to much, we'll be okay. What with fusion technology and hydrogen-3 in the long term, next generation solar panels etc etc.Originally posted by TheFamilyMan:
Back onto the OP, this sort of reporting really p*sses me off. If you really want to split hairs over CO2 production, pretty much EVERYTHING modern society does has a CO2 footprint, even flushing a toilet. I'd love to see CO2 footprint stats on flushing your toilet! Soon well all back to using outhouses!!!
BTW, I does depressed me that I participate in this CO2 mess but I really have no choice. At least our home has solar cells on its roof and we use CFL lightbulbs (but really, this is no better than drinking diet coke while scarfing down a pepperoni pizza). Stone-age living anyone?
Things are going to change dramatically over the next 20 years, another example will be raw materials. There will be a lot more recycling of materials such as copper, the economy dictates technology and the way I see it for the worlds economy to keep going its going to have to adapt.
You should try living next to these guys. I do, they're a good bunch, very ernest. Hilariously, they're on the Machynlleth Loop which means they get NATO heavy metal wazzing over at low level most days. I enjoy the irony of it.
Didnt know you were in Wales!Originally posted by Ploughman:
You should try living next to these guys. I do, they're a good bunch, very ernest. Hilariously, they're on the Machynlleth Loop which means they get NATO heavy metal wazzing over at low level most days. I enjoy the irony of it.
I love watching the Chicken Little crowd and the Hear No Evil/See No Evil crowd go at it. If it was just words being exchanged it would make for intellectual entertainment of the first order. Unfortunately, both parties have the possibility of influencing public opinion and therefore public policy and neither side stands up to scientific investigation despite the cries of "all the smart people say so!". Whenever I hear that, I can usually determine reliably it is anything but the truth.
As a statistician that worked for years with defense industry scientists, I see mostly really bad science coming from the Green crowd and total ignorance from the monkeys that will see no evil. The current warming trend appears to be part of an 85,000 to 105,000 year cycle, which is under investigation. Google Ice Core and Global Warming together for a variety of views.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choic...y_Planning/New_Data/
is one of several places where you can see the temperature trends of the last 450,000 years or so.
The rock we inhabit is between 3,400,000,000 and 3,600,000,000 years old. Why would you believe the statistical relevance of a 150 year sample (Al Gore, et al) or even 2000 years (the last congressional testimony I am aware of) which sample roughly 0.00000447% and 0.0000588% of this rock's history and then extrapolate to get their projections? Why do their analyses appear to operate from the assumption that the Earth's climate is some kind of static closed system? The system ain't closed and it sure as he11 ain't static!
I see some good research and then really poor statistical work that leads the ready-to-believe-anything-bad set off onto a ranting tangent. Even many good scientists are notorious for doing very good research followed by bad statistical analysis that has to be either retracted or destroyed in the journals - like Al Gore's and Michael Moore's totally discredited trash.
Unfortunately, Chicken Little may have his way. What scares me most is any attempt by humankind to manipulate the environment. Most efforts by mankind to control his environment have ended disastrously and this may be no exception. I honestly have no idea how bad we could screw it up if we tried, but the law of unintended consequences hadn't been rescinded the last time I looked.
Where I think we should focus instead is doing what successful mammals do best - adapt. Should we cut down as much as possible on CO2, methane and the controllable greenhouse gasses? Absolutely! Should we spend a dime trying to make GW stop and risk REALLY screwing things up? Absolutely NOT!
If we totally eliminate mankind's carbon footprint, which would require the annihilation of our species, GW would continue on it's merry way until the cycle turns cooler. There are so many variables in the climate equation it is impossible to tell when this warming trend will end or what mankind's real contribution to the trend really is. Are we adding to the trend? Again; absolutely. Can we make it stop? Again; absolutely not. Can we adapt and watch in wonder while the planet heals itself? Maybe. Why not just be the best stewards we possibly can and start thinking about how we can deal with the inevitable consequences of GW? We have enough problems without making things worse than they are.
And the problem with your theory is that the majority consensus amongst scientists is that over the past 60 years sun spot activity has been at an all time low. At the same time temperatures have been rising. I hope your mind can comprehend what that does to your theory. So yes I guess National Geographic is BS, afterall it's American.Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
its still prediting that it'll cause DOOM.
thus its still a prediction.
im acutually anti pollution. by that i mean the real noxious stuff we humans spew out.
unfourntunatly this co2 fairy tale gets all the attention while we get posioned be the really toxic stuff.
Set em 'up and knock 'em down! Your making this to easy for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah its easy to resort to nationalistic insults when someone points out the bs coming from the gw crowd.
the only thing your knocking down is your image on this forum.
i guess its beyond your limited comprehension that i have no theory, im just pointing out the bs coming from gw loons.
now whos making it easy,, chortle,,, chortle.