What did you do for Earth Day?

[Truth_and_Power]

I carpooled with two other guys, the driver owns a prius. So collectively we used less than 1/3 our normal daily gas amount for the commute. We're talking about getting it going once a week from now on, hopefully that will happen.

We averaged about 49mpg in stop and go traffic. I asked about the batteries, he says normally the warranty is 8 years but he upped it to 10 when he bought it.

[DamnYankee]

And when these cars get too old, what happens to the batteries?

Everyday is Earth Day for me. Not just one pitiful day out of the year.

So what am I doing? I am collecting rain water right now to use in the garden. I have five water barrels I use for this, although it isn't supposed to rain that much today.

I've uncovered my compost pile so it can get a little rain.

Tuesday is recycling center day. (Aluminum, plastic, paper, paper board, glass etc) w/ the cash I buy pellet fuel (reclaimed wood) for home heating. It smokes, but not that much. The ash byproduct goes into the garden or yard or compost.

I'm producing less electric today than yesterday. I will have to be on the grid if the clouds thicken. Not to worry, I have a big credit so my net usage is still below norm.

The recycling center/vet office/hardware store are all on the same street, 8 mi. round trip or less than a half gallon of diesel fuel. That's a half gallon of fuel used (or going to be) in a week. Not bad.

All electrical extras will be off all day and most of the night.

And for the secret weapon, I will deploy the goat for lawn trimming purposes and left over vegie matter from last pm's dinner will make a tasty treat for my ruminant friend.

[micfranklin]

I'm going to just find some time outside.

[Truth_and_Power]

And when these cars get too old, what happens to the batteries?

Everyday is Earth Day for me. Not just one pitiful day out of the year.

So what am I doing? I am collecting rain water right now to use in the garden. I have five water barrels I use for this, although it isn't supposed to rain that much today.

I've uncovered my compost pile so it can get a little rain.

Tuesday is recycling center day. (Aluminum, plastic, paper, paper board, glass etc) w/ the cash I buy pellet fuel (reclaimed wood) for home heating. It smokes, but not that much. The ash byproduct goes into the garden or yard or compost.

I'm producing less electric today than yesterday. I will have to be on the grid if the clouds thicken. Not to worry, I have a big credit so my net usage is still below norm.

The recycling center/vet office/hardware store are all on the same street, 8 mi. round trip or less than a half gallon of diesel fuel. That's a half gallon of fuel used (or going to be) in a week. Not bad.

All electrical extras will be off all day and most of the night.

And for the secret weapon, I will deploy the goat for lawn trimming purposes and left over vegie matter from last pm's dinner will make a tasty treat for my ruminant friend.

Nice system, great to hear about it. No need for the bitterness at the front, though.

[ptif219]

I am doing nothing it is now about the lie of Al Gore Global warming


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth


It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.
On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow."

Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20":

[DamnYankee]

Nice system, great to hear about it. No need for the bitterness at the front, though.

No, really. I was curious. I don't know too much about batteries. I thought of going to solar charged batteries but read somewhere that disposal of these kinds of batteries were not good due to some chemical. I was curious if the batteries in hybrids were the same or not.

Also, even if they were, do you think the damage (if there is any) from these batteries off set the damage from pollutants caused by fossil fuels?

[DamnYankee]

I am doing nothing it is now about the lie of Al Gore Global warming

Albert Gore is an environmentalist. I am a conservationist. I try to conserve resources not because of any man made global warming BS, but because it makes fiscal sense to me.

For instance, I have a goat that keeps the lawn trimmed and weed control. A goat cost $40.00 and takes no gasoline and no oil changes. A good lawn mower runs about $350.00.

[Wndrtch]

I think I'll change my oil and dump it on the ground, so the Earth can recycle it.

[ptif219]

I think I'll change my oil and dump it on the ground, so the Earth can recycle it.

That is more truth then you know.The ocean floor seeps oil all the time yet it cleans itself.:thumbsup:

[NDNdancer]

Very nice system.

I also don't have an "earth day", I try to do things all year round.

My Brothers get me wood, so I haven't filled my propane tank in 4 years and it still has half a tank.

I plant trees, lots of them. I get them free from the forest service or the Tribe and they tell me where they want them planted. Some people get paid for this, I do it cause it's just nice to get out and do something.

I recycle and have slowly been making inroads on my family to do the same. Of course friends all started years ago so they don't have to listen to me. Our recycling center is 70 miles away, so we pool our stuff and make a day of it.

Here in Montana, it's almost impossible to pry people away from their pickup trucks, but I've been able to get most of my family and especially my Brothers to get small fuel efficient cars/trucks they use to do most things that don't really need a big ole truck for. Now that's saying something since they're all ranchers!

I support a lot of earth friendly organizations and causes year round by purchasing their products.

I use canvas bags for shopping and refuse plastic bags. The two WalMarts within 100 miles of me hate me, for a variety of reasons. Now it's become the plastic bag thing.

I also have been doing an intensive education program with 7 of the 8 school districts near where I live (near is relative in MT, it can mean 20-100 miles). I go into the classrooms and speak to the kids about plastic bottles and plastic bags to begin with. I then work with the Tribe on the tree planting thing.

I switched light bulbs over a long time ago and my electric bill is about $25/month. I have everything on power strips and make my rounds at night shutting them all off, even though they're not on, electronic equipment still pulls juice from the grid.

The only thing electric that stays on all the time is the refrigerator and freezer.

I'm a meat eater so haven't switched yet. I'm not sure I can. I do however not eat beaf or pork and eat deer, elk, moose, bison, ducks, geese, grouse, trout, white fish and some antelope this year.

We're putting in a "family" garden this year, totally organic and totally GMO free.

I try to buy organic, or locally produced as much as possible. I've become an avid label reader and refuse to buy anything made in China and go online to purchase directly from producers when possible, especially Indigenous farmers/producers.

Free Trade is bullshit, but Fair Trade is da bomb.

[Wndrtch]

That is more truth then you know.The ocean floor seeps oil all the time yet it cleans itself.:thumbsup:

The Earth dumps massive amounts of harmful gasses and materials onto the surface all the time, and manages to filter it all just fine. Just one modest Volcanic eruption anywhere on Earth, spills enough CO2 into the aptmosphere, to rival ten years of US output. How many Vocalno erutptions happen within ten years? 10's, 100's, 1000's?

Don't even get me started on Methane.

[NDNdancer]

The Earth dumps massive amounts of harmful gasses and materials onto the surface all the time, and manages to filter it all just fine. Just one modest Volcanic eruption anywhere on Earth, spills enough CO2 into the aptmosphere, to rival ten years of US output. How many Vocalno erutptions happen within ten years? 10's, 100's, 1000's?

Don't even get me started on Methane.

Please, show me the proof?

Nevermind, I get it.

[ECW]

What did you do for Earth Day?

I left the windows open and turned the AC off (a major concession here in south Texas.) I also drank my iced tea without any ice.

[NDNdancer]

I left the windows open and turned the AC off (a major concession here in south Texas.) I also drank my iced tea without any ice.

I just tossed in another couple logs. We had 7" of snow on saturday and more is on the way. Hah!.....

Okay, seriously, I'm off-topic and will get another post sent to FP *sad blink*.

[David]

I worked. Earth Day... :rolleyes:

[Sublimating]

I didn't realize it was Earth Day till like noon so I was gona plant a tree and recycle some cans and stuff but instead I just took a Nap.

Happy earth day:love:

[Drocket]

I kept the house dark all day and didn't go anywhere. Actually, that wasn't related to Earth Day in anyway - I just have the flu...

[PostmodernProphet]

I ran over a squirrel with my SUV........

[cronic]

My daughter and I planted a tree in my back yard.
Not really because it was earth day tho.. I was just given a free pine tree..lol.

As far as "earth" day goes..
I think everyday should be earth day.:peace:

I enjoyed alot of today outside.. I'm so glad summer is here. I love the outside...I'm starting to spend more time in the real world vs this damn place.. (Not just DF.. the whole sad fuking internet)

It's my hope ya all will start to see less and less of me until one day.. I disappear forever!!!!:bye:

[cronic]

I ran over a squirrel with my SUV........

Haha.. good for you

freaking geico squirrels anyways

[Scribbler1]

No, really. I was curious. I don't know too much about batteries. I thought of going to solar charged batteries but read somewhere that disposal of these kinds of batteries were not good due to some chemical. I was curious if the batteries in hybrids were the same or not.

Also, even if they were, do you think the damage (if there is any) from these batteries off set the damage from pollutants caused by fossil fuels?They are Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, so the nickel is probably the pollutant you're thinking of. Toyota warrants the batteries for 100K and when they die, Toyota will take them back and recycle them, and toss in $150 when you do.
And a hybrid car, by design uses a LOT less gas than a conventional car, no matter how you calculate it.

The only reason NOT to buy a Prius is that if you are just looking for overall cost-savings and not specifically fuel economy or air pollution, you'd be better off buying a 4 cylinder Corolla. Once you factor in the price differential between the two cars you'd need to put a LOT of miles on the Corolla to offset the higher Prius price.

[apdst]

I bought 123 gallons of diesel fuel and drove to Pascagoula, Mississippi at 75 mph. I was probably averaging about 5.5 mpg. I delivered equipment to the semi-submersible rig Noblr Amos Runner. She'll be dropping anchor in the Mississippi Canyon block 561 next week.

[Truth_and_Power]

No, really. I was curious. I don't know too much about batteries. I thought of going to solar charged batteries but read somewhere that disposal of these kinds of batteries were not good due to some chemical. I was curious if the batteries in hybrids were the same or not.

Also, even if they were, do you think the damage (if there is any) from these batteries off set the damage from pollutants caused by fossil fuels?

As far as I know, the batteries are the same, acidic with disposal issues. It is a difficult issue to weigh objectively.. which is worse? In your situation with your limited miles, it probably is not worth it. In my situation, the smart solution is to take the bus. I other situations, a hybrid is probably the best answer.

[Truth_and_Power]

I kept the house dark all day and didn't go anywhere. Actually, that wasn't related to Earth Day in anyway - I just have the flu...

You're gothic.. that's it..

[Truth_and_Power]

The Earth dumps massive amounts of harmful gasses and materials onto the surface all the time, and manages to filter it all just fine. Just one modest Volcanic eruption anywhere on Earth, spills enough CO2 into the aptmosphere, to rival ten years of US output. How many Vocalno erutptions happen within ten years? 10's, 100's, 1000's?

Don't even get me started on Methane.

Look forward to links on this..

[NDNdancer]

Here's what some others did for Earth Day.

Stop Global Warming Virtual March
04/22/08

HAPPY EARTH DAY
This Earth Day brings much welcomed coverage by the mainstream press of the environment with cover stories in TIME (see below), Newsweek, National Geographic, and Discover to name only a few. Two must-reads from the The New York Times: "A Drought in Australia, a Global Shortage of Rice" (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=1010554172008)by Keith Bradsher and "Why Bother?"(http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=438384202008) by author Michael Pollan.

HOW TO WIN THE WAR ON GLOBAL WARMING
The latest issue of TIME has gone green, literally. As Managing Editor Richard Stengel explains, this special issue of TIME represents a first for the magazine: "For this one issue, we've exchanged our trademarked Red Border for a green one. By doing so, we are sending a clear--and colorful--message to our readers about the importance of this subject, not just to Americans but to everyone else around the world as well."

[img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/20080428_107.jpg[img]

The cover story, written by Bryan Walsh, is a call-to-arms, making the case that the U.S. can no longer afford to sit out the fight against global warming. The piece outlines a number of important steps in the battle against global warming, including establishing an effective cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, tougher energy-efficiency mandates and significant new investment in green technologies.

Most importantly, he stresses the importance of the United States taking the lead worldwide: "The outcome of any crisis is usually determined by one dominant global player that has the innovators who can churn out the technology, the financiers who can back it and the diplomatic clout to pull the rest of the planet along... Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?"

Click here to read the full story: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=1133224172008

IF ALL AMERICANS VIEWED AND PAID BILLS ONLINE, WE'D SAVE 18.5 MILLION TREES EACH YEAR.

STUDENTS LEAD THE WAY
Students have always been at the forefront of social movements and no other place was that more evident then at the Clinton Global Initiative University conference in New Orleans in late March.

Students from across the country made commitments to take action on some of the world's most pressing social issues and topping the list was global warming. Universities are like small cities and changes they make will have a huge impact!

Some of the commitments by students include:

* Let's Raise a Million Project at Morehouse College: Tony Anderson and Richard Merritt will work to install 1 million CFL light bulbs in low-income communities within Atlanta, GA. They hope to save low income households $2,395,772 in direct savings while reducing the air pollution equivalence of 2,021 cars for one year or offsetting the carbon equivalence of planting 2,241.09 acres of forest.
* Greening Transportation at William Patterson University: Jennifer Bauer is working to win the competition for William Patterson to become a central hub for NJ transit in a hope to increase student awareness and participation in public transit to address the looming energy crisis and combat global warming.
* U-Bike at Brown University: Jeffery Howerton is committed to creating a bike sharing program at Brown University that we reduce carbon emissions at Brown University and change the way students think about transportation. The U-Bike system is a network of bike-docking stations that are dispersed throughout a region. A student unlocks a bike with a swipe of a card, uses it for the desired length of time and returns it to any U-Bike hub.

ONE SOFT DRINK CAN RECYCLED BY EACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENT IN AMERICA WOULD SAVE 24.8 MILLION CANS. THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH ALUMINUM TO CREATE 21 BOEING 737 PLANES.

GET IN THE GAME
Be a good sportsman and unplug your game console. Consumer electronics are the biggest user of electricity in your home, and game consoles are often the worst.

Left plugged in all day, every day of the year, a game console uses twice as much energy as the TV it is hooked up to. Leaving your game console plugged in all year is equivalent to having over 200 cell phone chargers left in the wall! Get in the game and unplug your game console when you are not in play!

UNPLUG UNUSED ELECTRONICS AND SAVE $256 PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR.

For Virtual Marchers, every day is Earth Day!

Laurie David
Founder
StopGlobalWarming.org

[Scribbler1]

As far as I know, the batteries are the same, acidic with disposal issues. It is a difficult issue to weigh objectively.. which is worse? In your situation with your limited miles, it probably is not worth it. In my situation, the smart solution is to take the bus. I other situations, a hybrid is probably the best answer.Lead acid batteries are too big, too heavy and too weak to power a car efficiently.

[ptif219]

Here's what some others did for Earth Day.

So I guess you believe the lies of Al Gore.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth


It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [

[Pookie]

I'm not one to subscribe to problems with the climate, so to speak. I think there are climate changes, and I have not discounted global warming. Yeah, I know, trash me for that one. Gaaahh!! What I do is different. I follow my own agenda, and I choose to do my part to take care of the Earth.
I planted my garden and got it all together because I like fresh veggies. So do my neighbors who come over and get stuff.
I took both the truck and car in to have emissions checked, too.
I checked our home for air leaks and all. Have any of you done that? So simple.
No leaks, as usual.
So...what did anyone else do?
Purrs,
Pookie
On edit: I know there will be folks who don't like what I did. PLEASE don't PM me this time, I know the usual crap.
Thank you.

[PatrickHenry]

I spent the afternoon with a friend from my church who has been royally screwed by a contractor.

We are trying to figure out how to complete a project left unfinished with dozens of mistakes by the company that stole his money.

All succesful projects can be traced to adequate knowledge and management.

This one had neither.

I hope to help, but my friend's budget has been essentially busted and how do I make a living by helping?

There are so many problems in this sad world.

We should all undertake to help where we can and get an understanding of where we stand as a community.

We should remember that there is only one side to be on. Spaceship Earth's.

Throwing rocks at Al Gore is a waste of keyboard time.

[NDNdancer]

So I guess you believe the lies of Al Gore.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth


It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [

Actually, I can't stand Gore.

I do however trust and believe the thousands of colleagues, fellow scientists, who not only believe in global warming, but also have proven that it's due to humans.

Who are you talking to? Got some of them thar "expert" scientists paid for by Bushwackers, er.... George Bush's PAC buddies to produce false data? You know, the same scientists who said smoking doesn't cause cancer?.......

[ptif219]

Actually, I can't stand Gore.

I do however trust and believe the thousands of colleagues, fellow scientists, who not only believe in global warming, but also have proven that it's due to humans.

Who are you talking to? Got some of them thar "expert" scientists paid for by Bushwackers, er.... George Bush's PAC buddies to produce false data? You know, the same scientists who said smoking doesn't cause cancer?.......

You think those IPCC scientist would be there if the UN was not paying them to prove global warming. :lmao:

[Pookie]

You think those IPCC scientist would be there if the UN was not paying them to prove global warming. :lmao:

Where is the proof and the links about this?
Purrs,
Pookie

[NDNdancer]

You think those IPCC scientist would be there if the UN was not paying them to prove global warming. :lmao:

The UN is paying thousands of scientists from all over the world? I'm certain their universities will be glad to hear that, they won't have to pay them now. *snort*

[4Reaganomics]

exactly, non-partisan organizations like Universities employ them

[Pookie]

Okay, I'll back down. But I did plant the garden and get the vehicles checked. I don't see any links to help me so I guess we're not doing ok here.
I don't know what else is expected of us. We can't afford solar energy quite yet, we are saving for that, and we don't want to go in debt for hybrid cars yet. We will soon, we hope.
We are helping with my daughter's medical bills, in case you didn't catch that in off topic, she is broken up and in a coma.
We are doing what we can, here.
Pookie

[ptif219]

Where is the proof and the links about this?
Purrs,
Pookie

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound.

http://nov55.com/ipcc.html

But the problem isn't just the IPCC. The bureaucrats only paid for research which promoted their view of humans causing global warming. This bias is demonstrated by a survey by Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of science articles on global warming and found that 75% indicated humans are the cause, while 25% gave no indication, and none said humans are not the cause. It shows that grants were not issued to scientists who disagreed with the bureaucrats. Propagandists claim it shows all scientists agree with the official hype; but many other surveys show scientists do not all agree


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html


We are told that the authors of each chapter of the IPCC reports are experts in their fields and let's accept that for the sake of argument. With the skewed state of climate science many of these experts will have undertaken research and written peer-reviewed papers with funding which is biased towards to the claims of the IPCC.


This research is clearly biased and the findings are likely to reinforce the IPCC's claims of consensus, moreover this work has probably enhanced the experts' reputations and enhanced their credibility for future research projects. There is no way that these authors can be regarded as impartial when they have so much to gain from the IPCC's reports.


Self-promotion is a further advantage for these author-researchers. Their research papers are likely to be cited by the very chapters of which they are authors because this is the field of their expertise. Judging by the review comments by some authors it was not uncommon for an author of the IPCC reports to draw attention to his own published papers and recommend that they be cited by the report. Think all this could never happen? The very prominent and influential "hockey stick" temperature graph of the IPCC's 2001 report was the creation of a lead author of the chapter in which it featured.


It is not always the promotion of one's own work that is important because in some fields of climate science the number of scientists is not great and other experts may be colleagues or joint authors of published papers. The promotion of their work might be just as advantageous to authors as the promotion of their own.


Little has changed over time. In the early days the IPCC authors included some who were reliant on the proposition of man-made warming for their employment and their reputation, and with the field being small they probably cited their own research papers. This emphasis on man-made warming set the tone of subsequent IPCC reports and for the science in general so it should be no surprise that today's IPCC authors are product of that situation. In these circumstances it would be very surprising if the text of the reports was not biased towards the views of the expert authors.


The IPCC is a political lobby group whose members undertake research funded by governments and produce peer-reviewed scientific papers. Then teams of authors, including some of the original researchers, write reports based on those peer-reviewed papers and declare those reports to be an accurate summary of the field.


In normal circumstances there would be howls of protest were authors permitted to review and promulgate their own work, and the summary documents would be automatically rejected on the grounds that the authors had vested interests.


But this is how the IPCC has operated since its inception, in fact since its charter directed it to concentrate on the risks posed by any human influence on climate.


Even worse, the IPCC has, via complaisant governments, skewed scientific research to concentrate on aspects of its own claims to the detriment of the wider science. Those claims have very little evidence to support them but such is the dominance of the IPCC that the targeted research has produced more experts in those fields and more scientific papers, potential authors and partisan reviewers through which the IPCC can sustain its claims.


To top it all off the IPCC makes statements that imply a far more intense review process and far greater support for its claims than the evidence really shows.


The bias and manipulation of climate science has gone on for long enough and the problems are too great to rectify from within. The only sensible course of action is to disband the IPCC. If we really must have a central body to co-ordinate the science then we need one that is independent and transparent, and encompasses all aspects of climate science rather than being fixated on an unproven human cause

[NDNdancer]

Please tell me you have something other then Dr. Vincent Gray, well-known global warming denier whose organizations receive funding from Exxon-Mobil?

[Pookie]

Who's that? I read this and, well, it seems difficult at first.
Maybe I don't know much here, so I need to leave this thread.
Pookie

[NDNdancer]

Who's that? I read this and, well, it seems difficult at first.
Maybe I don't know much here, so I need to leave this thread.
Pookie

Dr. Gray wrote that little op-ed piece submitted up above. He's been on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil for a decade or so and his organizations are paid very well to provide "expert" opinion denying global warming.

He's not an official reviewer of the IPCC, he's a self-proclaimed reviewer of the IPCC.

[Pookie]

Oh. Hmmm. I'm not sure he's exactly right there.
Phew! I don't get it. Perhaps global warming might have been debunked and all, but there are climate changes going on.
Purrs,
Pookie

[ptif219]

Dr. Gray wrote that little op-ed piece submitted up above. He's been on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil for a decade or so and his organizations are paid very well to provide "expert" opinion denying global warming.

He's not an official reviewer of the IPCC, he's a self-proclaimed reviewer of the IPCC.

So speaking from expierence as a former IPCC scientist means nothing.

Thats right Gore lies and says there is a consenus those who deny it are compared to people who deny the holocaust or think the earth is flat.

Notice you say nothing of the other people in that post.Gray was not the only one i put.

Gray is a well respected and an authority but you only accept the IPCC.

Were you saying that about him when he was part of the IPCC.He left because of their politics and unscientific way of decieving the public.

[ptif219]

Oh. Hmmm. I'm not sure he's exactly right there.
Phew! I don't get it. Perhaps global warming might have been debunked and all, but there are climate changes going on.
Purrs,
Pookie

Your right climate change is always happening but how do you blame man and ignore the heat source the sun.

[NDNdancer]

So speaking from expierence as a former IPCC scientist means nothing.

Thats right Gore lies and says there is a consenus those who deny it are compared to people who deny the holocaust or think the earth is flat.

Notice you say nothing of the other people in that post.Gray was not the only one i put.

Gray is a well respected and an authority but you only accept the IPCC.

Were you saying that about him when he was part of the IPCC.He left because of their politics and unscientific way of decieving the public.

Tom V. Segalstad: Another well known denier of global warming, another scientist who sold his credentials to Exxon-Mobil. Yeah, unbiased scientific experts, Exxon has bought a slew of them and I have a list. Maybe I'll just save you some time and publish the list so you don't have to strain to find someone with REAL credentials and REAL concerns who hasn't been bought and paid for their "expertise".

John McLean, the writer of your third "expert opinion", another one paid for his "opinions" by Exxon-Mobil.

If you take a gander at the inter-locking, inter-weaving organizations these guys are a part of or write for, you'll see that everything you've cited do NOT come from credible scientific journals. What is posted is OPINION pieces, and those pieces are well paid for by Exxon-Mobil and probably other oil/gas/coal companies. NONE of what you cited is even related to their academic research.

Ya see, if it came from a credible scientific source and wasn't just their opinions, then they'd have to prove and back up their claims with actual scientific data. Unfortunately, none of their research backs up their OPINIONS.

[ptif219]

Tom V. Segalstad: Another well known denier of global warming, another scientist who sold his credentials to Exxon-Mobil. Yeah, unbiased scientific experts, Exxon has bought a slew of them and I have a list. Maybe I'll just save you some time and publish the list so you don't have to strain to find someone with REAL credentials and REAL concerns who hasn't been bought and paid for their "expertise".

John McLean, the writer of your third "expert opinion", another one paid for his "opinions" by Exxon-Mobil.

If you take a gander at the inter-locking, inter-weaving organizations these guys are a part of or write for, you'll see that everything you've cited do NOT come from credible scientific journals. What is posted is OPINION pieces, and those pieces are well paid for by Exxon-Mobil and probably other oil/gas/coal companies. NONE of what you cited is even related to their academic research.

Ya see, if it came from a credible scientific source and wasn't just their opinions, then they'd have to prove and back up their claims with actual scientific data. Unfortunately, none of their research backs up their OPINIONS.

So how is that different then the IPCC scientist who say what the UN dictates to keep their grants?

Instead of debating who they associate with how about addressing the facts they put forth.More spin and dodging to avoid the facts of my post.

[NDNdancer]

So how is that different then the IPCC scientist who say what the UN dictates to keep their grants?

Instead of debating who they associate with how about addressing the facts they put forth.More spin and dodging to avoid the facts of my post.

Obviously you know nothing about the IPCC process so I'll leave it to you to find the fallacy of your statements. I'm kinda tired of doing your research for you.

I'm not debating who they associate with, I'm dismissing their arguments totally based on who paid them for their OPINIONS. Now, show me something, anything, ANY one of them has published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, a credible one, and I'll read it.

[ptif219]

Dr. Gray wrote that little op-ed piece submitted up above. He's been on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil for a decade or so and his organizations are paid very well to provide "expert" opinion denying global warming.

He's not an official reviewer of the IPCC, he's a self-proclaimed reviewer of the IPCC.

So i see the scientist who work for the IPCC review themselves and that makes them official and legitimate?:madlaugh:


Can you show proof who these men work for since you claim they work for Exxon.

Is there other places they work for?

[NDNdancer]

So i see the scientist who work for the IPCC review themselves and that makes them official and legitimate?:madlaugh:


Can you show proof who these men work for since you claim they work for Exxon.

Is there other places they work for?


The scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports all, without question, have pretty impressive CV's, on record available to anyone to read. They are scientists who have published extensively within their respective fields in credible peer reviewed journals, scientific journals.

The men you cite work for organizations that are privately funded, by oil/gas/coal companies. Their scientific credentials are spotty at best. Some haven't published anything within their respective fields in decades. The only publications on record is the series of op-ed pieces on the internet or in newsletters from those organizations being funded by energy companies. What you cited are OPINION pieces, NOT science. What you cited has been bought and paid for by energy companies who have a vested interest in making global warming go away.

Since you have internet, I'm assuming you have a search engine. Look them up yourself. They have been roundly criticized and ignored by the scientific community.

I suspect, from their lack of publications, they are not very successful scientists in their own fields and have had to turn to some other way of supporting themselves. What better way then to try to discredit the very people who have probably had a hand in rejecting them in the past.

[Truth_and_Power]

The dr. gray piece was nothing but insults and slurs. The piece above his actually had some interesting ideas about the oceans being a carbon sink. I googled this article found in national geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

It's an interesting read. The first half sounds pretty scientific, the second half refers to "previous studies" without any specifics.

[Truth_and_Power]

That is more truth then you know.The ocean floor seeps oil all the time yet it cleans itself.:thumbsup:

Do you get your water from a well? Leave me an address and I'll be sure to dump my next oil change into it and you can see how quickly it cleans itself.

[NDNdancer]

The dr. gray piece was nothing but insults and slurs. The piece above his actually had some interesting ideas about the oceans being a carbon sink. I googled this article found in national geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

It's an interesting read. The first half sounds pretty scientific, the second half refers to "previous studies" without any specifics.

Aaah, a credible scientist, actually duo of scientists. I read that piece when it came out in Science a few years ago. They did some pretty elegant science to prove what had been suspected for a very long time.

The other part of the equation, what absorbing all of that CO2 did to the oceans and ocean life was alarming. It was one of those good news/bad news kind of days in science. Understanding chemistry would understand that sea water absorbing so many tons of CO2 would change the basic chemistry of the oceans into an environment extremely hostile to most forms of life. It's making our oceans more acidic. I believe as these more global studies continue, they're going to find that that increase in acidity is key in the disappearance of many species of fish, as well as migratory birds whose migration takes place over those oceans and seas.

Fish reproduction is extremely sensitive to pH levels and I really truly believe the more acidic oceans have a heavy hand in the rapid increase in the disappearance of many species.

Bird reproduction is also extremely sensitive to pH levels and those migratory birds who rely on the oceans for food during their migrations are being impacted as well.

Of course, that's just what I thought at the time. I still believe it, but have no evidence for it. The decimation of the Chinook salmon recently may begin to show some things as those studies get underway.

Sabine and Freeley who led those studies did some really nice science. There have been a host of studies that came from those two huge studies that are beginning to reveal how the earth cycles carbon.

Good stuff.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I cut down 2 shrubs (evergreens) and am planting 4 more to replace them (boxwoods).

[PatrickHenry]

OK. Let me parse the GW elements of this thread.

Kyi Yo: "Your scientists are whores!"

ptif219: "Your scientists are whores!"

Does that encapsulate?

OK... maybe better ...

Kyi Yo: "Your 'scientists' are a small handful of whores!"

ptif219: "All climate 'scientists' are either whores or crazy!"

There, that's better. Right?

[ptif219]

The scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports all, without question, have pretty impressive CV's, on record available to anyone to read. They are scientists who have published extensively within their respective fields in credible peer reviewed journals, scientific journals.

The men you cite work for organizations that are privately funded, by oil/gas/coal companies. Their scientific credentials are spotty at best. Some haven't published anything within their respective fields in decades. The only publications on record is the series of op-ed pieces on the internet or in newsletters from those organizations being funded by energy companies. What you cited are OPINION pieces, NOT science. What you cited has been bought and paid for by energy companies who have a vested interest in making global warming go away.

Since you have internet, I'm assuming you have a search engine. Look them up yourself. They have been roundly criticized and ignored by the scientific community.

I suspect, from their lack of publications, they are not very successful scientists in their own fields and have had to turn to some other way of supporting themselves. What better way then to try to discredit the very people who have probably had a hand in rejecting them in the past.

Show proof they work for gas companies


Check out the list and their credentials.

The point is Global Warming people will not debate because they have very few facts.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

[ptif219]

Do you get your water from a well? Leave me an address and I'll be sure to dump my next oil change into it and you can see how quickly it cleans itself.


http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/toxic.php

Naturally-occurring toxic substances occur in the environment in concentrations that arc generally not problematic to wildlife Even natural oil seeps on the ocean floor support dense mats of microbes that break the oil down. The use of these substances by humans, however, usually results in unnaturally large, localized concentrations

[Truth_and_Power]

http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/toxic.php

Naturally-occurring toxic substances occur in the environment in concentrations that arc generally not problematic to wildlife Even natural oil seeps on the ocean floor support dense mats of microbes that break the oil down. The use of these substances by humans, however, usually results in unnaturally large, localized concentrations

So I guess you think preserv's idea to dump some oil is actually a bad idea? Seemed like you were cheerleading.

[Truth_and_Power]

Show proof they work for gas companies


Check out the list and their credentials.

The point is Global Warming people will not debate because they have very few facts.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

Funny that this post follows my post which provided a very interesting article with facts. Care to join in the give and take on these subjects or are you just going to stick to the blame game?

[Truth_and_Power]

Aaah, a credible scientist, actually duo of scientists. I read that piece when it came out in Science a few years ago. They did some pretty elegant science to prove what had been suspected for a very long time.

The other part of the equation, what absorbing all of that CO2 did to the oceans and ocean life was alarming. It was one of those good news/bad news kind of days in science. Understanding chemistry would understand that sea water absorbing so many tons of CO2 would change the basic chemistry of the oceans into an environment extremely hostile to most forms of life. It's making our oceans more acidic. I believe as these more global studies continue, they're going to find that that increase in acidity is key in the disappearance of many species of fish, as well as migratory birds whose migration takes place over those oceans and seas.

Fish reproduction is extremely sensitive to pH levels and I really truly believe the more acidic oceans have a heavy hand in the rapid increase in the disappearance of many species.

Bird reproduction is also extremely sensitive to pH levels and those migratory birds who rely on the oceans for food during their migrations are being impacted as well.

Of course, that's just what I thought at the time. I still believe it, but have no evidence for it. The decimation of the Chinook salmon recently may begin to show some things as those studies get underway.

Sabine and Freeley who led those studies did some really nice science. There have been a host of studies that came from those two huge studies that are beginning to reveal how the earth cycles carbon.

Good stuff.

I'm looking forward to seeing some documentation that the ocean's PH is decreasing, and that the ocean will be unable to absorb more co2 soon. These ideas are in the second section of the article which appears much more sparsely populated with facts (desert-like). Plus, when you try the double tactic of "if it absorbs more it will hurt sea life" and "it can't absorb much more" you just sound like you're speculating on reasons why this sink might not be a solution.

[ptif219]

Funny that this post follows my post which provided a very interesting article with facts. Care to join in the give and take on these subjects or are you just going to stick to the blame game?

Did you not see the quote that this had.your arrogance is showing.

[Truth_and_Power]

Did you not see the quote that this had.your arrogance is showing.

Pardon me for trying to drag this thread toward the facts. I will let you guys argue about motives and other things.

[ptif219]

Funny that this post follows my post which provided a very interesting article with facts. Care to join in the give and take on these subjects or are you just going to stick to the blame game?

This is a list of skeptics that have shown why the IPCC is a useless UN oganization.


The fact the IPCC is a UN organization should tell you it has no credibility.

[NDNdancer]

I'm looking forward to seeing some documentation that the ocean's PH is decreasing, and that the ocean will be unable to absorb more co2 soon. These ideas are in the second section of the article which appears much more sparsely populated with facts (desert-like). Plus, when you try the double tactic of "if it absorbs more it will hurt sea life" and "it can't absorb much more" you just sound like you're speculating on reasons why this sink might not be a solution.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/fig_tab/nature04095_F1.html

There ya go! There's a ton more, but I have some things to get done this afternoon. BTW, Nature is one of those credible science journals.

I'll get to the "how much sink can a sink hold" question later.

[ptif219]

Here we are headed to global cooling global warming is done.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html



Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist


Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

[Scribbler1]

So I guess you believe the lies of Al Gore.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth


It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [If that is true, and your linked page doesn't say it is, the main issue is whether or not what Gore says is TRUE or not.

I'm not saying it is or not, but this looks like another effort to obscure content with nitpicking, such as an image from a film. Like the memo about Bush's NG service, which got Dan Rather in trouble because the document was a fake. However, the secretary who typed up the original stated the INFORMATION in it was accurate.

[Scribbler1]

Oh. Hmmm. I'm not sure he's exactly right there.
Phew! I don't get it. Perhaps global warming might have been debunked and all, but there are climate changes going on.
Purrs,
PookieThe problem I have is the same people who were completely denying it have now, in the face of majority scientific findings, changed their tune to say GW does exist but NOW it's a naturally occurring phenomenon.
And they were SO sure it didn't exist at all, which gives a lot of them a slight credibility problem.

[ptif219]

If that is true, and your linked page doesn't say it is, the main issue is whether or not what Gore says is TRUE or not.

I'm not saying it is or not, but this looks like another effort to obscure content with nitpicking, such as an image from a film. Like the memo about Bush's NG service, which got Dan Rather in trouble because the document was a fake. However, the secretary who typed up the original stated the INFORMATION in it was accurate.

If you read my link it came from ABC News that supports Gore.

The image was fake just like Gore.

[ptif219]

The problem I have is the same people who were completely denying it have now, in the face of majority scientific findings, changed their tune to say GW does exist but NOW it's a naturally occurring phenomenon.
And they were SO sure it didn't exist at all, which gives a lot of them a slight credibility problem.

You miss the point of many.We don't have Global Warming.

We have climate change which is always on going.The change is mostly from activity from the sun.To say man can have the kind of affect on it that GW nuts say is ridiculous.

[Scribbler1]

If you read my link it came from ABC News that supports Gore.

The image was fake just like Gore.My error. I clicked the link to the scientists who disagree with GW.
But it struck me while watching the video that the reporter said "Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming."

I don't particularly care for Gore, but to say he is fake because of one image in the film is overgeneralizing to support your point.

[Scribbler1]

You miss the point of many.We don't have Global Warming.

We have climate change which is always on going.The change is mostly from activity from the sun.To say man can have the kind of affect on it that GW nuts say is ridiculous.GW nuts? Your bias is quite evident here.

And by its very definition, global warming IS climate change. And there is a lot of melting ice and other things which would support that as well as the "greenhouse effect" which essentially says MAN has polluted the atmosphere to the point that it won't allow solar generated heat to escape.

But, in any case, saying we don't have GW but we DO have climate change as an argument is specious. Whether you say we are "screwed" or we are "hosed" it all means the same thing.
Making an effort to slow down what we do to cause it won't really hurt anything in the end no matter what we do about it. But pretending it doesn't exist, while it might not harm anything it could also hurt us all, big-time.

Think about it. If we make an effort to modify our behavior we cause no real harm but if we don't, in a few decades, if it is determined without a doubt that we caused this problem, we could be FAR past the point of no return. I prefer to err on the side of caution and not political rhetoric.

[preservanation]

All we need is one more tax hike on American corporations to be able to control the weather....?
By the 'logic' of the GW Nuts,
"We don't know what causes climate change or exactly what to do about it, but let's start with punishing America for being a capitalist nation, then we can go from there."
What a crock!

[Scribbler1]

All we need is one more tax hike on American corporations to be able to control the weather....?
By the 'logic' of the GW Nuts,
"We don't know what causes climate change or exactly what to do about it, but let's start with punishing America for being a capitalist nation, then we can go from there."
What a crock!America doesn't need to be "punished". It needs to stop acting like a pig and fouling the air, soil and water as much as it does. And we can easilt rein in our wasteful ways if we wanted to. We can still be a capitalist nation and not spew such noxious garbage around.

You might not have noticed it, but we DO have a lot of air, land and water pollution and it doesn't do us a damned bit of good either. Quite the opposite, actually.

[preservanation]

I'm not for pollution.
Nobody wants dirty air and water. Even oil execs have children and grandchildren.

I'm against the anti-capitalist and Anti-American-Marxist 'solutions' some propose.
I maintain that the Gore crowd's assertion that we are responsible for the Earth's natural climate cycles and temp fluctuation is absolute windbaggery and a scam of the highest order.

[Scribbler1]

I'm not for pollution.
Nobody wants dirty air and water. Even oil execs have children and grandchildren.Of course not, but some people don't seem to be for ANYTHING other than the status quo. GW, or WHATEVER you want to call it is said to be created by mankind's massive pollution of the planet. Even if you're skeptical about GW, you ought to be dead set against what is said to CAUSE it, which is pollution of the atmosphere. You cannot have it both ways.I'm against the anti-capitalist and Anti-American-Marxist 'solutions' some propose.Some? I keep hearing garbage like "GW nuts" and other derisive terms and NO solutions from that group.I maintain that the Gore crowd's assertion that we are responsible for the Earth's natural climate cycles and temp fluctuation is absolute windbaggery and a scam of the highest order.Yet it IS pollution being blamed for climate change by Gore and the rest. So what's your problem with cleaning it up?

[ptif219]

My error. I clicked the link to the scientists who disagree with GW.
But it struck me while watching the video that the reporter said "Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming."

I don't particularly care for Gore, but to say he is fake because of one image in the film is overgeneralizing to support your point.

Prove they are disappearing.Are you sure they are not melting in one area and getting bigger in others.Another words regeneration.Also after this cold winter you might want to rethink that.

[ptif219]

GW nuts? Your bias is quite evident here.

And by its very definition, global warming IS climate change. And there is a lot of melting ice and other things which would support that as well as the "greenhouse effect" which essentially says MAN has polluted the atmosphere to the point that it won't allow solar generated heat to escape.

But, in any case, saying we don't have GW but we DO have climate change as an argument is specious. Whether you say we are "screwed" or we are "hosed" it all means the same thing.
Making an effort to slow down what we do to cause it won't really hurt anything in the end no matter what we do about it. But pretending it doesn't exist, while it might not harm anything it could also hurt us all, big-time.

Think about it. If we make an effort to modify our behavior we cause no real harm but if we don't, in a few decades, if it is determined without a doubt that we caused this problem, we could be FAR past the point of no return. I prefer to err on the side of caution and not political rhetoric.


So when is the last time you heard someone talk about Global Warming and include the effects of the activity of the sun?

[Scribbler1]

The last few winters here in my neck of the woods have been quite mild compared to years past. And if they ARE "regenerating" where they traditionally wouldn't be, how is this a good thing?
And if you look at the Ganges River, which is fed by a disappearing glacier, you'll see the river level is dropping dramatically. If you want proof of that, or to DISprove it, you'll have to google it yourself. I got that from BBC World News a few months ago.

[Scribbler1]

So when is the last time you heard someone talk about Global Warming and include the effects of the activity of the sun?Because I don't hear anything about it being a major contributor.

The people who support the idea of GW recognize the problem is not solar energy getting IN, but the planet's lessening ability to let it back OUT.

Has the Sun been sending us more infrared radiation than usual?

[preservanation]

Of course not, but some people don't seem to be for ANYTHING other than the status quo. GW, or WHATEVER you want to call it is said to be created by mankind's massive pollution of the planet. Even if you're skeptical about GW, you ought to be dead set against what is said to CAUSE it, which is pollution of the atmosphere. You cannot have it both ways.Some? I keep hearing garbage like "GW nuts" and other derisive terms and NO solutions from that group.Yet it IS pollution being blamed for climate change by Gore and the rest. So what's your problem with cleaning it up?
I see your point...
But the solutions are worse than the problem.
Ex, Ethanol...Less efficient, more polluting, hugely damaging to our soil and waters, creating food shortages and inflation, causing deforestation and destruction of the rain forest by clear-cutting.
Plus we subsides ethanol production by $billions of tax money which could be used to help the needy, disabled and unwed mothers.
This is insanity!

[ptif219]

All we need is one more tax hike on American corporations to be able to control the weather....?
By the 'logic' of the GW Nuts,
"We don't know what causes climate change or exactly what to do about it, but let's start with punishing America for being a capitalist nation, then we can go from there."
What a crock!

Very true but they may try to control the weather soon.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9019726

Sill, Bruintjes and other scientists speaking Tuesday at an international conference on weather modification in Westminster said there are possibilities for managing and modifying weather — from making rain to reducing the severity of hurricanes.

What is needed, they said, is renewed federal backing of the research.

"In terms of the stakes, I think we owe it to the taxpayers to give it our best shot," said Joseph Golden, a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

Scientists are monitoring more than 150 weather-modification projects in 40 countries, including at least 60 in the Western United States. The projects include wringing additional snow out of clouds for California hydropower and easing droughts in sub-Saharan Africa.



The carbon tax is on its way.


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/al-gore-says-carbon-tax-best-choice.php

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday that adopting a carbon tax is one of the best things governments can do to fight climate change.
"I know this sounds like a bigger idea than the political system can accommodate," Gore said during a Web cast discussion with Cisco Systems Chairman and CEO John Chambers. Gore said he is convinced that reducing taxes on businesses and employees -- and replacing the lost revenue with pollution taxes, principally a carbon tax -- is the way to go

[ptif219]

The last few winters here in my neck of the woods have been quite mild compared to years past. And if they ARE "regenerating" where they traditionally wouldn't be, how is this a good thing?
And if you look at the Ganges River, which is fed by a disappearing glacier, you'll see the river level is dropping dramatically. If you want proof of that, or to DISprove it, you'll have to google it yourself. I got that from BBC World News a few months ago.

I hear alot of opinions and rhetoric but no facts or proof.

You Google it.Don't expect me to do your research to prove your point that i think is wrong.

[ptif219]

Because I don't hear anything about it being a major contributor.

The people who support the idea of GW recognize the problem is not solar energy getting IN, but the planet's lessening ability to let it back OUT.

Has the Sun been sending us more infrared radiation than usual?

How can you look at warming and not look at the heat source?This shows that it is lies and deception.

[preservanation]

Thanks for the links, ptif.
I'm a little burned out on man made GW.
But hack away if you want.

I've found that is has a lot more in common with a religious cult rather than anything to do with fact.

It's all about the intended solution and nothing to do with reducing pollution.
When some started classifying C02 as a pollutant, they lost me.

[ptif219]

Thanks for the links, ptif.
I'm a little burned out on man made GW.
But hack away if you want.

I've found that is has a lot more in common with a religious cult rather than anything to do with fact.

It's all about the intended solution and nothing to do with reducing pollution.
When some started classifying C02 as a pollutant, they lost me.

Follow the money.Where do people think Gore got 35 Million to invest in Hedge Funds :thumbsup:

[Scribbler1]

I see your point...
But the solutions are worse than the problem.
Ex, Ethanol...Less efficient, more polluting, hugely damaging to our soil and waters, creating food shortages and inflation, causing deforestation and destruction of the rain forest by clear-cutting.
Plus we subsides ethanol production by $billions of tax money which could be used to help the needy, disabled and unwed mothers.
This is insanity!Oh, don't get me started on Ethanol! The guy who thought it would be a good idea, instead of using LESS gasoline, to start making it from FOOD needs to have the stupid slapped right out of him.

I don't believe these are "solutions" but a band aid to allow us to keep on blowing our future out of our tailpipes. And I mean economically AND physically.

[Scribbler1]

How can you look at warming and not look at the heat source?This shows that it is lies and deception.You didn't answer my question. I asked you if the sun has been showering the Earth with appreciably MORE total heat energy than usual.

Answer that and I'll answer you.

[Scribbler1]

Follow the money.Where do people think Gore got 35 Million to invest in Hedge Funds :thumbsup:Are you saying Gore got 35 Million bucks from religious cults? I'll need a source before I believe that.

[ptif219]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you if the sun has been showering the Earth with appreciably MORE total heat energy than usual.

Answer that and I'll answer you.

What caused belief of global cooling in the 70's to global warming now.

I guess you missed this when i posted it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html

Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

Sun activity changes and that has a direct affect on our climate hence climate change.

[ptif219]

Are you saying Gore got 35 Million bucks from religious cults? I'll need a source before I believe that.

Well if you consider global warming nuts a cult which i guess they are.

He wrote a book,made a movie,started a carbon offset company in England ETC...


Why do you think Gore is so set to keep the hype of global warming alive and refuses to debate.Remember Gore compares people who deny global warming to people who think the earth is flat in an attempt to stop debate.

[Scribbler1]

Again, that wasn't the question. GW is believe to be caused by heat energy TRAPPED in the atmosphere. It has little to do with how it got IN.

[Scribbler1]

Well if you consider global warming nuts a cult which i guess they are.

He wrote a book,made a movie,started a carbon offset company in England ETC...


Why do you think Gore is so set to keep the hype of global warming alive and refuses to debate.Remember Gore compares people who deny global warming to people who think the earth is flat in an attempt to stop debate.That's twice you made a statement and refused to back it up.

Forget it.

[ptif219]

Again, that wasn't the question. GW is believe to be caused by heat energy TRAPPED in the atmosphere. It has little to do with how it got IN.

Then you believe the lies.Where is the proof of this?If all of the manmade gases were gone how much would the temp drop?

[ptif219]

That's twice you made a statement and refused to back it up.

Forget it.

Backed up what that Gore invested 35 Million?You don't see the news/

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/BUSINESS01/803090364

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships

[apdst]

I burend another 100 gallons of diesel today and emitted untold gazillions of polutants into the atmosphere. It was a good day.

[ptif219]

I burend another 100 gallons of diesel today and emitted untold gazillions of polutants into the atmosphere. It was a good day.

I called my dispatcher today I should have a load tomorrow.

Then I will spend three weeks away from computers and burning diesel.

[apdst]

Good for you! Folks like you keep us all alive. forty-two?

[ptif219]

Good for you! Folks like you keep us all alive. forty-two?

Yep somebody has to do it I sure am glad the snow and ice is gone.:thumbsup:

[apdst]

That's one thing I don't miss about running in New England. That and all the friggin Liberals...lol

[ptif219]

That's one thing I don't miss about running in New England. That and all the friggin Liberals...lol

Yes I live in Florida and drive for a company from Chicago.I drive the 48 but mostly the midwest and the west but I did go to New Jersy last week.That was way to close to New York City I do not do the city.Wyoming was really bad this winter lots of wind and ice.