| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Anyone remember Ozone depletion ... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
A good day for a Turkey 
[Edited on 4-20-2014 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sandlefoot
I have been watching this thread, with tongue in cheek. One side is positive that global warming is real and man caused. The other side is positive
that it is not real and a way for the government to extort more from the tax payers, businesses that product CO2, and all retail outlets that sell
those products. When in reality, and if some one has documentation otherwise I need it, these meteorological scientist are paid whether (weather
hehe) they call it correct or not! I think every one would like a job where they can be wrong 80% of the time and still keep that job! Every one
here is treating all the information as infallible, when in reality it is only guessing. I know, at least I hope, these are "educated" guesses. But
none the less only time will tell whose guess is closer! Every one needs to "agree to disagree" and get off their "I am right and you are wrong" soap
box! After all, no one really knows the answer, regardless of documentation.
Happy Easter!!!
Happy Trails |
Thank you and happy Easter to you too.
To be clear, I never said it is not real... I said it doesn't matter because the climate will change no matter what man does or doesn't do, as it has
for millions of years. In fact I agree that the climate is changing... and it is normal and natural for it to change. If you can control sun spots and
volcanic eruptions then you might be able to control the climate... of course if you could do those things, then you might be worshiped in a church?
|
It doesn't matter what man does? Are you for real? So you're suggesting it's okay to dump toxic sludge into the rivers and all will be well? I'm
guessing pollution measures are a waste of time and money as well.
Please clarify?! |
Zac, my friend... there you go again... Leaving out some of my words to try and , well who knows why??
A LOT matters what man does, don't be so silly... but as far as global climate change, the things man HAS done hasn't affected it. That doesn't mean
blowing up 100 hydrogen bombs won't cause an issue, but then a lot of us won't survive that, so the climate won't really matter will it?
How about just plain old facts and records... and without reversing CO2 graphs to make an argument.
97% of what scientists? Is Al Gore a scientist to you... am I... how about John Coleman? Did you actually look at the few minutes of common sense
scientific data he provided in 2009... that still is true today? Yet the 'global warmists' had to rename their theory because it already has been
proven false... 'climate changers' now?
True scientist continually collect data and do not make 'conclusive' statements on what is or isn't happening... The weather, like the economy, is
dynamic not static. Try and open your eyes and see it is much bigger than the box you are told to look into.
It is Easter, a day to enjoy the world, not to freak out that the sky is falling (or warming). Live a good life! 
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
It is almost comedy to see the hysteria over brief recording of data... only to be countered by a few more readings or corrections to previous reports
(from the link above):
"Scientists calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10% per year until 1990 and then remain steady, CFCs would
cause a global ozone loss of 5 to 7% by 1995, and a 30 to 50% loss by 2050. In response the United States, Canada and Norway banned the use of CFCs in
aerosol spray cans in 1978. However, subsequent research, summarized by the National Academy in reports issued between 1979 and 1984, appeared to show
that the earlier estimates of global ozone loss had been too large"
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
Thanks for your comment Ken, see your u2u.
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
Perry,
We all know you're an atheist why must you beat that drum so much? Do you tell your new Mexican neighbors how ignorant you think their religious
beliefs are?
Rant over.
Peace out
| Quote: | Originally posted by vgabndo
OK David, I guess if it doesn't matter to you, the rest of the planet can also go along in the same blissful ignorance.
Your Holy Day wishes are misplaced. But, if you haven't got it by now; I don't believe in zombies rising from the dead to threaten the existence of
humankind. I also give no intellectual weight to the myth of Ishtar from which the Bronze Age myth of Easter was appropriated. It just has never
occurred to me to give much credence to the "value" of a purported human sacrifice by people who couldn't get it together to invent a wheelbarrow. (or
a written language)
So, happy 4/20/2014 BCE. Most folks agree that this is the 20th. of April and I find no reason to disagree. Right? |
|
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Say, ya figure these substances are not "bad actors" in our environment 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
or, how about Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
there are others ...
[Edited on 4-20-2014 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tripledigitken
Perry,
We all know you're an atheist why must you beat that drum so much? Do you tell your new Mexican neighbors how ignorant you think their religious
beliefs are?
Rant over.
Peace out
| Quote: | Originally posted by vgabndo
OK David, I guess if it doesn't matter to you, the rest of the planet can also go along in the same blissful ignorance.
Your Holy Day wishes are misplaced. But, if you haven't got it by now; I don't believe in zombies rising from the dead to threaten the existence of
humankind. I also give no intellectual weight to the myth of Ishtar from which the Bronze Age myth of Easter was appropriated. It just has never
occurred to me to give much credence to the "value" of a purported human sacrifice by people who couldn't get it together to invent a wheelbarrow. (or
a written language)
So, happy 4/20/2014 BCE. Most folks agree that this is the 20th. of April and I find no reason to disagree. Right? |
|
Atheists don't go door to door, telling our neighbors how ignorant their beliefs are. Generally, we don't think their beliefs are ignorant, as there
are many educated and smart believers (I was one). What we do think is their beliefs are not rooted in evidence.
Happy Easter. Happy Easter. Happy Easter.
I think our good friend Perry was just replying to this. =)
Spread the love.
Peace out.
=)
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ateo
Atheists don't go door to door, telling our neighbors how ignorant their beliefs are. Generally, we don't think their beliefs are ignorant, as there
are many educated and smart believers (I was one).
|
Perhaps my favorite church teaching - modesty.
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1587
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ateo
Atheists don't go door to door, telling our neighbors how ignorant their beliefs are. Generally, we don't think their beliefs are ignorant, as there
are many educated and smart believers (I was one).
|
Perhaps my favorite church teaching - modesty. |
Mismo a adecuado!
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sandlefoot
I have been watching this thread, with tongue in cheek. One side is positive that global warming is real and man caused. The other side is positive
that it is not real and a way for the government to extort more from the tax payers, businesses that product CO2, and all retail outlets that sell
those products. When in reality, and if some one has documentation otherwise I need it, these meteorological scientist are paid whether (weather
hehe) they call it correct or not! I think every one would like a job where they can be wrong 80% of the time and still keep that job! Every one
here is treating all the information as infallible, when in reality it is only guessing. I know, at least I hope, these are "educated" guesses. But
none the less only time will tell whose guess is closer! Every one needs to "agree to disagree" and get off their "I am right and you are wrong" soap
box! After all, no one really knows the answer, regardless of documentation.
Happy Easter!!!
Happy Trails |
Thank you and happy Easter to you too.
To be clear, I never said it is not real... I said it doesn't matter because the climate will change no matter what man does or doesn't do, as it has
for millions of years. In fact I agree that the climate is changing... and it is normal and natural for it to change. If you can control sun spots and
volcanic eruptions then you might be able to control the climate... of course if you could do those things, then you might be worshiped in a church?
|
It doesn't matter what man does? Are you for real? So you're suggesting it's okay to dump toxic sludge into the rivers and all will be well? I'm
guessing pollution measures are a waste of time and money as well.
Please clarify?! |
Zac, my friend... there you go again... Leaving out some of my words to try and , well who knows why??
A LOT matters what man does, don't be so silly... but as far as global climate change, the things man HAS done hasn't affected it. That doesn't mean
blowing up 100 hydrogen bombs won't cause an issue, but then a lot of us won't survive that, so the climate won't really matter will it?
How about just plain old facts and records... and without reversing CO2 graphs to make an argument.
97% of what scientists? Is Al Gore a scientist to you... am I... how about John Coleman? Did you actually look at the few minutes of common sense
scientific data he provided in 2009... that still is true today? Yet the 'global warmists' had to rename their theory because it already has been
proven false... 'climate changers' now?
True scientist continually collect data and do not make 'conclusive' statements on what is or isn't happening... The weather, like the economy, is
dynamic not static. Try and open your eyes and see it is much bigger than the box you are told to look into.
It is Easter, a day to enjoy the world, not to freak out that the sky is falling (or warming). Live a good life! |
My mistake...I was just reading what you wrote. By the way, who is freaking out? I like that you haven't made any 'conclusive statements" and are
open to the fact that climate change exists.
I suppose life might be more simple if I thought like you.....
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15937
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
FWIW
don't believe everything the guvmint says..... the first and last sentences say it all......
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-fuels-corn-waste-not-bet...
WASHINGTON (AP) — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study
shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels
made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won't meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have
struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of
carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market
gets underway.
"The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the
long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense," said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.
Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic
ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100
percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves
and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that
regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.
View gallery
FILE - This Jan. 9, 2009, file photo shows equipment …
FILE - This Jan. 9, 2009, file photo shows equipment inside a pilot plant in Scotland, S.D., that tu …
"I knew this research would be contentious," said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "I'm amazed it has not come out more solidly until now."
The Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from
corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less
carbon pollution than gasoline.
Cellulosic biofuels that don't meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn't earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they
need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn't meet their legal obligation to use
minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study "does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions from corn stover ethanol."
But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA's analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.
The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers
will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.
A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95
percent better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it's unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.
Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those
in his computer simulation.
Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the
fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion
gallons being produced this year.
"The study says it will be very hard to make a biofuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue," which puts it in the
same boat as corn-based ethanol, said David Tilman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels' emissions from the
farm to the tailpipe.
Tilman said it was the best study on the issue he has seen so far.
___
[Edited on 4-20-2014 by woody with a view]
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Thanks ... it is a difficult problem
|
|
|
BornFisher
Super Nomad
Posts: 2103
Registered: 1-11-2005
Location: K-38 Santa Martha/Encinitas
Member Is Offline
|
|
What got us out of the last ice age (10,000 years ago) was global warming. And that was before Dick Cheney and Haliburton schemed up how on to screw
up the planet!!
Beware of those who use fear to take dollars from your wallet to put them into theirs!
BTW the co-founder of Green Peace now has said "man made climate change is a scam. It`s all about funding."
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
However the middle sentence does clarify the carbon data---the cellulosic ethanol has to be 60 percent of the carbon released from gasoline. So it is
better than gasoline, just not meeting the EPA standard:
"The Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from
corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less
carbon pollution than gasoline."
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Check with China ... on the need for environmental regulations, as it relates to industrialization without them
Gee, just think where we® could be, if no controls had been adopted via environmental Laws and Regulations ... based on science here in the United
States and other industrialized nations
Typically Laws and Regulations are adopted for the protection of Health and Environment are approached with the concept of .... It is better to error
on the side of safety ... which I prefer, when dealing with these issues
Nothing is perfect, but, using science as a reference is a much sounder approach, in arriving at an informed decision IMHO
[Edited on 4-21-2014 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
bajadogs
Super Nomad
Posts: 1058
Registered: 8-28-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BornFisher
BTW the co-founder of Green Peace now has said "man made climate change is a scam. It`s all about funding." |
That is not true. Where do you get your info??? Stop spreading the lie!!!
|
|
|
BornFisher
Super Nomad
Posts: 2103
Registered: 1-11-2005
Location: K-38 Santa Martha/Encinitas
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajadogs
| Quote: | Originally posted by BornFisher
BTW the co-founder of Green Peace now has said "man made climate change is a scam. It`s all about funding." |
That is not true. Where do you get your info??? Stop spreading the lie!!! |
Here is what Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) has said---Global warming[edit]
Moore calls global warming the "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of
accuracy what's going to happen".[33] In 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global
warming[44] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[45]
Moore has stated that global warming and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use
of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.[46] Rather than climate change mitigation, Moore advocates
adaptation to global warming.[47]
In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony. “Today, we live
in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial
for humans and the majority of other species.” Moore continued, "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2
emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of
global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,”
he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global
temperature changes".[48]
|
|
|
elgatoloco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4323
Registered: 11-19-2002
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
|
|
Patrick Moore is one climate scientist I had never heard of..............oh wait..........never mind........found him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper
(APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a
monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of
the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure,[29][50] adding that hiring Moore is now what companies do if their brand is turning
toxic.[29]
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service criticized Moore saying that his comment in 1976 that "it should be remembered that there are employed in
the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than
about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem" was forecasting his own future.[51] The Columbia Journalism Review
points out that Moore's position at the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was paid for by the nuclear industry and he is in fact essentially a paid
spokesperson.[51][52]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-m...
MAGA
Making Attorneys Get Attorneys
|
|
|
bajadogs
Super Nomad
Posts: 1058
Registered: 8-28-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ah, brilliant edit job BF. Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace... but he was hanging around them early on and milked it politically.
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has
been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any
expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-m...
Wow people are stupid.
|
|
|
bajadogs
Super Nomad
Posts: 1058
Registered: 8-28-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
oops. elgatoloco is quicker than bajadogs. And dances better.
Peace to all
|
|
|
redhilltown
Super Nomad
Posts: 1130
Registered: 1-24-2009
Location: Long Beach, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajadogs
Ah, brilliant edit job BF. Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace... but he was hanging around them early on and milked it politically.
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has
been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any
expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-m...
Wow people are stupid. |
New poll indicates that about 40% of Americans are doubtful of the theory of evolution.
HOW DARE you say people are stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As Ken Ham has pointed out, we were NOT THERE to see this process and therefore it is not
observational science.
Maybe stupid is a harsh word...maybe delusional is a tad better.
Nah.
Stupid.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
