a very distinct method of 'cutting through all the BS!!
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Australia
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions
University of New England , University of Newcastle , University of Melbourne ,University of Adelaide
Alma mater
University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it;s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
I am making an effort not to let politics choose my science on this one.
Here is an opposing view for any interested in making a rational comparison based on full weight of evidence presented by both sides of the case.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf Just to be clear, I have already stated I am fully aware of governmental ulterior motives regarding this. I have no interest in promoting that. I merely want to know the truth. Real truth as the fate of the world we give our children is involved.
I am making an effort not to let politics choose my science on this one.
Here is an opposing view for any interested in making a rational comparison based on full weight of evidence presented by both sides of the case.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf Just to be clear, I have already stated I am fully aware of governmental ulterior motives regarding this. I have no interest in promoting that. I merely want to know the truth. Real truth as the fate of the world we give our children is involved.
Pick an article, on the page provided below. They all expose how the so-called scientific data has been FUDGED by Australia, Europe, the UN, and NASA to fit the global warming agenda to procure funding to line their pockets.
http://www.google.com/webhp?client=...ists+caught+misleading+on+global+warming
Did they start that right after they faked the moon landings?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
a very distinct method of 'cutting through all the BS!!
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Australia
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions
University of New England , University of Newcastle , University of Melbourne ,University of Adelaide
Alma mater
University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it;s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
Did they start that right after they faked the moon landings?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
Show me a research scientist that doesn't go for funding and produce results to generate additional funding, and I'll show you an unemployed academic.
a very distinct method of 'cutting through all the BS!!
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Australia
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions
University of New England , University of Newcastle , University of Melbourne ,University of Adelaide
Alma mater
University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it;s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
Sure there is man made stuff in the air.
But we've had climate change long before man was in the industrial age and could even start to contribute tiny amounts to an overall total.
We are not big and bad enough to do what we are consistently accused of doing.
a very distinct method of 'cutting through all the BS!!
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Australia
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions
University of New England , University of Newcastle , University of Melbourne ,University of Adelaide
Alma mater
University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it;s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure. But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
Sure there is man made stuff in the air.
But we've had climate change long before man was in the industrial age and could even start to contribute tiny amounts to an overall total.
We are not big and bad enough to do what we are consistently accused of doing.
Even if we are responsible for what they claim, it ain't where they are putting the blame. Open air cookstoves in the developing and undeveloped world produce as much CO2 and "black carbon" as the entire global automobile fleet.
Every year when the mexicans do their big burns we get the smoke
here in Texas. They bitch about the air quality here. Go tell
it to the fin' mexicans.
Hey guys....keep track of the responses and you'll be able to tell who the 'liberal progressives' are!!
Even if we where causing this, which is not "decided" as Al Gore would like you to believe, how does further taxing(enslaving) people solve the issue? It's outcome based science, from what I've seen, with the sole purpose of confiscating property and controlling a huge segment of our economy. There was an article this summer that pointed out that the vast majority of all environmental groups, the ones who fund and promote the research, are anti-capitalist...that means they oppose the foundation of our country and our way of life. The damage to the world we leave our children will be far greater if we allow the government to "solve" this non-problem than if we all started heating our homes by burning old tires.
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
The way I look at it, it is the height of man's hubris to say that he has no impact on the environment and hence weather.
On the flip side, it is the height of man's arrogance to claim that he has even the slightest inkling as to all the factors that affect the climate and how man's actions affect the climate.
There is also the greatest of ironies that without modern technology man would not have the instruments and computers to measure the climate and evaluate those measurements.
As to the "purity" of science, every scientist has an agenda. His or her research is limited in scope to either fall into line with what is politically popular to gain grant or university funding, or it is limited to what a corporation deems what is evaluated to provide a commercial profit and hence to garner R&D funding.
Show me a research scientist that doesn't go for funding and produce results to generate additional funding, and I'll show you an unemployed academic.
Stop and think, that's what they do. That's why they're on the government tit, because they do the kind of research that private industry doesn't make money from, yet we still need it done.
That line of thinking from the right is just crazy. It's like saying, I don't believe in Cardiac Artery Disease...show me a cardiologist who doesn't make his money from Cardiac Artery Disease.
And you want me to believe that over 15,000 of these researchers all across the world are all "in" on the scam?
Now which is easier to believe. 15,000 scientists across the world in on a big scam.
Or
The science (despite those who have done reprehensible things) just plain points to the conclusions they make?
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
The way I look at it, it is the height of man's hubris to say that he has no impact on the environment and hence weather.
On the flip side, it is the height of man's arrogance to claim that he has even the slightest inkling as to all the factors that affect the climate and how man's actions affect the climate.
There is also the greatest of ironies that without modern technology man would not have the instruments and computers to measure the climate and evaluate those measurements.
As to the "purity" of science, every scientist has an agenda. His or her research is limited in scope to either fall into line with what is politically popular to gain grant or university funding, or it is limited to what a corporation deems what is evaluated to provide a commercial profit and hence to garner R&D funding.
Well that's a cute little arguement, but it flies in the face of the actual science.
Here's what I find interesting. How people on the right are very quick to accept non climate change "science". But when it's science that points to climate change, suddenly they're all a bunch of agenda driven scam artists.
That right there tells me you're not interested in science, but supporting your pre-conceived notions.
I give props to the Koch brothers. When their hired gun did his study and concluded that climate change is both real and man caused, they had the ballz to accept it and move on.
Even if we where causing this, which is not "decided" as Al Gore would like you to believe, how does further taxing(enslaving) people solve the issue? It's outcome based science, from what I've seen, with the sole purpose of confiscating property and controlling a huge segment of our economy. There was an article this summer that pointed out that the vast majority of all environmental groups, the ones who fund and promote the research, are anti-capitalist...that means they oppose the foundation of our country and our way of life. The damage to the world we leave our children will be far greater if we allow the government to "solve" this non-problem than if we all started heating our homes by burning old tires.
Understand something right here and now.
Because I accept the science, does not mean I accept the politics of left!!!I believe we're already doing a very good job of managing our carbon footprint. When we can afford to do more, I think we will do more. We can do this without bankrupting America. But I don't think the left has the answers. They would all live in huge mansions while the rest of us live in caves.
Don't they still use leaded gasoline in Iran?
Travis
If you really buy off on this, then you really haven't thought things through. Yeah what he says is probably true. But if there wasn't the man made carbon in the atmosphere, then the volcanoes would have far less effect, if any at all. This article is directly pointed at someone who already has his mind made up, and not really interested in science, but something to confirm his pre-conceived notions.
The way I look at it, it is the height of man's hubris to say that he has no impact on the environment and hence weather.
On the flip side, it is the height of man's arrogance to claim that he has even the slightest inkling as to all the factors that affect the climate and how man's actions affect the climate.
There is also the greatest of ironies that without modern technology man would not have the instruments and computers to measure the climate and evaluate those measurements.
As to the "purity" of science, every scientist has an agenda. His or her research is limited in scope to either fall into line with what is politically popular to gain grant or university funding, or it is limited to what a corporation deems what is evaluated to provide a commercial profit and hence to garner R&D funding.
Well that's a cute little arguement, but it flies in the face of the actual science.
Here's what I find interesting. How people on the right are very quick to accept non climate change "science". But when it's science that points to climate change, suddenly they're all a bunch of agenda driven scam artists.
That right there tells me you're not interested in science, but supporting your pre-conceived notions.
I give props to the Koch brothers. When their hired gun did his study and concluded that climate change is both real and man caused, they had the ballz to accept it and move on.
If you want to talk actual science, please reference the UN's own studies that show open air cookstoves producing the same greenhouse gas issues as the combined global vehicle fleet. Also, while there's increasing regulation of vehicle emissions, nothing is being done about these cookfires. Query, too, how much methane is produced by ruminants and whether anything is being done about that - or how much methane was produced by the pre-1860 herds of bison and African plains species.
In the 1970s, the science was "clear" that we were going into a new Ice Age and we'd all freeze to death. In the 1990s, it was "clear" that the temperature was going to skyrocket due to "Global Warming" and that we were all going roast. Today? It's "clear" that neither of those were accurate and we've just defaulted to "climate change", while we're constantly overlooking certain variables and discovering new ones.
Hey guys....keep track of the responses and you'll be able to tell who the 'liberal progressives' are!!
Because I accept the science, doesn't mean I accept the politics of the left.
I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, and I'm not a moderate. I have very strong opinions on most issues and rarely do they align with the Democratic or Republican parties. I think both parties are equally worthless and unqualified to lead this nation.
But people who are die hard republicans or democrats really feel they have to slap a label on someone. I think it's because they have a limited intellect...slap on a label, that's what they are, so now I can understand them.
If you feel its important to slap a label on me, be my guest...your label will be wrong, but it's all about what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Don't they still use leaded gasoline in Iran?
Travis
Well the last time I filled up there...
Don't they still use leaded gasoline in Iran?
Travis
Well the last time I filled up there...
If they do, that could easily explain some of the irrational, violent behaviors there. Airborne lead and associated lead poisoning dropped precipitously after it was removed from gasoline in the US, and not coincidentally the rates of violence and of several different psychological disorders that lead to irrational, violent behavior also dropped.
If you want to talk actual science, please reference the UN's own studies that show open air cookstoves producing the same greenhouse gas issues as the combined global vehicle fleet. Also, while there's increasing regulation of vehicle emissions, nothing is being done about these cookfires. Query, too, how much methane is produced by ruminants and whether anything is being done about that - or how much methane was produced by the pre-1860 herds of bison and African plains species.
In the 1970s, the science was "clear" that we were going into a new Ice Age and we'd all freeze to death. In the 1990s, it was "clear" that the temperature was going to skyrocket due to "Global Warming" and that we were all going roast. Today? It's "clear" that neither of those were accurate and we've just defaulted to "climate change", while we're constantly overlooking certain variables and discovering new ones.
Yes, that's part of the science. And your asking me why we're not doing anything about it...again, because I believe the science doesn't mean I sign on to what the left has to say about it.
As for the 1970's...sure, perhaps they're all wrong again. But the prudent thing is to err on the side of caution. The solid science is pointing to one thing right now. It's not real smart to just ignore it on the off chance it might be wrong.
Again the cardiologist analogy. You have a heart condition. The doc told you to lay off of the cholesterol in 1970. But then someone did a study and said that cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. Finally, 20 years later we find out there's good and bad cholesterol. Meanwhile you still have this underlying heart condition. Which would be the prudent course of action? Follow what the best science has to say right now, or just ignore it all on the off chance they may be wrong?
If you want to talk actual science, please reference the UN's own studies that show open air cookstoves producing the same greenhouse gas issues as the combined global vehicle fleet. Also, while there's increasing regulation of vehicle emissions, nothing is being done about these cookfires. Query, too, how much methane is produced by ruminants and whether anything is being done about that - or how much methane was produced by the pre-1860 herds of bison and African plains species.
In the 1970s, the science was "clear" that we were going into a new Ice Age and we'd all freeze to death. In the 1990s, it was "clear" that the temperature was going to skyrocket due to "Global Warming" and that we were all going roast. Today? It's "clear" that neither of those were accurate and we've just defaulted to "climate change", while we're constantly overlooking certain variables and discovering new ones.
Yes, that's part of the science. And your asking me why we're not doing anything about it...again, because I believe the science doesn't mean I sign on to what the left has to say about it.
As for the 1970's...sure, perhaps they're all wrong again. But the prudent thing is to err on the side of caution. The solid science is pointing to one thing right now. It's not real smart to just ignore it on the off chance it might be wrong.
Again the cardiologist analogy. You have a heart condition. The doc told you to lay off of the cholesterol in 1970. But then someone did a study and said that cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. Finally, 20 years later we find out there's good and bad cholesterol. Meanwhile you still have this underlying heart condition. Which would be the prudent course of action? Follow what the best science has to say right now, or just ignore it all on the off chance they may be wrong?
Look, I'm all for energy independence and getting off oil about 30-f'kin'-years ago just so we don't have to dick around with the ME. For me, the biggest missed opportunity of the last 1/2 century was Reagan NOT launch a new "space program" on energy right after the Oil Embargo and pouring everything we and the Europeans had into getting off oil so we could tell the Saudis and the Arabs to pound sand (literally).
What you're saying is act cautiously and prudently. Of course. The problem is that the hardliners on both sides want none of that. The left wants to castigate everything as if the science is indisputable (which it isn't) and that oil and the West are to blame totally for everything (which they aren't). Never is a word said about China, for example, who added the equivalent of the entire US coal fleet to their inventory LAST YEAR ALONE and with zero emissions or environmental controls. The right wants to drill everything, right here and right now, and put nothing into new fuel sources or efficiency or new options for electricity, vehicles, etc. Both are stupid to a catastrophic, suicidal degree.
That said, the science isn't settled, isn't proven, and the biggest factors aren't being focused on. Until those things change, no difference can be made.
The right wants to provide the greatest amount of energy at the least cost to the consumer and industry, so it's not drill everything right here right now, it's drill until the alternatives are viable...which they are not at this time...or they wouldn't be the alternatives.
There is no "man made CO2"
All the CO2 on the planet was here before we arrived
It just gets moved around
Maybe Al Gore and all the other idiots that believe man is the cause of climate change, should mount up and tackle countries like Mexico, Iran, India, and China.
Dave
Don't they still use leaded gasoline in Iran?
Travis
Well the last time I filled up there...
I thought one of the scientists might have put it in a report that you had read.
You seem to know a lot about this stuff.
Travis
Look, I'm all for energy independence and getting off oil about 30-f'kin'-years ago just so we don't have to dick around with the ME. For me, the biggest missed opportunity of the last 1/2 century was Reagan NOT launch a new "space program" on energy right after the Oil Embargo and pouring everything we and the Europeans had into getting off oil so we could tell the Saudis and the Arabs to pound sand (literally).
What you're saying is act cautiously and prudently. Of course. The problem is that the hardliners on both sides want none of that. The left wants to castigate everything as if the science is indisputable (which it isn't) and that oil and the West are to blame totally for everything (which they aren't). Never is a word said about China, for example, who added the equivalent of the entire US coal fleet to their inventory LAST YEAR ALONE and with zero emissions or environmental controls. The right wants to drill everything, right here and right now, and put nothing into new fuel sources or efficiency or new options for electricity, vehicles, etc. Both are stupid to a catastrophic, suicidal degree.
AGREED!!!
That said, the science isn't settled, isn't proven, and the biggest factors aren't being focused on. Until those things change, no difference can be made.
I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational.
Look, I'm all for energy independence and getting off oil about 30-f'kin'-years ago just so we don't have to dick around with the ME. For me, the biggest missed opportunity of the last 1/2 century was Reagan NOT launch a new "space program" on energy right after the Oil Embargo and pouring everything we and the Europeans had into getting off oil so we could tell the Saudis and the Arabs to pound sand (literally).
What you're saying is act cautiously and prudently. Of course. The problem is that the hardliners on both sides want none of that. The left wants to castigate everything as if the science is indisputable (which it isn't) and that oil and the West are to blame totally for everything (which they aren't). Never is a word said about China, for example, who added the equivalent of the entire US coal fleet to their inventory LAST YEAR ALONE and with zero emissions or environmental controls. The right wants to drill everything, right here and right now, and put nothing into new fuel sources or efficiency or new options for electricity, vehicles, etc. Both are stupid to a catastrophic, suicidal degree.
AGREED!!!
That said, the science isn't settled, isn't proven, and the biggest factors aren't being focused on. Until those things change, no difference can be made.
I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational. [/quote]
If we have enough to go on, then we need to go on it - and that does not mean concentrating on US emissions. It means taking a look at and doing something about Mbobo's cook fire in Congo and 1B Indians burning cowschit and riding motorscooters and Wu Li's newest coal plant outside of Beijing and the utter lack of effort put to any of those issues.
Address the real issues, and then you'll have something to go on. Keep concentrating on the margins and nothing gets done.
I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational.
The left does not want "us" in the stone age. They want people that aren't them in the stone age.
Travis
If we have enough to go on, then we need to go on it - and that does not mean concentrating on US emissions. It means taking a look at and doing something about Mbobo's cook fire in Congo and 1B Indians burning cowschit and riding motorscooters and Wu Li's newest coal plant outside of Beijing and the utter lack of effort put to any of those issues.
Address the real issues, and then you'll have something to go on. Keep concentrating on the margins and nothing gets done.
Like I said, I don't agree with how the left addresses the issues.
But we can only change the US in relation to carbon emissions so that's why they're not addressing things in the Congo.
And I honestly think the US is doing a pretty good job of reducing our carbon footprint. FWIW, I don't think it's legal to fire up your charcoal grill in California anymore.
Meanwhile, I BBQ with nothing but charcoal (evil little me).
It's all crap.
The OPs article is spot phuggin on.
Do we make a wee bit of difference? Who cares when a volcano erupts?
It's commie bs and yes I do realize how 'rudimentary' that sounds. Phugg it.
Did they start that right after they faked the moon landings?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
Show me a research scientist that doesn't go for funding and produce results to generate additional funding, and I'll show you an unemployed academic.
The falsehoods will continue as long as the liberals are on board, and one wonders how their children become liberals.......
FWIW, I don't think it's legal to fire up your charcoal grill in California anymore.
Meanwhile, I BBQ with nothing but charcoal (evil little me).
So you believe there is a problem but you don't want to help fix it, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
You're by no means a stupid person Kevin but you sure do say some of the stupidest schit I've ever heard. Quit drinking the koolaid and I bet you'd come out of the fog.
Hey guys....keep track of the responses and you'll be able to tell who the 'liberal progressives' are!!
It's getting pretty obvious isn't it? I don't think he's even trying to hide it anymore. IMO he's about one click away from being in the same camp as nwa, losthiway, and sacharlie. Democrat trolls just here to spread socialist propaganda, and stir [bleep].
I don't buy into man-made climate change or global warming, but both sides of the issue need to let go of the ruminant methane argument. There is no net gain of greenhouse gas - the digestion of the plant will release the same amount of carbon as the decomposition of the plant. Just the time frame changes. Ultimately the ruminant and the plant are part of the same carbon cycle.
Fossil fuels are a different deal. As the argument goes, fossil fuels are sequestered and out of the carbon cycle. It's only when man brings the sequestered carbon back into the cycle do they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
Cooking fires can also fall under the no-net-gain scenario if the fuel used is wood, cow chips, or other carbon source currently in the carbon cycle. If coal or other sequestered fuel is used then the opposite applies.
Did they start that right after they faked the moon landings?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
What a fugging idiot---even for a Democrat. Scientitic truth isn't determined by majority vote. As Einstein famously remarked when the Nazi's trotted out 30 of their best scientists to claim relativity was false (I am paraphrasing) "It only takes one to prove me wrong". Is that all you've got Geek---the claim that the majority says so? for about the past 30 years they've (the scientific community) been telling us that eggs, butter and bacon (high cholesterol) cause heart disease. We now know that is false (supposedly) because the very same scientific community that has been telling us for years that it was gospel, is now tellins us they were wrong!
Stick that one in your "majority vote determins scientific truth" pipe and smoke it.
Jordan
Here's another article kicking the schit out of the global warming thesis....
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
Not to hard to figure things like these out.
Just follow the money.
Plain and simple
"Now which is easier to believe. 15,000 scientists across the world in on a big scam."
Since you have asked the question twice, I think you deserve an answer:
Of course they are. Follow the money. If I had enough money, do you think I would have any trouble finding scientists to do research to "prove" a 270 Win. is superior to a 270 WBY.?
Of course they are. Follow the money. If I had enough money, do you think I would have any trouble finding scientists to do research to "prove" a 270 Win. is superior to a 270 WBY.?
I have always been amazed at the large # of folks that are so willing to sell their souls to make a buck, mind boggling to say the least.
So you believe there is a problem but you don't want to help fix it, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
You're by no means a stupid person Kevin but you sure do say some of the stupidest schit I've ever heard. Quit drinking the koolaid and I bet you'd come out of the fog.
I guess you missed my other posts. I think we're already doing a lot to address the issue. My once a month BBQ isn't the problem, I'll guarantee you that.
I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational.
The left does not want "us" in the stone age. They want people that aren't them in the stone age.
Travis
Wouldn't that be "us"??
No. Because that would imply "everybody" or an all inclusive reduction in modern day living for the sake of the greater good.
Travis
"Now which is easier to believe. 15,000 scientists across the world in on a big scam."
Since you have asked the question twice, I think you deserve an answer:
Of course they are. Follow the money. If I had enough money, do you think I would have any trouble finding scientists to do research to "prove" a 270 Win. is superior to a 270 WBY.?
Again, that's like saying the cardiologist has to be wrong about your diagnosis because he stands to make money treating you.
The scientists happen to be on the government tit because that's the kind of research they do; government kind. So because of that, you'll just ignore ANYTHING they come up with?
Okay so what about this guy. He's not on the government tit, and he was paid by guys who specifically wanted him to come down on the side of the deniers. What's his motivation. If you follow the money, he should have come down with something completely different.
http://disinfo.com/2012/07/koch-bro...ong-global-warming-is-real-and-man-made/And follow the money with the oil companies...they all stand to lose from climate change, yet not one of them take the stance that climate change isn't real or man made.
I don't think the science is ever settled. But we have enough to go on, and neither side is making what I consider rational decisions. The left wants us in the stone ages, and the righ want to act like nothing's about; neither are rational.
The left does not want "us" in the stone age. They want people that aren't them in the stone age.
Travis
Wouldn't that be "us"??
No. Because that would imply "everybody" or an all inclusive reduction in modern day living for the sake of the greater good.
Travis
We're saying the same thing, you're just arguing semantics. But we're still on the same page. They want us in caves, they want to live in their massive mansions and be the ruling elite.
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
No, there are not. There are well over 15,000 who say we CONTRIBUTE to it.
Big difference. Especially when you consider that around 10k years ago my cabin was under a thick sheet of ice......one that melted without any help from the human race.
Eventually our sun will expand and engulf the rock we live on in flames. Just something to think about.
(I am not saying we shouldn't be prudent and good stewards of our resources, jut pointing out that it may not be an awesome idea to destroy economies trying to fight something that we barely have any impact on)
Okay so what about this guy. He's not on the government tit, and he was paid by guys who specifically wanted him to come down on the side of the deniers. What's his motivation. If you follow the money, he should have come down with something completely different.
http://disinfo.com/2012/07/koch-bro...ong-global-warming-is-real-and-man-made/And follow the money with the oil companies...they all stand to lose from climate change, yet not one of them take the stance that climate change isn't real or man made.
I need you to explain how the oil companies stand to lose money from "climate change"? It's almost as naive as the belief, by morons, that when the government "sticks it to big business" through astronomical tax rates, that it is not the consumers that pay all of that tax through an increase in product cost.
"Now which is easier to believe. 15,000 scientists across the world in on a big scam."
Since you have asked the question twice, I think you deserve an answer:
Of course they are. Follow the money. If I had enough money, do you think I would have any trouble finding scientists to do research to "prove" a 270 Win. is superior to a 270 WBY.?
Was a time all the scientists believed the earth flat.
The fact Greenland used to be green proves to me the earth was warmer before there were cars.
I need you to explain how the oil companies stand to lose money from "climate change"? It's almost as naive as the belief, by morons, that when the government "sticks it to big business" through astronomical tax rates, that it is not the consumers that pay all of that tax through an increase in product cost.
So you don't think the carbon credit scheme of Kyoto isn't costing oil companies money?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
No, there are not. There are well over 15,000 who say we CONTRIBUTE to it.
Big difference. Especially when you consider that around 10k years ago my cabin was under a thick sheet of ice......one that melted without any help from the human race.
Eventually our sun will expand and engulf the rock we live on in flames. Just something to think about.
(I am not saying we shouldn't be prudent and good stewards of our resources, jut pointing out that it may not be an awesome idea to destroy economies trying to fight something that we barely have any impact on)
Unless the sun burns out and then it will get colder than a well diggers a__ on this old rock.
This discussion would be a hell of a lot better reading if you guys would stop quoting gungeek.
Unless the sun burns out and then it will get colder than a well diggers a__ on this old rock.
I hate it when that happens.
Kevin, when your lying govt is telling you carbon dioxide is poisonous then i take everything they say with a gos. I guess you can say water is poison too if you drink too much too quick.
This discussion would be a hell of a lot better reading if you guys would stop quoting gungeek.
Here is a tip you. A person can dislike Obama and his policies and still question those whose stances oppose him.
A Pole in 1939 may have cheered the Russians.....for a while.
This discussion would be a hell of a lot better reading if you guys would stop quoting gungeek.
Here is a tip you. A person can dislike Obama and his policies and still question those whose stances oppose him.
A Pole in 1939 may have cheered the Russians.....for a while.
I put Gibson on ignore yesterday. I will toggle his posts down in the shooting/ reloading forums as he seems quite knowledgeable in those areas, but I've read enough of his crap up here. If I want to read some socialis democrat propaganda I'll go over to DU.
Thanks Mog...but I'm neither socialist or a democrat; I think they're both FOS.
I just happen to find credibility in the global warming science; that's it. I'm not promoting any sort of agenda, just agreeing with the science. Why is that so criminal? Are we not allowed to see things differently, or am I require to always follow the hive mind while at the Campfire?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
No, there are not. There are well over 15,000 who say we CONTRIBUTE to it.
Big difference. Especially when you consider that around 10k years ago my cabin was under a thick sheet of ice......one that melted without any help from the human race.
Eventually our sun will expand and engulf the rock we live on in flames. Just something to think about.
(I am not saying we shouldn't be prudent and good stewards of our resources, jut pointing out that it may not be an awesome idea to destroy economies trying to fight something that we barely have any impact on)
Unless the sun burns out and then it will get colder than a well diggers a__ on this old rock.
It expands (to a diameter that would include our orbit) before it goes out. At least that is what they told me back in school.....along with warnings about the next ice age that was coming......
I need you to explain how the oil companies stand to lose money from "climate change"? It's almost as naive as the belief, by morons, that when the government "sticks it to big business" through astronomical tax rates, that it is not the consumers that pay all of that tax through an increase in product cost.
So you don't think the carbon credit scheme of Kyoto isn't costing oil companies money?
No, they just pass on any additional costs to the customers that purchase their goods. If the cost of doing business is $1/unit, or $1.10/unit, it doesn't matter to them...they just mark it up and pass on the additional costs to consumers.
kenjs1,
Here's a little head's up. There are not two sides of the truth. There are those who reject it and those who accept it.
Did they start that right after they faked the moon landings?
There are well over 15,000 scientists across the world who are onboard with climate change being man made. Are you telling me that all 15,000 are in on the conspiracy?
Theory du jour - remember 40 years ago the "doom & gloom" scientists were all warning of an impending ice age.
Anyone who believes man has altered climate to a substantial degree - is over-exagerating man's importance in God's plan, in my estimation.
We are not that important!
As far as emissions - .001% (or less) is a minimal amount, by any rational thought. Volcanoes vs cars - hmmm!
Hey guys....keep track of the responses and you'll be able to tell who the 'liberal progressives' are!!
That's easy, you can smell the sweating pigs from their 'apologist/white guilt' shacks.
kenjs1,
Here's a little head's up. There are not two sides of the truth. There are those who reject it and those who accept it.
Agree Ringman, and there are those who never look at both sides an issue to see through the politics of it.
kenjs1,
Here's a little head's up. There are not two sides of the truth. There are those who reject it and those who accept it.
Agree Ringman. Unfortunately many view those sides as either entirely pro or entirely anti-Obama as evidenced by the eagerness labels are thrown about here.
Just the latest expos� of the data Fudge.
Very Graphic, (so-to-speak) may be hard for some to view.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...s-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/
Fossil fuels are a different deal. As the argument goes, fossil fuels are sequestered and out of the carbon cycle. It's only when man brings the sequestered carbon back into the cycle do they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
except it doesnt stay sequestered....if yah know what the phug your looking at driving through western North Dakota you can see where millions and millions of tons of coal burned off well before man was seriously in the picture turning a hell of alot of clay subsoil into a natural ceramic....
also more oil leaks out of the floor of the Gulf every day than was lost in the Deep Water Horizon incident thats broken down by bacteria into CO2 and similar......tons of methane leaking out of deep water pockets aswell, whole ecosystems thrive off the chit....there are huge, really phuggin huge craters in the North Sea where large pockets of methane were loosed into the atmosphere in a very short order....this happened tens of thousands of years ago....
Interesting stuff Rattler.
