Page 51 of 111 FirstFirst ... 41464748495051525354555661101 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,020 of 2209
  1. #1001  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    Oh my GOD! Why didn't ANYBODY, EVER think of this before Tastypeppers did! Surely NO climatologist ever hear of this, let alone take it into consideration in his or her models! Hundreds and thousands of climatologists all over the world came to the conclusion that global warming is because of greenhouse gas emission, and now Tastypeppers came along and blasted the whole scam with a single publication back from 2004!!! Hurray, lets all buy more SUVs, no need to even think about changing anything!

    Really, Tastypeppers, you must be THE Super-Scientist. What is your explanation, why are you the first who ever thought about the activity of the sun when it comes to dealing with the global climate? Why is it that you know it is all because of the activity of the sun, while thousands of trained climatologists come to a different conclusion??
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #1002  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Yet, you don't know jack about Gore's carbon footprint. Typical.
    I know Gore consumes more fossil fuel than most people on the planet.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1003  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I know Gore consumes more fossil fuel than most people on the planet.
    Which alone doesn't equate to squat as it relates to global warming.
  4. #1004  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I know Gore consumes more fossil fuel than most people on the planet.
    If you feel better trashing Gore because he disagrees with your views on global warming please go ahead. I am sure he does not care and neither do I because we all know that this does not change the science one iota.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ea-level_N.htm
  5. #1005  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    If you feel better trashing Gore because he disagrees with your views on global warming please go ahead. I am sure he does not care and neither do I because we all know that this does not change the science one iota.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ea-level_N.htm
    As you know I do believe that mankind has a direct effect on our environment and that we need to do everything within reason of our realm of possibilities (i.e alternative fuel sources, conservation, etc..) to minimize our effect. And I am very interested on the natural cycle of the earth's climate as well. Both need to be taken into account with equal weight, IMHO.

    Gore has positioned himself as the Herald for Global Warming. So I wouldn't though pore little Gore's claims out with the melted ice cap water, but to question his own compliance with his own demands on the rest of the world's population based on his claims is a valid point to discuss. I brought this very point up while ago with links to the Senate Hearing Transcripts.

    Gore (and countless other politicians on BOTH sides of the fence) has made this entirely political with admittingly some misleading data from both sides. This is the part the I often question. Not necessarily that we do effect our environment, but how much in reality. For every report that shows temps will rise 10 degrees there is another out two months later showing it will only be 0.25% of a single degree rise (these figures are just make up to show a point).

    Did you read about the temperature spikes in the 1600s that were suppose to be higher than temps are now? What are your thoughts on that? Is the data false? If true, what do you think caused it? What effect did it have back then? I am asking these questions because I have little doubt you are more up on the scientific studies than I am and it could be a good comparison model with what we might be facing now......no matter if the current cause is man made or not.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/10/2007 at 05:52 PM.
  6. #1006  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Which alone doesn't equate to squat as it relates to global warming.
    I completely agree. I don't think it matters. But Gore does.
  7. #1007  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If you feel better trashing Gore because he disagrees with your views on global warming please go ahead. I am sure he does not care and neither do I because we all know that this does not change the science one iota.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ea-level_N.htm
    Again, you completely misunderstand. This has nothing to do with the science of global warming or his beliefs.

    This has to do with the inconsistency between Gore's preachings and his own behavior. Once again, this is about Gore. Your link is not relevant to this discussion.

    But thanks for your permission.
  8. #1008  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    As you know I do believe that mankind has a direct effect on our environment. And I am very interested on the natural cycle of the earth's climate as well. Both need to be taken into account, IMHO.

    Gore has positioned himself as the Herald for Global Warming. So I wouldn't though pore little Gore's claims out with the melted ice cap water, but to question his own compliance with his own demands on the rest of the world's population is a valid point to discuss. I brought this very point up while ago with links to the Senate Hearing Transcripts.

    Gore (and countless other politicians on BOTH sides of the fence) has made this entirely political with admittingly some misleading data from both sides. This is the part the I often question. Not necessarily that we do effect our environment, but how much in reality. For every report that shows temps will rise 10 degrees there is another out two months later showing it will only be 0.25% of a single degree rise (these figures are just make up to show a point).

    Did you read about the temperature spikes in the 1600s that were suppose to be higher than temps are now? What are your thoughts on that? Is the data false? If true, what do you think caused it? What effect did it have back then? I am asking these questions because I have little doubt you are more up on the scientific studies than I am and it could be a good comparison model with what we might be facing now......no matter if the current cause is man made or not.
    The data you cite, may be interesting to you, but this has obviously not swayed the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1009  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I completely agree. I don't think it matters. But Gore does.
    Don't misrepresent my statement.

    How much energy consumed alone does not represent one's carbon footprint, which is what matters.
  10. #1010  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    The data you cite, may be interesting to you, but obviously it has not changed the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming.
    So in your opinion it is data to ignore? If so, why?

    Is it because is it scientifically flawed? Or is it because it came from the other side of the argument.

    Believe me, I am always in a learning stage on this subject and not tied to political loyalties as all.....I just am sincerely interested in your opinion and the bases for it.
  11. #1011  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Oh my GOD! Why didn't ANYBODY, EVER think of this before Tastypeppers did! Surely NO climatologist ever hear of this, let alone take it into consideration in his or her models! Hundreds and thousands of climatologists all over the world came to the conclusion that global warming is because of greenhouse gas emission, and now Tastypeppers came along and blasted the whole scam with a single publication back from 2004!!! Hurray, lets all buy more SUVs, no need to even think about changing anything!

    Really, Tastypeppers, you must be THE Super-Scientist. What is your explanation, why are you the first who ever thought about the activity of the sun when it comes to dealing with the global climate? Why is it that you know it is all because of the activity of the sun, while thousands of trained climatologists come to a different conclusion??
    Forgot the sarcasm tags, eh?
  12. #1012  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Again, you completely misunderstand. This has nothing to do with the science of global warming or his beliefs.

    This has to do with the inconsistency between Gore's preachings and his own behavior. Once again, this is about Gore. Your link is not relevant to this discussion.

    But thanks for your permission.
    You are welcome!
  13. #1013  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    So in your opinion it is data to ignore? If so, why?

    Is it because is it scientifically flawed? Or is it because it came from the other side of the argument.

    Believe me, I am always in a learning stage on this subject and not tied to political loyalties as all.....I just am sincerely interested in your opinion and the bases for it.
    no, valid data of any type are not to be ignored, but they are taken into account along with the other observations which are collectively used to formulate a model. In the case of global warming, there are many thousands of pieces of data which were taken into account in formulating the current scientific consensus. I would refer you to the journals nature and science as being the most respected publications on the subject. There are podcasts available which you can hear on your treo.
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1014  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Again, you completely misunderstand. This has nothing to do with the science of global warming or his beliefs.

    This has to do with the inconsistency between Gore's preachings and his own behavior.
    You've not provided an equal set of data for both sides of the equation you provided. Gore v Bush. The RNC didn't email you that, did they? So, they left you talking out your posterior orifice just to protect Roger Ailes.

    Thanks for the laugh anyway.
  15. #1015  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    You've not provided an equal set of data for both sides of the equation you provided. Gore v Bush.
    Did you even read the post you replied to? This is about Gore. It's about the fact that Gore preaches to the world that they should use less fossil fuel, but he uses more than most people in the world. Bush doesn't use fossil fuel in his Texas home, but this isn't really about Bush.

    The RNC didn't email you that, did they?
    What's with your obsession with the RNC? What do they have to do with this?

    So, they left you talking out your posterior orifice just to protect Roger Ailes.
    There's that incoherence thing again...
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1016  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Did you even read the post you replied to? This is about Gore. It's about the fact that Gore preaches to the world that they should use less fossil fuel, but he uses more than most people in the world. Bush doesn't use fossil fuel in his Texas home, but this isn't really about Bush.
    I'd run away from that foundationless email you got too, if I were you. Nobody thinks any less of you just because you originated your imbalanced attack on it. Really.
  17. #1017  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    I'd run away from that foundationless email you got too, if I were you. Nobody thinks any less of you just because you originated your imbalanced attack on it. Really.
    I got the email from my brother. As far as I know, he's not part of the RNC.

    Seriously, is the RNC involved, or are you just making stuff up?
  18. #1018  
    Pssst....this has been a nice long thread with lots of great info. Debate is what it is all about, but let's keep the bickering to minimum so we don't have to start a new thread.
  19. #1019  
    The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses:
    Methane helps toward carbon neutrality? How is he using it? Hope it's not by burning it . . .
  20. #1020  
    And methane is considered "renewable"?

Posting Permissions