BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2009, 06:21 PM   #241
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:34 AM
There's still this to argue over before we go mindlessly towards a useless cap and trade system that doesn't really reduce C02 at all:

Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System? � Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

They need to find a way to measure cloud feedbacks with more accuracy instead of just using models.

Oh here for those who only like the comedy aspects of Climategate/Manbearpig

YouTube - Man Bear Pig
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 06:42 PM   #242
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Munk debates:

Munk Debates

Elizabeth May/George Monbiot vs. Lord Nigel Lawson/Bjorn Lomborg

This was an entertaining debate.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 09:17 PM   #243
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Ouch the EPA is wanting to regulate greenhouse gases. So does that include the largest greenhouse gas, water vapour?

EPA Finding Gives It Effective Control of the Economy - Iain Murray - The Corner on National Review Online

Quote:
The problem is that the president can't get off the train where he wants. He simply can’t stop what he has started. Under the statutory language of the Clean Air Act, the regulation of mobile sources tripwires regulations for all stationary sources that emit more than 250 tons of a designated pollutant. For greenhouse gases, that’s pretty much everything larger than a Gore-sized mansion. These stationary sources would have to get a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for any significant modification, as would any new source. They would also have to get operating permits. The upshot is that millions of buildings would be subject to regulations. Small businesses will similarly be affected, as millions of businesses emit that amount of greenhouse gases. Fast-food franchises, apartment blocks, hospitals — you name it — will find themselves subject to EPA bureaucracy.



To get around this, Obama’s EPA proposed a “tailoring rule” that would change the language of the CAA so that the threshold would be 25,000 tons. The legality of this is very much in doubt, as it amounts to the executive branch legislating, and is therefore a violation of the separation of powers.



Also under the Clean Air Act, any “pollutant” that “endangers” human health and welfare, and which is regulated for stationary and mobile sources, becomes subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As described above, the Obama administration is in the process of fulfilling all these NAAQS criteria.



Last week, two environmentalist groups petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under NAAQS. Soon the EPA will have no choice. Once the NAAQS kicks in — and it will — the American economy is, not to put too fine a point on it, screwed. The government won’t be able to permit anything larger than a mansion. Taken to the extent mandated under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would probably have to order the shut-down of most industrial suppliers and users of conventional energy.



There’s only one remedy for this otherwise inevitable regulatory nightmare. The Congress must pass H. R. 391, legislation offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) that prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 09:45 PM   #244
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Got to listen to 30 mins of Rush today while at lunch and he asked a great question.

If the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling rather than warming, as it was back in the 70's by the way, would they be telling us to increase our carbon footprint to keep the temperature static or slow the cooling?

Who thinks so?

Which got me thinking of a list. Under such a scenario, who thinks we would be told to do the following:

1) Drive bigger vehicles as often as possible. Deflate your tires, set CAFE standards for fuel inefficiency.
2) Rather than tax, give tax credits and subsidies on all fossil fuel energy to encourage usage.
3) Build as many coal plants as quickly as possible all around the world so every man, woman and child has a larger carbon footprint.
4) Drill baby drill, not cap and trade.
5) Call anyone that dissents a global-cooling denier or better yet; a stooge for Big Wind & Big Sun.
5) Cut down trees -- eat more meat, preferably polar bears.
6) Fly and limo in world leaders, journalists and movie stars from around the world to Climate Summits for no good reason other than to talk and dine on expensive food.
Wait... I guess we're already doing that one.

But you get the point, I hope. This isn't about saving the planet.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 10:15 PM   #245
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown.
Quote:
Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly.
--Wikipedia
In other words, Erik the Red named it GREENFRICKINLAND for a reason.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 10:54 PM   #246
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Got to listen to 30 mins of Rush today while at lunch and he asked a great question.

If the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling rather than warming, as it was back in the 70's by the way, would they be telling us to increase our carbon footprint to keep the temperature static or slow the cooling?
Pretty moot point since Rush(who has hired and fired hack scientists and been called out on it) and you don't believe that man has anything to do with the cooling or heating of this planet.

In fact Rush has actually said that burning of fuel does not effect the environment...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-07-2009, 10:57 PM   #247
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:34 AM
why does the fact that your lifestyle rapes the earth bother you so much, INDY?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 12:17 PM   #248
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Got to listen to 30 mins of Rush today while at lunch and he asked a great question.

If the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling rather than warming, as it was back in the 70's by the way, would they be telling us to increase our carbon footprint to keep the temperature static or slow the cooling?

Who thinks so?

Which got me thinking of a list. Under such a scenario, who thinks we would be told to do the following:

1) Drive bigger vehicles as often as possible. Deflate your tires, set CAFE standards for fuel inefficiency.
2) Rather than tax, give tax credits and subsidies on all fossil fuel energy to encourage usage.
3) Build as many coal plants as quickly as possible all around the world so every man, woman and child has a larger carbon footprint.
4) Drill baby drill, not cap and trade.
5) Call anyone that dissents a global-cooling denier or better yet; a stooge for Big Wind & Big Sun.
5) Cut down trees -- eat more meat, preferably polar bears.
6) Fly and limo in world leaders, journalists and movie stars from around the world to Climate Summits for no good reason other than to talk and dine on expensive food.
Wait... I guess we're already doing that one.

But you get the point, I hope. This isn't about saving the planet.
Rush's argument is absurd. Just like pretty much anything else the man says.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 12:29 PM   #249
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why does the fact that your lifestyle rapes the earth bother you so much, INDY?
You are aware that some scientists think that C02 doesn't rape the planet but does the opposite?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 01:05 PM   #250
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You are aware that some scientists think that C02 doesn't rape the planet but does the opposite?
You mean there are SOME scientists that think an overabundance of CO2 helps the planet?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 02:54 PM   #251
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You mean there are SOME scientists that think an overabundance of CO2 helps the planet?
Yes for example:

YouTube - Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life

And on the ocean acidification fallback argument:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...dification.pdf

Though I wouldn't use your word "overabundance" since I don't believe anyone knows what that actually means when Earth has had 20times the amount of C02 and coral existed.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 04:15 PM   #252
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:34 AM
..
Quote:
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:

-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 04:49 PM   #253
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:34 AM
What happened to Diamond's reading comprehension? What do approval rates have to do with climate change?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 05:01 PM   #254
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Though I wouldn't use your word "overabundance" since I don't believe anyone knows what that actually means when Earth has had 20times the amount of C02 and coral existed.
That video

Seriously Oscar? Seriously? "The poor man's biosphere" CO2 on plantlife?

Here's something a little less biased and "dumbed down":

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 05:51 PM   #255
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
..
The next 11 presidents were all dealing with distinctly different circumstances at this stage of their presidency, making the comparison meaningless.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com