You gotta turn on C-Span...

[sadaist]

Corporate sponsored "scientists" always coming up with exactly the results they were paid to find.

You mean like the global warming myth? Why would the government want us to believe this? More power? More taxes? More regulations? More control? Nah, it's because they have our best interests in mind...like they always have.

[Seshmeister]

Factoids are not facts, they lob them back and forth at each other the way the children probably lobbed cat turds at you in the sandbox during school recess.

Global warming is a lie and I'll prove it:

You [x] May calculate the weight by average, of the amount of carbon particulates spewed from a smokestack at an industrial plant.

You [x] May Not calculate the weight by average, of a big-assed FUCKING VOLCANO which spews any amount, at any time in any way it decides to rupture forth.

Fuck "global warming". It's a lie, because what they propose to calculate is not quantizable in numbers against nature, which does it's own thing regardless of what Man does with his.

I held your hand and took you through this a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/front-line/54701-retarded-manchild-allowed-speak-house-committee-2.html#post1342913

Not unusually there is a terrible fucking flaw in your argument. Someone has of course done the calculations. In fact lots of people have. Strangely enough the worlds scientists don't sit about doing nothing waiting for you to come up with ideas.

Secondly the answer is that each year volcanoes emit 200 million tons of CO2 which sounds a lot. It used to be a lot more than humans do. Unfortunately humans are now up to 27 billion metric tons, the US accounts for over 6 billion alone.

So to answer your question people create over 100 times more greenhouse gasses and the US over 20 times more than all the volcanoes in the world.

Cheers!

[ZahZoo]

The "factual basis" is that any retard could call themselves a "scientist" and post how much they think global warming is all bullshit. But then, we could ask how many peer-reviewed papers they've written, and what their actual credentials are...

The "fact" is that the earth is getting warmer. The only "theory" is whether it is happening as some sort of cycle or whether human activity pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing at least a good deal of it....

The fact is that most climatologists agree that that is the case. And that the only ones that don't seem to be on the take of major corporations...

I firmly believe that the ultimate fact is none of our greatest scientific minds and models have produced a comprehensive scientific conclusion that "global warming" in it's current form is directly attributable to human activity.

Yes there are trends in human produced Co2 data that corelate with a most recent warming trend on Earth. No dispute there.

But then if you factor in solar activities we're currently seeing record lowering of global temps and increases in polar ice caps that counter the whole human global warming trends. Add to that there have been significant warming and cooling trends that last several 100,000 years that varied widely and we still don't know exactly the big picture causes.

Point is... we don't know enough to definatively say human crap is behind current climate data. Most likely we're a part of it... but there's far bigger model at work that even our geniuses can't definatively explain.

My take... be a good citizen and take care of the earth. Don't be so damn arrogant to think we fully understand or can control Mother Nature. She can bitch slap us into fossil fuel in a blink of an eye...

[Big Train]

How'd you know I was the "Pope?"

Friendship with Satan/Ford?


You're not basing anything on science, just obstification and I could give a shit about your portfolio...

But I'm not making any "claims." You're the one claiming some intimate understanding of why global warming is fake...and my personal attack was better thought out than yours was...

No not really. I literally just said in a previous I'm not saying I'm right. Where anywhere in this thread did I claim I knew the anwsers? I've said that these 700 scientists know far more than anyone of us (go ahead, scroll up). I've just repeatedly asked you, and I will once more, why aren't these guys allowed to speak? That hardly qualifies as obstification. You've just danced around it the question with various tangents about corp. boogeyman and your projections.

[Big Train]

You never added anything to the conversation with the last 3 posts, toolbag.

You haven't in the last three weeks, but who's counting? Could be longer than that.

[bueno bob]

The cool part is that I actually read and can comprehend what I read. It seems, over several years of studying this (say, eight) that global warming has been directly impacted by human beings and the only real argument left is whether or not anything can actually be done about it at this point. Anything else ("It's real!", "It's not!") is a waste of time to me. I've found the answer to be very obvious to anybody who actually listens and thinks a bit.

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) and I'm EXTREMELY conservative with my energy usage and I'm a mad hatter when it comes to recycling.

Of course, in addition to 'doing my part', I keep my electric bills WAY down as well, so the immediate/direct benefit to myself is the biggest bonus. Conservation has many benefits, the most immediate of which is financially. Recycling has it's own benefit on local ecology, which of course impacts globally. I'm no Ed Begley Jr., but I'm not a fool either.

It's not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat, or scientists vs. other scientists. Conservation for financial benefit is a matter of common sense. Some have it - too many don't.

[binnie]

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) .

You and me both - it's amazing how quickly you get used to public transport/walking.....

[kwame k]

The cool part is that I actually read and can comprehend what I read. It seems, over several years of studying this (say, eight) that global warming has been directly impacted by human beings and the only real argument left is whether or not anything can actually be done about it at this point. Anything else ("It's real!", "It's not!") is a waste of time to me. I've found the answer to be very obvious to anybody who actually listens and thinks a bit.

Doesn't stop me from trying to impact it, though. I don't drive any more than I absolutely have to (and carpool when possible, or use public transportation and I have plenty access to it) and I'm EXTREMELY conservative with my energy usage and I'm a mad hatter when it comes to recycling.

Of course, in addition to 'doing my part', I keep my electric bills WAY down as well, so the immediate/direct benefit to myself is the biggest bonus. Conservation has many benefits, the most immediate of which is financially. Recycling has it's own benefit on local ecology, which of course impacts globally. I'm no Ed Begley Jr., but I'm not a fool either.

It's not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat, or scientists vs. other scientists. Conservation for financial benefit is a matter of common sense. Some have it - too many don't.

That's it..........To even think for one second that humans haven't had an impact on this planet is just plain stupid. When rivers catch on fire and you can see the fucking smog in place like California, how the fuck can you say that we are not polluting the fuck out of this planet. Look at Russia and there are areas in that country that are so polluted that nothing can live there and rivers that once flowed are dried up. The Salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest, in some areas are gone.

Look at Mexico City and see how bad the pollution is there. Jesus Christ, it's all around you if you just open your eyes and look.

Yes, I will concede that Scientist don't know the exact extent of the damage we have caused or the exact date when Global Warming will take effect, on that there is debate. Too many factors and what we do now will greatly impact the future.

I've said this before........How can anyone defend pollution and how can anyone think that switching to cleaner alternatives is a bad thing?

To reiterate, does anyone here honestly believe we are not fucking this planet up and have been for 100's of years or at least since the Industrial Revolution.

[Jesus Christ]

Look at Russia and there are areas in that country that are so polluted that nothing can live there and rivers that once flowed are dried up.

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.

[kwame k]

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.

Thanks your Holiness, still waiting on that answer to that thing I was talking to you about last night.

[LoungeMachine]

Thanks your Holiness, still waiting on that answer to that thing I was talking to you about last night.

No, Karen Carpenter will not arise from the dead to marry you.



move on with your life.......

[Seshmeister]

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." - Revelation 8:10-11

Do ye know what the word "Chernobyl" is in English, My son?

Wormwood.

Actually no, not really.

Not that it matters a fuck anyway but no it translates to mugwort.

Wikipedia entry for Chernobyl (Chernobyl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The city is named after the chornobyl' grass, or mugwort. The word itself is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билл�?, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks.

Sometimes it is erroneously translated as wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), with consequent apocalyptic associations, probably originating from a New York Times article by Serge Schmemann, Chernobyl Fallout: Apocalyptic Tale, July 25, 1986. There, an unnamed "prominent Russian writer" was quoted as claming the Ukrainian word for wormwood was chernobyl.

Actually, the Ukrainian Чорнобиль (chornobyl) and its Russian equivalent Чернобыльник (chernobylnik) refer to the plant mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris). Wormwood is a different plant, Artemisia absinthium, Полин in Ukrainian and Полынь in Russian (both pronounced Polyn). "Polyn" has no English equivalent, but corresponds to the botanical genus Artemisia. Botanically, mugwort is "Common Polyn" (Ukr. Полин звичайний / Rus. Полынь Обыкновенна�?); while wormwood is "Bitter Polyn" (Ukr. Полин гіркий / Rus. Полынь горька�?).


Cheers

[kwame k]

No, Karen Carpenter will not arise from the dead to marry you.



move on with your life.......

Damn, can't blame a guy for trying.

[Seshmeister]

Another thing, carbon is a heavier molecule than Oxygen, (20% of the atmosphere) and Nitrogen (80% of the fucking air I wished you'd stop breathing) and therefore, since what comes up comes down to the ground anyways, means nothing we throw up in the air can change the climate a fraction of any amount!

Hahahaha I missed this first time around.

Think about it GAR.

If your theory was true and gasses didn't mix then since oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen then the bottom 20% of the atmosphere, i.e. all the fucking stuff at ground level would be pure oxygen.

Don't light a cigarette anybody, you'll blow up the planet!

But that's only in your planet, back on Earth we have the noble gasses which are all heavier so we would suffocate at sea level.

Of course even a 5th grader knows that gasses mix and we have something called wind and air currents that stimulate this.

Cheers

[kwame k]

Hahahaha I missed this first time around.

Think about it GAR.

If your theory was true and gasses didn't mix then since oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen then the bottom 20% of the atmosphere, i.e. all the fucking stuff at ground level would be pure oxygen.

Don't light a cigarette anybody, you'll blow up the planet!

But that's only in your planet, back on Earth we have the noble gasses which are all heavier so we would suffocate at sea level.

Of course even a 5th grader knows that gasses mix and we have something called wind and air currents that stimulate this.

Cheers

Herein lies si-gar's problem, he's dumber than a 5th grader.