RE: Global warming??

RE: Global warming?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 4:06:42 PM)
And my statement was in a brief reply to someone asking about the impact of a healthy US economy on the health of the rest of the world's economy. You mentioned that requirements for produce under NAFTA created part of the corn price increases in Mexico, suggesting (to me at least), that you think this was a bad thing. Do you think we should just allow Mexican trucks to be running in and around your work under the safety standards of Mexico as well? But thanks for illustrating that imposing all kinds of new standards can have a damaging impact on economies, starting with those who can least afford it.

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 4:49:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And my statement was in a brief reply to someone asking about the impact of a healthy US economy on the health of the rest of the world's economy. You mentioned that requirements for produce under NAFTA created part of the corn price increases in Mexico, suggesting (to me at least), that you think this was a bad thing. Do you think we should just allow Mexican trucks to be running in and around your work under the safety standards of Mexico as well? I dont really do the good thing / bad thing paradigm. It is definitely a thing. The United States imposing our standards or whatever on other countries alters the system space. The Middle East is a system space which has had the United States imposing standards on for years. It will find it's equilibrium. From what I can see, the equilibrium it ends up finding will be less positive and more negative in terms of people. Which is not to say it would not get there eventually, I just wish AnencephalyBoy used those bazillion dollars he spent there on finding a more rational energy source and infrastructure for the United States. The United States imposing our standards on Mexico screwed their economy up bigtime. I am not sure what you mean by the truck comment, or what relevance that has to either corn riots, global warming, or products from China. We have lots of truckers driving around the harbor all day and night, but with the Patriot Act, most or all of these now have green cards or are US citizens. Please clarify. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 5:36:35 PM)
I figured you would puzzle out that I was referring to truck maintenance standards of Mexico vs. US Department of Transportation regulations, rather than the nationality of the specific drivers, Sinergy. Since we've already trashed the Mexican economy imposing our regulations, I assume you are in favor of sharing your workspace with trucks inspected and maintained in Tijuana to avoid further damaging it. I certainly appreciate your contributions on how imposing change on an economy to protect consumers can have disastrous results. In my reply to Noah, I pointed out that the people trying to dictate change to the US actively hate us and, at best, are pretty clueless about how a free market and Capitalism work. I have no doubt a person of your intellect can imagine the consequences.

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 7:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I figured you would puzzle out that I was referring to truck maintenance standards of Mexico vs. US Department of Transportation regulations Seems a bit non-sequiter. I never argued that Mexican truck drivers should not adhere to US traffic laws. Sinergy

Joseff -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:12:28 PM)
CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff

Joseff -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:16:20 PM)
Look it up yourself, its easily available. I know that adherants to the global warming theory only give the evidence that supports them, but you should always go to the trouble to examine all evidence before making your decision. That is what I did. Joseff

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster There are things we can do now to slow the acceleration, and if we're very prudent about emissions, then over time the warming trend will reverse itself. Greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere today will remain there for years, but not forever. And to all the motherfuckers who want to turn this into yet another "I don't believe in global warming it's a goddamned hoax I mean all those evil scientists I hate them HATE them I tell you" thread--well, be my guest. neither have i seen you in any of my threads rooting for hydrogen cars that actually purify and burn carbon from the air where only clean purified air comes out the tail pipe. To me it seems most only give it lip global warming service.

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff Since you examined all the evidence, how do you explain the CO2 level rise since the industrial revolution (and accompanying temperature increase) and the Carbon isotope increase that only results from burning fossil fuels, not having something to do with global warming? Presumably, you could provide us with a dissertation on the carbon feedback cycle and the increase of methane in the atmosphere. I was asking somebody else how to explain the loss of 36 cubic miles of Antarctic ice on another thread, and with their vast body of expertise they came up with a bunch of posts about computer modelling difficulties. If you would be willing to clarify the relationship between 36 cubic miles of ice melting and the non-occurrence of global warming for him, I am sure he would welcome your expertise. So fun to ask self-annointed experts to explain their theories. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff Global warming is a hoax. I've seen what passes for the science behind it, and I am not convinced. Joseff How come the folks who have actually spent their lives learning how the Earth's climate works disagree? ou ou ou! i know this one! because they make money by selling oil!!!!

domiguy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff A truly unbelievable post.

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:44:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff A truly unbelievable post. people may want to explain why reverend al's chart, the co2 goes off the scal without a corresponding temperature rise eh? considering he invented the interenet n all...

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 8:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff A truly unbelievable post. people may want to explain why reverend al's chart, the co2 goes off the scal without a corresponding temperature rise eh? considering he invented the interenet n all... Go figure. Sinergy p.s. Been a while since I saw Inconvenient Truth. Dont remember if they discussed the carbon isotope issue.

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 9:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff CO2 levels are a symptom of temperature, not the other way around. Get a good close look at that chart, you'll notice that as often as not, the rise in CO2 happens a few years after the rise in temperature. Joseff A truly unbelievable post. people may want to explain why reverend al's chart, the co2 goes off the scal without a corresponding temperature rise eh? considering he invented the interenet n all... Go figure. Sinergy p.s. Been a while since I saw Inconvenient Truth. Dont remember if they discussed the carbon isotope issue. yeh un employee rev al was standing up on a ladder to show how high the carbon is today on the chart as compared to past historical events and you could see the temp took a noticeable down tick which of course i had to chuckle over a bit since the carbon was some 4 times higher lol. burning pure hydrogen in internal combustions engines "purifies" the airof everything, carbon included LOL http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm

popeye1250 -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 9:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 People who "want" to believe in global warming will do so no matter how much scientific evidence exists to the contrary. Even when it is proven beyond any doubt that it doesn't exist they'll still "believe" because they have that "Anal-Retentive" type of personality. ...sorry Popeye, but the only debate between those who put facts over opinion is over whether or not there is a human influence on global warming. The idea that it is happening is simply not a supposition or an opinion....it is simply reporting the observable facts. It does seem, however, that those who wish to disbelieve global warming will do so no matter how much scientific research you put in front of them, as they prefer to believe the words of pundits with agendas. If global warming has a manmade component then only global action will do anything about it. There exist, particulary in the states, a body of opinion that is ideologically opposed to acting globally. These people are the antiscientific ones Popeye, because they ignore the scientific opinion in favour of an ideological one. As for anal-retentiveness......i'm sure that soon there'll be a visine for that [:D] See what I mean?

DomKen -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 9:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne burning pure hydrogen in internal combustions engines "purifies" the airof everything, carbon included LOL I know it is pointless and utterly futile but this abuse of basic chemistry is just too much. Burning hydrogen gets you H2O or maybe H2O2. Anybody telling you that burning H2 in a mixed air medium is going to break down the CO2 so as to oxidize that O2 that instead of the free O2 is telling lies. How burning hydrogen would purify the air of particulates, any of the sulphur compounds or any of the other air pollutants out there is utterly beyond me.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 9:48:43 PM)
Check out the web pages of any of the world leading scientific acadamies (the top one in each country) [/quote] [/quote] That's COMMENTARY, NOT DATA.- farglebargle -YOU don't deal in data, or trends or mergins of error or probability, you have a fixed closed view and refuse to move from it. Then you try to make out that because there are a few (bloody loads) of unknowns, and because there is some doubt that it means there is no validity. Even if it were proved in 200 years time that climate change was not human induced, based upon the current information, and the estimated costs of the imapct, and the investment required to mitigate against some of the effects, it is sound global economics to make that investment. To use your own words - DO YOUR OWN THINKING, and one aspect is to realise that you are not a world expert on global fiscal policy, and a world expert on solar radiation, and carbon dynamics chemistry, and superstarta physics..... etc, so check out the summaries and "information for policy setters sections of their reports. Do your own thinking, don't just regurgitate what other people TELL YOU is correct. Scientists rarely tell, they provide degrees of certainty, have you ever actually read any of the basic science or do you just reguritate....... LOL? As I have put in previous forums on climate change, the links to the IPCC reports and substantiating data. There should be enough reading to last you about three months, by which time I should be back on the forum. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html [/quote]

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 10:43:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne burning pure hydrogen in internal combustions engines "purifies" the airof everything, carbon included LOL I know it is pointless and utterly futile but this abuse of basic chemistry is just too much. Burning hydrogen gets you H2O or maybe H2O2. Anybody telling you that burning H2 in a mixed air medium is going to break down the CO2 so as to oxidize that O2 that instead of the free O2 is telling lies. How burning hydrogen would purify the air of particulates, any of the sulphur compounds or any of the other air pollutants out there is utterly beyond me. i was not aware particulates were the part of the warming problem. so your point then that a hydrogen explosion will not separate and burn off the oxygen from co2?

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 10:51:39 PM)
speaking of global warming has anyone looked into the warming effects of all the DU we are spreading around the ME?

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 1:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff Look it up yourself, its easily available. I know that adherants to the global warming theory only give the evidence that supports them, but you should always go to the trouble to examine all evidence before making your decision. That is what I did. Joseff Please provide this data which disproves the hypothesis.

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 1:38:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac farglebargle -YOU don't deal in data, or trends or mergins of error or probability, you have a fixed closed view and refuse to move from it. Do I? What, tell us all, is my "Fixed Closed View"? You posted a link to a review of the literature, which is fine, I guess, if all you care for is opinion. I scanned chapter 2, and didn't see a whole lot in the way of citations, or any raw data, particularly.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875