Global Warming - A real viable threat or scientific rhetoric?

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by jaguar75, May 3, 2005.

  1. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    ohh man. this is really starting to work my nerves...

    Since everyone has gone off on a tangent I will bring it all back into focus...

    I DO NOT like pollution, Not becasue it destroys the planet but because it is unhealthy, smells bad and makes my water taste like crap

    I DO NOT believe in de-forestation without re-forestation programs in place and re-cycling programs that exceed 80%...not because killing the trees reduces the oxygen content but becasue it DOES increase erosion and cause mudslides and changes the natural beauty of alot of landscapes and has severely disrupted many a habitat.

    I DO NOT believe in over fishing from the oceans...I think that farm raised fish are just fine...

    I may be a strong conservative but I am not a gas guzzling cyborg without compassion who wants to live in a machine world.

    I just WILL NOT BE TOLD by extremeists with personal agendas that WE, the collective human race, are destroying the ozone layer with reckless abandon and if we don't stop we will all die in 30 years...I have seen NO proof that was not self-serving or unbiased that supports that...NONE...and the reason I started this thread was to see if there was anyone out there who could provide this viewpoint.
     


  2. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually David...I don't subscribe to anyone...My brother and sister love Rush...I pesonally think he is a wind bag...I have a friend that loves to watch Bill Mahr so he can laugh, I tried to watch him once to get a laugh as well and I ended up so furious I had to add 5 miles of sprinting on my next ride just to let it go...He is more than a wind bag he is fu#$ing ass. The only people I can really relate to are non political figures. My 2 favorite people, which I think I relate to the most, are Richard Jeni and David Chappelle, two comedians. Both are generally neutral and equally make fun of everyone and don't let their personal politics interfere with that. I am also a strong conservative on a lot of issues...I really don't know what I am...Maybe a mutt perhaps...that would also support my heratige! :)
     
  3. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will start by stating that I am no scientist. My view is that as long as emissions occur in nature (CO2, Phosphorous, ect...), the planet can deal w/ it. On the other hand, on can look at melting glaciers (Peru) & ice caps (The Artic) & concievably draw conclusions. Human produced, CO2 emissions increase the heat level in our atmosphere thus melting the aforementioned resulting in a loss of fresh water, which was once ice; to the sea resulting in higher sea levels. Good bye Manhatten (New Orleans, for that matter ;) )
    http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Polar_Ice.pdf
     
  4. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we can't...that is the problem...There have been numerous ice ages and periods of rapid heat rise on this planet at a time when there were no machines...What casued it those times and could it be the same reasons now...That is the question...Show me research on this...

    this is the same logic that if you have a large lake and drop a large ship in it and when the tide is higher than normal just say get that ship out of there the tide is too high...well, no just because you see a large ship in a large lake and a high tide can you assume that it is the culprit.





    Nice touch!!!
     
  5. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of this happened before the advent of human produced, carbon burning, machinery. Do you know how many auto's there are on the road in the U.s. That doesn't even take into acct. the emissions from Mexico (leaded fuel), China, & India. More carbon=less oxygen/higher temp's. I don't know about you but, I & others need oxygen.
     
  6. Darjevon

    Darjevon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to "spout off" I guess... And yet as we all know i hate hippies... Does that make me a total "hippy-crite?"
     
  7. Darjevon

    Darjevon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    I HATE dave chapelle... he's a poor excuse for a comedian. Aside from the fact that he is merely cashing in on people who laugh at crude language and racist comments as a reflex, the show is not funny! P.S. I am not saying this simply because he comes of looking republican... I found the FOX tv sitcom Wanda at Large a lot funnier. quoting Wanda, "Ill give up my SUV when the president trades his Air Force One for a bus pass." Obviously, it was a very right wing show, before its cancellation :(
     
  8. zapper

    zapper Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    My dear CPX....those two questions came from my Geology 101 text book...The sandstone question is so simple and obvious its pitiful....

    If you can't answer a general question within you field of expertise....... Well, I am sorry it appears you are not a "geologist" or even a "man of science" at all...CR, I told you...so I suggest you take your pass back...

    In other words, if I were to ask a neurologist about the function of the heart or lungs etc...he/she would be able to answer that question even though he/she is not a (Cardiologist or Pulmonologist)...My professor...(A real Geologist) could have answered either question in about 2 seconds...He could identify minerals blindfolded simply by taste and smell etc...You sir are no Geologist.
     
  9. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    drives a magnetic field?...

    do you mean generates a magnetic field?

    no one knows for sure but the earth's molten core of iron and nickel are key to its magnetic and electric fields.
     
  10. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sandstone ...

    Well what answer were you looking for? That it's sedimentary? That it's usually made of silica and feldspar? That it has bedding? That it keeps a record of how it was deposited? That you can find it on beaches in the Yucatan? That Durham Cathedral is made from bricks of it? That it can host deposits of Iron and Tin?

    What? Since I don't think about sandstone in terms of Geology 101 anymore, what is so special about it?
     
  11. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the answer Mountain it was a test for our geologist...and you are correct the convective activity of the molten Iron core of the planet is what generates the magnetic field of the planet. Its basically just a huge electrical generator...

    Drives/generates...same difference...
     
  12. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's called the Dynamo Theory (my post #74).
     
  13. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are going to take such passion in an issue, I would encourage you to educate yourself about it. At moment, I don't believe you are.

    Perhaps on ozone depletion, do a search on the NASA or NOAA websites.

    You needn’t look very far to find Liberal rhetoric on such a contentious issue as Climate Change …. it stands to reason that somewhere out there, perhaps, a little Conservative rhetoric can also be found.

    You need to look a little further to find truly non-partisan, scientific opinions.
     
  14. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    A couple of months ago, the BBC's Horizon program covered the issue of Global warming an climate change.

    The first half of the program detailed scientific studies which statistically prove that emmissions levels from gases in to the earths atmosphere have increased each year since 1945.
    The statistical data was presented from a variety of research units at various locations throughout the world, which proves the assertions that emmissions are increasing.

    However, the second half of the program concentrated on the danger of the increased emissions.
    In simple terms, the emmissions rise in to the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect.
    But they also cause the amount of sunlight to penetrate the earths atmosphere to reduce, as emmission levels increase.
    Thus there is a double whammy.
    Scientific data from around the world shows that water moisture evaporation levels are decreasing.
    Water evaporates through heat from the sun. But the heat and light from the sun is prevented from doing their job through the volume of emmissions in to the earths atmosphere.
    Thus water levels are rising in corralation with emmission level increases.

    The program detailed research by a guy in the USA who studies the effect of
    airplane vapour in the atmosphere.
    His readings show that for the past 20 years, the correlation of the effect of emmissions in relation to volumes of light/heat from the sun.
    The only time sun light/heat readings increased in his research in the last 20
    years on our planet, was during the period 11th September 2001 to 14th September 2001.
    These dates correspond to the time when all flights in the USA were effectively grounded.
    During that time period, his research shows that volumes of heat and light from the sun, actually increased at ground/sea levels.
     
  15. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
  17. lumpy

    lumpy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1

    Great post. It's too bad the naysayers will dismiss IPCC as more "liberal extremists" trying to shove their ideology down their throat.
    :(
     
  18. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    sorry, in future i'll read all the posts so that i know what youre talking about...:D
     
  19. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    now now, there is no need for sarcasm...:D
     
  20. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    I'm serious, I will read those links.

    I think global warming/climate change is happening and that we're being told a pack of lies by the goverment and those who want to drill for oil in the Arctic.
     
Loading...
Loading...