ATG
Banned
+5,233|6730|Global Command
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711

The color glossy 64 page booklet -- previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.
Don't believe in global warming, but too inarticulate to form a cohesive argument?
This is for you. Paid for with tax dollars.
Amen.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6944|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Boring, those who argue that there is no connection between pollution and global Warming, are no different than those who argued vehemently that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (which was also paid for by tax dollars)

Next?
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6595|The Gem Saloon

IG-Calibre wrote:

Boring, those who argue that there is no connection between pollution and global Warming, are no different than those who argued vehemently that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (which was also paid for by tax dollars)

Next?
wait...are you telling me that my dear cigarettes will give me cancer??
oh god i thought they just put that on the box to scare kids....
/sarcasm/
although im not very familiar with all the information regarding global warming, i can say that i do think that humans have definitly had an effect, i just cant say how much.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6606|North Carolina
I'm sure this was funded in part by ExxonMobil.  Nevertheless, have fun...  Let the destruction continue.

As I've said before, I hope the skeptics are right, but even if they aren't, the process of global warming is so slow it will likely only affect our children and grandchildren.  Too bad for them.  My suggestion is to not have kids, just in case.
EVieira
Member
+105|6679|Lutenblaag, Molvania

US Governments Enviromental Protection Agency wrote:

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

    * Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
    * The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
    * A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
    * The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
    * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Top of page
What's Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" (IPCC, 2001). In short, a number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

Top of page
What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

    * Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
    * Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
    * Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
    * Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change3.

Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)4. The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information5.

Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include "very likely" (90-99% chance the result is true) and "likely" (66-90% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001).
What does all that mean? I'll sum it up:

That greenhpuse gases exist and that they help keep the earth nice and cosy is a FACT. That CO2 is one of those gases is a FACT, water vapor and methane are also greenhouse gases. if you want other sources than the EPA, there's plenty on net and libraries.

We humans are burning billions os barrels of oil every day, that is a FACT. These billions of barrels produce millions of tons of CO2 (and also carbon monoxide, a poisous side effect of ineficien iol burning), that is also a FACT.

That this CO2 we humans a producing contribute to to global warning SEEMS PRETTY GODAMN PLAUSIBLE, considering the rate we are burning oil and the first fact I stated.

Scientists COULD BE WRONG, but at the moment NOONE (except maybe ATG and his goverment lobbied sources) know for sure. We will only know for sure 50 or a 100 years from now when it it will be TOO DAMN LATE to do much.

So we can sit on our asses and keep buying hummers, or we can make and effort to polute less. The WORST thing that could happen if we became a little less poluting is that we would have a cleaner world. But some powerful people think otherwise...

Last edited by EVieira (2006-12-09 10:32:06)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6568|Columbus, Ohio
Duck and Cover.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6606|North Carolina

EVieira wrote:

So we can sit on our asses and keep buying hummers, or we can make and effort to polute less. The WORST thing that could happen if we became a little less poluting is that we would have a cleaner world. But some powerful people think otherwise...
Well...  there is one thing to be gained from all this....  If we pollute enough, we can end this virus of a species that we have become.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6730|Global Command

EVieira wrote:

US Governments Enviromental Protection Agency wrote:

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

    * Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
    * The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
    * A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
    * The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
    * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Top of page
What's Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" (IPCC, 2001). In short, a number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

Top of page
What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

    * Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
    * Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
    * Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
    * Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change3.

Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)4. The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information5.

Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include "very likely" (90-99% chance the result is true) and "likely" (66-90% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001).
What does all that mean? I'll sum it up:

That greenhpuse gases exist and that they help keep the earth nice and cosy is a FACT. That CO2 is one of those gases is a FACT, water vapor and methane are also greenhouse gases. if you want other sources than the EPA, there's plenty on net and libraries.

We humans are burning billions os barrels of oil every day, that is a FACT. These billions of barrels produce millions of tons of CO2 (and also carbon monoxide, a poisous side effect of ineficien iol burning), that is also a FACT.

That this CO2 we humans a producing contribute to to global warning SEEMS PRETTY GODAMN PLAUSIBLE, considering the rate we are burning oil and the first fact I stated.

Scientists COULD BE WRONG, but at the moment NOONE (except maybe ATG and his goverment lobbied sources) know for sure. We will only know for sure 50 or a 100 years from now when it it will be TOO DAMN LATE to do much.

So we can sit on our asses and keep buying hummers, or we can make and effort to polute less. The WORST thing that could happen if we became a little less poluting is that we would have a cleaner world. But some powerful people think otherwise...
Silly, I was not trying to bait you into an argument about global warming.
I think the argument should be " What the hell is my tax dollars being spent on this shit for?"


Why don't all these bright intellectual people stop wasting time on the cumbustion engine and lets have some new technology?
Why do all these bright intellectual people want to start wasting time on trying to correct global warming?
Wouldn't enforement of existing treaties regarding industrial pollution, combined with stricter emission requirements for new cars a factories solve the problem if it can be solved?
A new fuel for cars would help end the cycles of violence in the Mid East.

Just remember, these same people were crying about global cooling 25 years ago when I was in 5th grade.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6606|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Silly, I was not trying to bait you into an argument about global warming.
I think the argument should be " What the hell is my tax dollars being spent on this shit for?"


Why don't all these bright intellectual people stop wasting time on the cumbustion engine and lets have some new technology?
Why do all these bright intellectual people want to start wasting time on trying to correct global warming?
Wouldn't enforement of existing treaties regarding industrial pollution, combined with stricter emission requirements for new cars a factories solve the problem if it can be solved?
A new fuel for cars would help end the cycles of violence in the Mid East.

Just remember, these same people were crying about global cooling 25 years ago when I was in 5th grade.
Good points...  I think you know the answer to that though.  Oil companies intentionally buy whatever competitive technologies are developed in alternative energy, so that they can strangle the progress of moving away from oil.  They essentially decide when the rest of us can advance.

That is the unfortunate result of corporate consolidation run amok.  Capitalism is slowly becoming a gigantic oligarchy that chokes the life out of consumer rights and technological advancement.

Nowadays, it's all about planned obsolescence and raping the consumer as much as possible (while raping the environment without a second thought).
EVieira
Member
+105|6679|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:

Silly, I was not trying to bait you into an argument about global warming.
I think the argument should be " What the hell is my tax dollars being spent on this shit for?"
Ok, my bad. In that case I agree with you then

ATG wrote:

Why don't all these bright intellectual people stop wasting time on the combustion engine and lets have some new technology?
Why do all these bright intellectual people want to start wasting time on trying to correct global warming?
The people that are researching the environment are doing an important job, but thats their line of research. I probably know more about combustion engines then they do. No one is trying to correct the greenhouse effect, it can't be "fixed". Its physics, unfortunately CO2 absorvs infrared radiation (heat).

ATG wrote:

Wouldn't enforement of existing treaties regarding industrial pollution, combined with stricter emission requirements for new cars a factories solve the problem if it can be solved?
A new fuel for cars would help end the cycles of violence in the Mid East.

Just remember, these same people were crying about global cooling 25 years ago when I was in 5th grade.
The US refuses to sign most international agreements on pollution emission, even though they are responsible for over a third of the atmosphere pollution of the WORLD.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6730|Global Command
Well, the agreements are usually written in a way that will be punative for America.

I've said it before, I support the death penalty for repeat industrial polluters.
EVieira
Member
+105|6679|Lutenblaag, Molvania

ATG wrote:

Well, the agreements are usually written in a way that will be punative for America.

I've said it before, I support the death penalty for repeat industrial polluters.
Its not punitive to america, its punitive to american society. But not because the agreements are one-sided, its because the consumist society that has developed in the States since WW2 is responsible for ALOT of pollution. There's probably more cars in US than there are people, but the agreements don't need you to have less cars. They just ask you to have less polluting ones, and keep the 69 Mustang in the garage until the weekend.

PS.: My brother does have a 69 Mustang

Last edited by EVieira (2006-12-09 11:34:40)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6606|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

I've said it before, I support the death penalty for repeat industrial polluters.
Nice...  I like that.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6850

I'm on both sides with global warming. I hate pollution and wish we had far stricter laws about it. However at the same time, I've seen a lot of data that both supports and disproves it, so I'm kind of in a spilt mind about whether it is down to us. I think something like 20% of the CO2 produced is thanks to us, the rest is due to naturally occurring processes. There is also the theory that the Earth's climate changes naturally anyway, and what were doing isn't affecting it a whole bunch. But yes, I'm all for killing polluters as well.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6730|Global Command
Oh ya, those asshole who dump solvents into rivers and leave barrels of waste oil in parking lots should be fined harshly. After three convictions, its the needle for ya.

These guys on the other hand, should have had their boat siezed and scraped and the ships hand forced into labor in the diamond mines. The companies owner should be sent to prison for life or executed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061124/sc … 1124134802

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard