Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 100

Thread: Seizing Natural Climate Change by Politicans!

  1. #11
    Registered Users hbh2oguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa Bear View Post
    We are fighting a war yet we aren't willing to sacrifice the "Conveniences" that might be taken away from us in order to give others freedom! I hear people say we should be spending the money on us rather than fighting a war! Again we are worried that we are not getting our fair share! But by not being there we will have no say as to the free flow of oil and we will see $15.00 a gallon gas! We won't drill our own again because some "Greenie" won't let us! SO don't ever bitch about the price of fuel if your not willing to be smart about it! We have the answer to plentiful energy, but we can't build nuclear plants again because of the Greenies!
    Take a look at this article:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._changed_lives


    Is the free flow of oil really worth it? By any chance do you know who one of our largest imports is?

  2. #12
    Registered Users
    City
    Calgary
    Country
    Canada
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thalassamania View Post
    The critical piece of global change evidence that is being ignored (because it is perhaps a bit more difficult to understand) is the rate of CO2 production. The best analogy I can make is that we're traveling down the highway, we're still under the speed limit, but the accelerator is to floor and it is stuck. We need to unjam the throttle, lift our foot off the accelerator and step on the brake before we are way over the limit and traveling at a speed that guarantees a fatal crash.

    Warmer here, colder there, none of that matters. What someone conjectured thirty years ago is entirely irrelevant. Science improves with time, but predicting anything that is outside of your actual data set is always fraught with problems. The error bars on climatological data were so large thirty years ago that meaningful prediction was just this side of witchcraft, that's not so today. There is no doubt amongst the science community that on average things are warming up and that clearly observable phenomena correlates with anthropogenic CO2 production. All the details are not known, and hopefully never will be known, for the only way to know them in complete detail is to actually change the climate significantly. Enough data is in that most all scientists feel that we need to take the question seriously.
    I have no doubt that CO@ emissions need to be controlled. That would be just part of the pollution I was referring too. The opinion I was stating is that the part played in " Global Warming " is merely a theory, an educated guess, NOT as some would think fact. I do not dispute that science has improved over the last thirty years. But when people are creating computer models of the past, to predict the future. They are still entering Temperature data that was collected in the past.

    I am a software engineer, I can make a computer simulation tell me anything "I" want. depending on the "fact" I would like prove.



    The question now is, what will science prove 30 yrs from now? it's just a guess.

    Hypotheticaly it's possible that in 1490, The leading scientific minds were stating to the King, that science is so advanced now that we can state conclusively that the world is indeed flat.

    Just a thought.
    "From birth, man carries the weight of gravity on his shoulders. He is bolted to earth. But man has only to sink beneath the surface and he is free.”
    Jacque Cousteau

  3. #13
    Registered Users hbh2oguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad View Post
    I
    I am a software engineer, I can make a computer simulation tell me anything "I" want. depending on the "fact" I would like prove.

    Just a thought.
    I fully agree that you can manipulate data to tell you what every you want but that's not really the case with global warming. At the last conference(forgot the name of it but the big one with all the nations on global warming) over 80% of the scientists from around the world agreed that global warming is real. Scientists NEVER agree so maybe this whole global warming things isn't really a myth. I wasn't sold on the idea of global warmig untill I looked at the data and studies for myself.

  4. #14
    Registered Users
    City
    Calgary
    Country
    Canada
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    63

    Default I Agree

    I am not in denial of the fact, that the earth's climate is changing. Just stating my opinion that carbon emissions theory is just that a theory. And that I am tired of politicians using this issue to deflect attention away from other issues.
    "From birth, man carries the weight of gravity on his shoulders. He is bolted to earth. But man has only to sink beneath the surface and he is free.”
    Jacque Cousteau

  5. #15
    Registered Users hbh2oguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    632

    Default

    I agree that it is just a theory because it's next to impossible to make anything related to science a fact.

  6. #16
    Photo & Videographer Papa Bear's Avatar
    City
    Beaumont
    State
    Kalifornia
    Country
    USSA
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    We have to go back to the basics on what is a fact in science! Something that can be recreated in the lab with the same proof more than once! When they run the computer models backwards we don't get the weather this decade! Venus and Mars are warmer so the conclusion in an open system is always the simplest! The earth has gone through periods of much higher Co2 than today! As a diver we should all know this! O2 is 20.9% and Nitrogen is 79% and Co2 is .046% up from .042 so we are talking about free Carbon change of 4 thousands of a percent! My god have we lost our minds? The more Co2 in the air the more plants utilize it and make o2! The free carbon is then trapped in the plant!

    It really doesn't matter if its your religion your going to believe whatever your going to find serves your political outcome that you see as beneficial to you point of view!

    Bama, The AMQD announced that no more would burning fire places will be allowed! In addition they will announce no burn days and all would must now pass inspection and be certified for burning!

    hbh, I am not here to teach a science class about how a study should be set up, but I do know how Coral lives and dies! I know coral is hard to keep living in aquariums because of the circulation required! So just putting a plastic bag on it is enough to kill it!

    WE have a lot of bad science out there!

    Conrad, the world is full of people who are self righteous and have no other argument than that of your form! It's an old lawyer trick! If you can't debate them on fact win on form without substance! I had no problem understanding what you wrote and agree with it!

    The fact is the world will warm and it will cool and we either adapt, move on, or die!

    As fare as oil, it is the best we have for now! Technology will move us beyond todays technology in short order! Alcohol is pure carbon! So we gain nothing! If Carbon is your argument!

    We are not allowed to drill even though technology has come a long way! We are not allowed to build Nuclear Plants because Tree Huggers don't understand the technology! We chose to feel good rather than do the right thing! So we have boxed ourselves by allowing "Nomads" to claim ownership of the oil! Now we have enemies who want to see us brought to our knees and will use oil to do so! We have more known oil reserves now than we did 30 years ago! You pollute more Co2 by walking a mile than a car does burning fuel for the same mile! Oil is the life blood of an industrial civilization! We may not like the truth but it is what it is! Corn based Alcohol is $9.00 per gallon and hard to transport! It is also a bad use of resources! WE need to understand that Oil companies are publicly owned companies that provide a product that we need!

    We give money to the largest Ag company Archer Daniel Midland to provide us with corn and their Stock has tripled in the last 10 years! Not bad for a stock that never moved above $15.00 in its history!

    We live in the greatest times the earth has ever seen and we have put humans on the moon and brought them back! We have been to the bottom of the sea and sent satellites past the outer boundaries of our solar system!
    We will figure it out if we let natural market forces work and trust capitalism to build a better mouse trap! We will solve our problems if we move beyond politics and the need to control everyone! You can't save yourself into being a millionaire any more than you can save our way out of oil and energy problems! We need low cost oil until we have enough Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, and yes Nuclear!

    The old oil platforms along the California coast have made beautiful reefs! We need more!
    Last edited by Papa Bear; 03-09-2008 at 03:32 AM.
    May all your dreams be wet ones! Visit us at Twotankedproductions.com
    Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/

  7. #17
    Registered Users hbh2oguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    632

    Default

    I fully agree it was bad science and that the coral can die very easily but I was wondering how you can claim that DDT wasn't a problem?

  8. #18
    Registered Users hbh2oguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    632

    Default

    oh yea feel free to come up and shake a few tree sitters out of their trees. I walk by them pratically every day to class and I'm getting sick of them. Enough is enough, how long are you going to stay up there. Isn't months long enough!

  9. #19
    Photo & Videographer Papa Bear's Avatar
    City
    Beaumont
    State
    Kalifornia
    Country
    USSA
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Again, thanks for being so open minded! I used to know the full name of the compound, but it's been a long time! You really have read Trashing the Planet! Mrs. Ray goes into the scientific reasons, but in the 50s people were dusted with it for years and never showed any illness or problems! The only place the compounds don't breakdown is Dark Loams were they stay in tact for a longer time! There was never any scientific evidence that it was poisonous to anything more than insects! You hear all the time about lawyers wanting to sue for asbestos used in the forties! IF DDT was a problem there would be adds on TV!
    May all your dreams be wet ones! Visit us at Twotankedproductions.com
    Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/

  10. #20
    Photo & Videographer Papa Bear's Avatar
    City
    Beaumont
    State
    Kalifornia
    Country
    USSA
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane

    DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a half life of 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils. Its half life is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic). These processes generally occur slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[24] These products together are known as total DDT.

    DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program and "moderately hazardous" by WHO.[32] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[33] Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning

    The above like Global Warming was controversial because of the why the test were done! The impact is not the same depending on climate!

    A 2004 editorial in the British Medical Journal argues that the campaign against malaria is failing, that funding of malaria control should therefore be increased, and that use of DDT should be considered since DDT has "a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions.
    Last edited by Papa Bear; 03-09-2008 at 04:25 AM.
    May all your dreams be wet ones! Visit us at Twotankedproductions.com
    Reed's Rod dive Tool Please help save the worlds Coral reefs! http://safemooringfoundation.org/

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •