| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<0> there's a big difference between dust in the air and ****ing smog
<1> CFC's? Where have you been, they have been cutting those out for 20 years
<2> it wouldnt matter in either case global warming or global cooling, the doomsayers will have a catastrophic scenario in either event
<3> TheTailor volcanos don't cause much polution, that is a total myth
<2> what we perceive as normal isnt necessarily normal
<3> that you would never even hear suggested by anybody from academia
<1> wiretapp, you are an ill informed fool.
<0> wire: its not a myth. volcanos have been linked to weather change. but its very localized and non-temporary
<3> TheTailor hmmm I think you should check your facts about volcanos and quit listening to Rush
<4> hehe
<0> manmade global warming is like taking all the volcanos on the planet and turning them on constantly
<3> and what is causing that red line on my mirc anybody know?
<0> at a lower rate of output
<1> wiretapp, I don't listen to Rush, you obviously jump to conclusions without facts.
<5> long live capitalism!
<0> tailor: well, you take facts and ignore them
<1> beeper1, what facts?
<6> <0> tailor: well, you take facts and ignore them <--- that didn't even make sense
<0> the evidence of global warming
<6> that's like... "you take them, and then you don't take them"
<4> http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in20
<1> beeper1, I didn't ignore global warming, I just know it's a natural event.
<5> they ignore the fact that 911 was an inside job too
<5> tv is very brainwashing
<0> tailor: its a natural event, at times, but you are saying there's no manmade factor at all?
<4> I saw a report on the news about the decline in water for agriculture from snowpack
<1> beeper1, building a fire contributes
<0> sigh
<4> I dunno how representative it is
<3> TheTailor I jumped to that conclusion because Rush was the guy who started that myth about volcanos
<1> beeper1, but man's effect is small at best.
<3> As the aerosols grow and coagulate, they settle down into the upper troposphere where they serve as nuclei for cirrus clouds and further modify the Earth's radiation balance. Most of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are
<3> dissolved in water droplets in the eruption cloud and quickly fall to the ground as acid rain. The injected ash also falls rapidly from the stratosphere; most of it is removed within several days to a few weeks.
<0> "building a fire contributes" is the equivocation bull**** that republicans use to justify pollution
<4> it can be natural, but isn't necessarily due (entirely) to natural (non-man-made) causes now
<0> tailor: and what do you base that on besides opinion
<1> wiretapp, 1.) it's not a myth, and 2.) Rush is a boob, you shouldn't be watching him.
<4> Tailor: agree in re: Rush :)
<5> mans effect is HUGE, look at the mercury in the fish for example
<3> TT total myth, look it up on google
<0> yeah no **** blaaz
<1> wiretapp, nobody 'justifies' polution, and I certainly never did.
<6> Volcanos don't release CFCs and HCFCs
<0> the only science that has ever been put out against global warming is sponsored by oil companies
<1> KoBushi, correct
<3> In fact volcanos someitmes cause cooling
<4> blaaz: finally you post something sensible - heavy metals from industry is a big problem
<5> HUGE
<1> wiretapp, right, by blocking wunlight
<7> question. Is the planet warming?
<7> A. Yes. Since records began around 1860, globally-averaged surface temperatures have been rising (see figure "Variations of the Earth's Surface Temperature"). Eleven of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1990, and the five warmest of all have occurred in the last seven years (in descending order: 2002, 1998, 2003, 2001, 1997). Because of these recent extremes, the pace at which average global temperatures have been rising, whic
<1> sunlight
<0> volcanos caused cooling when george washington was president...the delaware river was ice...ive been to the deleware river, its not ice now
<4> not to mention other industrial pollution; I don't know of a single river or even well water source nearby that's totally safe by EPA standards in my part of the state
<1> Linus--, you are absolutely full of ****, NO records of world wide temps were available in 1860, none.
<8> buahaha Taliban got their ***es kicked
<0> taliban are still there
<1> Linus--, in fact, there were NONE in 1950.
<4> there were widespread measurements
<1> At best
<0> there's no point in debating science with tailor if his head is in the sand.
<9> TT....Captain Greenfreak ison the job!!
<4> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
<9> Go Greenfreak!
<8> Cry, you mean Al Gore?
<4> specifically: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#222
<0> it's up to timor to prove global warming isn't happening due to man, not the other way around. man-made global warming is accepted science
<1> beeper1, there's no sense in you debating it, because you have a lack of understanding when it comes to the natural process.
<9> 426 Captain Greefreak is my name for Captain Planet
<3> F. Sherwood Rowland was surprised by all the volcano questions. As a distinguished atmospheric chemist, the discoverer of the cause of the ozone hole, he gives regular public presentations on how the ozone layer works and why it is being depleted.
<3> volcano eruptions have nothing to do with ozone depletion
<7> http://www.ipcc.ch/
<8> ahh, you do know that Captain Planet is really Al Gore right?
<4> beeper: except my links are proof of global warming.
<0> tailor: i took earth science in college, thanks. difference between you and i is that i didn't drink the repub/exxon koolaid
<9> hrmmm he speaks as eloquently as the algore
<4> one doesn't deny scientific fact merely because it's either inconvenient or scary
<6> ozone depletion isn't neccesarily linked to global warming either though.
<0> <1> Bush said jury still out on evolution! we aren't monkeys! global warming is a myth! 010101101
<3> beeper1 didn't you know only Republicans understand the "natural process"
<9> beeper1 too bad you didnt drink the grape kool-aid
<6> Liquid oxygen was made in 1883... I'm pretty sure there were some decently accurate thermometers in 1860 :)
<1> beeper1, does grasping at atraws make your argument valid? No, it doesn't.
<7> KoBushi, exactly
<7> making my point valid
<8> yeh right
<6> That reminds me... I've recently noticed the HUGE amount of people who don't use the word "valid" properly
<4> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
<1> KoBushi, sure there were, but they weren't placed all over the planet and there wouldn't have been any way to transmit the data.
<7> its fresh!
<4> Kob: right, some don't have a proper sense of how to ascribe it..
<6> Especially on the radio... they use "valid" when they should say "sound" and "invalid" when they should say "unsound"
<1> Linus--, hyour point ins't valid now and never will be, the ability to get a global temperature wasnt available until at least and ta thte earliest, the 1980's
<7> or w/o merit?
<9> I think that is validly sound :|
<8> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html <--- here you guys, now go read some science fact
<4> Kob: my peeve is the misuse/abuse of 'unique'; something either is or isn't unique; ergo, there's no such thing as more/less/most/least unique
<1> Even then it would have been suspect
<7> TheTailor, i think i'll believe the IPCC over you
<6> So, I'm adding it to the list along with "turbo" "liberal" and "conservative" in the list of words people commonly use wrong :P
<1> Linus--, you would believe Charlie Brown if he stood behind you.
<6> Timur heh, right, uni = one :P
<6> or, simular anyway
<4> Kob: which begs the question; how 'valid' are those terms, given that they don't correlate terribly well to the wide array of opinions on an even larger array of issues?
<4> Kob: right!
<8> Predicting what will happen to carbon dioxide over the next century is a rather uncertain matter. By ***uming a shift toward the increased use of coal, rapid advances in the third world's standard of living, large population increases, and a reduction in nuclear and other nonfossil fuels, one can generate an emissions scenario that will lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2030--if one uses a particular model for the chemical respons
<0> lol
<0> yeah
<1> Linus--, can you give me the day by day fall temperatures of mid Nigeria in 1912?
<9> Linus believes in the power of peanuts
<0> the cato institute is not a science orginization
<1> Linus--, NO, you can't.
<8> Global warming science is neither predictable, nor accurate
<0> try again sherlok
<7> and that has what to do with anything?
<0> that has to do with WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ****ING SCIENCE
<3> my god they are still looking for jimmy hoffa
<3> this has got to be a political stunt
<0> jesus
<6> Timur those terms are not useful really imo... I prefer a 2-axis political scale composed of social permissivness one one acis, and economic on the other
<7> i wasn't addressing beeper
<7> jesus!
<1> beeper1, right, and if you are talking science, you need DATA...you don't have it.
<0> lol
<6> acis>axis
<0> Tailor: you don't have any data!
<0> pot, kettle!
<3> They can't tell you day by day temperatures in unrecorded places but they can tell you general yearly temperatures by looking at certain indicators
<4> Kob: I agree
<7> anyone still in denial about the insulating effects CO2 has is just blind
<0> yeah
<3> blinded by politics
<4> like that online politics test
<7> combine that with the increase in heat aborbtion areas
<4> http://www.okcupid.com/politics
<1> beeper1, how did global warming happen between the ice ages prior to man's industrial growth?
<4> Tailor: NOAA has and has had data
<4> hence the graphs, see.
<8> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I's model referred to that as the "business as usual'' scenario. As it turns out, the chemical model used was inconsistent with the past century's record; it would have predicted that we would already have about 400 parts per million by volume. An improved model developed at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg shows that even the "business as usual'' scenario does not double ca
<7> global warming iosnt about cyclical climate change
<0> tailor: that's a fallacy. we're not discussing previous ice ages. we're discussing what's going on NOW
<8> the data that was collected by the NOAA is NOT ACCURATE
<3> TheTailor the earth has warmed and cooled before but not this rapidly without a significant natural event
<1> Timur, since when? We need about 5000 years of data, do they have that?
<7> its about unnaturally accelrated climate change
<6> Speaking of Co2, I belive we should replace R134a with R744 (CO2) as the automotive standard refrigerant. The EU is looking at mandating this changeover.
<3> actually yes they people studying this have way more than 5000 years of data
<1> wiretapp, well you would need data to say that, you don't have it.
<4> Tailor: we 'need'? :)
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
connection was closed remobjects
#worldcup
mac qmail slow
#gentoo
#delphi
Jayson Marion
#c
#beginner
MYSON card
#computers
|
|
