Cap-and-Trade bill in for rough water in Senate

[Okla-homey]

Looks like at least one Donk Senator is not down with the program -- clearly because it hurts coal, his state's major product. Which of course means, they won't have their 60 senator block to cut-off a filibuster that will prevent a vote. Which means, death to this silly "cap-and-tax" initiative. If Bob Byrd lives that is. I hope someone's taking care of him.


WHEELING - He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd is opposing "cap and trade" legislation pushed by the Obama administration.

The 91-year-old Byrd, D-W.Va., was released from an unidentified Washington, D.C. hospital last week after a month-long stay for a staph infection. He expects to return to the chamber before the Senate begins debate on "cap and trade" - which is tentatively set for this fall, according to Byrd's office.

"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."

Byrd grew up in the coalfields of Stotesbury, W.Va., in Raleigh County. Jesse Jacobs, spokesman for Byrd, said the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will begin marking up the "cap and trade" bill later this month, with floor debate scheduled for September or October.

"So it is our hope that yes, Sen. Byrd will be here to vote on the legislation," Jacobs continued. "His return will be determined by his doctors and family members."

"Cap and trade" legislation - also known as House Resolution 2454 - is intended to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants over the next 40 years. It establishes a program that allows pollution permits to be bought and sold. The measure narrowly passed the U.S. House on June 26 by a vote of 219-212.

[tommieharris91]

I'm pretty sure he isn't the only D senator that opposes this bill.

[journeyman]

Let's hope this deal goes down in defeat. It is a tax bill masquerading (and poorly, I might add) as a climate bill.

[ndpruitt03]

It's basically another bailout bill.

[Ike]

I think "cap and tax" would be a much better way to go about this whole dealio if they are serious about saving the environment and such. That way at least people can have an idea about what they are going to have to pay beforehand.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Even Byrd might roll over. When is his next election? At this stage of his life, He might think the implementation of dem party ideas to be more important than the economy. I can't see him holding firm. He might want to watch his back a little more than usual.

[picasso]

I think "cap and tax" would be a much better way to go about this whole dealio if they are serious about saving the environment and such. That way at least people can have an idea about what they are going to have to pay beforehand.

that's only if the rest of the world does the same. otherwise it puts too much strain on our business and trade.

[SoonerBorn68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

[JohnnyMack]

Obama is hiding being "being green" and "saving the environment" in an effort to raise revenue. Period. He should be punched in the jaw for it.

[The Remnant]

I love all these eupemisms for taxing the crap out of the middle class. Revenue enhancements, investments, cap and trade, paygo.

[The Remnant]

eupemisms=euphemisms

[hellogoodbye]

Anyone who thinks the CO2 that's emitted by humans is doing anything towards the climate, aught to be forced to live in Oklahoma for a couple of years, to better appreciate the god-awfull power of nature.

And anyone who thinks that govt can affect the climate should just be b-slapped.

[yermom]

and this is based on what scientific evidence?

[The Remnant]

There are many climatologists who do not believe that CO2 affects global temperatures. If you choose to believe in global warming, that is your opinion.There is alot of evidence to the contrary, however.

[yermom]

you want to send me a link to some? how many don't work for some petroleum and/or conservative think tank?

[hellogoodbye]

Just my opinion, based on what I have learned in my life. Ill spare everyone the cutandpaste approach, as most of the self styled climatology professors that have suddenly sprung up on the internet the past few years do. There's really plenty of that, isnt there??

sorry to offend. Just glad the pendulum has started to swing back to reality, at least a little.

[The Remnant]

That is the liberal canard that is always thrown in. They all work for the oil industry. Yet there are many global warming alarmists who ARE making money off there position.

[ndpruitt03]

There are many climatologists who do not believe that CO2 affects global temperatures. If you choose to believe in global warming, that is your opinion.There is alot of evidence to the contrary, however.There's never been any correlation with CO2 and weather. In fact this isn't even that high a period for CO2 in the era of the dinosaurs the CO2 levels were much higher due to volcanic activity, but the temperatures were mild but not extremely hot or extremely cold. And only 30 years ago the same scientists that are warning us of global warming were warning us that the temperatures by now were going to be so cold we may not be able to survive.

All of this is that temperatures change with or without the help of anything living on a planet. In fact we'll be long gone and this planet will still be supporting life long after we are gone. We've only been around a few thousand years compared to the 4 billion years the planet has been around. To quote George Carlin " Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Planet is fine"

[hellogoodbye]

I just want to know - who let the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant or hazardous emission? Seriously people, you got to get control of your bureaucrats, they are going to f this economy up.

[ndpruitt03]

I just want to know - who let the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant or hazardous emission? Seriously people, you got to get control of your bureaucrats, they are going to f this economy up.
Without CO2 life doesn't exist. But let's get rid of it.

[yermom]

That is the liberal canard that is always thrown in. They all work for the oil industry. Yet there are many global warming alarmists who ARE making money off there position.

yeah, Al Gore makes money, flies a jet around, whatever

i've yet to see definitive proof on either side, really, but if research is paid for by The Center for Conservative Thought or whatever, i'm gonna have a hard time taking it seriously

[mdklatt]

There are many climatologists who do not believe that CO2 affects global temperatures.

Name 'em.

[JohnnyMack]

So when man wasn't an industrial creature and the temperature around the globe still rose (without our influence) and C02 emissions increased, whose fault was that?

[mdklatt]

i've yet to see definitive proof on either side, really

No personal offense intended yermom, but what kind of definitive proof are you looking you for? Would you know it if it you saw it? I'm assuming that you, like 99.9% of the population, know ****-all about atmospheric physics, so on what basis do you evaluate competing claims?

Claiming there's no consensus about AGW because of the blathering of Fred Singer and the other liars-for-hire at the Heartland Institute is like saying there's no consensus that OU is the best college football team in Oklahoma...and linking to threads on orangepower.com to make your case.

[ndpruitt03]

So when man wasn't an industrial creature and the temperature around the globe still rose (without our influence) and C02 emissions increased, whose fault was that?

There has never been any correlation between temperature an CO2. Now sometimes extreme temperature causes CO2 to be released a little more. But sometimes not. The biggest correlation between average temperature and anything the last few thousand years as been the correlation between the sun's energy and how much it is releasing and global temperature. That is almost an exact match.

[mdklatt]

So when man wasn't an industrial creature and the temperature around the globe still rose (without our influence) and C02 emissions increased, whose fault was that?

It's not on either-or situation. There is a positive feedback between warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. Induce a positive perturbation in either one, and the other will follow.

Or are you disputing that fossil fuels release CO2? :confused:

[ndpruitt03]

It's not on either-or situation. There is a positive feedback between warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. Induce a positive perturbation in either one, and the other will follow.

Or are you disputing that fossil fuels release CO2? :confused:

Breathing releases CO2 also. Stop doing that and I guess you'll save the planet according to these global warming enthusiasts.

[mdklatt]

There has never been any correlation between temperature an CO2.

Bull****.



The biggest correlation between average temperature and anything the last few thousand years as been the correlation between the sun's energy and how much it is releasing and global temperature. That is almost an exact match.

There has been no significant change in the sun's output in the last 30+ years. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than the one before. Explain that.

[JohnnyMack]

It's not on either-or situation. There is a positive feedback between warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. Induce a positive perturbation in either one, and the other will follow.

Or are you disputing that fossil fuels release CO2? :confused:

If an extraneous variable other than man caused global temps to rise, would that increase co2 concentrations? Serious question, I'm not smart at all.

[mdklatt]

Breathing releases CO2 also. Stop doing that and I guess you'll save the planet according to these global warming enthusiasts.

Is the CO2 increase over the past century due to breathing or fossil fuels?

[mdklatt]

If an extraneous variable other than man caused global temps to rise, would that increase co2 concentrations?

After a certain amount of warming, yes. And that higher CO2 concentration would cause temperature to accelerate upward even faster.

[ndpruitt03]

Is the CO2 increase over the past century due to breathing or fossil fuels?

Don't know, but I do know that we were much worse in using our fossil fuels and we were putting even more CO2 in the air in the 70s and 80s and the temperatures then were much COOLER than they are now. If you look at most cars people drive now they are much more environmentally friendly having more miles per gallon and are much cleaner. So our output has probably been less world wide in CO2 from about the 90s till today and yet the temperature rose for much of that time. Now the temperatures are seeing a cooling trend over the last couple of years by the way.

[JohnnyMack]

After a certain amount of warming, yes. And that higher CO2 concentration would cause temperature to accelerate upward even faster.

So (just to be a pain in the ***) it's possible that the changes we see in temperature aren't entirely our fault?

[Sooner98]

yeah, Al Gore makes money, flies a jet around, whatever

i've yet to see definitive proof on either side, really, but if research is paid for by The Center for Conservative Thought or whatever, i'm gonna have a hard time taking it seriously

If there's no definitive proof on either side, is "let's do it just to be safe" justification enough to turn the economy upside-down?

[mdklatt]

I do know that we were much worse in using our fossil fuels and we were putting even more CO2 in the air in the 70s and 80s


Dude, seriously?


If you look at most cars people drive now they are much more environmentally friendly having more miles per gallon and are much cleaner.


There hasn't been a significant MPG increase since the last time the CAFE standard was bumped more than 20 years ago. The you add in the meteoric rise of SUVs that were exempt from CAFE in the first place. They may be cleaner in terms of SO2 and other pollutants, but not CO2.



So our output has probably been less world wide in CO2 from about the 90s
till today

http://www.physorg.com/news98989202.html



Between 2000 and 2004, worldwide CO2 emissions increased at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s—the rate increased from 1.1 % per year during the 1990s to 3.1% per year in the early 2000s.





Now the temperatures are seeing a cooling trend over the last couple of years by the way.

Heh, two data points is not a "trend". Even with a strong La Nina and a cool phase of the PDO, 2008--a worldwide Ice Station Zebra according the flat-earthers--was still the ninth warmest year since 1880, and warmer than every year prior to 1998.

[mdklatt]

So (just to be a pain in the ***) it's possible that the changes we see in temperature aren't entirely our fault?

It's possible, but no known natural cause can explain the magnitude and rate of warming that is being observed. On the other hand, the observed increase in manmad CO2 completely dovetails with the observed increase in temperature. So, if you're going to invalidate AGW theory you have two major challenges:

1) Finding the "natural cause" that is responsible for the observed warming. Pixies? Fairy dust? Aliens?

2) Explaining away the physics that first established the effects CO2 as a greenhouse gas over 100 years ago.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You sound like an ascot wearing prig.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If there's no definitive proof on either side, is "let's do it just to be safe" justification enough to turn the economy upside-down?Yeah, 'cause effing capitalism just ain't right.

[The Remnant]

An increase in CAFE standards that is in the cap and trade bill will be the death knell for GM. If we lower O2 emissions and nations with emerging industrial output do not, how does that decrease overall O2 emissions? This is a "Let's hose the Americans" bill, and the middle class is getting bent over without getting lubricated.

[The Remnant]

mdklatt, you obviously have the internet or you would not be on this web site. Look it up for yourself.

[Sooner_Havok]

If we lower O2 emissions and nations with emerging industrial output do not, how does that decrease overall O2 emissions?

I always loved the "But the other guys are doing it too" argument. Hey, some nations with emerging industrial output have people jailed for saying things bad about their government. So I mean, if they are violating human rights, we may as well too, right?

I mean, our imprisoning people for their thoughts doesn't decrease overall human rights violations, right?

[Sooner_Havok]

mdklatt, you obviously have the internet or you would not be on this web site. Look it up for yourself.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

I think I see the "downward trend." If you read the graph from right to left.

[ndpruitt03]

The US CO2 imitions are pretty good. Look at this graph. It's been about the same since the 90s. In fact it's dropping since the 2000s. China the worlds biggest country and rest of the world are going way up.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/worldco2em.jpg

Here's another little graph

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/region.jpg

US pretty consistent over the years, other regions are mostly raising except for Eurasia

China has so many people that it dictates how the worlds CO2 emitions. America has nothing to do with it.

There's still no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with temperature change. It only takes up about .04% of our atmosphere. It's not even the biggest greenhouse gas. Water vapor takes up about .4% of the atmophere

[Sooner_Havok]

Without CO2 life doesn't exist. But let's get rid of it.

Without chlorine, potassium, or sodium life doesn't exist either. Care to be exposed to any of them for a prolonged period of time?

[JohnnyMack]

One big problem I have with those who are SO staunchly opposed to our power coming from fossil fuel is their lack of feasible alternatives. They'll blame the lack of an alternative source of energy on Big Oil preventing it, but for decades they've railed against working towards a nuclear solution as well. Our lack of work at developing a nuclear alternative is a huge mistake in my opinion.

[ndpruitt03]

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

I think I see the "downward trend." If you read the graph from right to left.
That graph is almost 5 years old.
Also most of the hottest temperatures on record were in the 20s-40s A few from the 2000s so I think the information on this graph is suspect.

[ndpruitt03]

Without chlorine, potassium, or sodium life doesn't exist either. Care to be exposed to any of them for a prolonged period of time?

Chlorine and potassium and sodium aren't byproducts of breathing or getting rid of waste.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Chlorine and potassium and sodium aren't byproducts of breathing or getting rid of waste.DO NOT QUESTION SOONER HAVOK!!!!!!!

[KABOOKIE]

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

I think I see the "downward trend." If you read the graph from right to left.


That graph is almost 5 years old.
Also most of the hottest temperatures on record were in the 20s-40s A few from the 2000s so I think the information on this graph is suspect.

That graph is a total fraud too. A 0.8 degree C shift can be easily blamed on data collection error.

[JLEW1818]

2010 we gotta take back over!!!!

[mdklatt]

The US CO2 imitions are pretty good. Look at this graph. It's been about the same since the 90s. In fact it's dropping since the 2000s.

What in the world are you talking about? Even with that compressed scale, you can tell that the US line is going up. Here are some numbers from the EIA:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html



1990: 5021 MT
2006: 5946 MT
2007: 6022 MT


CO2 emissions decreased in 2000, 2006, and 2008 due to economic reasons, but the overall trend has been up.




There's still no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with temperature change.


This is utter bull****.





It only takes up about .04% of our atmosphere

Completely irrelevant. It's not the amount that matters, but the change in the amount.



It's not even the biggest greenhouse gas. Water vapor takes up about .4% of the atmophere

Also irrelevent. Water vapor is not a climate-scale forcing because it is self-limiting and has a short residence time in the atmosphere.

[mdklatt]

A 0.8 degree C shift can be easily blamed on data collection error.

At thousands of observation sites around the globe. For more than a century. That's one hell of a bias. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

potassium and sodium aren't byproducts of...getting rid of waste

Yes they are.

[OU_Sooners75]

So when man wasn't an industrial creature and the temperature around the globe still rose (without our influence) and C02 emissions increased, whose fault was that?


The aliens and their spaceships!

[OU_Sooners75]

Is the CO2 increase over the past century due to breathing or fossil fuels?


And how long as temperature and CO2 levels actually been recorded?

[OU_Sooners75]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html


For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 370 ppm. Humans may be able to take credit for some of these additions, but not all of them. Earth's plant life will respond to soak up these additions with additional biologic activity, but this takes time. Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, industry, and transportation. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!

[mdklatt]

And how long as temperature and CO2 levels actually been recorded?

Here are 50 years of data from Mauna Loa.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2


Here's 400k+ years of data from the Vostok ice core.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes they are.


Potassium in nature occurs only as ionic salt. As such, it is found dissolved in seawater, and as part of many minerals. Potassium ion is necessary for the function of all living cells, and is thus present in all plant and animal tissues. It is found in especially high concentrations in plant cells, and in a mixed diet, it is most highly concentrated in fruits.


In many respects, potassium and sodium are chemically similar, although they have very different functions in organisms in general, and in animal cells in particular.


Sodium ion is soluble in water in nearly all of its compounds, and is thus present in great quantities in the Earth's oceans and other stagnant bodies of water. In these bodies it is mostly counterbalanced by the chloride ion, causing evaporated ocean water solids to consist mostly of sodium chloride, or common table salt. Sodium ion is also a component of many minerals.


Sodium (Salt) is an essential element for all animal life and for some plant species. In animals, sodium ions are used in opposition to potassium ions, to allow the organism to build up an electrostatic charge on cell membranes, and thus allow transmission of nerve impulses when the charge is allowed to dissipate by a moving wave of voltage change. Sodium is thus classified as a “dietary inorganic macro-mineral” for animals. Sodium's relative rarity on land is due to its solubility in water, thus causing it to be leached into bodies of long-standing water by rainfall. Such is its relatively large requirement in animals, in contrast to its relative scarcity in many inland soils, that herbivorous land animals have developed a special taste receptor for sodium ion.

[mdklatt]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html


Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor.

I could already tell where he was going with that, and I wasn't disappointed. Anybody who repeats the "It's only 0.4% of the atmosphere!" crap should be ignored. An Ebola viron is only 1 bajillionth the size of a human being--does anybody want to be injected with one?

In general, a web site called "Plant Fossils of West Virginia" probably shouldn't be considered an authoritative source on atmospheric physics.

[mdklatt]

Potassium in nature occurs only as ionic salt. As such, it is found dissolved in seawater....

I'm sure there's a point to this, but I'm at a loss as to what it is.

[OU_Sooners75]

Do not get me wrong, here. I do not know much about this...however, by using google, you can find stuff that contradicts your statements thusfar mdklatt.

I am not saying you are incorrect or correct...just finding other view points than yours.

[picasso]

don't eat bananas?

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm sure there's a point to this, but I'm at a loss as to what it is.

The point is simple...potassium is not a pollutant to life.

I am pretty sure overexposure it can cause some very dire consequences, but so can drinking too much water.

And if you would, please stop trying to spin the discussion from CO2 and Temperature to Ebola or anything else.

Scare tactics may work against you and other people, but any person with an ounce of intelligence can see where your stance is...and others do not agree with it.

[OU_Sooners75]

And please do not forget, that a lot of these people advocating Global Warming, get paid handsomely to do so.

Al Gore, the face of the Global Warming advocates, is a politician. He is doing what politicians do best...spinning.

If Al Gore was so concerned with Global warming, why does he and his wife own two homes that total over 14,000 sq.ft. and do not have any alternative energy sources supplying the energy?

Why does Al gore insist on Air travel through private jet?

Why was it he allowed a zinc mine to operate on his property in Tennessee (in 2003 it did close down) while making hefty royalties from that mine?

just some things to think about. People that advocate that Global Warming is real and we must do something about it, are not for the most part, doing anything about it themselves!

[OU_Sooners75]

don't eat bananas?


That is pretty much what mdklatt is implying I think, nor do not ingest any form of salt, even though the body needs it to survive!

[mdklatt]

I am not saying you are incorrect or correct...just finding other view points than yours.

How do you evaluate which opposing viewpoint is correct? If I had no knowledge of a subject, I'd believe the sites with a ".gov" in them before, say, "Bird Fossils of West Virginia". Unless I really did want to learn about bird fossils in West Virgina. But even then, I'd have no idea if that guy was talking out his ***.

Why do people believe the likes of James Inhofe instead of acknowledged experts? I really want to know. If you didn't already know that he didn't know ****-all about the subject (he doesn't), why would anybody assume that a senator--even ignoring his ties to oil lobbyists--knew more about climate change than reputable climate scientists? It just doesn't make any sense.

[SCOUT]

I always try to read these threads because I find something new each time. I also see a lot the same things over and over again too, of course. One thing that I often see is the argument that the science has been settled. Further, anyone who disagrees is biased and obviously employed by the oil companies.

My question is, how many research grants from the government have been granted to scientists who do not believe in AGW? I have heard anecdotal evidence that the number is very small.

Can anyone show how many grants have gone to scientists that are at least skeptical?

[mdklatt]

My question is, how many research grants from the government have been granted to scientists who do not believe in AGW? I have heard anecdotal evidence that the number is very small.


Maybe because the vast majority of scientists don't dispute AGW? Seriously, there's no way determine that.



Can anyone show how many grants have gone to scientists that are at least skeptical?

Ask Roy Spencer at UAH. He and his skeptic buddy John Christy published a "gotcha" article concerning satellite temperatures that purported to disprove AGW. The right wing echo chamber went predictably onanastic. Then somebody else looked at the research and said, "Wait a minute, you guys made a mistake" S+C corrected their data and republished, but Spencer continues to trot out the uncorrected data to certain audiences.

[OU_Sooners75]

How do you evaluate which opposing viewpoint is correct? If I had no knowledge of a subject, I'd believe the sites with a ".gov" in them before, say, "Bird Fossils of West Virginia". Unless I really did want to learn about bird fossils in West Virgina. But even then, I'd have no idea if that guy was talking out his ***.

Why do people believe the likes of James Inhofe instead of acknowledged experts? I really want to know. If you didn't already know that he didn't know ****-all about the subject (he doesn't), why would anybody assume that a senator--even ignoring his ties to oil lobbyists--knew more about climate change than reputable climate scientists? It just doesn't make any sense.

I cannot say which is correct or incorrect...and as I said before, I am not saying you incorrect. Merely pointing to other studies that say the opposite of yours.

Here is another intriguing article.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


Here is another article I find intriguing.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/392319/global_warming_is_not_real_whats_behind.html

I can find more if you like.

And just because it has .gov at the end of a URL does not make it legitimate or conclusive.

[mdklatt]

potassium and sodium aren't byproducts of...getting rid of waste


Yes they are.

Potassium and sodium are passed in urine. You wouldn't call that a waste byproduct? Potassium and sodium are a necessity for human life. In the right form, in the right place, in the right concentration, they are very bad for human life.

The point is that saying that CO2 is a completely natural byproduct of life proves nothing. Ever seen the movie Apollo 13? More to the point, it's usefulness in respiration has zero correlation with its effect as a greenhouse gas.

[OU_Sooners75]

Maybe because the vast majority of scientists don't dispute AGW? Seriously, there's no way determine that.



Ask Roy Spencer at UAH. He and his skeptic buddy John Christy published a "gotcha" article concerning satellite temperatures that purported to disprove AGW. The right wing echo chamber went predictably onanastic. Then somebody else looked at the research and said, "Wait a minute, you guys made a mistake" S+C corrected their data and republished, but Spencer continues to trot out the uncorrected data to certain audiences.


Didn't it turn out that Einstein was not entirely correct about his Theory of Relativity?

If so, isnt there a possibility that those that think Global Warming is real, could be incorrect?

[mdklatt]

I can find more if you like.


Maybe you should quit quoting for right-wing propaganda sites and read some scientific journals.

[OU_Sooners75]

Potassium and sodium are passed in urine. You wouldn't call that a waste byproduct? Potassium and sodium are a necessity for human life. In the right form, in the right place, in the right concentration, they are very bad for human life.

The point is that saying that CO2 is a completely natural byproduct of life proves nothing. Ever seen the movie Apollo 13? More to the point, it's usefulness in respiration has zero correlation with its effect as a greenhouse gas.


If studies are correct though, temperature can stay about the same even when CO2 levels are extremely high. So how is CO2 a major player in the greenhouse gas world and the cause of global warming if there was a time when the CO2 level reached over 4400 ppm and the temperature was believed to be about the same as it is today?

I mean, everything I have briefly came across states that normal levels are around 300 ppm.

[OU_Sooners75]

Maybe you should quit quoting for right-wing propaganda sites and read some scientific journals.

LOL...because it is differing in thought it is propaganda.

Love the way you think and the open mind of an issue that may not even be real!

Maybe you should stop being a drone and open your mind a little bit.

I am not a scientist...and in fact, I came into this debate to see if you would actually have some evidence that supports your claims. You have shown nothing more than evidence that is being presented from one side.

[Curly Bill]

75, Don't argue with these guys, you have about as much chance of talking a true believer in man made global warming out of their fervent beliefs than you do of changing someone's mind on abortion.

[SicEmBaylor]

Even Byrd might roll over. When is his next election? At this stage of his life, He might think the implementation of dem party ideas to be more important than the economy. I can't see him holding firm. He might want to watch his back a little more than usual.

Byrd has always done what Byrd wants to do. Byrd is not the kind of Senator that can be easily handled by the party, President, or anyone else. In fact, he's sort of famous for going off the reservation. There's nothing in his history or character to indicate he's going to suddenly get in lock-step with the Democratic party platform. He's going to do what he wants to do.

[OU_Sooners75]

75, Don't argue with these guys, you have about as much chance of talking a true believer in man made global warming out of their fervent beliefs than you do of changing someone's mind on abortion.

I did not enter this debate to change anyone's mind...but rather to see if anyone on the side of Global Warming being real, had any conclusive (not speculative) evidence that suggests that it is real.

Have yet found anyone.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm no scientist either, but I talked with one of the leading meteorologists in Texas who also happened to once be a big wig up at the NWS next to OU who thinks the idea of c02 causing global warming is totally absurd. His point is simply that Co2 makes up so little of the atmosphere and we actually know so little about how everything truly works that to suggest something like .002 of the atmosphere's contents are nearly 100% responsible for weather and climate is absurd. He gave a great lecture on this very subject once, but I'm not a scientist and I find the whole subject rather dull.

Anyway, he considers basic old water vapor to be far more important than c02 in determining climate and weather patterns.

[mdklatt]

Didn't it turn out that Einstein was not entirely correct about his Theory of Relativity?

Einstein didn't gin up with the Theory of Relativity out whole cloth. He came up with the initial concepts, and then it was further refined until it became a useful framework for explaining all relevant facts. That's how science works. The key part of the process that the AGW skeptics seem to ignore is actual evidence. If they had anything legitimate to say they'd put in a peer-reviewed journal instead of a conservative think tank's web site. Put up or shut up.






If so, isnt there a possibility that those that think Global Warming is real, could be incorrect?

Sure, if you ignore the mountains of evidence--literally in the case of receding glaciers, disappearing snowpack, and forlorn ski resorts--from thousands of biologists, oceanographers, geologists, and atmospheric scientists from around the world that have been concerned with this for decades and put your faith in "experts" like James Inhofe.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Byrd has always done what Byrd wants to do. Byrd is not the kind of Senator that can be easily handled by the party, President, or anyone else. In fact, he's sort of famous for going off the reservation. There's nothing in his history or character to indicate he's going to suddenly get in lock-step with the Democratic party platform. He's going to do what he wants to do.Seems he usually, almost always, goes along with the other democrats.

[Curly Bill]

I did not enter this debate to change anyone's mind...but rather to see if anyone on the side of Global Warming being real, had any conclusive (not speculative) evidence that suggests that it is real.

Have yet found anyone.

The global warming crowd approaches the subject as religion, not science.

At least not any science that doesn't match their dearly held beliefs.

[SicEmBaylor]

Seems he usually, almost always, goes along with the other democrats.

This is because he is a democrat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is because he is a democrat.So, you're saying he usually WANTS to vote democrat...step it up a little, pls.

[SCOUT]

Maybe because the vast majority of scientists don't dispute AGW? Seriously, there's no way determine that.
If the funding all goes to scientists that support AGW, wouldn't it follow that .gov websites would produce AGW results? It seems to me that the governmental results suffer from the same problem as the private results, just not the same scrutiny.

If we substituted .oil with .gov wouldn't the argument be just as valid?



Ask Roy Spencer at UAH. He and his skeptic buddy John Christy published a "gotcha" article concerning satellite temperatures that purported to disprove AGW. The right wing echo chamber went predictably onanastic. Then somebody else looked at the research and said, "Wait a minute, you guys made a mistake" S+C corrected their data and republished, but Spencer continues to trot out the uncorrected data to certain audiences.

I have heard the same argument about much of Al Gore's movie. The left wing echo chamber has been similarly silent yet still accusatory.

[SicEmBaylor]

So, you're saying he usually WANTS to vote democrat...step it up a little, pls.

:bangs head against wall:

Sen. Byrd is a Democrat.
Sen. Byrd usually votes Democrat because...well...he's a Democrat.
Sen. Byrd does not vote Democrat because the Democrats want him to vote that way.
Sen. Byrd votes the way Sen. Byrd wants to which is typically in line with the Democrats.
Sen. Byrd has never given any indication he votes simply to advance a Democratic agenda.
Sen. Byrd will from time to time defy his party at very inopportune times for his party.
Sen. Byrd often defies his party in committee over procedural problems.
Sen. Byrd is a stickler for proper procedure and will often defy the entire Senate and his party if the proper procedure was not followed.
Sen. Byrd does want Sen. Byrd wants to do.
Sen. Byrd does not like being told what to do.

That's it.

[OU_Sooners75]

Einstein didn't gin up with the Theory of Relativity out whole cloth. He came up with the initial concepts, and then it was further refined until it became a useful framework for explaining all relevant facts. That's how science works. The key part of the process that the AGW skeptics seem to ignore is actual evidence. If they had anything legitimate to say they'd put in a peer-reviewed journal instead of a conservative think tank's web site. Put up or shut up.






Sure, if you ignore the mountains of evidence--literally in the case of receding glaciers, disappearing snowpack, and forlorn ski resorts--from thousands of biologists, oceanographers, geologists, and atmospheric scientists from around the world that have been concerned with this for decades and put your faith in "experts" like James Inhofe.


Yeah, because global warming has never happened before on this planet.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-warming-55-million-years-ago-shifted-ocean-currents-15862.shtml

You are very naive if I am putting my faith in anyone other than proven records that show that this planet has seen this type of warming before.

It is you that is putting your faith in scientist that are getting paid big money to make it appear that global warming is a human induced problem for this earth!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115901.htm

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/ann_dryice.htm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=687

[mdklatt]

LOL...because it is differing in thought it is propaganda.

It's propaganda because it's demonstrably full of ****. The people that repeat this stuff either know it's full of **** and they're liars, or they have no idea what they're no talking about.




Maybe you should stop being a drone and open your mind a little bit.


Oh spare me and drop "open minded skeptic" act. You've got plenty of skepticism for all the peer-reviewed research I've linked to, but then you're completely credulous about West Virginia Bird Fossils.com.




You have shown nothing more than evidence that is being presented from one side.

Well no ****, Sherlock--all the credible evidence is only on one side. Seriously, head to a college library and start reading some journal articles. Come back when you've found some that substantially disagree with the basic premises of AGW.

[OU_Sooners75]

I am not saying we humans are not helping the cause...but this "global warming" has occurred before.

And it seems people want to lay blame on humans alone for the global warming.

[OU_Sooners75]

It's propaganda because it's demonstrably full of ****. The people that repeat this stuff either know it's full of **** and they're liars, or they have no idea what they're no talking about.




Oh spare me and drop "open minded skeptic" act. You've got plenty of skepticism for all the peer-reviewed research I've linked to, but then you're completely credulous about West Virginia Bird Fossils.com.




Well no ****, Sherlock--all the credible evidence is only on one side. Seriously, head to a college library and start reading some journal articles. Come back when you've found some that substantially disagree with the basic premises of AGW.


And yet another post where you fail to provide conclusive evidence of this being caused solely by humans.

Pathetic really when you fail to look at the past for similar issues of global warming, yet instead you want to believe that it is the humans fault that this is occurring.

There is no need in going to a college library, or anywhere else where they have accepted something that may not be true.

Does global warming happen? Yeah, but it happened before humans and it will happen after humans.

It is called the earth cycle, and only a moron will try to blame it on humans.


and as far as this west virginia link...I have provided more than that one. You just are to ignorant to actually read through them because you, like so many that belong to the democrat party, believe everything that is told to them without actually researching it for themselves.

[mdklatt]

I'm no scientist either, but I talked with one of the leading meteorologists in *Texas*

Who?


His point is simply that Co2 makes up so little of the atmosphere

GIANT RED FLAG.



and we actually know so little about how everything truly works that to suggest something like .002 of the atmosphere's contents are nearly 100% responsible for weather and climate is absurd.

You're probably misrepresenting what he said, or he's completely full of it. This is a total strawman. Nobody says CO2 is completely responsible for changes in climate (and weather is a completely different subject). CO2 is the main culprit for the currently observed climate changes. Physics predicts it, modeling backs it up, and observations verify it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:bangs head against wall:

Sen. Byrd is a Democrat.
Sen. Byrd usually votes Democrat because...well...he's a Democrat.
Sen. Byrd does not vote Democrat because the Democrats want him to vote that way.
Sen. Byrd votes the way Sen. Byrd wants to which is typically in line with the Democrats.
Sen. Byrd has never given any indication he votes simply to advance a Democratic agenda.
Sen. Byrd will from time to time defy his party at very inopportune times for his party.
Sen. Byrd often defies his party in committee over procedural problems.
Sen. Byrd is a stickler for proper procedure and will often defy the entire Senate and his party if the proper procedure was not followed.
Sen. Byrd does want Sen. Byrd wants to do.
Sen. Byrd does not like being told what to do.

That's it.I didn't mean to make you feel you needed to go to all that trouble, esp. for the repulsive Sen Byrd.

[OU_Sooners75]

You're probably misrepresenting what he said, or he's completely full of it. This is a total strawman. Nobody says CO2 is completely responsible for changes in climate (and weather is a completely different subject). CO2 is the main culprit for the currently observed climate changes. Physics predicts it, modeling backs it up, and observations verify it.

Then by all means, link please.

Unlike you, I have an open mind about this subject, because frankly...I could careless about it. I will die sometime, it is part of life...just like global warming is part of the earth's natural cycle.

[OU_Sooners75]

The global warming crowd approaches the subject as religion, not science.

At least not any science that doesn't match their dearly held beliefs.


true true.

but it is fun to see pansies with no brain impulses get riled up about a subject. ;)

I am just playing my part in this. :pop:

[OU_Sooners75]

and if you would mdklatt, respond to this post....
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2642971&postcount=64
:D

[CK Sooner]

I agree with Curly and 75.

[Curly Bill]

I agree with Curly and 75.

So you're not going to kneel and worship at the altar of global warming? ;)

[Collier11]

I am not saying we humans are not helping the cause...but this "global warming" has occurred before.

And it seems people want to lay blame on humans alone for the global warming.

^^^ This...its proven

[OU_Sooners75]

^^^ This...its proven

I know it is, but rasputin over there wants to say it is only humans fault.

:P

[mdklatt]

Yeah, because global warming has never happened before on this planet.

You are very naive if I am putting my faith in anyone other than proven
records that show that this planet has seen this type of warming before.


Humans were dying thousands of years before Henry Ford was even born, so obviously it's impossible for a car to kill anybody.




It is you that is putting your faith in scientist that are getting paid big money to make it appear that global warming is a human induced problem for this earth!


A conspiracy theory. Awesome. Do give any credence to the 9/11 Truthers? Because I'm sure I could dig up some links. It's important to keep an open mind.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115901.htm

At least JGR is legitimate, but what was happening to the Antarctic ice sheet 10,000 years ago proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas how?


http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/ann_dryice.htm

Did you even read this? This person is possibly deranged.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=687[/QUOTE]

250,000,000 years ago! Damn, that's a long time. Has there been an abnormal amount of volcanic activity for the past century or so? You'd think somebody might have already looked at that as a possible reason. Oh wait...I forgot about the global climate science big money conspiracy. When do I get my cut? :mad:

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll also say this. I wish we could disassociate whether man-made climate change is legitimate from the act of legislating to stop it. Even if it's true, it doesn't justify massive changes in our standard of living and run-amok big government legislation that's way the hell beyond Constitutional.

[mdklatt]

and if you would mdklatt, respond to this post....


Al Gore? Who gives a ****. You can resume quoting random blogs for your "evidence" as soon as I or anybody else involved in climatology research quotes Al ****ing Gore.

[OU_Sooners75]

Humans were dying thousands of years before Henry Ford was even born, so obviously it's impossible for a car to kill anybody.




A conspiracy theory. Awesome. Do give any credence to the 9/11 Truthers? Because I'm sure I could dig up some links. It's important to keep an open mind.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115901.htm

At least JGR is legitimate, but what was happening to the Antarctic ice sheet 10,000 years ago proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas how?


http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/ann_dryice.htm

Did you even read this? This person is possibly deranged.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=687

250,000,000 years ago! Damn, that's a long time. Has there been an abnormal amount of volcanic activity for the past century or so? You'd think somebody might have already looked at that as a possible reason. Oh wait...I forgot about the global climate science big money conspiracy. When do I get my cut? :mad:

nice spin yet again...lets bring totally different topics into this debate to make you feel better.

Maybe you should actually educate yourself...and then you would realize that the earth goes through climate cool downs and warmth periods quite a bit.

But hey, you want to believe what your overlords tell ya...go for it. It has suited the ignorant great so far.

[OU_Sooners75]

Al Gore? Who gives a ****. You can resume quoting random blogs for your "evidence" as soon as I or anybody else involved in climatology research quotes Al ****ing Gore.


Oh, now you are a climatologist...

Oh my god, he knows it all folks. :D

[mdklatt]

you, like so many that belong to the democrat party, believe everything that is told to them without actually researching it for themselves

Hey gomer, I'm a meteorologist. Who does climate research. I know for a fact that the links you posted are either full of **** or not relevant.

[mdklatt]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect approves of this thread. **** me.

[Collier11]

Hey gomer, I'm a meteorologist. Who does climate research. I know for a fact that the links you posted are either full of **** or not relevant.

and you climatologists try to tell us how hot and cold the earths core was 50,000,000 years a go when I dont care how much science you think you have, there is no way you know if the earth is that old

science is basically throwing noodles at the wall til they stick

[Curly Bill]

Hey gomer, I'm a meteorologist. Who does climate research. I know for a fact that the links you posted are either full of **** or not relevant.


OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, he done called 75 gomer. Pulled out the old: "I'm smarter than you" card is what he did. I guess we all must kneel at the altar now. :(


:rolleyes:


:D

[mdklatt]

science is basically throwing noodles at the wall til they stick

But let me guess...the Bible* has all the answers?

*Christian version only

[Curly Bill]

I think it was somewheres in the Old Testament that they said global warming was a bunch of hooey.

[Collier11]

But let me guess...the Bible* has all the answers?

*Christian version only

I never said anything bout the Bible but since you "scientists" get off on bashing stuff that you cant explain feel free. I dont need your approval.

All Im saying is that Science often times is a bunch of BS, how many times do we hear that something is good for us then 5 years later it is bad for us.

There are just as many scientists that say Global warming is BS as there are that say its legit so what makes you so certain that it is 100% correct?

For the record I think Global warming is real, I just think it is over dramatized like a thunderstorm in Oklahoma when Gary England is on the clock

[Curly Bill]

I never said anything bout the Bible but since you "scientists" get off on bashing stuff that you cant explain feel free. I dont need your approval.

All Im saying is that Science often times is a bunch of BS, how many times do we hear that something is good for us then 5 years later it is bad for us.

There are just as many scientists that say Global warming is BS as there are that say its legit


...but they all work for the oil companies! Pay Tention!!! :rolleyes:

[Collier11]

I forget

[ndpruitt03]

Self righteous people trying to change the climate are some of the dumbest people on the earth. The earth will keep on going for the next billion years or two when the sun gets so big it'll basically burn out the planets atmosphere. We'll be long gone by then. The planet has had periods where it was much warmer than it is now and periods where it was much cooler than it is now without the help of mankind. And for the next billion or two years it'll have much cooler and warmer periods without the help of mankind long after we are gone. We have only been around about a couple hundred years as an industrial society, only a few thousand years as any type of society and about 500,000 years as a species. That's such a small period of time that it's hard to put a number on the impact we've had.

[mdklatt]

If the funding all goes to scientists that support AGW, wouldn't it follow that .gov websites would produce AGW results? It seems to me that the governmental results suffer from the same problem as the private results, just not the same scrutiny.


There's no there there when it comes to the skeptics' arguments. I don't say the turds at the Heartland Institute et. al are wrong just because they get money from Exxon, I say they're wrong because I can look up their arguments in a journal article or even a basic textbook and say, "nope, that's wrong". Half the time their basic facts are wrong, and it's not uncommon for them to lie out their *** and misrepresent their own or somebody else's published research. The oil money simply explains their motivation for being wrong in the first place. Do you think Exxon is paying think tanks to produce reports that say CO2 emissions are bad?

In the 90s, these same people were getting paid by tobacco companies. And what do think their conclusions were? That the "science isn't settled" that smoking is bad for you. Shocking. Read this (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute) and this (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CEI) and tell me why they should be given any credence.



Anybody who thinks that government and university researchers are cooking the books for personal profit has no idea how science funding works. First of all, nobody is turning in grant applications that say "fund me so I can prove global warming". For example, the research projects I'm working on are not predicated on climate change, but climate change is relevant to what we're doing so naturally we're going to take a look at it. We get funded to do specific tasks, not to generate specific conclusions. I'm not saying there's not politics in science--good lord, quite the contrary--but it's largely personal politics not ideological politics.

Also, the idea that scientists are unwilling to challenge orthodoxy is completely off base. Newton, Einstein, and Darwin didn't become household names by going with the flow. And if anybody had an incentive to not rock the boat, it was Galileo. There can be groupthink amongst the graybeards, but there are always plenty of eager post-docs willing to give a left nut to make a discovery that turns the establishment on its ear. And once they change the world, they'll continue to refine their new ideas until they're no longer new and the next generation repeats the cycle.

Then there's the "big money" laugher. I guess people think that when Dr. X gets a $1,000,000 grant that he's going to pocket that money and buy a Ferrari? As the kids say, LOL. That money is going to get split 100 different ways over several years (salaries, equipment, travel to conferences, journal publication charges, hell even basic office supplies, etc). Most likely, the PI isn't going to see one extra dime over his existing salary. Some places may pay bonuses, but that's not the norm. If you continue to bring in big grants you can finagle for a raise, but especially with university politics that's certainly not a given. You can make a lot more in private industry than you can working for the government or a university, so obviously nobody is doing it for the money.






I have heard the same argument about much of Al Gore's movie. The left wing echo chamber has been similarly silent yet still accusatory.

I've never seen it. Can't say anything about it other than what I've heard: it's a mostly accurate representation of the science at that time, but either exaggerated or was unclear about certain things (like sea level rise, I think).

[mdklatt]

There are just as many scientists that say Global warming is BS

No.

[mdklatt]

Self righteous people trying to change the climate are some of the dumbest people on the earth.

Tell me about it. ****ing Hummer drivers.

[mdklatt]

All Im saying is that Science often times is a bunch of BS, how many times do we hear that something is good for us then 5 years later it is bad for us.


You're confusing science with the media coverage of science. The latter is far more often than not a bunch of BS written by people who know jack about how science works and read by people who know nothing about how science works. That's a bad combination.

[ndpruitt03]

One more thing about global warming being known as scientific fact. That's not even possible. Nothing is really a complete scientific fact because science is all about questioning things. The true definition of science is to find things not define things. There are elements of gravity that can't be explained. Same with the theory of relativity.

[mdklatt]

I never said anything bout the Bible but since you "scientists" get off on bashing stuff that you cant explain feel free.

I thought you were giving off a possible YEC vibe, and I only mentioned it because it sure is awesome when "religious people" demand to see evidence of the existence of something.

[mdklatt]

One more thing about global warming being known as scientific fact.

No, global warming is a theory that explains the relationship among the following facts:

1) Global temperatures are increasing based on multiple, independent lines of evidence from a range of scientific disciplines.

2) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, the properties of which were established over a decade ago by Arrhenius and repeatedly refined and verified by theoretical physics and observation.

3) CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due primarily to fossil fuel combustion as determined by observation and isotopic analysis.

4) The theoretical increase in temperature due to the observed increase in CO2 matches the observed increase in temperature.

5) No other known climate forcing (i.e. "natural cycle") can fully explain the warming. Solar output has been largely stable for decades. Volcanoes don't cover the earth. The orbital inclination hasn't changed significantly.


Which of these is either wrong or doesn't implicate humans? It's possible that any of them are wrong, but until the "skeptics" can back it up with facts of their own it's all just a bunch of noise.

[Fraggle145]

I never said anything bout the Bible but since you "scientists" get off on bashing stuff that you cant explain feel free. I dont need your approval.

All Im saying is that Science often times is a bunch of BS, how many times do we hear that something is good for us then 5 years later it is bad for us.

There are just as many scientists that say Global warming is BS as there are that say its legit so what makes you so certain that it is 100% correct?

For the record I think Global warming is real, I just think it is over dramatized like a thunderstorm in Oklahoma when Gary England is on the clock

Collier. I have for the last 2 years tried not to bash religion. My views are well known, but for the most part lately I have tried to stay out of it in a bashing type of sense. Id rather try to get to mutual understanding.

but I am a scientist.

there arent as many scientist that say global warming is false. It simply isnt the case.

Science is not BS. Science changes all the time that is the beauty of it. To say it is BS because it changes is BS. As soon as we figure out something understanding changes. The fact that understanding of a problem changes doesnt mean that the first solution was BS. It was basd on the current state of knowledge.

Right now the current state of knowledge points to there being more CO2 than ever before. And there is a correlation with the increase in temperature. And it is a very strong correlation. It is the highest it has been in over 2 million years (verifiably) and not just by a little bit. Even if it is mostly models and the like for it to have such a strong effect in those models is not by design. (mdklatt correct me on any of this if I am wrong here).

And for those that think we take home all that money and are paid off to prove things... that is far from the truth. I am a broke *** bastard. Besides that most scientists are way too arrogant to be bought (I emphasize most here).

And I agree it is over dramatized. But that is what happens in all arguments/debates. Its the same **** we see in politics nowadays pit one side against the other and create doubt. Instead people should be looking to the data and really be able to understand it.

That is the biggest problem, the disconnect between scientists and the public. Most of the public has not had the training to synthesize the amount of scientific data that is coming out now every day on any given issue. Hell even those with the training have a horrific time of it.

Worse than that it is not readily available for the public. So it gets twisted into any readily acceptable sound bite or internet site, whether it is worthy of attention or not.

The hardest part is to remain objective IMO. to be able to accept data that you dont want to see and see how it fits in. And this goes for every "side" or whatever you want to call it.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Global warming is real...

Scientists and activivists push too hard

Politics makes it even worse with the silly BS where if you're conservative you are REQUIRED to hate science and dispute it at every turn and if you are liberal you HAVE to cast aside all economic and societal factors.

Dumb argument either way...let's do what we can to reduce CO2 and do what we can to reduce economic impact. You guys on the extremes are just asking for **** to get worse.

[ndpruitt03]

No, global warming is a theory that explains the relationship among the following facts

You can say the same thing about gravity and the way it holds stuff down, but nobody knows how or why it works that way.

John Coleman who found the weather channel says global warming is a scam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNO2VuLk-Ow

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression

NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’

Joins Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists

‘The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken’

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

This last link has many quotes from scientists. Including this one:

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March. “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming,” Weber said during the conference.

[ndpruitt03]

Here's vids from the British about how man made global warming is basically a scam

LMA6sszChwQ
ERisgJ3QWjk
9HLVYwmZoxc
Jr-AG3BA1Go
vbllTsBHuxk
KyK7C1OrAAo
LrIX8LcAuMQ
E-ZmCDOZbtM

[ndpruitt03]

All of this government spending that is going on is just exactly the opposite of where our founding fathers wanted to go. I'm not a republican, and I'm not a democrat because they are both different sides of the same coin. They are both more or less the same, and people of the left don't really realize this at all because they only pay attention to what they read and hear which is the left side saying the republicans are bad and right wingers when the republicans are essentially the same as the democrats now. All both sides want is power and to take away our freedoms our country was found upon. Unless something changes we are going towards socialism/communism/fascism or whatever you want to call it.

[JohnnyMack]

So, nobody else wants to build a nuclear reactor?

[hellogoodbye]

The sad thing to me is that there are so many things that both the left and the right could come together on, when it comes to the environment, pollution, and energy independance. Unfortunately, AGW has enabled the eco-radicals to completely dominate entirely one side of the argument to the point where sceptics of AGW=ignorant close minded creationists. That's really where RED FLAGS come up in people. Add in the "we MUST do something in the next X years, seriously" high pressure car sales tactics, one begins to see the emotional manipulation. So, if we just wave this $10 Trillion mojo stick around just right, we will save the... weather. Seriously. Trust us on this.

Be concerned about the environment. Be concerned about the pollutants we emit into the environment. Yes! CO2 is not going to be the way to bring people over. No matter how smarmy, smug, condenscending and superior you act about it.

[yermom]

So, nobody else wants to build a nuclear reactor?

not really

maybe i've watched The Simpsons too much

[Collier11]

Collier. I have for the last 2 years tried not to bash religion. My views are well known, but for the most part lately I have tried to stay out of it in a bashing type of sense. Id rather try to get to mutual understanding.

But youd agree that there are a ton of scientists that bash our faith just cus they cant prove it right?

but I am a scientist.

there arent as many scientist that say global warming is false. It simply isnt the case.

In all fairness I think you are wrong, maybe not on it being completely false but the fact that the effect it will have is overstated, it is basically fear mongering IMHO. I have seen a list of thousands of scientists around the world that feel this way, the exact numbers I cant tell you though

Science is not BS. Science changes all the time that is the beauty of it. To say it is BS because it changes is BS. As soon as we figure out something understanding changes. The fact that understanding of a problem changes doesnt mean that the first solution was BS. It was basd on the current state of knowledge.

Right now the current state of knowledge points to there being more CO2 than ever before. And there is a correlation with the increase in temperature. And it is a very strong correlation. It is the highest it has been in over 2 million years (verifiably) and not just by a little bit. Even if it is mostly models and the like for it to have such a strong effect in those models is not by design. (mdklatt correct me on any of this if I am wrong here).

I would agree but I do think that Science can and is "altered" to benefit the parties included at times


That is the biggest problem, the disconnect between scientists and the public. Most of the public has not had the training to synthesize the amount of scientific data that is coming out now every day on any given issue. Hell even those with the training have a horrific time of it.

Worse than that it is not readily available for the public. So it gets twisted into any readily acceptable sound bite or internet site, whether it is worthy of attention or not.

The hardest part is to remain objective IMO. to be able to accept data that you dont want to see and see how it fits in. And this goes for every "side" or whatever you want to call it.


The disconnect IMHO is the brashness and arrogance that alot of scientists display towards the general public. The reason it is significant is because in most cases you can find a scientist who will go the other way on alot of arguments so I dont see any place for that arrogance

[KABOOKIE]

You ever notice how the GW alarmist only preach their **** during the Summer? That’s because the only thing they have to show is a few tenths of a degree shift. A few tenths! Ha! On a scale where temps range on the Earth from -70C to +50C and data has been collected for 400K years there is NO ERROR IN THEIR DATA!!! Absolutely none and they say it with a straight face. :rolleyes:

[MR2-Sooner86]

Hmmmmmm

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[Fraggle145]

The disconnect IMHO is the brashness and arrogance that alot of scientists display towards the general public. The reason it is significant is because in most cases you can find a scientist who will go the other way on alot of arguments so I dont see any place for that arrogance

I think that goes both ways. There is a brashness in the public as well. It amounts to basically "You've been studying this most of your adult life, but I still know better or know more than you." or "Science is bull****, there is too much error, too much back and forth." The other problem is most people quit learning science in high school and most of them can't understand it. But then they want to tell scientists how to "do their job" when they dont have the first clue.

The arrogance comes from them knowing that they know more about that subject than about 95% of the populace. And it isnt as simple as there are scientists that always go one way or another on a subject. There are shades of gray in there. And oftentimes there is a consensus and dissenters. Just like with AGW. Sure you can always find someone, but that doesnt mean that they are right. It doesnt mean the consensus is right either. But if it is an overwhelming majority (as in the case of AGW) then which side are you going to go with?

And that doesnt mean the current state of knowledge couldnt shift tomorrow...

[Fraggle145]

Hmmmmmm

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

So you are saying that scientists found out something new and it changed their understanding?

Wow, who'd a thunk it?

[ndpruitt03]

Here's another interesting graph
http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/misc/sunspot.gif
Notice from the 1900s-40s that the temperature rise was big but the CO2 rise really wasn't that big. Yet the sun spot activity and temperature both rise and fall at the same time. Temperature started to fall from the 40s to the 70s yet the CO2 rose.

[Fraggle145]

I would agree but I do think that Science can and is "altered" to benefit the parties included at times

Right it can be. That doesnt mean that it happens often or is the norm.

Most of us get our funding from NSF or some other governmental agency. For example the ODWC funds our work on Golden algae. These agencies do not have a vested interest in how the research comes out they just want answers/solutions.

Dont you think it would be better for the government if they werent finding any signs of AGW? So I would argue if the government was going to push in any direction it would be against global warming.

[Curly Bill]

Isn't it in scientists best interest to find "proof" of global warming so that they can continue receiving funding to study it?

[ndpruitt03]

Right it can be. That doesnt mean that it happens often or is the norm.

Most of us get our funding from NSF or some other governmental agency. For example the ODWC funds our work on Golden algae. These agencies do not have a vested interest in how the research comes out they just want answers/solutions.

Dont you think it would be better for the government if they werent finding any signs of AGW? So I would argue if the government was going to push in any direction it would be against global warming.
But right now government gets more control if they scare people into climate change being our fault.

[hellogoodbye]

But if it is an overwhelming majority (as in the case of AGW) then which side are you going to go with?

And that doesnt mean the current state of knowledge couldnt shift tomorrow...

Isnt that having it both ways (GW evolves now into Climate Change)? But trust the consensus, because consensus knows better (excelsior!)? the debate is over, right? So lets go ahead with CapnTax, because we do it with the best of intentions, and thats better than doing nothing (given that we are assuming the false positive premise is taken for fact). We need to be doing something, right? ugh

Im all for conservation and energy effieciency, etc. There are no realistic alternatives to fossil feuls. Making it more expensive is not the answer. I think we aren't going to get serious about alternatives until we slide into the backside of Peak. Generations away. We will do it because we are running out, and not CO2

[OklahomaTuba]

Isn't it in scientists best interest to find "proof" of global warming so that they can continue receiving funding to study it?

SHHH. Don't start giving away all the academic's secrets away man. Do you really expect University hacks to be able to make it in the real world???

GW is the biggest fraud since DDT was banned, and that only killed tens of millions of people.

[ndpruitt03]

Isnt that having it both ways (GW evolves now into Climate Change)? But trust the consensus, because consensus knows better (excelsior!)? the debate is over, right? So lets go ahead with CapnTax, because we do it with the best of intentions, and thats better than doing nothing (given that we are assuming the false positive premise is taken for fact). We need to be doing something, right? ugh

Im all for conservation and energy effieciency, etc. There are no realistic alternative to fossil feuls. Making it more expensive is not the answer. I think we aren't going to get serious about alternatives until we slide into the backside of Peak. Generations away. We will do it because we are running out, and not CO2

That's all 100% right. In the end the "man made global warming theory" is winning out right now because government gets more control and money because of it. The only way this is changed is if we have a massive cooling period like we did from the 1940s to the mid 70s.

[Curly Bill]

Money is the key here. I'm not saying that any scientist is getting rich off of global warming, but a lot of them have jobs related to it. If they were to find that man is not responsible for contributing to global warming and the case was closed they'd have to find other jobs.

They have a vested interest in continuing the theory that we are responsible for GW.

[Fraggle145]

But right now government gets more control if they scare people into climate change being our fault.

So politicians are using fear tactics!? :eek: :eek: :eek:


They do this about everything on both sides. Gay rights, gun control, the war, the environment, you're not really that surprised are you?

[Fraggle145]

Money is the key here. I'm not saying that any scientist is getting rich off of global warming, but a lot of them have jobs related to it. If they were to find that man is not responsible for contributing to global warming and the case was closed they'd have to find other jobs.

They have a vested interest in continuing the theory that we are responsible for GW.

But I would argue this is the same as in the medical field. There isnt money in the cure only in treatment.

[Fraggle145]

SHHH. Don't start giving away all the academic's secrets away man. Do you really expect University hacks to be able to make it in the real world???

GW is the biggest fraud since DDT was banned, and that only killed tens of millions of people.

But we still have bald eagles. :rolleyes:

This is exactly the type of comment that I am talking about earlier.

You are talking out of your *** about **** you dont know any more about than what you read on an internet blog.

[Curly Bill]

But I would argue this is the same as in the medical field. There isnt money in the cure only in treatment.

That may be true, but we're talking about GW here.

Doctors perpetuate illness because that makes them money.

Scientist perpetuate the idea of GW because that makes them money.

You really want to go with this?

[hellogoodbye]

Whats really scary is the ideas for countering the hated GW. Lets all hasten the inevitable upcoming ice age! hooray!



*pssst - thats the only *fact* that science can *prove*: there have been ice ages in the past, and there will be ice ages in the future. 2 mile thick sheet of ice covering most of N America - sweet, bro!

[ndpruitt03]

Money is the key here. I'm not saying that any scientist is getting rich off of global warming, but a lot of them have jobs related to it. If they were to find that man is not responsible for contributing to global warming and the case was closed they'd have to find other jobs.

They have a vested interest in continuing the theory that we are responsible for GW.

The vids on the global warming swindle said just as much. Those guys pretty much used facts to go through all of this and that's where my graph in my last post is from. The biggest warming in the 20th century was from the 1910s to the 1940s when it rose about .4 of a degree. Since then it's risen about a .1 to .15 degrees after falling off some by the 70s it has risen about .3 degrees. Still not as big as the rise in temperature from the 1900s to 1940s.

[JLEW1818]

i heard the stimulus is working really well tho.....

[Fraggle145]

That may be true, but we're talking about GW here.

Doctors perpetuate illness because that makes them money.

Scientist perpetuate the idea of GW because that makes them money.

You really want to go with this?

No. I was just saying a parallel could be drawn there.

I would think it be in the governments best interest to push whatever is going to make/save it money.

Right now I would argue that would be funding research against AGW.

[Curly Bill]

Yup there's jobs to be funded studying GW, and lets not forget their poster boy Al Gore -- there's publicity to be had.

[ndpruitt03]

No. I was just saying a parallel could be drawn there.

I would think it be in the governments best interest to push whatever is going to make/save it money.

Right now I would argue that would be funding research against AGW.

It's not just about money it's about control also.

[Curly Bill]

I would think it be in the governments best interest to push whatever is going to make/save it money.

Right now I would argue that would be funding research against AGW.

You recognize who's in charge right now right? The looney left.

They love GW, it's a cool way of saying peeps are bad, big business is bad, big oil is bad, etc...

[JLEW1818]

spending trillions of dollars works..... not

[KC//CRIMSON]

It's funny watching the rodeo clowns in this thread try to keep up. It's much more entertaining than the running of the bulls in Pamplona.

[Sooner_Havok]

That graph is almost 5 years old.
Also most of the hottest temperatures on record were in the 20s-40s A few from the 2000s so I think the information on this graph is suspect.


That graph is a total fraud too. A 0.8 degree C shift can be easily blamed on data collection error.

Ok, here is another, newer one for you to poo-poo on

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Oh, and please keep in mind, this isn't the temperature change for one isloated spot. To get these, they took the average daily temperature at the countless observation stations, and used the daily averages to get a yearly average temperature for each location. They then took the yearly averages from every one of those stations, and averaged them together to get the global temperature average. It is going up.

[JohnnyMack]

Oh, and please keep in mind, this isn't the temperature change for one isloated spot. To get these, they took the average daily temperature at the countless observation stations, and used the daily averages to get a yearly average temperature for each location. They then took the yearly averages from every one of those stations, and averaged them together to get the global temperature average. It is going up.

I for one am not arguing that we've seen a temperature increase. What I have constantly questioned is whether or not this has happened before? If temperature increases similar to (or even more dramatic than this) have occurred on a "pre-industrial" planet earth how can you pin "global warming" to something done by man alone? An honest question I don't know the answer to is, how would we know if say 4,000 or 12,000 years ago the earth experienced similar fluctuations in temperatue? Is that something we can figure out?

[OklahomaTuba]

But we still have bald eagles. :rolleyes:

This is exactly the type of comment that I am talking about earlier.

You are talking out of your *** about **** you dont know any more about than what you read on an internet blog.

Ahh, so only you are the expert on all things global warming now?????

[ndpruitt03]

Ok, here is another, newer one for you to poo-poo on

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Oh, and please keep in mind, this isn't the temperature change for one isloated spot. To get these, they took the average daily temperature at the countless observation stations, and used the daily averages to get a yearly average temperature for each location. They then took the yearly averages from every one of those stations, and averaged them together to get the global temperature average. It is going up.

Ocean temperature changes takes hundreds to thousands of years. Getting a temperature gauge of the ocean is basically seen how temperature was hundreds of years ago because it takes that long for large amounts of water to change temperature. I don't see that graph as really valid either.

[hellogoodbye]

deleted - thought that the graph referred to surface temp data

bleh - i dont think many here would argue that the climate is changing - it has been doing that before, and after we left the cave.

[OklahomaTuba]

Ok, here is another, newer one for you to poo-poo on

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Is that the one James Hansen had to retract because it was BS??

[ndpruitt03]

Climate always changes and has changed for 4 billion years. But man has had nothing to do about it.

[Sooner_Havok]

I for one am not arguing that we've seen a temperature increase. What I have constantly questioned is whether or not this has happened before? If temperature increases similar to (or even more dramatic than this) have occurred on a "pre-industrial" planet earth how can you pin "global warming" to something done by man alone? An honest question I don't know the answer to is, how would we know if say 4,000 or 12,000 years ago the earth experienced similar fluctuations in temperatue? Is that something we can figure out?

I don't think anyone can or would argue that the earth doesn't go through temperature fluctuations naturally. I think what most global warming proponents would say is that we are accelerating the process, or perhaps even reversing a natural cooling trend. We may not be solely responsible, but our carbon addiction is, at best, aggravating a bad situation.

[Sooner_Havok]

Is that the one James Hansen had to retract because it was BS??

no

[KC//CRIMSON]

Ahh, so only you are the expert on all things global warming now?????


Unlike yourself, he doesn't pull his opinions or data out of a fortune cookie.

[OklahomaTuba]

FYI, from the guy in charge of all weather and climate research at Nasa, and James Hansen's boss...

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

SCIENCE!!!

[KABOOKIE]

Ok, here is another, newer one for you to poo-poo on

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Oh, and please keep in mind, this isn't the temperature change for one isloated spot. To get these, they took the average daily temperature at the countless observation stations, and used the daily averages to get a yearly average temperature for each location. They then took the yearly averages from every one of those stations, and averaged them together to get the global temperature average. It is going up.

And my poo-poo is still the same for that “new” chart as well. For data collection of this magnitude there is always a margin of error and these guys want everyone to believe in "tenths of degrees" is real data. That you can somehow see actual trending in tenths when the worldwide temperature range is -70C to 55C. In data collection, that’s called scatter. It’s not real. :rolleyes:

[ndpruitt03]

I don't think anyone can or would argue that the earth doesn't go through temperature fluctuations naturally. I think what most global warming proponents would say is that we are accelerating the process, or perhaps even reversing a natural cooling trend. We may not be solely responsible, but our carbon addiction is, at best, aggravating a bad situation.

There's no evidence to support this

http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/misc/sunspot.gif

Again look at this
CO2 gradually increases when the temperature warms way up in the 1900s-1940s, slightly increases when the temperature falls from the 40s to the 70s. By the way during that era the world economy was booming because of mass industrialism, in theory the temperature should have gone up during this period. It went down during this period. Since the 70s the temperature has risen. The CO2 numbers went way up. But you also have to look at something else the CO2 levels are rising because of the temperature rise, they don't cause it. Look at how the CO2 levels are relatively level from the 1910s to 1960s now look in the years before it temperatures in the past, they were relatively level to a slight rise by 1900, hmmm. Maybe temperature causes CO2 change. Now look after the 70s the CO2 goes up. Maybe that's because of the temperature rise in the 00s-40s. It wouldn't shock me to see a fall in CO2 concentration in the next decade or two if this pattern holds.

[JohnnyMack]

I don't think anyone can or would argue that the earth doesn't go through temperature fluctuations naturally.

I can agree with that.


I think what most global warming proponents would say is that we are accelerating the process, or perhaps even reversing a natural cooling trend.

I'm 50/50 on that.


We may not be solely responsible, but our carbon addiction is, at best, aggravating a bad situation.

I can agree with that.*

*Problem is no one wants to come up with a different solution. Those who own the O&G industry that provides the power to most of the country have a vested interest in it NOT changing. Those who want us off carbon based fuel sources can't come up with a viable alternative and have **** all over the development of nuclear power for decades.

[OklahomaTuba]

Climate always changes and has changed for 4 billion years. But man has had nothing to do about it.Considering we spewed more carbon world-wide in the last 10 years then in all of history (or so what Al Gore says). It is rather interesting that the temps are going DOWN during that time period, and not up.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/gggggg_thumb.gif


No consensus, and no warming, either

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either

[Sooner_Havok]

Ocean temperature changes takes hundreds to thousands of years. Getting a temperature gauge of the ocean is basically seen how temperature was hundreds of years ago because it takes that long for large amounts of water to change temperature. I don't see that graph as really valid either.

Says surface and ocean. And if you think it takes thousands of years for the ocean temperature to change, go jump into the Gulf of Mexico in December, and tell me it is the same temp as it is in August.

[Fraggle145]

Ahh, so only you are the expert on all things global warming now?????

That isnt what I said at all. I said that is an example of the type of thing scientists get tired of hearing.

And it shows how little you know about ****.

I know way more about DDT than you. I study Biology and Ecology. you know jack **** about resistance, how it affects food chains etc...

[KABOOKIE]

FYI, from the guy in charge of all weather and climate research at Nasa, and James Hansen's boss...


SCIENCE!!!

Another saying in data collection is:

Garbage in = Garbage out

[Fraggle145]

I can agree with that.



I'm 50/50 on that.



I can agree with that.*

*Problem is no one wants to come up with a different solution. Those who own the O&G industry that provides the power to most of the country have a vested interest in it NOT changing. Those who want us off carbon based fuel sources can't come up with a viable alternative and have **** all over the development of nuclear power for decades.

I agree with most of this and what Havok said. I want nuclear power. I want it bad. Not all people for the environment are whack jobs that hate nuclear power

[OklahomaTuba]

Another graph on the troposphere measurements.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/03/Don_Easterbrook2.033-thumb-410x273.jpg

[OklahomaTuba]

That isnt what I said at all. I said that is an example of the type of thing scientists get tired of hearing.

And it shows how little you know about ****.

I know way more about DDT than you. I study Biology and Ecology. you know jack **** about resistance, how it affects food chains etc...

I'm sure the MILLIONS who have died of malaria in Africa alone that could be alive thanks to DDT the last 20 years would love to hear about you talk about resistance and food chains, etc.

And I am sure they are equally impressed as you are that you were alive and healthy enough to study Biology & Ecology.

[Sooner_Havok]

Maybe temperature causes CO2 change.

Or maybe CO2 change cause temperature change.

Hey, maybe temperature change also cause the seasons! As it gets warmer in the northern hemisphere, that cause the north to angle more towards the sun. But then when it starts to get cooler, the southern hemisphere starts to angle more towards the sun.

My theory seems to fit, so it must be valid, the scientific community be damned.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Another graph on the troposphere measurements.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/03/Don_Easterbrook2.033-thumb-410x273.jpg

From Powerline Blog. Well done.

[Sooner_Havok]

Another graph on the troposphere measurements.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/03/Don_Easterbrook2.033-thumb-410x273.jpg

That isn't the surface you know that right? We live on the surface, you know that right?

Granted, the troposphere is the part of the atmosphere we live in, but the troposphere is, on average, 11 miles thick. Planes, on average, travel at 5 miles high. You want to take your next plane ride in an open cabin with no heater? Troposphere measurements do not equal surface measurements.

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm sure the MILLIONS who have died of malaria in Africa alone that could be alive thanks to DDT the last 20 years would love to hear about you talk about resistance and food chains, etc.

And I am sure they are equally impressed as you are that you were alive and healthy enough to study Biology & Ecology.

Oh, so now Tuba cares about the plight of the African people, because it helps him in an internets fight.

[OklahomaTuba]

Remember this?

Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

[Sooner_Havok]

And my poo-poo is still the same for that “new” chart as well. For data collection of this magnitude there is always a margin of error and these guys want everyone to believe in "tenths of degrees" is real data. That you can somehow see actual trending in tenths when the worldwide temperature range is -70C to 55C. In data collection, that’s called scatter. It’s not real. :rolleyes:


The margin of error just happens to always trend up though, right?

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh, so now Tuba cares about the plight of the African people, because it helps him in an interents fight.Africa is just one example out of many.

Banning DDT, another in a line of great liberal/progressive causes, has resulted in the DEATHS of MILLIONS, especially Africans.

I can only imagine the destruction the cap and trade tax will do to our economy and the stability of the world economy, but as the DDT example shows us, not even a genocide can stop a "progressive".

[Sooner_Havok]

Africa is just one example out of many.

Banning DDT, another in a line of great liberal/progressive causes, has resulted in the DEATHS of MILLIONS, especially Africans.

I can only imagine the destruction the cap and trade tax will do to our economy and the stability of the world economy, but as the DDT example shows us, not even a genocide can stop a "progressive".

So, we banned DDT in Africa. Damn we are good.

USA USA USA!!!

[OklahomaTuba]

From the Journal of Climatology....

The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract

[ndpruitt03]

Or maybe CO2 change cause temperature change.

Hey, maybe temperature change also cause the seasons! As it gets warmer in the northern hemisphere, that cause the north to angle more towards the sun. But then when it starts to get cooler, the southern hemisphere starts to angle more towards the sun.

My theory seems to fit, so it must be valid, the scientific community be damned.

Explain the temperature fall from the 40s to the 70s and how the CO2 rose although only slightly. Those facts don't correlate with global warming caused by man.

[OklahomaTuba]

William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton and former head of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Research, unloads on the charlatans who peddle the anthropogenic global warming theory:

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult. ... All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide." ...

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable "religious cult," noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called "alarmist" claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.

"There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past," Happer explained. "They can't even do that." ...

"[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It's going to give science a really bad name in the future," he said. "I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this."http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

[ndpruitt03]

From the Journal of Climatology....

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract

This also doesn't correlate to how greenhouse gases causing global warming theory. The troposphere would be much warmer if we/co2 were causing global warming.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm visualizing Tuba with a crazed look on his face googling, cutting and pasting as fast as his chubby fingers will allow.

[OklahomaTuba]

So, we banned DDT in Africa. Damn we are good.
Never mind the literally hundreds of wars that have broken out as a result of famine and such.

[KABOOKIE]

The margin of error just happens to always trend up though, right?

No. I'm syaing the margin of error is greater than what this graph shows. So, in reality there is no trend. It only appears as such because the scientists are not looking at reality but, data scatter.

And a degreed meteorologist tells me with a straight face that those 1860 measurements (averages) to within a tenth of a degree are real. That's funny.

[Sooner_Havok]

So, most of you don't want to do anything to address global warming because you feel it will hurt our economy. Or, you believe it to be a hoax because you think the people arguing for it hate America and want to punish it.

Ok,

But here is the thing, what if you are wrong? Are you willing to accept that possibility?

I am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong, that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by self-hating Americans in an attempt to ruin this country. What happens 20 years from now if we take steps to get off oil now?

What happens 20 years from now if Global warming is true, and we have done nothing to prepare?

Serious question, so Tuba, please do not reply. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

This also doesn't correlate to how greenhouse gases causing global warming theory. The troposphere would be much warmer if we/co2 were causing global warming.
And again, consider the industrialization of China and India during those times.

They don't know what pollution control equipment is over there, they just burn off and vent everything, and the temp STILL went down.

Its amazing people still believe this BS.

[ndpruitt03]

So, most of you don't want to do anything to address global warming because you feel it will hurt our economy. Or, you believe it to be a hoax because you think the people arguing for it hate America and want to punish it.

Ok,

But here is the thing, what if you are wrong? Are you willing to accept that possibility?

I am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong, that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by self-hating Americans in an attempt to ruin this country. What happens 20 years from now if we take steps to get off oil now?

What happens 20 years from now if Global warming is true, and we have done nothing to prepare?

Serious question, so Tuba, please do not reply. :D

What if an asteroid hits and we all die, none of the global warming debate will matter will it.

[Fraggle145]

I'm sure the MILLIONS who have died of malaria in Africa alone that could be alive thanks to DDT the last 20 years would love to hear about you talk about resistance and food chains, etc.

And I am sure they are equally impressed as you are that you were alive and healthy enough to study Biology & Ecology.

You are a ****ing moron if you really think DDT would have saved that many lives. Not to sound heartless, but even if they were alive who is going to pay to feed them all. It is likely that they would have succumbed to another illness to to their high population sizes and low standards of living.

Regardless, insects become resistant to pesticides and this includes DDT. And they do so at a rapid rate due to their high growth and reproductive rates. Every time you spray you kill off all of the insects that are susceptible, but unfortunately this isnt all of them. Those that live are resistant and the new population is derived from those resistant individuals. This was already starting to happen when they banned DDT. If you want more proof of the ability of insects to become resistant to organochloride pesticides look at the devastation endosulfan resistant strains of Tea-sucking insects are having on India's tea plantations.

And you know we wouldnt have any bald eagles now if we continued to use DDT. right? It bioaccumulates through the food web and makes it impossible for any bird of prey to sit on their eggs without crushing them. Its also highly toxic to most aquatic life.

[Sooner_Havok]

Never mind the literally hundreds of wars that have broken out as a result of famine and such.

But we still got a chemical banned in several countries on a different continent, right?

USA USA USA!!!!

[OklahomaTuba]

But here is the thing, what if you are wrong? Are you willing to accept that possibility?
So you're saying I would be responsible for killing the Urf!!!!

[ndpruitt03]

And again, consider the industrialization of China and India during those times.

They don't know what pollution control equipment is over there, they just burn off and vent everything, and the temp STILL went down.

Its amazing people still believe this BS.

Havok still doesn't understand the science unless it points out him as right. Look there are some good points on his science. And I do think we need to come up with other fuel sources eventually just because we shouldn't be going based on gasoline forever. But trying to put all our recourses toward those alternative sources now is just going to be a waste of money at this point. It's like all the money the US tried to waste years back moving to the metric system. That plan really worked out didn't it?

[Sooner_Havok]

What if an asteroid hits and we all die, none of the global warming debate will matter will it.

Wow, you just blew my mind dude.

What if the terrorists win? then what?

[KABOOKIE]

What if our attempts to combat AGW cause the Earf to die? WHAT THEN!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[yermom]

Havok still doesn't understand the science unless it points out him as right. Look there are some good points on his science. And I do think we need to come up with other fuel sources eventually just because we shouldn't be going based on gasoline forever. But trying to put all our recourses toward those alternative sources now is just going to be a waste of money at this point. It's like all the money the US tried to waste years back moving to the metric system. That plan really worked out didn't it?

but if we had moved to the metric system then we wouldn't be the only morons not using it now...

[ndpruitt03]

Wow, you just blew my mind dude.

What if the terrorists win? then what?

There's a lot of stupid meaningless what if's but that's exactly what they are, meaningless and stupid. Man made global warming advocates aren't based on science, it's a political thing, not a scientific thing.

[JohnnyMack]

None of this matters anyways. After 2012 we's all gonna be dead anyways.

[OklahomaTuba]

You are a ****ing moron if you really think DDT would have saved that many lives. Not to sound heartless, but even if they were alive who is going to pay to feed them all. It is likely that they would have succumbed to another illness to to their high population sizes and low standards of living.
Awesome post man. You are truly a humanitarian.

I guess I can see how the global warming crowd doesn't care if we have any jobs left or not, if they don't even care if people live or not.

[KABOOKIE]

None of this matters anyways. After 2012 we's all gonna be dead anyways.

So you're saying Obama is going to be a one termer? :D

[KABOOKIE]

Awesome post man. You are truly a humanitarian.

I guess I can see how the global warming crowd doesn't care if we have any jobs left or not, if they don't even care if people live or not.

Well, it's only people THEY want to live.

[Sooner_Havok]

Havok still doesn't understand the science unless it points out him as right. Look there are some good points on his science. And I do think we need to come up with other fuel sources eventually just because we shouldn't be going based on gasoline forever. But trying to put all our recourses toward those alternative sources now is just going to be a waste of money at this point. It's like all the money the US tried to waste years back moving to the metric system. That plan really worked out didn't it?

Oh, you are soooo right. Science hurts my little mind.

Hey, I said I am willing to accept my position is wrong. That is what real science is. Not being afraid to be wrong. If I see more evidence that can back up the "everything is fine" hypothesis, then I will hop on board. I have no sentimental attachment to global warming. Right now I believe that the greater preponderance of evidence is on the side of global warming, so that is where I sit.

[Fraggle145]

Awesome post man. You are truly a humanitarian.

I guess I can see how the global warming crowd doesn't care if we have any jobs left or not, if they don't even care if people live or not.

I notice you didnt respond to any of the rest of that post.

Maybe it is because you know you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

[Sooner_Havok]

None of this matters anyways. After 2012 we's all gonna be dead anyways.

You know what, I am really starting to want that to be true. :(

[Sooner_Havok]

There's a lot of stupid meaningless what if's but that's exactly what they are, meaningless and stupid. Man made global warming advocates aren't based on science, it's a political thing, not a scientific thing.

Right, there is no science to back up AGW. So, how is the weather today in candy land?

[OklahomaTuba]

I notice you didnt respond to any of the rest of that post.

Maybe it is because you know you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.Why would I bother to respond? I mean, you're the expert after all. We all bow in awe of your superior intellect.

[KABOOKIE]

Right, there is no science to back up AGW. So, how is the weather today in candy land?

We just had the coldest first week of July ever.

[Sooner_Havok]

but if we had moved to the metric system then we wouldn't be the only morons not using it now...

USA USA USA!!!

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, it's only people THEY want to live.

Ha! You see that quote from the liberal SCOTUS judge???

Abortion was to get rid of "certain populations". Wow.

[Sooner_Havok]

We just had the coldest first week of July ever.

Yay!!!! one data point that went down!!! Woot woot!

Hey, we have gone 8 years without a terrorist attack on US soil. WE WON!!! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! THE TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED!!!!


Can I has my right to privacy back now?

[OklahomaTuba]

Can I has my right to privacy back now?Yeah, as soon as Obama and the donks are done with it.

[Sooner_Havok]

Ha! You see that quote from the liberal SCOTUS judge???

Abortion was to get rid of "certain populations". Wow.

But, if only dirty liberals abort their fetuses, then won't the dirty liberals eventually be aborted off the planet?

[MR2-Sooner86]

So you are saying that scientists found out something new and it changed their understanding?

Wow, who'd a thunk it?

Yeah we were all going to freeze to death and now we're going to melt. Which is it?

Oh well, it's all B U L L S H I T though right?

NSFW
cr418hsVjI0&feature
XQgxDoL8di4&feature
qV8CRBs-Szs&feature

[Sooner_Havok]

Yeah, as soon as Obama and the donks are done with it.

Damn it. I really want to wank without the fear that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and SS will come barging into my bathroom cause they think I am polishing an ICBM :D

[KABOOKIE]

Yay!!!! one data point that went down!!! Woot woot!


Unlike the trend, that was a fact.

[Sooner_Havok]

Unlike the trend, that was a fact.

Says who?

Give me time and I will find someone to say that was an anomaly, a simple data collection error.

[ndpruitt03]

Can I has my right to privacy back now?

The same thing that is allowing people like yourself to believe in global warming because the government and media are pushing it as scientific fact(which doesn't really completely exist) is the same thing keeping our privacy away from us. The government doesn't give up power when it's given it. That's what government is all about in the history of man kind. Look at social security. When it was created it was made to be a temporary fix. The only way to get government out of power is to revolt against it.

[Sooner_Havok]

Yeah we were all going to freeze to death and now we're going to melt. Which is it?



Yay, science can never change!!!!

Next time you get sick, forget the medicine, you know they used to say that blood letting could cure just about anything. Try that. Aslo, I heard passing a baby under a cow three times cures the common cold.

[Sooner_Havok]

The same thing that is allowing people like yourself to believe in global warming because the government and media are pushing it as scientific fact(which doesn't really completely exist) is the same thing keeping our privacy away from us. The government doesn't give up power when it's given it. That's what government is all about in the history of man kind. Look at social security. When it was created it was made to be a temporary fix. The only way to get government out of power is to revolt against it.

So our last president screwed us in ways I never imagined by gathering so much power into the executive office.....


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo

[ndpruitt03]

Science doesn't really change all that much. The theory's on gravity haven't been any different for the last 350 years or so when Newton came up with them. Nobody knows how it works, they just know it does work. All of Newton's theory's fit the facts and no one has come up with facts to dispute his work. Same with Einstein's theory's of relativity. Most scientific theories haven't really changed that much over the decades and centuries. There have just been people that have found things that have added to them.

[NYC Poke]

I'm just curious about how this became such a partisan issue, with people tending to believe or not believe in global warming along party lines.

[ndpruitt03]

So our last president screwed us in ways I never imagined by gathering so much power into the executive office.....


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo
Actually it wasn't really our last president. It's progressivism/socialism and our government has been moving this way since McKinley took office the late 1890s.

[sooner_born_1960]

I'm just curious about how this became such a partisan issue, with people tending to believe or not believe in global warming along party lines.

I think algore and his little book had a lot to do with that.

[ndpruitt03]

I'm just curious about how this became such a partisan issue, with people tending to believe or not believe in global warming along party lines.
I'm a Libertarian, so which party lines are you talking about?

[NYC Poke]

I'm a Libertarian, so which party lines are you talking about?

I'd say I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarian who are actually Republicans.

[Sooner_Havok]

Science doesn't really change all that much. The theory's on gravity haven't been any different for the last 350 years or so when Newton came up with them. Nobody knows how it works, they just know it does work. All of Newton's theory's fit the facts and no one has come up with facts to dispute his work. Same with Einstein's theory's of relativity. Most scientific theories haven't really changed that much over the decades and centuries. There have just been people that have found things that have added to them.

heh, the Newtonian theory gravity only offers a approximation of gravity as described by the general theory of relativity.

Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. Oh, and ever hear of a graviton? It may only be hypothetical, but to say we have no idea how gravity works is foolish.

Our understanding of gravity has expanded greatly over the last 350 years or so. Well, I say our, I mean the scientific community. Sorry, didn't mean to lump you in there. Try that baby thing though and let me know how it works.

[tommieharris91]

Science doesn't really change all that much. The theory's on gravity haven't been any different for the last 350 years or so when Newton came up with them. Nobody knows how it works, they just know it does work. All of Newton's theory's fit the facts and no one has come up with facts to dispute his work. Same with Einstein's theory's of relativity. Most scientific theories haven't really changed that much over the decades and centuries. There have just been people that have found things that have added to them.

This is because (in Newton's cases, anyway) you're citing scientific law. You can dispute inertia or whatever all day long and try to come up with a way to refute inertia, but you can't disprove that objects at rest stay at rest, and objects in motion stay in motion without any other force acting on them.

Global warming, however, isn't scintific law, it's theory. It does change, just like pretty much any other theory. I personally am neither a skeptic nor a believer, so I'm just staying out of this debate.

Carry on.

[ndpruitt03]

I'd say I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarian who are actually Republicans.

There is no difference between republicans and democrats in my eyes. They are essentially the same. Big government, big spending, enfringe upon rights. Socialists. I don't see a difference other than one wants a slow death, the other wants a fast one.

[Sooner_Havok]

I'd say I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarian who are actually Republicans.

I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarians but who are actually anarcho-capitalists

[ndpruitt03]

This is because (in Newton's cases, anyway) you're citing scientific law. You can dispute inertia or whatever all day long and try to come up with a way to refute inertia, but you can't disprove that objects at rest stay at rest, and objects in motion stay in motion without any other force acting on them.

Global warming, however, isn't scintific law, it's theory. It does change, just like pretty much any other theory. I personally am neither a skeptic nor a believer, so I'm just staying out of this debate.

Carry on.
True, but nobody really knows how Newton's laws really work, they just know they do. It's one of the great scientific mysteries out there.

[Sooner_Havok]

True, but nobody really knows how Newton's laws really work, they just know they do. It's one of the great scientific mysteries out there.

God

[ndpruitt03]

I know a lot of people who call themselves Libertarians but who are actually anarcho-capitalists

That's about where our founding fathers were also. They wanted to federal government to have almost no power. Much closer to anarchy than totalitarianism. Now republicans and democrats want totalitarianism socialism.

[Sooner_Havok]

That's about where our founding fathers were also. They wanted to federal government to have almost no power. Much closer to anarchy than totalitarianism. Now republicans and democrats want totalitarianism socialism.

Rather presumptuous for you to say you know what our founding fathers wanted, don't you think? Maybe they wanted Godzilla to come and kill those pesky injans too. :D

[ndpruitt03]

Rather presumptuous for you to say you know what our founding fathers wanted, don't you think? Maybe they wanted Godzilla to come and kill those pesky injans too. :D

I actually read the constitution and read the federalists papers. Maybe you should also. The only big name guy from that period that was more like any of the politicians today was Alexander Hamilton. He wanted nationalized banks, drive up spending, you would like him a lot. The rest wanted smaller government, less tax, promote private business.

[Fraggle145]

Why would I bother to respond? I mean, you're the expert after all. We all bow in awe of your superior intellect.

Good. Its about time you listened to someone that actually knows more about the subject than you.

[Sooner_Havok]

I actually read the constitution and read the federalists papers. Maybe you should also. The only big name guy from that period that was more like any of the politicians today was Alexander Hamilton. He wanted nationalized banks, drive up spending, you would like him a lot. The rest wanted smaller government, less tax, promote private business.

I always fancied myself to be a young Tom Paine,

(I was giving you a hard time douch e rocket, note the smiley face. Aslo, stop taking yourself so god damned serious, you'll live longer dude.)

[The Remnant]

Actually our founding fathers did favor limited government (Articles of Confederation), however, this proved to be unworkable. Back to the drawing board.

[ndpruitt03]

Actually our founding fathers did favor limited government (Articles of Confederation), however, this proved to be unworkable. Back to the drawing board.

The Articles of Confederation were more or less complete anarchy. The federal government had no power. The country wouldn't have lasted if they didn't make changes. But the constitution only improved the power enough to where the federal government could tax and take over money. With the Articles because of the limited federal powers the government couldn't make money and each state and different currencies. So basically some states had worthless money some had more money. The federal government was created with checks and balances that were already being done at some state levels with not only the 3 branches but also with a bicameral congress. But even after the powers given to the federal level the powers were just enough to take care of money and matters between states and take over foriegn affairs.

The founding fathers didn't want a democracy. In fact they were scared of a democracy, they wanted a republic. The states and national government having equal power. They also didn't want to have a complete anarchy either. Socialism didn't really come around till about the 1800s so they didn't really think anything about that

[Sooner_Havok]

The Articles of Confederation were more or less complete anarchy. The federal government had no power. The country wouldn't have lasted if they didn't make changes. But the constitution only improved the power enough to where the federal government could tax and take over money. With the Articles because of the limited federal powers the government couldn't make money and each state and different currencies. So basically some states had worthless money some had more money. The federal government was created with checks and balances that were already being done at some state levels with not only the 3 branches but also with a bicameral congress. But even after the powers given to the federal level the powers were just enough to take care of money and matters between states and take over foriegn affairs.

The founding fathers didn't want a democracy. In fact they were scared of a democracy, they wanted a republic. The states and national government having equal power. They also didn't want to have a complete anarchy either. Socialism didn't really come around till about the 1800s so they didn't really think anything about that

Thank the commerce clause for that.


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

That little sentence allowed for much of the federal governments power grab.

Wait, I have never read the constitution, I don't know any of that.


What was I saying?

[The Remnant]

ndpruitt03, you are exactly right. They saw democracy as mob rule. That is why we have a constitutional republic instead. Unfortunately, "living constitution" diehards have shredded the document.

[soonerscuba]

There is nothing funnier than someone who thinks they can devine the thoughts of the founders and place it, shockingly, within their own purview. The founding father knew exactly 0% about running a global superpower within the context of a vastly connected world, they didn't even know how to properly establish a workable long-term gov't as evidenced by a wee skirmish in mid 19th century. Not to mention the other myriad of terrible ideas they came up with, this country survived by luck and a moral fabric within the populace that doesn't seem to have the stomach for an outright dictator. There is a reason we don't prop up American style gov't in foreign nations, it's not intrinsically stable. All that said, the founding fathers did give this nation a basis on which to succeed, but I will credit two oceans and a fruited plain with the lion's share of credit for American supermacy and stability.

Also, the founding fathers did not have a monolithic view as to the nature of federal gov't, pretending such is blatant revisionism.

[Curly Bill]

There is nothing funnier than someone who thinks they can devine the thoughts of the founders and place it, shockingly, within their own purview. The founding father knew exactly 0% about running a global superpower within the context of a vastly connected world, they didn't even know how to properly establish a workable long-term gov't as evidenced by a wee skirmish in mid 19th century. Not to mention the other myriad of terrible ideas they came up with, this country survived by luck and a moral fabric within the populace that doesn't seem to have the stomach for an outright dictator. There is a reason we don't prop up American style gov't in foreign nations, it's not intrinsically stable. All that said, the founding fathers did give this nation a basis on which to succeed, but I will credit two oceans and a fruited plain with the lion's share of credit for American supermacy and stability.

Also, the founding fathers did not have a monolithic view as to the nature of federal gov't, pretending such is blatant revisionism.

You said something about divining the thoughts of the founders being funny? Yet you would appear to be telling us about their view as to the nature of federal govt?

[Sooner_Havok]

You said something about devining the thoughts of the founders being funny? Yet you would appear to be telling us about their view as to the nature of federal govt?

he read stuff, leave him alone.

[Curly Bill]

he read stuff, leave him alone.

...and this gives him abilities that those he was criticizing apparently don't have? Got it! ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

...and this gives him abilities that those he was criticizing apparently don't have? Got it! ;)

They read stuff too

[Curly Bill]

They read stuff too


...and yet they're seemingly less qualified to comment on the thoughts of the founders?