Global warming

[HydrogenBond]

The original global warming studies began back in the early 1980's or maybe a little earlier. They had a 20 year projection that predicted doom and gloom. This got the movement going. Here were are 25 years later, and very little near that predicition has occurred.

 

I think too many scientists have become "ho's" Right now, global warming, is where the money is, due to politics. If they don't say what everyone wants to hear, they will lose funding. One can't expect yes men to say what is no their mind. It is sort of like buying an "expert witness" during a legal trial. Both sides can buy their own experts to say what they want to hear. If one side has more money, they can buy more experts. Money is money.

 

If we came up with $10B to look at the affect of the solar cycle on global warming, many of these same scientists would jump ship to get some of that moola. How about taking politics out of it and dividing the money down the middle between the pro's and con's.

[Cedars]

 

If we came up with $10B to look at the affect of the solar cycle on global warming, many of these same scientists would jump ship to get some of that moola. How about taking politics out of it and dividing the money down the middle between the pro's and con's.

 

Wont cost you nothing :)

 

TCS Daily - The Geologic Record and Climate Change

 

Who is Tim Patterson?

 

"Dr. Tim Patterson, a Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatologist, Department of Earth Sciences, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, is a leading researcher in the field of CO2 and its effect on the climate. He has over 118 peer-reviewed articles and has yet to receive a single dollar in funding from industry or public relation firms."

 

Quote from this article: Global Warming: How Al Gore learned to stop worrying and love America | InsideVandy

[InfiniteNow]

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[jackson33]

Jackson, what purpose does wild exaggerations play in a debate. It only serves to make you look poorly informed or trying to purposely mislead readers.

 

Unfortunately I don't have much time to address the rest of your post. I will return later to do so if no one else has done so.

 

However I couldn't let this pass. Can you tell me when Gore, or ANY other scientist indicated they were convinced that all of mankind (that is what you meant by 'we all' right?) will be dead in ten years due to global warming?

 

the statement was read by, Rush Limbaugh on his radio show from Gores latest book.

 

my credibility is challenged daily. i suppose because i prefer to question issues that are formed with motive. this to me is a major and developing worldwide problem. government on this issue alone has increased fuel taxes and mandated requirements that need not be. check out the cost of fuel in Europe and where this money is actually spent. its not on GW!!! Keoto likewise is a programed plan to take out US competition. Agriculture is by far the single most contributor to man made or caused CO2, but these efforts feed a good share of the planets people...the catch 22, is these same scientist will complain people are dieing because of the US declining food production caused by something new. give them some money and they will study it.

[jackson33]

I heard about a global warming article written by an historian. I didn't get his name. What he found was that during the time period between 1000-1300 AD, the earth was about 1-3 degress warmer than today. This was at a time with greenhouse gas affects of human's was very low.

 

Part of the data was connected to accounts of England actually being a wine exporter during that time. Imagine vintage wine coming from England. If one recalls, the Vikings sailed to America during that time, maybe because the Northern Atlantic was calmer. There found iceland, greenland and kept going.

 

During that period the living conditions improved in most of Europe because of the longer growing season. There were less accounts of major famine, pestulence, plagues, etc.. He even had data that suggested that people grew taller due to being outside in the warmer climate, longer periods of time, i.e, maybe standing up moving around eating better food, insead of grouched near a fire, hungry.

 

note; 1 to 3 degree warmer and how much nicer things were...

 

when the Vikings landed on Greenland, they farmed and even grew grapes. old farm houses, tools etc., have been uncovered to verify these events.

 

what is now England was very active in Grape production. for centuries no grapes were produced and now they get a crop every few years, 2 in 10.

[Zythryn]

the statement was read by, Rush Limbaugh on his radio show from Gores latest book.

 

my credibility is challenged daily. i suppose because i prefer to question issues that are formed with motive.

 

You suppose incorrectly, at least in my case. I question the credibility of some of your statements because of your sources. For example, this source (Rush Limbaugh) in this case is wrong. Al Gore's book never has said that all of us will die if we don't do something about GW. Likewise, I have never seen any report by any scientist indicating we will all die within 10 years if we don't do anything about GW. If you want to have any credibility try selecting arguments that are not so obviously false or so easily disproven.

[Zythryn]

according to the CO2 estimate readings from ice cores, CO2 has gone up and down in over the past in a very systematic pattern.

 

Very true, co2 has gone up and down in a very systematic pattern until recent history.

 

From wiki:Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So out of the last several 100,000 years the current trend is out of the ordinary. This current trend does not fit the pattern seen over the last several 100,000 years.

 

in part the high levels seen are attributed by some as aftermaths of volcano activity, which may have caused large amounts of plants decay and so on. humans have no doubt added some and the increased vegetation on the planet over the past 50-100 years would seem to reflect natures reactions as food is available to plant life.

 

I would be interested in the source of this information. It is true that decomposing plants and volcanoes will product co2.

However, the volcanoes, as shown earlier, represent about 1% of that contributed by man.

When plants decompose over a large area of the earth due to winter, it does cause a seasonal variation in co2 levels. However, this is relatively small amount (4-5ppm) and is absorbed the next summer as the plants that grow reabsorb a similar amount of co2. So the gain in most cases seems temporary at best.

 

i just happen to disagree, to it being mankind's fault. natures contributions to CO2 in the air are 95% of the total. most is from decaying plant and animal life.

 

Is this from the same sorce, or does it include the factor you earlier mentioned regarding greenhouse gases from volcanoes? Care to share the source? I am looking to see if I can find co2 amounts contributed by natural events and would appreciate any assistance.

 

i would agree volcano activity is given to much mention as to effects on the planet over the history of life.

 

If you agree vocano activity is given too much mention, why did you mention it??

 

one of my gripes is the extinction of the Dino's, which i do not feel was from a little rock hitting the Gulf of Mexico or any volcano activity. however it is represented in the 95% of CO2 that is from nature.

 

Are you saying that mankind's contribution to co2 levels over all of mankind's existance is only 5% of the total and nature's contribution over all time is 95%? If so, I have no qualms with that. As a matter of fact, I would be surprised if it wasn't more like 1%/99% or higher.

 

If we are talking about the annual contribution of co2, the extinction of the Dinos have added no co2 to the atmosphere this year. The burning of their remains (oil) has.

 

i would also remind you to repeat can work both ways. maybe the wolf theory, but science repeated over and over for many years that earth was going into a Ice Age, which only ended when the cry became global heating. even then the cycles were known and neither the cold or heat is comparable to what has been in recent history.

 

'Science repeated over and over'?? Could you tell me exactly when or what scientist or scientific journal?

There was a cooling trend in the decades before the 1970s. However no conclusions were drawn. The popular media did sensasionalize some of the reports.

 

From Wiki:

"1974 and 1972 National Science Board

The Washington Post reports that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated:[17]

 

During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.

This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) although the Washington Post quotes it with disapproval. The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:

 

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.

This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. A more complete quote is:

 

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .

"

 

i did google this and found arguments both ways. what life died and decayed may be part of a chain reaction which would dwarf mans efforts. this is my view and maybe a couple of real scientist.

 

May and maybe are fine. However, can you say which 'real scientist'? Link, quote, anything. Or where you found the arguments going the other way? I would be interested in scientific measurements indicating a volcanic erruption producing more co2 than mankind in a year.

 

what you are saying is total volcano activity on the planet contributes about one percent of the five percent and .005 of the total.

 

That is incorrect. As I don't agree mankinds contribution is only 5% of the total. However, if that 5% is accurate, then I would agree with the smaller percentage contributed by volcanoes.

 

thats fine, then tell science to quit worrying about Yellowstone.

 

Why in the world would I do that. Yellowstone errupting would lead to great loss of life and hardship to thousands, even millions of people.

 

remember the lower atmosphere is 76% nitrogen-21% oxygen and all the other elements make up the 2. think Mars is 95% CO2 and my car has never been there.

 

Isn't it amazing what a small amount of the atmosphere can change the temperature we have? For example, if there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere scientists estimate the surface temperature of the planet would averge 34 degrees!

 

Mars has its own atmospheric conditions just as Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and other planets do. Are you saying if our planets climate were becoming more similar to another planets we shouldn't worry as your car hasn't been there??

[jackson33]

Zythryn; i would prefer not to respond to your post, however you spent some time and i owe you this respect.

 

i prefer to debate an argument, in the same manner i do, at any public gathering. you will never see me question the source of a persons opinion and i only accept them as such. frankly 99+ opinions, on this issue and most others, i already know the source. occasionally i will try and check out where something i have not heard has come from, if it is a reasonable point.

 

the UN papers issued this week, were going to cause this issue to again take front stage and was no surprise. i will not go to my opinions on the creditability of the United Nations or the member states. i will however restate my point of motivated science. every person (all) that i have followed up on in discussion have in the end been motivated by some other personal issue, than GW. some are concerned about human welfare, clean water, air and so on, which i am also, but they will all eventually go to a dislike of a person (Bush-Chaney or some particular person) a particular business (Oil-auto-trucking) and in many cases capitalism in general. free markets, world trade, globalization, war on terror or any number of other issue than GW.

 

some are as ignorant of the natural changes of the planets history and believe what is happening is something that just started when some entity became greedy, rich or politically endowed. school children are especially vulnerable to the tactics used in furthering what some regard their purpose for life.

 

ignorance goes a lot further, when just what is for sure is not what is. we do know, understand and accept cycles. they have happened and will again. to say Manhattan Island or many places around the world, will never AGAIN be under water is ludicrous. the fact is we know they will and many other things that have happened will again. temperatures have fluctuated a whole lot more then the current cycles and will again. blaming any person, business or people in general is not going to solve the problems and more important its not going to prevent them, delay them or alter the pending events.

 

you touched on what i feel is the scientific cause for weather, climates, temperature and pressures changes. this being what is in the various levels of the atmosphere. so to speak the energy retained or reflected by each level or the total. this energy which creates all our phenomena is ever changing, no doubt by causes which have nothing to do with anything on the planet, much less mans. you mentioned the earths heat or which comes from the core or the 35 degree with no retain-able means, but remember the outer atmosphere is very hot and reaches 700 to i have seen 1000 degree F.

 

i thank you for your response and opinion. i will reject it as proof of anything and expect i will get bombarded with nasty comments. frankly no one will be getting a virgin and i have and expect to be challenge more and more, as those kids i mentioned become vocal on this issue...

[InfiniteNow]

i prefer to debate an argument, in the same manner i do, at any public gathering.

Except here you're debating accepted facts, which makes you seem foolish.

 

the UN papers issued this week, were going to cause this issue to again take front stage and was no surprise. i will not go to my opinions on the creditability of the United Nations or the member states.

Your feelings on the credibility of the UN to handle international affairs in an effective way has absolutely no bearing on the work of those who compiled the data.

 

You are using your opinion on an organization in an attempt to discredit the work of thousands, work which shows undeniably that human activities have a major impact on global climate... Work which supports strongly previous work indicating the same. Even if we reduced current emissions to zero IMMEDIATELY the effects of warming would continue for long into the future, so waiting to make changes or arguing about the member states of the UN is a COLLASAL waste of time (and future life).

 

every person (all) that i have followed up on in discussion have in the end been motivated by some other personal issue, than GW. some are concerned about human welfare, clean water, air and so on, which i am also, but they will all eventually go to a dislike of a person (Bush-Chaney or some particular person) a particular business (Oil-auto-trucking) and in many cases capitalism in general. free markets, world trade, globalization, war on terror or any number of other issue than GW.

First, your communication skills are nearly as bad as your acceptance of fact. That aside...

 

We have leaders in place to look out for the welfare of their people. The people can learn and study all they want, but ultimately it's those in power who must implement change. The emotion you reference is not a detractor from one's stance, it is an expression of it. These leaders are perceived so negatively because they are failing in their responsibility to the populace.

 

The dislike manifests in people when they recognize their leader's short-sighted and selfish decisions being repeated. WE ALL suffer from THEIR mistakes, so accountability of action is very relevant indeed.

 

some are as ignorant of the natural changes of the planets history and believe what is happening is something that just started when some entity became greedy, rich or politically endowed.

Well, if some people believe that shifts in global climate is recent and that the only source of this change is greed and politics, they'd be missing a key part of the problem. The issue is not that global climate change has never occurred until recently, but that we as humans are deleteriously effecting the health of our planet and ourselves, and that global climate change results from our actions. That this global climate change will kill not just us, but a large percentage of all life... life less able to adapt to such changes quickly enough to keep pace with our parasitic ignorance. That we can do better, and, in fact, have an obligation to do so.

 

temperatures have fluctuated a whole lot more then the current cycles and will again. blaming any person, business or people in general is not going to solve the problems and more important its not going to prevent them, delay them or alter the pending events.

Now THAT'S a ludicrous claim. There are key contributers to the problem. Recognizing their contributions allows us to take action. Removing their contributions makes things better. Preventing others from making similar contributions makes things better again. What kind of bullshit are you trying to convince people of? Your lack of facts and understanding is not only frustrating, but disheartening since I'm sure there are more out there like you.

 

i will reject it as proof of anything and expect i will get bombarded with nasty comments. frankly no one will be getting a virgin and i have and expect to be challenge more and more, as those kids i mentioned become vocal on this issue...

Yeah, that really supported your argument. Let's bring your hatred of muslims and other cultures into the mix.

 

Does the planet really need to put us through a mass extinction event to clear out these blind ideologies and arguments rooted in the infertile soil ignorance?

[Zythryn]

Zythryn; i would prefer not to respond to your post, however you spent some time and i owe you this respect.

 

I truely appreciate that as I feel this is an important discussion.

 

i prefer to debate an argument, in the same manner i do, at any public gathering. you will never see me question the source of a persons opinion and i only accept them as such. frankly 99+ opinions, on this issue and most others, i already know the source. occasionally i will try and check out where something i have not heard has come from, if it is a reasonable point.

 

Is an opinion automatically valiid? If someone holds the opinion that the earth is flat, does that make it a valid fact?

 

Part of the reason I ask for sources is I want to learn. If there is research or facts I am unaware of I would like to review it so that I can become better informed. Refusal or inability to provide resources does not necessarily mean the opinion is without factual basis. However if a trend develops it shows a disturbing trend which brings any stated facts into question.

 

If you personally allow the best spoken person to persaude you of facts with only their opinion, that is fine. However, may not necessarily be factual and therefore dangerous to treat as such.

 

the UN papers issued this week, were going to cause this issue to again take front stage and was no surprise. i will not go to my opinions on the creditability of the United Nations or the member statesfrom Zythryn: including the USA??.

 

If you discount a report based solely on your opinion, and then tell others it is a fact that they are wrong, you are doing yourself and the people you sway with your opinion a disservice. If you discount it due to errors in the studies, or because you disagree with the methodology that is certainly different.

 

The UN report was compiled by over 1200 scientists and agreed unanonymously by 152 countries (including the USA). Are you questioning all of them?

 

i will however restate my point of motivated science. every person (all) that i have followed up on in discussion have in the end been motivated by some other personal issue, than GW. some are concerned about human welfare, clean water, air and so on, which i am also, but they will all eventually go to a dislike of a person (Bush-Chaney or some particular person) a particular business (Oil-auto-trucking) and in many cases capitalism in general. free markets, world trade, globalization, war on terror or any number of other issue than GW.

 

I disagree. Leave all other people/companies out of it (I will too as I am not sure if I have or not). Base the decisions on science.

It is true every human being has some sort of bias. That is why scientific journals use peer review. So that if one scientist allows non-scientific bias to get in the way of performing his/her study, others will correct it.

 

some are as ignorant of the natural changes of the planets history and believe what is happening is something that just started when some entity became greedy, rich or politically endowed.

 

I disagree again. I have seen no evidence that any climatologist or scientist studying the issue of GW believes that has not been natural variability in the past.

If you speak of the average person on the street, I suppose that is more likely. However these are typically not the people behind the research.

 

ignorance goes a lot further, when just what is for sure is not what is. we do know, understand and accept cycles. they have happened and will again. to say Manhattan Island or many places around the world, will never AGAIN be under water is ludicrous. the fact is we know they will and many other things that have happened will again. temperatures have fluctuated a whole lot more then the current cycles and will again. blaming any person, business or people in general is not going to solve the problems and more important its not going to prevent them, delay them or alter the pending events.

 

So because there is a natural cycle, humanity is incapable of affecting it?

Forest fires have been happening for billions of years. Does this mean man is not capable of causing a forest fire?

 

Yes, there are natural trends. AGW holds that we are speeding up the process. This increase in GW will lead to disastrous results. No, it won't be the end of the world, or the end of humanity. However it will cause much economic damage and damage to health and life of many humans.

 

i thank you for your response and opinion. i will reject it as proof of anything and expect i will get bombarded with nasty comments. frankly no one will be getting a virgin and i have and expect to be challenge more and more, as those kids i mentioned become vocal on this issue...

 

I hope you don't get bombarded by nasty comments. You are welcome to reject my questions and statements.

 

While you arguments are based on your opinions, I prefer to debate with facts and studies. No, nothing is 100% certain, but I believe peer reviewed reports from a number of different sources (including the sceptics) are a better source of information than someone elses opinion which is not based on facts.

 

I thank you for your response. Instead of the politics and baseless opinions though, could you address any of the factual information or rebuttals I have put forward (specifically the contribution of co2 from man vs by nature, when 'science stated over and over we were going into an ice age', how much co2 a single volcano contributes to the atmosphere vs man's contribution).

 

Back up the info you have stated, I am happy to be educated. It would also take a weight off my mind as I would no longer need be concerned about the world we are leaving to our children.

[erich]

Exxon along with many other big companies Have come to the CO2 table, and stopped funding AEI and all the AGW deniers:

Exxon meets green groups as climate focus surges | Reuters.com

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20070112:MTFH11347_2007-01-12_22-15-10_N12276392&type=comktNews&rpc=44

 

 

Now who are you going to believe, Jackson33 or Exxon ??

 

I believe it's Time to Master the Carbon Cycle

 

 

Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

 

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.

I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's virgin forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon.

 

Energy, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas management

Energy, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas management

 

 

On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

 

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.

 

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined

pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of

that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation

the other 2/3.

 

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel co2 emissions as charcoal.

 

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "

 

 

 

Terra Preta Soils Technology: Carbon Negative Bio fuels, Massive Carbon sequestration and 3X Fertility Too

 

If we would just char our cellulose waste we can not only put the carbon back where we liberated it from but in one stroke also take fossil fuel waste to feed the soil.

When using char to catalyze CO2, NO2, and SO2 in coal-fired power plants, all this waste becomes both habitat and food for the soil biome.

 

This ammonia scrubbing process, Research Home Page ,( half way down the page "See an initial analysis. NEW") is The greatest aspects of Terra Preta soils technology, the sequestration of fossil fuel CO2 emissions into homes for bugs ,and turning NO2 & SO2 into bug food , all of which grow more plants and sequesters even more CO2.

 

To take just one natural representative example, in the classic Rothampstead experiments in England where arable land was allowed to revert to deciduous temperate woodland, soil organic carbon increased 300-400% from around 20 t/ha to 60-80 t/ha in less than a century (Jenkinson & Rayner 1977). The rapidity with which organic carbon can build up in soils is also indicated by examples of buried steppe soils formed during short-lived interstadial phases in Russia and Ukraine. Even though such warm, relatively moist phases usually lasted only a few hundred years, and started out from the skeletal loess desert/semi-desert soils of glacial conditions (with which they are inter-leaved), these buried steppe soils have all the rich organic content of a present-day chernozem soil that has had many thousands of years to build up its carbon (E. Zelikson, Russian Academy of Sciences, pers. comm., May 1994).

 

 

All that was from just letting the land lay fallow, Imagine the amount of carbon if this is done purposely using Terra Preta soils.

[jackson33]

Zythryn;

 

no, by no means is any opinion offered necessarily correct. for starters i go to these forums to discuss issues i feel are being distorted and again by motivated or political cause. the threads i answer or participate in are accepted as earnest people with likewise earnest desires to make a point. if i read a post, agree with the post, why bother to reply. even when reading a google search, i tend to by pass like minded articles.

 

on this source thing, which bothers some; if you have an opinion and i disagree, when the issue has two opposing views to start with why would you want me to list mine. they will only suggest what i said. also if you give a reference i can bet it favors your side. on this GW issue, i like to check out odd ball searches. today i googled "breakdown carbon dioxide" which has several sites with analysis for all views of GW. i knew rain water takes out most CO2 from the atmosphere, but that oceans absorb much as well was new to me. if i had searched Global Warming which i have many times, i get all you and others suggest in hoards.

 

yes, many fine, educated and well intended people will shortly release their findings. there will be no mentions of good things that have come from this warm trend or the cycles of weather or many other things and what is mentioned will be contrary to my view of other findings. if you really don't understand the politics of this, please refer to some recent comments made by the French president. then add a little of the US political rhetoric, which would seem to follow party lines. the UN itself i favor, but not for scientific opinion. in a world economy and with problems being international in nature i favor anything where all people and their values can be discussed.

 

i talk to many kids. generally the subjects are science but GW does come up.

i cannot talk to them as i do you, but they SEEM to be indoctrinated toward their parents and society, being the cause for all mankind's problems.

 

my personal opinion on mans effects on nature, would imply nature has and is in control. reactions have been ongoing and will continue to with in its own structure. we are just a small part of nature as are our habits. if we produce more CO2, then more plant can survive and if we reduce less will, so to speak. i am nor opposed to thrift, conservation or just being and having clean streams, oceans, fresh water and so on. nor to i oppose capitalism and the desire of some that drive SUVs, own yachts or fly their own planes. i do oppose groups with a view and the attempt to force that on the rest. the reasons are not of importance and if legal, every one has the right to his/her own destiny. over-dramatic i am sure but we have groups in this country and i am sure world wide, which would control every aspect of life, if allowed...

[InfiniteNow]

Off topic J33. Your post on the political doctrines and desire for power is interesting, but is not related to global warming itself or it's causes.

[jackson33]

erich;

 

man does not effect the climate. the heat dispersement of the suns energy does. wind and weather currents follow the least resistance and avoid the heated areas. we are now down to mans first efforts to feed its own. in the US we feed a few more then our own and a point of pride for me. we do produce most of the man made CO2's (25% of the total world-mans efforts) and we produce much of the goods and products...

 

they say the worlds surface temperatures are up 1 degree F over the past 100 years and forget to mention the population alone is up 300%. they also tend to remind you the southern hemisphere temperature are stable (no change) or that the temperatures on the continent Ant-Arctic are going down .06 per decade and this ice dropping off is for too much ice. by the way NASA is in charge of this project and worth a trip to their site.

 

you put me in good company with Exxon and i actually do hold some of their stock. they best do work with the Auto makers, environmentalist or any group they can. its not good business not to discard potential customers. i might add these and other big companies are working on alternative fuels and finance some themselves.

[InfiniteNow]

man does not effect the climate.

This is false. Clearly the opposite has been demonstrated just this week. You want this claim to remain, support it. Show us the evidence of your statement.

 

the heat dispersement of the suns energy does.

It also has an effect, yes.

wind and weather currents follow the least resistance and avoid the heated areas.

Show evidence of this.

we are now down to mans first efforts to feed its own.

First effort to feed what? :cup:

we [uS] do produce most of the man made CO2's (25% of the total world-mans efforts)

Show evidence of this.

and we produce much of the goods and products...

Show evidence of this. I am confident of it's falsehood.

 

they say the worlds surface temperatures are up 1 degree F over the past 100 years and forget to mention the population alone is up 300%.

Yes, the rhetorical "they." Show evidence of this.

 

they also tend to remind you the southern hemisphere temperature are stable (no change) or that the temperatures on the continent Ant-Arctic are going down .06 per decade and this ice dropping off is for too much ice.

They again. Don't they bug you! Show evidence of this.

by the way NASA is in charge of this project and worth a trip to their site.

Is this project the one where "they" remind people of temperature stability? Show evidence of this.

 

you put me in good company with Exxon and i actually do hold some of their stock.

I understood the point eric was making, but I felt he would have done better not to ask if we believe Exxon... :hihi:

 

they best do work with the Auto makers, environmentalist or any group they can.

Show evidence of this.

its not good business not to discard potential customers.

Yes it is. It's great business not to discard potential customers.

 

i might add these and other big companies are working on alternative fuels and finance some themselves.

Show evidence of this.

 

 

It's time to put up or shut up Jackson33.

[jackson33]

Off topic J33. Your post on the political doctrines and desire for power is interesting, but is not related to global warming itself or it's causes.

 

i was going to respond to your other post, but will limit to a couple points.

 

on this post; politics is very much part of the accepted principles of GW. you cannot in good conscious accept Kyoto, with in the capitalistic, fair trade or even world trade concepts. if the US does not sign and become submissive to these requirements, the French government will re-establish tariffs throughout the European community. Fox news this morning....last i heard Kyoto, was designed to limit greenhouse gases...

 

since you have made my character an issue and i am responding to a representative of this forum; I do not hate Muslims. in fact i don't hate any one. as to my communicating abilities, i can't argue, since i hear this all the time. i might say however, that Buffy told me to advise a moderator if this were ever suggested. now i don't know what to do...

 

for some reason, we are not going to agree on most social issues. i apologize for this, since i feel most are somewhat liberal. however, i do wish you would cut a little slack on the personal attacks. if nothing else, i do not attack a persons character, intelligence or abilities to express. here or any other forum you may visit.

[InfiniteNow]

Again, all off topic...