Global Warming Quiz

[JasperDog94]

How well do you know the facts about global warming?

Link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html)

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
How well do you know the facts about global warming?

Link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html) Good lord. Still dont see it. Sad that its thinking like ( gambling that its not caused by us) that will end life like we know it. then when they finaly do figure out they were wrong and they are also responsible for no action being taken untill its too late. all they will say is- oops or but but but I thought........ If your wrong we loose the planet as we know it. Cost that cant even be calculated.... If your right and we take action now to try to prevent it what have we lost. Money, Not as much as if we lose the planet but it will be expensive in the short term. BUT we gain Clean air and cleaner environment.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Good lord. Still dont see it. Sad that its thinking like ( gambling that its not caused by us) that will end life like we know it. then when they finaly do figure out they were wrong and they are also responsible for no action being taken untill its too late. all they will say is- oops or but but but I thought........ If your wrong we loose the planet as we know it. Cost that cant even be calculated.... If your right and we take action now to try to prevent it what have we lost. Money, Not as much as if we lose the planet but it will be expensive in the short term. BUT we gain Clean air and cleaner environment. lol...about what I expected from you. Don't dispute the facts, but instead make statements based on emotion. Facts are facts.

[crzyjournalist03]

yeah, nobody seems to listen to me or any of my college professors who studied climatology and said that we're going to hit an ice age soon and global warming has happened many times before.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
yeah, nobody seems to listen to me or any of my college professors who studied climatology and said that we're going to hit an ice age soon and global warming has happened many times before. This is what I don't understand. It has been show that global warming and global cooling is cyclical. Facts back this up. Yet the "man-caused global warming" group plays the PC card and says that if you don't agree with them (basing your opinion on emotionalism) that you don't care for the environment. Then they play the "What if you're wrong?" card. I'm all for cleaner power and cleaner air, but don't confuse one issue with another.

Bottom line is: Don't pee on me and then tell me it's raining.:speech:

[Black_Magic]

well I will say this. the movement is growing. Dont like it then vote for all the ones who want to trash the environment in the name of progress and so on and so forth. BUT the movement keeps growing and I will vote with that movement. Dont worry the folks who care will soon be enought to take measures to prevent it with votes despite folks like you. we will save you against your will and not expect a thank you either.:clap:

[crzyjournalist03]

Global warming reminds me so much of Y2K that it's not even funny...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
well I will say this. the movement is growing. So does cancer.

[BMOC]

Have to agree with the Y2K comment...I have heard both sides over and over, and the geologist site I do agree with. And I passed the quiz with a 100.

[sahen]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is what I don't understand. It has been show that global warming and global cooling is cyclical. Facts back this up. Yet the "man-caused global warming" group plays the PC card and says that if you don't agree with them (basing your opinion on emotionalism) that you don't care for the environment. Then they play the "What if you're wrong?" card. I'm all for cleaner power and cleaner air, but don't confuse one issue with another.

Bottom line is: Don't pee on me and then tell me it's raining.:speech:

i am not told those things, i normally am told that if i do not agree with global warming then i have not been informed and therefore do not know what im talkin about....i always love it when someone you are arguing w/ makes that their defense, you really cant say much other than ok....

[Black_Magic]

Dont give it a single thought that Exon Mobile put this kind of study /quiz together. Dont let that effect your oppinion at all. they all really would do what is right for the environmet first too. You guys remind me of the tobaco industry folks who fought hard as heck to convince smoking was not addictive or dangerous to people. they tried for years and years to defend it. this too will change over time as evidence mounts.

[shankbear]

There is global warming. It isn't man made. It is cyclical. The so-called scientists who have become political toadies of the enviro-loon movement religion should be ashamed. They have sold out plain and simple.

[UPanIN]

Originally posted by shankbear
There is global warming. It isn't man made. It is cyclical. The so-called scientists who have become political toadies of the enviro-loon movement religion should be ashamed. They have sold out plain and simple.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Good lord. Still dont see it. Sad that its thinking like ( gambling that its not caused by us) that will end life like we know it. then when they finaly do figure out they were wrong and they are also responsible for no action being taken untill its too late. all they will say is- oops or but but but I thought........ If your wrong we loose the planet as we know it. Cost that cant even be calculated.... If your right and we take action now to try to prevent it what have we lost. Money, Not as much as if we lose the planet but it will be expensive in the short term. BUT we gain Clean air and cleaner environment.

Sorry Blackie, but I tend to put a lot more stock in these 17000 scientist views rather than your rantings about something you obviously know nothing about.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
lol...about what I expected from you. Don't dispute the facts, but instead make statements based on emotion. Facts are facts.

Facts are facts? Yeah right, at least not for this topic. Everyone has their own "fact" about it, but it's all opinions. The bottom line is that the number of Greenhouse gases is increasing and our ozone is being destroyed and a lot of it has to do with us. We could go the Ronald Reagan route and disband the EPA and have no restrictions on any of that though, since most people want to believe that we have no impact on it. I stopped taking this quiz after question 3, because if global warming started 18,000 years ago then why when George Washington crossed the Deleware was there ice floating in it? You don't see that anymore. This quiz is nothing but propaganda and you're buying into it. It's a fact that Greenhouse gases hold in heat and that CFCs are depleating the ozone, but I guess that if we put more of something that keeps it warmer into the atmosphere it won't have any effect. That's like saying that one cube of ice will cool a cup of water as much as ten cubes of ice. Think about it...

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
why when George Washington crossed the Deleware was there ice floating in it? You don't see that anymore.

Uhhh the Deleware freezes all the time

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Facts are facts? Yeah right, at least not for this topic. Everyone has their own "fact" about it, but it's all opinions. The bottom line is that the number of Greenhouse gases is increasing and our ozone is being destroyed and a lot of it has to do with us. We could go the Ronald Reagan route and disband the EPA and have no restrictions on any of that though, since most people want to believe that we have no impact on it. I stopped taking this quiz after question 3, because if global warming started 18,000 years ago then why when George Washington crossed the Deleware was there ice floating in it? You don't see that anymore. This quiz is nothing but propaganda and you're buying into it. It's a fact that Greenhouse gases hold in heat and that CFCs are depleating the ozone, but I guess that if we put more of something that keeps it warmer into the atmosphere it won't have any effect. That's like saying that one cube of ice will cool a cup of water as much as ten cubes of ice. Think about it...

what makes facts that disregard global warming propaganda and facts that prove global warming legit? It's all your opinion dude.

CFCs and Greenhouse gases are contributing virtually nothing to the atmosphere when you take all other nature-based contributers into effect. To use your example, it's like using a million ice cubes to cool off something and adding one more to it...that million and first one isn't going to make any difference.

And if you quit after question three simply because you refuse to agree that global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, then the mere fact that you're ignoring the facts shows that you've bought into the so-called propaganda that supports the idea of global warming.

[Black_Magic]

Look ater these images
LINK (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html)
ANOTHER LINK (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html)
Sure we arnt seeing Global warming.... Sure its not from the industrial revolution on...:rolleyes:
Dont worry. There are enough of us now to start changing things now with votes and it is getting better every year . In about 5 years there will not be half the folks that sick thier head in the sand that there are now.
Oh yeah and smoking Tobaco does not cause cancer either does it.:p

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look ater these images
LINK (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html)
ANOTHER LINK (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html)
Sure we arnt seeing Global warming.... Sure its not from the industrial revolution on...:rolleyes:
Dont worry. There are enough of us now to start changing things now with votes and it is getting better every year . In about 5 years there will not be half the folks that sick thier head in the sand that there are now.
Oh yeah and smoking Tobaco does not cause cancer either does it.:p


No one doubts the Planet is warming up...But it is the cause that people dont know

OF course..South America is experiencing colder than normal temps

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look ater these images
LINK (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html)
ANOTHER LINK (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html)
Sure we arnt seeing Global warming.... Sure its not from the industrial revolution on...:rolleyes:
Dont worry. There are enough of us now to start changing things now with votes and it is getting better every year . In about 5 years there will not be half the folks that sick thier head in the sand that there are now.
Oh yeah and smoking Tobaco does not cause cancer either does it.:p

Thanks for the links, but once again, I've never said that global warming doesn't exist...I stand by my belief though that the human race is not responsible for it, as everything that we are currently seeing has happened in cycles for thousands of years, and that's documented as well.

They can say that the hottest years have been since year XXXX, but the truth is that there was no temperature measurements at the last ice age or last global warming. Even those articles you provide admit that the CO2 in the atmosphere is a miniscule, although important part of the atmosphere. But what they don't point out is that the human contribution to that is next to nothing...we're talking a few parts in a million for a gas that comprises a few parts in a million of the entire universe.

So if you want me to acknowledge that humans are responsible for global warming, I'll admit that we are responsible for about a one part in every 1,000,000,000,000. That's scientific.

[Black_Magic]

willing to risk it all on the hunch you have that we have nothing to do with it. :doh:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
willing to risk it all on the hunch you have that we have nothing to do with it. :doh:

Willing to spend TRILLIONS of dollars and effect World Economy on a hunch?

All most of us ask is to have REAL proof before we act EITHER WAY

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
willing to risk it all on the hunch you have that we have nothing to do with it. :doh:

hunch??? I just gave you numbers.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
what makes facts that disregard global warming propaganda and facts that prove global warming legit? It's all your opinion dude.

CFCs and Greenhouse gases are contributing virtually nothing to the atmosphere when you take all other nature-based contributers into effect. To use your example, it's like using a million ice cubes to cool off something and adding one more to it...that million and first one isn't going to make any difference.

And if you quit after question three simply because you refuse to agree that global warming has been occurring for thousands of years, then the mere fact that you're ignoring the facts shows that you've bought into the so-called propaganda that supports the idea of global warming.

CFC's steal an oxygen molecule from ozone making it oxygen gas (O2) instead of ozone (03), which does deplete the ozone which allows in more ultraviolet radiation. And yes, in this case, it does make a difference, a big one, because less than a one degree rise in temperate will contribute to the melting of the ice caps. Global warming is real, you're just in denial and will believe anything they throw out in front of you. There are scientific facts that prove that the CO2 levels are rising and that the temperature is rising. I guess let large scale corporations and factories go wild and do whatever they want, it's probably a good thing to have all of the pollutants enter the atmosphere. Think about it.

[Old Tiger]

global warming is just facts twisted in a pro or con category.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Also, the CO2 rise isn't because of "natural cycles," it's from humans burning fossil fuels and bringing the CO2 into the atmosphere that was once contained in the planet's soil. Greenhouse gasses make the world warmer, but I guess it's stupid of me to think that if we add more of it it won't get warmer. How foolish of me.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Willing to spend TRILLIONS of dollars and effect World Economy on a hunch?

All most of us ask is to have REAL proof before we act EITHER WAY

LINK (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/)
LINK (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html) There are some good pictures of many things from years ago and now. Not a hunch.. its happening...So you want to gamble that we dont have any impact on it at all????? Go to Vegas with your own money not our planet.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Also, the CO2 rise isn't because of "natural cycles," it's from humans burning fossil fuels and bringing the CO2 into the atmosphere that was once contained in the planet's soil. They have recorded CO2 levels Increase contantly since the Industrial Revolution. You guys actualy want to believe that its not from humans?? the old save the planet as long as it wont cost me anything is getting old and gradualy disapearing along with the Ice caps. Soon the only people who wont believe it will be the very few who think Bush has done a great job ( by the way those numbers are shrinking fast too)

[LH Panther Mom]

:doh: :doh: So hairspray cans didn't cause it?

[themsu97]

this reminds me of a "Do you believe in God" debate...

some have proof based on evidence and the other side has proof based on their evidence, yet none of it is conclusive...

the fact that 17,000 scientists say that it is not human caused, I believe... why/ because they study that stuff, I don't...

biggest reason #2, the biggest activist in favor of global warming is Al Gore, yeah right, I believe him...

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by themsu97
this reminds me of a "Do you believe in God" debate...

some have proof based on evidence and the other side has proof based on their evidence, yet none of it is conclusive...

the fact that 17,000 scientists say that it is not human caused, I believe... why/ because they study that stuff, I don't...

biggest reason #2, the biggest activist in favor of global warming is Al Gore, yeah right, I believe him...

For some reason that post reminded me of this email.

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU
CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated
by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.



HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.



HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of
Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist
(and filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.




Snopes.com shows this to be TRUE :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
LINK (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/)
LINK (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html) There are some good pictures of many things from years ago and now. Not a hunch.. its happening...So you want to gamble that we dont have any impact on it at all????? Go to Vegas with your own money not our planet.


Again..You keep acting like I am saying the planet is not going thru a warming period...I am saying we dont know THE TRUE CAUSE

17,000 experts say it is NOT caused by man, or not enough proof yet..I guess they are all stupid?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by themsu97
this reminds me of a "Do you believe in God" debate...

some have proof based on evidence and the other side has proof based on their evidence, yet none of it is conclusive...

the fact that 17,000 scientists say that it is not human caused, I believe... why/ because they study that stuff, I don't...

biggest reason #2, the biggest activist in favor of global warming is Al Gore, yeah right, I believe him... I dont know where you are getting your 17,000 scientist number but what ever. fact is Thousands of Scientist say we are the cause of Global warming. Scientist who are some of the most respected in the world. You will never convince me that YOU are 100% Sure that we are not responsible in part for Global warming. I know when faced with contradicting evidence on both sides of an issue like this a rational person could not be 100% sure of either. that being said then YOU ( unless you fall into the irational person category) Are willing to Risk the planet on a hope that those scientist who say its not because of man that Global warming is happening are right. Its like Life insurance. You dont think your going to die but your not willing to risk your families future on you hunch that you will live till your 85. So you buy it just incase your wrong and you die next year. What do we loose by making sure we do what ever we can to limit our damage or contribution to the global warming? Billions of Dollars. A Couple of Trillion Dollars over the next 20 years???? What would we get for that? Clean air and environment. A planet we will be able to live on with the current sea levels without massive migrations from coastal area.. If we dont. We lose the planet as we know it. Your Beting your scientist are right and hoping the Global warming people are wrong and are willing to risk the Planet on that hunch. Its Just plain stupid thinking.
BUT dont worry. like I said before. As evidence keeps rolling in like the glaciers vanishing and Ice caps melting and Sea levels rising in corilation with CO2 levels going up . More and more people will refuse to stick the head in the sand and they will vote for folks who will do something to stop it or at least slow it down for now. Its like folks who think the administration is doing a great job. 5 years ago there were double the people who thought the Administration was doing a good job. Yes Yes you have the folks who no mater what will support a president if for no other reason that they cant face they were wrong years ago . This will also be the case in the nay sayers about human caused Global warming. Its a matter of Time. Fewer and Fewer people as time goes on hang on to your belief that we have nothing to do with Global warming. I just hope time does not run out on us or that time has not already ran out on us.

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
For some reason that post reminded me of this email.

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU
CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated
by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.



HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.



HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of
Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist
(and filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.




Snopes.com shows this to be TRUE :eek: :eek: :eek: I remember seeing that a couple months ago. I thought it was pretty funny. the save the earth radical with the $2500 a month energy bill. And the destroy the earth pro-oil President with the eco-friendly home. Looked kinda backwards didn't it?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I dont know where you are getting your 17,000 scientist number but what ever. fact is Thousands of Scientist say we are the cause of Global warming. Scientist who are some of the most respected in the world. You will never convince me that YOU are 100% Sure that we are not responsible in part for Global warming. I know when faced with contradicting evidence on both sides of an issue like this a rational person could not be 100% sure of either. that being said then YOU ( unless you fall into the irational person category) Are willing to Risk the planet on a hope that those scientist who say its not because of man that Global warming is happening are right. Its like Life insurance. You dont think your going to die but your not willing to risk your families future on you hunch that you will live till your 85. So you buy it just incase your wrong and you die next year. What do we loose by making sure we do what ever we can to limit our damage or contribution to the global warming? Billions of Dollars. A Couple of Trillion Dollars over the next 20 years???? What would we get for that? Clean air and environment. A planet we will be able to live on with the current sea levels without massive migrations from coastal area.. If we dont. We lose the planet as we know it. Your Beting your scientist are right and hoping the Global warming people are wrong and are willing to risk the Planet on that hunch. Its Just plain stupid thinking.
BUT dont worry. like I said before. As evidence keeps rolling in like the glaciers vanishing and Ice caps melting and Sea levels rising in corilation with CO2 levels going up . More and more people will refuse to stick the head in the sand and they will vote for folks who will do something to stop it or at least slow it down for now. Its like folks who think the administration is doing a great job. 5 years ago there were double the people who thought the Administration was doing a good job. Yes Yes you have the folks who no mater what will support a president if for no other reason that they cant face they were wrong years ago . This will also be the case in the nay sayers about human caused Global warming. Its a matter of Time. Fewer and Fewer people as time goes on hang on to your belief that we have nothing to do with Global warming. I just hope time does not run out on us or that time has not already ran out on us.


The 17,000 is from the petition signed by scientist who say there is no proof YET that man has anything to do with Global Warming

And no I would never buy insurance until I know for sure the coverage I was getting was going to be worth the price I pay

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
this reminds me of a "Do you believe in God" debate...

some have proof based on evidence and the other side has proof based on their evidence, yet none of it is conclusive...

the fact that 17,000 scientists say that it is not human caused, I believe... why/ because they study that stuff, I don't...

biggest reason #2, the biggest activist in favor of global warming is Al Gore, yeah right, I believe him...

You must have been one of those people who believed the Republican propaganda of him stating that he created the internet, huh?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
For some reason that post reminded me of this email.

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU
CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated
by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.



HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.



HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of
Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist
(and filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.




Snopes.com shows this to be TRUE :eek: :eek: :eek:

I thought that the burning of fossil fuels didn't matter? :hand:

[lakers]

we have been studying global warming in my ecology class here lately and we just finished watching the movie "An Inconveniet Truth" by Al Gore. For those of you who have not seen it, you need to.

Global Warming is real and we (humans) are the cause of it.

The US is one of only 2 countries left in the world who have not signed the Kyoto protocal.

If something is not done soon with global warming then bad things will happen in the next generation.

[themsu97]

wait, I got it... here is exactly what I am thinking...


"The sky is falling"


all time low for temperature for the Houston area a few days ago was set in 1934.... the all time hi was set in 1968...

weather patterns are a constant pattern...

they are cyclical...

I remember growing up here and every day in July and August was over 100 it seemed like... then the next summer was always a hurricane... my dad remembers when it was not that hot and the hurricanes were not as frrequent... like it is now...
hmmmmm....
oh yeah, my pop and my brother both believe in global warming as much as I do, that we are the cause of it... and they are died in the wool liberals ( I constantly forgive them)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
wait, I got it... here is exactly what I am thinking...


"The sky is falling"


all time low for temperature for the Houston area a few days ago was set in 1934.... the all time hi was set in 1968...

weather patterns are a constant pattern...

they are cyclical...

I remember growing up here and every day in July and August was over 100 it seemed like... then the next summer was always a hurricane... my dad remembers when it was not that hot and the hurricanes were not as frrequent... like it is now...
hmmmmm....
oh yeah, my pop and my brother both believe in global warming as much as I do, that we are the cause of it... and they are died in the wool liberals ( I constantly forgive them)

Forgive them? Sounds like to me the apple fell far from the tree.

[Txbroadcaster]

This is the problem with this topic...it should NOT in anyway be a political issue, yet BOTH sides have turned it into a political/almost fanatical religious issue instead of using REAL scientific data

[lakers]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This is the problem with this topic...it should NOT in anyway be a political issue, yet BOTH sides have turned it into a political/almost fanatical religious issue instead of using REAL scientific data

If you want data then watch the movie I talked about above. My opinion is based on the last 3 weeks of research in my class and the respected opinion of my professor.

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This is the problem with this topic...it should NOT in anyway be a political issue, yet BOTH sides have turned it into a political/almost fanatical religious issue instead of using REAL scientific data

I hear the one side is linked to the Church of Scientology.:eek:

But, don't ask me for facts to back that up.:thinking:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The 17,000 is from the petition signed by scientist who say there is no proof YET that man has anything to do with Global Warming

And no I would never buy insurance until I know for sure the coverage I was getting was going to be worth the price I pay


So some people signed a petition and that means they have 100% accurate scientific facts. That is amazing science there. That may be dumber than arguing that global warming is a conspiracy. It is happening. Sadly, you cannot see it.

[lakers]

Hardly anything is fact in the field of ecology and natural resources. It is based on theories. For example gravity, it is only a theory...

[themsu97]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Forgive them? Sounds like to me the apple fell far from the tree.

actually, I always tell them I am the only one who uses rational thought in things... I tell my dad he is really a republican since he is against abortion, gay marriages and a few other things...

but Tx is correct... I know the facts that I have seen and I make my own judgements based on what I see and know...

I do not believe BBDE and Lakers, everything I see or hear through the media...
but I could slant anything I see as a teacher to my students to make things appear a certain way... college students are the most impressionable in the world... ya'll are an easy target...

[lakers]

things have changed apparently since you were in school. I understand that you dont believe it and therefore you will probably never believe it and will probably always question it. Do your research and get back to me because it is real and inevitable

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
actually, I always tell them I am the only one who uses rational thought in things... I tell my dad he is really a republican since he is against abortion, gay marriages and a few other things...

but Tx is correct... I know the facts that I have seen and I make my own judgements based on what I see and know...

I do not believe BBDE and Lakers, everything I see or hear through the media...
but I could slant anything I see as a teacher to my students to make things appear a certain way... college students are the most impressionable in the world... ya'll are an easy target...

Sorry, but I've had these ideas going back way before I got into college. If it were possible to look them up on here, you may be able to find them, but trust me, I'm every bit as smart and rational in though as you are and sound in my reasoning and ideals. Nice try though, but your theory that because I'm a college student then I'm easy to manipulate and can't think for myself theory isn't going to fly.

[lakers]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Sorry, but I've had these ideas going back way before I got into college. If it were possible to look them up on here, you may be able to find them, but trust me, I'm every bit as smart and rational in though as you are and sound in my reasoning and ideals. Nice try though, but your theory that because I'm a college student then I'm easy to manipulate and can't think for myself theory isn't going to fly.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by lakers
we have been studying global warming in my ecology class here lately and we just finished watching the movie "An Inconveniet Truth" by Al Gore. For those of you who have not seen it, you need to.

Global Warming is real and we (humans) are the cause of it.

The US is one of only 2 countries left in the world who have not signed the Kyoto protocal.

If something is not done soon with global warming then bad things will happen in the next generation.

OMG, it must be true because it's in a "documentary" movie! Be afraid, very afraid... the Earth has never been able to go thru a warming period before without the help of man...what to do,what to do?!?!?

[lakers]

Originally posted by Reds fan
OMG, it must be true because it's in a "documentary" movie! Be afraid, very afraid... the Earth has never been able to go thru a warming period before without the help of man...what to do,what to do?!?!?

Just go to your movie store, rent it, and watch it...then you will understand.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So some people signed a petition and that means they have 100% accurate scientific facts. That is amazing science there. That may be dumber than arguing that global warming is a conspiracy. It is happening. Sadly, you cannot see it.


No..I dont say either side is right and that is my point. NOTHING has been proven

So the Scientist that say they believe we are the cause of Global Warming are automatically correct over scientist that dont...why?

[lakers]

I will say it again. Ecology is based on theories...

[Txbroadcaster]

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

[Black_Magic]

Listen To Gore. He was Right. Fight Al Fight!
http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v108/Chrissopher/gore-gladiator.jpg

[lakers]

it sounds like the government wants facts but that is not possible...

Stuff like this is the reason nothing has been done and people are living in denial about the topic.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I dont know where you are getting your 17,000 scientist number but what ever.

Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I thought that the burning of fossil fuels didn't matter? :hand:

All I said was the quote above mine reminded me of that email!!

I didn't give my opinion one way or the other!!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Well now lets just think about it a second. Focile fuels create CO2 and CO2 levels and high temps go hand in hand through out history. But us pumping more CO2 wont cause and increase in temps.....:thinking: Well if you cant see it them we cant show it to you any more clearer.
OK then Try this. Focile Fuels Polute the atmosphere. You gotta agree with that. Oil in not going to be here for ever and it is up to $3.00 a gallon. will the price of oil going that high spur you to support efforts to find efficient alternate forms of energy. in turn reducing Greenhouse gases??? Hey.. BBDE!!!!!! See where Im going? Im trying to get them to support it by apealing to the only thing they care about... $$$$$ .. If it makes the botom line better , thats what they really care about. These folks are concerned most about $. especialy taxes.. they would buldoze a dozen orphanages to get to drill a few oil wells. thats the mentality we are dealing with here. If there was Oil in Yellow stone national park they would support going after it if it would lower the cost of gas 5 cents a gallon.... but not one penny to make sure we have clean air and a planet for out granchildren to live on.:rolleyes:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Well now lets just think about it a second. Focile fuels create CO2 and CO2 levels and high temps go hand in hand through out history. But us pumping more CO2 wont cause and increase in temps.....:thinking: Well if you cant see it them we cant show it to you any more clearer.
OK then Try this. Focile Fuels Polute the atmosphere. You gotta agree with that. Oil in not going to be here for ever and it is up to $3.00 a gallon. will the price of oil going that high spur you to support efforts to find efficient alternate forms of energy. in turn reducing Greenhouse gases??? Hey.. BBDE!!!!!! See where Im going? Im trying to get them to support it by apealing to the only thing they care about... $$$$$ .. If it makes the botom line better , thats what they really care about. These folks are concerned most about $. especialy taxes.. they would buldoze a dozen orphanages to get to drill a few oil wells. thats the mentality we are dealing with here. If there was Oil in Yellow stone national park they would support going after it if it would lower the cost of gas 5 cents a gallon.... but not one penny to make sure we have clean air and a planet for out granchildren to live on.:rolleyes:


I love how you KNOW my mentality and my attitude on this subject because of a few posts on here

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Was this the same government expert who said there were WMD's in Iraq, along with the country having ties to al Queda and being a direct threat to the safety of Americans? *Yawn*

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Was this the same government expert who said there were WMD's in Iraq, along with the country having ties to al Queda and being a direct threat to the safety of Americans? *Yawn*

No this was in British Courts..and the experts were scientist, not political figures


Nice try though

this should NOT be about politics

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by lakers
:clap: :clap: :clap:

There is no need to be condescending towards young adults like us, there are a lot of young, intelligent, and knowledgeable individuals with their own ideas and opinions.

I'm studying Earth Systems in one of my classes and we're going over global warming right now and I have yet to agree with any of the professors opinions on it, and sadly they follow many of the ones that have been posted here.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
There is no need to be condescending towards young adults like us, there are a lot of young, intelligent, and knowledgeable individuals with their own ideas and opinions.

I'm studying Earth Systems in one of my classes and we're going over global warming right now and I have yet to agree with any of the professors opinions on it, and sadly they follow many of the ones that have been posted here.

I agree, age should not play apart..But why is it SAD your profs dont agree, because it is different from you?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I agree, age should not play apart..But why is it SAD your profs dont agree, because it is different from you?

It's sad that I have to force myself to learn something that I don't believe to be factual.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It's sad that I have to force myself to learn something that I don't believe to be factual.


LOL ahh yes, I remember that well from College in many different classes

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
No this was in British Courts..and the experts were scientist, not political figures


Nice try though

this should NOT be about politics

Well, I just wanted to present the fact that the government experts aren't always correct. It wasn't a knock on our current administration by any means.

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
No this was in British Courts..and the experts were scientist, not political figures


Nice try though

this should NOT be about politics

That is ALL this is about. The arrogance of a bunch of tree-huggers wanting to force these things on everyone else when they come up "carbon footprint" rationale and the excuse for their using as much energy as small towns because the group that pays them as a spokesperson buys "carbon credits" and they continue to NOT PUT INTO PRACTICE THEIR SOAPBOX IDEAS IN THEIR OWN LIVES! Get a clue "Magic." Your liberal profs and their liberal cronies have, are, and will continue to play you for a sap.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Pawdaddy
That is ALL this is about. The arrogance of a bunch of tree-huggers wanting to force these things on everyone else when they come up "carbon footprint" rationale and the excuse for their using as much energy as small towns because the group that pays them as a spokesperson buys "carbon credits" and they continue to NOT PUT INTO PRACTICE THEIR SOAPBOX IDEAS IN THEIR OWN LIVES! Get a clue "Magic." Your liberal profs and their liberal cronies have, are, and will continue to play you for a sap.

PAWDADDY!!!!!

Where have you been hiding?? How the heck are ya?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pawdaddy
That is ALL this is about. The arrogance of a bunch of tree-huggers wanting to force these things on everyone else when they come up "carbon footprint" rationale and the excuse for their using as much energy as small towns because the group that pays them as a spokesperson buys "carbon credits" and they continue to NOT PUT INTO PRACTICE THEIR SOAPBOX IDEAS IN THEIR OWN LIVES! Get a clue "Magic." Your liberal profs and their liberal cronies have, are, and will continue to play you for a sap.

I wouldn't call the people who believe in global warming caused by humans tree huggers, but instead enlightened individuals, who are not, like some of us apparently are, in denial.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I wouldn't call the people who believe in global warming caused by humans tree huggers, but instead enlightened individuals, who are not, like some of us apparently are, in denial.

Is the word "sheeple" appropriate here, for whatever side you "aren't" on??

I just saw that word for the first time yesterday and found it "interesting"!!:D

[themsu97]

wow, bbde, why do youeven go to college since you know everything... and since you do, you are missing out on a great experience...

you are naturally condescending...not a good trait... I can say that since I have the same problem...

a couple of things, you can take these personally or with a grain of salt... what I tell my students is that as a teacher or professor I can easily influence thought one way or another and then I do a lesson and then ask for discussion and they understand... secondly, never estimate that because you think that way, others think the same way... do not put others in the box in which you think...Global warming to me is the same as the sky is falling... and the evidence that I have seen over the last 15 years is on both sides and I know what I believe, you do not have to and I am okay with that... you have done your research and great for you

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I thought that the burning of fossil fuels didn't matter? :hand: Nope. It just makes Gore look like a hypocrite.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by lakers
Just go to your movie store, rent it, and watch it...then you will understand. I'll watch it right after I get done watching all the Michael Moore "documentaries". And I use the word "documentaries" very loosely.

[themsu97]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I'll watch it right after I get done watching all the Michael Moore "documentaries". And I use the word "documentaries" very loosely.

preach on, preach on....:clap:

I guess whatever Moore says is true since it is in a documentary...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Well now lets just think about it a second. Focile fuels create CO2 and CO2 levels and high temps go hand in hand through out history. But us pumping more CO2 wont cause and increase in temps.....:thinking: Here's your answer.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Well now lets just think about it a second. Focile fuels create CO2 and CO2 levels and high temps go hand in hand through out history. But us pumping more CO2 wont cause and increase in temps.....:thinking: Well if you cant see it them we cant show it to you any more clearer.
OK then Try this. Focile Fuels Polute the atmosphere. You gotta agree with that. Oil in not going to be here for ever and it is up to $3.00 a gallon. will the price of oil going that high spur you to support efforts to find efficient alternate forms of energy. in turn reducing Greenhouse gases??? Hey.. BBDE!!!!!! See where Im going? Im trying to get them to support it by apealing to the only thing they care about... $$$$$ .. If it makes the botom line better , thats what they really care about. These folks are concerned most about $. especialy taxes.. they would buldoze a dozen orphanages to get to drill a few oil wells. thats the mentality we are dealing with here. If there was Oil in Yellow stone national park they would support going after it if it would lower the cost of gas 5 cents a gallon.... but not one penny to make sure we have clean air and a planet for out granchildren to live on.:rolleyes: It's this kind of garbage that gives you no credibility.:rolleyes:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


Your source is a blog? Come on now. I didnt say that the 17,000 scientists were wrong. But there are atleast 17,000 scientists that think this is a real threat, and they are? There is not any 100% accurate proof anywhere, but I still say take the proactive approach. If we are wrong, then what? We have alienated ourselves from the need for foreign oil? We clean up the atmosphere? think about it....

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Your source is a blog? Come on now. I didnt say that the 17,000 scientists were wrong. But there are atleast 17,000 scientists that think this is a real threat, and they are? There is not any 100% accurate proof anywhere, but I still say take the proactive approach. If we are wrong, then what? We have alienated ourselves from the need for foreign oil? We clean up the atmosphere? think about it....


The source is a blog..The Ruiling is not

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
It's this kind of garbage that gives you no credibility.:rolleyes: You can say what you want but it boils down to $$$. It always does when it comes to protecting the planet. Its ok to try to save the planet but I dont want to pay a dime if it has to happen... Thats the attitude. The attitude of sticking your head in the sand and hopping the global warming folks are wrong is just stupid. We are the one of the only countries not to sign the kyoto accord?? Good greef! what do we have against cleaner air??? I will tell you what. If it cost then screw the environment. The all mighty dollar comes first. not the planet. You can say what you want but it all boils down to Greed.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You can say what you want but it boils down to $$$. It always does when it comes to protecting the planet. Its ok to try to save the planet but I dont want to pay a dime if it has to happen... Thats the attitude. The attitude of sticking your head in the sand and hopping the global warming folks are wrong is just stupid. We are the one of the only countries not to sign the kyoto accord?? Good greef! what do we have against cleaner air??? I will tell you what. If it cost then screw the environment. The all mighty dollar comes first. not the planet. You can say what you want but it all boils down to Greed.


Nice Generalization once again...It is not all about greed or money, it is about governments making SOUND decisions with actual facts...No possible facts. MAYBE scenarios, but facts

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
wow, bbde, why do youeven go to college since you know everything... and since you do, you are missing out on a great experience...

you are naturally condescending...not a good trait... I can say that since I have the same problem...

a couple of things, you can take these personally or with a grain of salt... what I tell my students is that as a teacher or professor I can easily influence thought one way or another and then I do a lesson and then ask for discussion and they understand... secondly, never estimate that because you think that way, others think the same way... do not put others in the box in which you think...Global warming to me is the same as the sky is falling... and the evidence that I have seen over the last 15 years is on both sides and I know what I believe, you do not have to and I am okay with that... you have done your research and great for you

I go to college because I have to get a degree in order to go to law school. It's all a matter of needs I suppose, but I do not act like I know everything, only believe that in the interest of fairness that you do not act like I know nothing. I don't believe that I am condescending towards anyone, I treat everyone fairly regardless of whether or not I agree with them, and I'm not going to sneak off and call them stupid behind their back just because we don't share the same views. If I were to do that, I would have very few friends due to my political views, and I could count them on two hands. Basically, what I'm saying is don't drag me down into the same boat that you're in. I'm able to realize that other people have their opinions because not everyone sees everything the same way, regardless of whether or not the facts are right in front of them, and in this case I use the term facts loosely because nothing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm only 19 years old and this is something that I fear that I am going to have to deal with in my lifetime and I don't want my children (hopefully) to have to suffer from the negligence and short-sighted actions that we are doing today, and I say we because I include myself in this. Nothing makes me smile more than to blow a huge cloud of black smoke out of my diesel pickup. Call me an Al Gore I guess....;)

[sinfan75]

Why not look at the billions and billions of dollars oil companies have had to put into their refineries just to comply with environmental regulations put on them by our government. maybe thats why our government hasn't signed no clean air agreement. Maybe those other countries need to start catching up. We can't even build more refineries (which we've needed for years) to keep up with demand because of the high cost it would take to build an entire refinery. Most of those other countries don't even have a refinery or or much industry to think of. So they have nothing to lose. Is it about money? You damn right it is. For every refinery that could shut down because of more stringent regulations, you're lookin at tens of thousands of spin-off jobs lost. So to ask the U.S. to sign a clean air agreement just because everybody else did would be economic suicide.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Global warming is a fact. Man made Global warming is a Hoax. How do I know this? Simple. The earth has been warming considerably since the Pleistine Era 18000 to 20000 years ago when the last Ice age ended. There have been times in Earth's history when there were 4400 ppm as opposed to 328 ppm now.
Mankind has only contributed CO2 in any large amounts in the last 50 years. Hottest year on record. 1936. In fact it was warmer in the first part of the 20th century than it is now and it was warmer in 1100 to 1200 than it is now. Simple verifiable facts which lead to only one conclusion. Man has had little to no effect over the last 20000 years on the Earth's temperature and whatever he has had is so miniscule as to be a statistical zero.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Go Blue
global warming is just facts twisted in a pro or con category. True Go Blue

[themsu97]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I go to college because I have to get a degree in order to go to law school. It's all a matter of needs I suppose, but I do not act like I know everything, only believe that in the interest of fairness that you do not act like I know nothing. I don't believe that I am condescending towards anyone, I treat everyone fairly regardless of whether or not I agree with them, and I'm not going to sneak off and call them stupid behind their back just because we don't share the same views. If I were to do that, I would have very few friends due to my political views, and I could count them on two hands. Basically, what I'm saying is don't drag me down into the same boat that you're in. I'm able to realize that other people have their opinions because not everyone sees everything the same way, regardless of whether or not the facts are right in front of them, and in this case I use the term facts loosely because nothing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm only 19 years old and this is something that I fear that I am going to have to deal with in my lifetime and I don't want my children (hopefully) to have to suffer from the negligence and short-sighted actions that we are doing today, and I say we because I include myself in this. Nothing makes me smile more than to blow a huge cloud of black smoke out of my diesel pickup. Call me an Al Gore I guess....;)

completely miss the boat again don't we... see I clearly stated I understood where you were coming from and respect your opinion... obviously you could not reciprocate without being condenscending and a know it all...further proving what I said earlier about a slant will make someone think a certain way...
I have plenty of friends, most of who have different views and opinions than I do and that is okay... but I also have enough sense to know that it is okay... I have plenty of former students who come and visit me and tell me how right I am... I tell them the point is not me being correct, it is about them learning how to listen to veiwpoints objectively and then make their own decision...and trust me, some of my friends and former students have seen a lot more than you have... and they know alot more than me, so I trust what they say... I have a friend who is in the scientific research field out in LA, have another friend who is about to go back for his 3rd tour in Iraq after his first tour where he stormed the airport and the castle... more informed than any of the media morons that are on tv... I believe them... not some blowhard that Charlie Gibson or whoever else they want to put on TV... not too mention the few friends that are in the advertising industry and know all sorts of people...
as for Rockdale and Black... if I spend money and time researching something, I am not going to say it was all for nothing, the whole sky is falling thing...
and yeah, it is about $$$, let me keep my $$$ in my pocket... nice

[themsu97]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Global warming is a fact. Man made Global warming is a Hoax. How do I know this? Simple. The earth has been warming considerably since the Pleistine Era 18000 to 20000 years ago when the last Ice age ended. There have been times in Earth's history when there were 4400 ppm as opposed to 328 ppm now.
Mankind has only contributed CO2 in any large amounts in the last 50 years. Hottest year on record. 1936. In fact it was warmer in the first part of the 20th century than it is now and it was warmer in 1100 to 1200 than it is now. Simple verifiable facts which lead to only one conclusion. Man has had little to no effect over the last 20000 years on the Earth's temperature and whatever he has had is so miniscule as to be a statistical zero.
never bring facts to an opinion arguement...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
it is about governments making SOUND decisions with actual facts...No possible facts. MAYBE scenarios, but facts iraq?:confused: haha j/k yall!

[bandera7]

think Ralph Nader...one of the top leaders for the next Ice Age in the 1970's. Now one of the top voices for Global Warming. He wants your money.

Also, Al Gore backed down from a debate on the scientific facts of global warming from Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher. He proposed debating only on facts, no theories or opinions. Al Gore didnt even give him an answer, and Lord Monckton extended a formal invitation.

And as for Co2 emissions...the ocean puts out more in one day than Humans have in our existence...and please explain why post world war 2 our co2 emissions were at our highest in history and our earth experienced a temperature drop for 40 years.

Simply stated, the earth is heating up. But man has nothing to do with it.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Also, the CO2 rise isn't because of "natural cycles," it's from humans burning fossil fuels and bringing the CO2 into the atmosphere that was once contained in the planet's soil. Greenhouse gasses make the world warmer, but I guess it's stupid of me to think that if we add more of it it won't get warmer. How foolish of me.

The solution is way more simple than the billions the alarmists want to spend. Plant more trees. Trees use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
PAWDADDY!!!!!

Where have you been hiding?? How the heck are ya?

Hey, Mom! I'm here watching the "magic" show and wondering how people with sense enough to put words together from a keyboard can be so.......smart, if you get my drift. Glad to know you missed me. I'll try to get my 100th post here shortly.

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
......We are the one of the only countries not to sign the kyoto accord?? Good greef!.......

Here is a thought. Take your "magic" to one of those countries who signed the accord. You will be happier. In your vast research, why do you not post that most of the countries that signed that document either was third world countries that put out less environment harming emissions than Algore, or violated the agreement from day one. You are a trip.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
completely miss the boat again don't we... see I clearly stated I understood where you were coming from and respect your opinion... obviously you could not reciprocate without being condenscending and a know it all...further proving what I said earlier about a slant will make someone think a certain way...
I have plenty of friends, most of who have different views and opinions than I do and that is okay... but I also have enough sense to know that it is okay... I have plenty of former students who come and visit me and tell me how right I am... I tell them the point is not me being correct, it is about them learning how to listen to veiwpoints objectively and then make their own decision...and trust me, some of my friends and former students have seen a lot more than you have... and they know alot more than me, so I trust what they say... I have a friend who is in the scientific research field out in LA, have another friend who is about to go back for his 3rd tour in Iraq after his first tour where he stormed the airport and the castle... more informed than any of the media morons that are on tv... I believe them... not some blowhard that Charlie Gibson or whoever else they want to put on TV... not too mention the few friends that are in the advertising industry and know all sorts of people...
as for Rockdale and Black... if I spend money and time researching something, I am not going to say it was all for nothing, the whole sky is falling thing...
and yeah, it is about $$$, let me keep my $$$ in my pocket... nice

How am I being a know-it-all? You first attack lakers and myself for being college students, and accused us of being easy to manipulate and unsound in our ideals just because we are young. I guess I'm a bad person because I have my own opinions and I will stand up for them and myself when someone attacks me instead of the argument that I represent for lack of reasoning or thorough response. I'm not going to pat you on the back and tell you that you're opinions are awesome and that you're right, but that's life. I assumed that a man of your age and wisdom would know and understand that by now. I've done my listening to various viewpoints and I have made my opinions and they contradict yours completely. Just because you're a teacher doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that you're more correct or knowledgeable than any other person that I meet, so needless to say that I'm rather unimpressed how you keep bringing that fact up so as to try to assert how smart you are and the power that you have. Sure, you have the ability to manipulate the minds of our youth, but there is one thing that I firmly believe and that is that political issues should be kept out of the classroom, and yes, this is a political issue and is much more far reaching than most would be willing to admit (at least in this thread). The repercussions of the actions that we take on this issue are political in nature and that's not going to change just because some people want it to. I'm glad that you do know people though, that's really reassuring but does little for your argument as a whole, because like you, me, and everyone else in the world, they're not always going to be correct. I don't have to watch CNN or Fox News or anything else for political persuasion, I never have and I never will. It's a matter of the fact that I don't have time to sit back and watch TV all day and research every political issue and then make a huge deal about it. So I propose this, instead of attacking me and trying to take me down a peg with you, why don't you try arguing my points and prove me wrong with your superior educator intellect and wits to boot.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pawdaddy
Here is a thought. Take your "magic" to one of those countries who signed the accord. You will be happier. In your vast research, why do you not post that most of the countries that signed that document either was third world countries that put out less environment harming emissions than Algore, or violated the agreement from day one. You are a trip.

Or we could actually try to improve the environment and protect what we have today and preserve it for the future generations of the world instead of sitting back apathetic. Hmm...

Oh, and sinton66, I like your idea about planting more trees, that would be a great idea if we weren't too busy cutting all of them down. The earth's rainforests are shrinking every year, animals are becoming extinct and others are losing their natural habitat. I was always taught growing up that if you borrow something, return it just as good or better as when you borrowed it, and as a whole humanity isn't living up to that bargain with our planet.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Or we could actually try to improve the environment and protect what we have today and preserve it for the future generations of the world instead of sitting back apathetic. Hmm...



This is a problem I have about all this..Just because someone does not believe 100% in Man causing global warming, DOES NOT mean they are apathetic, or dont care, or any of that. It just simply means NOT ENOUGH information is known to sink everything into the idea just yet

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This is a problem I have about all this..Just because someone does not believe 100% in Man causing global warming, DOES NOT mean they are apathetic, or dont care, or any of that. It just simply means NOT ENOUGH information is known to sink everything into the idea just yet

Well, I think that a lot of people are in denial about the entire thing. First it was that global warming was real and caused by man, then it wasn't real, and then it is real but not caused by man. I always stick to my gut. ;)

Don't be Apathetic. ;)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, I think that a lot of people are in denial about the entire thing. First it was that global warming was real and caused by man, then it wasn't real, and then it is real but not caused by man. I always stick to my gut. ;)

Don't be Apathetic. ;)


What you just said shows why I dont believe 100%..Because their is know defenitive proof yet.

My personal belief is...Yes their is Global Warming, and Global Coooling....All runs in cycles and has been for alot longer than Man's impact

But right now for every piece of proof that points one way, another piece points the opposite.

As I said before the problem is, society has turned this into a political almost religious issue. We are not allowing the research to be unbiased everything comes out with a slant to it

Sadly I think people would rather be personally right then trying to truly find the answer

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
What you just said shows why I dont believe 100%..Because their is know defenitive proof yet.

My personal belief is...Yes their is Global Warming, and Global Coooling....All runs in cycles and has been for alot longer than Man's impact

But right now for every piece of proof that points one way, another piece points the opposite.

As I said before the problem is, society has turned this into a political almost religious issue. We are not allowing the research to be unbiased everything comes out with a slant to it

Sadly I think people would rather be personally right then trying to truly find the answer

I think we can both agree on that, but I honestly don't think that we can be helping anything by what we're doing. That's just my logical thought pattern about the whole thing.

[themsu97]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
How am I being a know-it-all? You first attack lakers and myself for being college students, and accused us of being easy to manipulate and unsound in our ideals just because we are young. I guess I'm a bad person because I have my own opinions and I will stand up for them and myself when someone attacks me instead of the argument that I represent for lack of reasoning or thorough response. I'm not going to pat you on the back and tell you that you're opinions are awesome and that you're right, but that's life. I assumed that a man of your age and wisdom would know and understand that by now. I've done my listening to various viewpoints and I have made my opinions and they contradict yours completely. Just because you're a teacher doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that you're more correct or knowledgeable than any other person that I meet, so needless to say that I'm rather unimpressed how you keep bringing that fact up so as to try to assert how smart you are and the power that you have. Sure, you have the ability to manipulate the minds of our youth, but there is one thing that I firmly believe and that is that political issues should be kept out of the classroom, and yes, this is a political issue and is much more far reaching than most would be willing to admit (at least in this thread). The repercussions of the actions that we take on this issue are political in nature and that's not going to change just because some people want it to. I'm glad that you do know people though, that's really reassuring but does little for your argument as a whole, because like you, me, and everyone else in the world, they're not always going to be correct. I don't have to watch CNN or Fox News or anything else for political persuasion, I never have and I never will. It's a matter of the fact that I don't have time to sit back and watch TV all day and research every political issue and then make a huge deal about it. So I propose this, instead of attacking me and trying to take me down a peg with you, why don't you try arguing my points and prove me wrong with your superior educator intellect and wits to boot.

see, your take me down a peg with you is the condescending part that you cannot get out of... not a slight, it is just part of your nature...
global warming is NOT caused by humans... that is a fact...
many in the field of scientific research adhere to that, they are just never asked to be on TV because it goes against what people are trying to prove... thus is why people are easily manipulated into a certain belief...some call it basic psychology...If my friend is in scientific research and has been for 15 years and does work for UCLA, USC and Cal-Berkley and says that humans do not cause global warming... ( his response is always a cow's fart does more harm than what most humans can do, so kill all the cows) then I am going to take him at his word since he has the credentials to be an "expert"...
I watch CNN and Fox for pure entertainment...

just like barbecuing with a gas grill... that is almost un Texan

[STANG RED]

According to a documentary I watched last night, the Myans calender ends on December 21, 2012, on the day the sun aligns itself perfectly in the center of the Milky Way. At that point the earth is supposed to be destroyed by water. Maybe thats when all the ice will suddenly melt due to "Global Warming". :thinking: I wonder how the Myans knew about "Global Warming" 2000 years ago? Oh well, it was a documentary on TV that was made by smart people so it must be true. Think I'll go out, max out all my credit cards, and live it up over the next 4 years.:D


You know, when I was a teen back in the 70's, the rant of the era by the dooms dayer experts was that we would all be frozen to death by now due to the same exact reasons they are quoteing now for "Global Warming" today. Whats even funnier is, many of those are the same people. :thinking: I wonder if they'll go back to the "Global Cooling" doomsday theory again 30 years from now, when this all proves to be the big farce that it is?
The Bible says the earth will be destroyed by fire in its final days. Maybe all the so called experts will gravitate toward that one next. Naw, its from the Bible, they'll never stoop to that bunch of unscientifically proven pack of lies.:doh:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by themsu97
global warming is NOT caused by humans... that is a fact...
this is the most rediculous statement made on here so far. Neither side can make that statement and know it is true. You have Thousands of Scientist on both sides of this argument. You say its fact because you believe the Thousands thats say thay Humans dont cause Global warming while completly ignoring the Thousands that say We are causing it. To say that is a fact is the most ignorant statement of all. Neither side can be 100% sure they are right at this point. BUT.... You can see evidence of it going on . EVEN most of the Scientist who say we are not the Cause of it will say that we contribute to the cause. The difference is that they argue that we dont contribute enough to be so worried that the Ice caps will melt.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We are the one of the only countries not to sign the kyoto accord?? Why is it that in the Kyoto Accord that the US has to cut back while India and China do not?:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[themsu97]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
this is the most rediculous statement made on here so far. Neither side can make that statement and know it is true. You have Thousands of Scientist on both sides of this argument. You say its fact because you believe the Thousands thats say thay Humans dont cause Global warming while completly ignoring the Thousands that say We are causing it. To say that is a fact is the most ignorant statement of all. Neither side can be 100% sure they are right at this point. BUT.... You can see evidence of it going on . EVEN most of the Scientist who say we are not the Cause of it will say that we contribute to the cause. The difference is that they argue that we dont contribute enough to be so worried that the Ice caps will melt.

no, most of the jibberish you post is...
see other posts by myself as well as Stang and Jasper...
see also in post where my friend the scientist himself who is a top researcher sought out by 3 major California Universities who says the same thing...
you cannot just pick and choose Magic

[themsu97]

[If my friend is in scientific research and has been for 15 years and does work for UCLA, USC and Cal-Berkley and says that humans do not cause global warming... ( his response is always a cow's fart does more harm than what most humans can do, so kill all the cows) then I am going to take him at his word since he has the credentials to be an "expert"...

see, this one here Magic... looks like you might need some help

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
....... Neither side can be 100% sure they are right at this point. BUT.... You can see evidence of it going on .........

It is raining outside. No one can be 100% sure, but we could be in danger of drowning in the next few hundred years if it does not stop. Let's pass a law that every man must build an ark to prepare for the possibility.

"Magic," you are a trip. Or you are tripping, which is it?

[JasperDog94]

This is all you need to know about the Kyoto Accord:

Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html)

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.


In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is all you need to know about the Kyoto Accord:

Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html)

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.


In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

Thank you JasperDog. That was the point I made earlier but you brought the facts to the table. Folks like "magic" hate the facts.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Pawdaddy
Thank you JasperDog. That was the point I made earlier but you brought the facts to the table. Folks like "magic" hate the facts. Glad I could be of assistance.;)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by themsu97
see, your take me down a peg with you is the condescending part that you cannot get out of... not a slight, it is just part of your nature...
global warming is NOT caused by humans... that is a fact...
many in the field of scientific research adhere to that, they are just never asked to be on TV because it goes against what people are trying to prove... thus is why people are easily manipulated into a certain belief...some call it basic psychology...If my friend is in scientific research and has been for 15 years and does work for UCLA, USC and Cal-Berkley and says that humans do not cause global warming... ( his response is always a cow's fart does more harm than what most humans can do, so kill all the cows) then I am going to take him at his word since he has the credentials to be an "expert"...
I watch CNN and Fox for pure entertainment...

just like barbecuing with a gas grill... that is almost un Texan

No, I'm doing it on purpose just because I can't stand someone who can't make an argument and instead has negative things to say about the person who disagrees. Also, don't confuse facts with opinions there chief, that's a huge difference. Oh, and once again, you bringing up your friends, giving all of the reasons why you are right and I should be wrong, but yet you provide nothing meaningful other than their opinion and it's the gospel. I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore, you obviously don't know how to have an argument aside from saying, "I'm right" over and over again, kind of like that little kid off of the movie Big Daddy who wins at everything. :hand:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by themsu97
no, most of the jibberish you post is...
see other posts by myself as well as Stang and Jasper...
see also in post where my friend the scientist himself who is a top researcher sought out by 3 major California Universities who says the same thing...
you cannot just pick and choose Magic BUT YOU ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING.... You are picking the ones you want to belive. Ignoring the others and making a statement you cant prove. You cant say that it is a fact Global warming is not caused by Humans. Its an opinion. It may be a Fact some scientist have said it is not. It is also a FACT that Thousands of Scientist believe Global warming IS caused bu Humans. You cant though. Its like the Tobaco folks saying its a FACT Tobaco doe not cause cancer.:rolleyes:

[themsu97]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No, I'm doing it on purpose just because I can't stand someone who can't make an argument and instead has negative things to say about the person who disagrees. Also, don't confuse facts with opinions there chief, that's a huge difference. Oh, and once again, you bringing up your friends, giving all of the reasons why you are right and I should be wrong, but yet you provide nothing meaningful other than their opinion and it's the gospel. I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore, you obviously don't know how to have an argument aside from saying, "I'm right" over and over again, kind of like that little kid off of the movie Big Daddy who wins at everything. :hand:

wow. there you go again...

the facts have been presented by Jasper,Stang and Pawdaddy, so no need to retype them is there?
never said I was right... I said that they are in the field and if they say it and that is truly what they believe, why would I disagree with them...
and since they( he) is an expert in the field, the same field from the experts you use, then what is the difference... other than arrogance?
I don't have to prove i am right( putting me in your box)
If I am wrong, then sue me, no big deal...
remember, I grew up in a time where there actually were winners and losers and not everyone had to be feeling good when the day was over...

heck, i am been married for almost 15 years, I am remimded of how I am wrong on a daily basis...

[themsu97]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BUT YOU ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING.... You are picking the ones you want to belive. Ignoring the others and making a statement you cant prove. You cant say that it is a fact Global warming is not caused by Humans. Its an opinion. It may be a Fact some scientist have said it is not. It is also a FACT that Thousands of Scientist believe Global warming IS caused bu Humans. You cant though. Its like the Tobaco folks saying its a FACT Tobaco doe not cause cancer.:rolleyes:

uuuhhh.... the sky is falling....
and actually, tobacco in itself does not cause cancer, but the use of said product does...
see other posts... Jasper etc...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BUT YOU ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING.... You are picking the ones you want to belive. Ignoring the others and making a statement you cant prove. You cant say that it is a fact Global warming is not caused by Humans. Its an opinion. It may be a Fact some scientist have said it is not. It is also a FACT that Thousands of Scientist believe Global warming IS caused bu Humans. You cant though. Its like the Tobaco folks saying its a FACT Tobaco doe not cause cancer.:rolleyes: One HUGE problem with your analogy. No scientist disagrees with the statement "Tobacco use can cause cancer." However scientists do disagree with the statement "Man is causing global warming." One statement is proven, the other is just an opinion based on partial information.

Get a new analogy to be taken seriously.

[themsu97]

I guess that is my fault Jasper... since your info and mine are about the same I do not feel the need to repost it so they attack me since I am agreeing... therefore I am presenting no facts so to speak...

and I do believe that humans do nothing to add to global warming... ie Nadar...

remember when the world was going to end due to a Nuclear War?
the sky is falling

[rockdale80]

For everyone that is thinks man does not have any direct link to the global climate increasing:

What if you are wrong? What do we do 50 years from now and there is 100% proof that a link does exist, and it is too late? You can't just say oops and start over. The benefits of acting now far outweigh the benefits of doing nothing. There is much to gain from acting now, regardless of global warming being an issue. I dont know why no one can understand that. If it only accomplished weaning us off of foreign oil, then it would be well worth it. If it lowered pollution levels and saved a few people from having debilitating birth defects from breathing, then it would be worth it. Think about it. Does being right really mean that much? There is more to this argument than being right or wrong. I also have a good feeling that the reason most people spin this or slant this, is because Al Gore has been pushing it. If some Right wing pundit said something about it first, then it would be the gospel.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by rockdale80
For everyone that is thinks man does not have any direct link to the global climate increasing:

What if you are wrong? What do we do 50 years from now and there is 100% proof that a link does exist, and it is too late? You can't just say oops and start over. The benefits of acting now far outweigh the benefits of doing nothing. There is much to gain from acting now, regardless of global warming being an issue. I dont know why no one can understand that. If it only accomplished weaning us off of foreign oil, then it would be well worth it. If it lowered pollution levels and saved a few people from having debilitating birth defects from breathing, then it would be worth it. Think about it. Does being right really mean that much? There is more to this argument than being right or wrong. I also have a good feeling that the reason most people spin this or slant this, is because Al Gore has been pushing it. If some Right wing pundit said something about it first, then it would be the gospel.

I dont think anyone is arguing that a cleaner environment and less dependancy on foreign oil or fossil fuels in general is anything but a good thing. In fact look around, more development is going on daily to meet that end, and all indications are that these will continue. The problem is the bullcrap propeganda that doomsdayers are trying to shove down everyones throat, and the obvious bad science they are using to support their veiws. Especially when good sound science shows just how wrong they are, and yet they still spew this rediculous nonsense to all who will listen. Those of us who dont swallow the load of crap Al Gore and his bunch are trying to feed us are every bit as interested in living in as clean of an environment as everyone else. We're just not interested in wasting our time and/or money on unproven theories that by most accounts of good science will not accomplish anything other than making some misinformed misguided do gooders feel better.

[shankbear]

The proof is not there to justify spending our already suffering economy down more on the off chance that we can help the situation. This would cripple many industries and then these same people would be whining that there are no good jobs left. They want it both ways.

The auto, steel, construction, shipbuilding, chemical processing and computer industries would be whacked hard. The prices of most consumer goods would skyrocket. All for something that man does not cause. This is not worth the massive tax increases that would ensue. If you love 3.00 a gallon gas then you will truly love 6.00 a gallon.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by STANG RED
I dont think anyone is arguing that a cleaner environment and less dependancy on foreign oil or fossil fuels in general is anything but a good thing. In fact look around, more development is going on daily to meet that end, and all indications are that these will continue. The problem is the bullcrap propeganda that doomsdayers are trying to shove down everyones throat, and the obvious bad science they are using to support their veiws. Especially when good sound science shows just how wrong they are, and yet they still spew this rediculous nonsense to all who will listen. Those of us who dont swallow the load of crap Al Gore and his bunch are trying to feed us are every bit as interested in living in as clean of an environment as everyone else. We're just not interested in wasting our time and/or money on unproven theories that by most accounts of good science will not accomplish anything other than making some misinformed misguided do gooders feel better. You are exactly right Red. I am all for new technologies to make cleaner burning fuels and alternative sources of energy. The problem is that if we listened to the doomsayers, our economy would be on the brink of collapse. We CAN do make a difference without causing the downfall of our country.

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by rockdale80
For everyone that is thinks man does not have any direct link to the global climate increasing:

What if you are wrong? What do we do 50 years from now and there is 100% proof that a link does exist, and it is too late? You can't just say oops and start over. The benefits of acting now far outweigh the benefits of doing nothing. There is much to gain from acting now, regardless of global warming being an issue. I dont know why no one can understand that. If it only accomplished weaning us off of foreign oil, then it would be well worth it. If it lowered pollution levels and saved a few people from having debilitating birth defects from breathing, then it would be worth it. Think about it. Does being right really mean that much? There is more to this argument than being right or wrong. I also have a good feeling that the reason most people spin this or slant this, is because Al Gore has been pushing it. If some Right wing pundit said something about it first, then it would be the gospel.

so did you say the same thing about going into Iraq? Does it matter if 50 years from now that there's 100% proof that there were no nuclear warheads? The benefits of acting then far outweighed the benefits of waiting until we had definite proof. If we were wrong, did it really mean that much?

Just wondering, because the argument there would have to be the same.

[Pawdaddy]

Originally posted by themsu97
...............heck, i am been married for almost 15 years, I am remimded of how I am wrong on a daily basis...

I hear ya', themsu97!! This December will be 29 years for me. The only difference is I am only wrong when I am with better half.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by rockdale80
For everyone that is thinks man does not have any direct link to the global climate increasing:

What if you are wrong? What do we do 50 years from now and there is 100% proof that a link does exist, and it is too late? You can't just say oops and start over. The benefits of acting now far outweigh the benefits of doing nothing. There is much to gain from acting now, regardless of global warming being an issue. I dont know why no one can understand that. If it only accomplished weaning us off of foreign oil, then it would be well worth it. If it lowered pollution levels and saved a few people from having debilitating birth defects from breathing, then it would be worth it. Think about it. Does being right really mean that much? There is more to this argument than being right or wrong. I also have a good feeling that the reason most people spin this or slant this, is because Al Gore has been pushing it. If some Right wing pundit said something about it first, then it would be the gospel.

This is an arguement of those who cannot win. What if an asteroid hits us? What if a black hole passes close to the plain of the ecliptic of the solar system? What if Yellowstone super volcano erupts? What if the Sun goes into a period of reduced activity?(which by the way it is and in fact Russian scientists who do not make any money off of global warming are predicting a cooling trend that will start and deepen
by mid century). See, I can say what if too.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
This is an arguement of those who cannot win. What if an asteroid hits us? What if a black hole passes close to the plain of the ecliptic of the solar system? What if Yellowstone super volcano erupts? What if the Sun goes into a period of reduced activity?(which by the way it is and in fact Russian scientists who do not make any money off of global warming are predicting a cooling trend that will start and deepen
by mid century). See, I can say what if too.


So sorry. I didnt realize the science that supports Global warming being caused by man is flawed and propaganda, but the science that disproves mans involvement is accurate and right on. I retract any statement brought to this conversation because I am just some louse that doesnt think freely and subjectively.

And global warming and Iraq are apples and oranges. Of course since I disagree with that, my opinion based on intelligence is flawed in that arena as well.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So sorry. I didnt realize the science that supports Global warming being caused by man is flawed and propaganda, but the science that disproves mans involvement is accurate and right on. I retract any statement brought to this conversation because I am just some louse that doesnt think freely and subjectively.

And global warming and Iraq are apples and oranges. Of course since I disagree with that, my opinion based on intelligence is flawed in that arena as well.

I have read many articles and studies from both sides of this argument myself. From what I can tell, the doomsdayers science seems to have an agenda and tends to spin the facts to suit their views. The science that counteracts their views seems to be much more straight forward to me. They are just taking the actual and unbiased conclusions of real studies and examining the hard data in front of them. From this they have determined the earth is simply going through a typical cycle that it has gone through many times before, and that the impact of man has had little to none affect on this typical cycle. Glaciers, desserts, forests and land masses have been expanded and then shrunk back many times in earths history, and there is no reason to think we have had or will ever have the power or impact to alter any of that in the slightest. Simple core samples have been taken all over the world many times, and they all tell the same exact tails. CO2 levels have both risen and fallen drastically many times over thousands of years, and the vast majority of that time was well before man was even capable of altering even so much as 1 particle in a billion of our atmospheric makeup. There are lots of studies out there by great researchers that have conducted these studies without any political agenda. They are simply looking at the evidence of all the data they have gathered from core samples of the oceans bottom, ice, hills, valleys, etc.... and have been able to determine the many changes the earth has gone through in it's history. All of these unbiased studies have come up with basically the same answers. The earth is constantly going through changes, and we are just basically along for the ride. We are simply too insignificant to alter what is already in motion.

[Old Tiger]

http://www.environmentaltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/hippies.jpg

Save the trees maaaaan.

[Budman007]

I am one of the scientists that signed the petition referred to in this thread. Sadly, many of my colleagues have bought into the man-made global warming theory solely because of the vast funding available for research in this subject area. It is quickly becoming the glamorous research of the day. I have worked as a scientist for 22 years, I earned 3 college degrees and serve as a diplomate in my field of specialization. It is my humble yet educated and experienced opinion that man-made global warming is nothing more than "junk science" perpetuated by opportunistic politicians and those infected by their fear-mongering tactics.

[Black_Magic]

If Rush Limbaugh said it was true or it was the christian right saing it you bet they would jump all over it. It has been touted by several scientist ( oh wait! Those are the ones who are pupets and taking handouts for saying what they know to be wrong:rolleyes: ). Because It came from Al Gore ( the guy who got the most votes in america in the 2000 presidential election, they will poo poo anything to do with the whole thing. But it is still happening.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
If Rush Limbaugh said it was true or it was the christian right saing it you bet they would jump all over it. It has been touted by several scientist ( oh wait! Those are the ones who are pupets and taking handouts for saying what they know to be wrong:rolleyes: ). Because It came from Al Gore ( the guy who got the most votes in america in the 2000 presidential election, they will poo poo anything to do with the whole thing. But it is still happening.

OK chicken little. Whatever you say.:rolleyes:

And for your info, I believe Rush and many of those christian right know it alls you spreak of are almost as big of dufases as your sainted idiot Al Gore.

[themsu97]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
If Rush Limbaugh said it was true or it was the christian right saing it you bet they would jump all over it. It has been touted by several scientist ( oh wait! Those are the ones who are pupets and taking handouts for saying what they know to be wrong:rolleyes: ). Because It came from Al Gore ( the guy who got the most votes in america in the 2000 presidential election, they will poo poo anything to do with the whole thing. But it is still happening.

wow Magic, you listen to Gore AND Rush... no wonder you have issues... I am proud of the fact that I am very conservative...but Rush is a blooming idiot...

oh yeah I forgot to add... the sky is falling...
and congrats Pawdaddy on 29 years... that is outstanding now a days...

[3ABirdMan]

Let me pose a question .........

If our present-day weather forecasters and scientists and climatologists, with their powerful supercomputers and radars and satelites and hundreds of years of data, can't accurately forecast weather phenomena such as super-cell thuderstorms, tornados, and hurricanes, on a daily or weekly basis,

HOW CAN THEY PREDICT EARTH'S DOOM DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING IN FIFTY YEARS?

We watch the weather every day to see what the meteorologist has to say, and laugh at them because they're seldom accurate......



Is it real? YES!

Is it cyclical? YES!

Is it man-made? NO! NOT PURELY!

Too much scientific data I have observed leads me to the above answers. Too much liberal BS and political "spin" has led me to NOT believe!

Now, I realize I didn't change anyone's opinion with this post - I'm at least smart enough to realize that. I just wish some of the other posters would be as "real".

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
If Rush Limbaugh said it was true or it was the christian right saing it you bet they would jump all over it. It has been touted by several scientist ( oh wait! Those are the ones who are pupets and taking handouts for saying what they know to be wrong:rolleyes: ). Because It came from Al Gore ( the guy who got the most votes in america in the 2000 presidential election, they will poo poo anything to do with the whole thing. But it is still happening.
.
"Maybe if all of us started to trust our own instincts instead of where we are getting our info from, we all might understand each other better."
.
ie. Keep your eyes open for errors on your own side of the debate...

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Because It came from Al Gore ( the guy who got the most votes in america in the 2000 presidential election, they will poo poo anything to do with the whole thing. But it is still happening.

Was this before or after he (Gore) invented the internet? Algore could tell me the sun will come up tomorrow and I'd doubt it. Gore is a moron and a hypocrite.

[loboes86]

I beleive both sides to this issue have good points. Yes our planet goes thru cycles of weather changes, desserts being forests and the like. The permian basin was once covered by an ocean. I also beleive that man is impacting his enviorement. We are cutting down forest that help reduce CO2 in our atmosphere . We are using or polluting alot of natural resources that ounce there gone there gone. Alot of the upper ground water zones in west texas are getting very brackish due to what has been flowed out on the surface the last 100 years. We do impact our envioremnt how much I don't know but we do. Our enviorment does go thru cycles and how much we impact or speed it up ? Who knows. Something to think about: In my life time I,ve seen the Doctores and Scientest say how bad eggs were for you and now they say they were wrong and now the good out ways the bad.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom


HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Just think. With all the money Bush had to have spent on all of these "Green" features, he could have probably paid Al Gore's utility bills for YEARS!!:eek:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by sinton66
Was this before or after he (Gore) invented the internet? Algore could tell me the sun will come up tomorrow and I'd doubt it. Gore is a moron and a hypocrite.

So you're one of those people who bought into the Republican propaganda about Gore saying he invented the internet huh? I can say that honestly because that's all it was.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We are the one of the only countries not to sign the kyoto accord??

So what did you think about the scientific info about the great Kyoto Accord? I'll post it again just in case you missed it.


Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is all you need to know about the Kyoto Accord:

Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html)

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.


In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

[Old Tiger]

some say we evolved from apes :)

[shankbear]

Kyoto is a failure. Gore is a bore. Bush is a dimwit. Global warming is real but not man made. The GW alarmists are todays new flat earth people. Gloom and frickin doom is their hallmark. Don't be so audacious to think that man is big and bad enough to have caused this GW spike. It is cyclical.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Go Blue
some say we evolved from apes :)

So how do those morons explain why apes are still here?:confused:

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by STANG RED
So how do those morons explain why apes are still here?:confused: "missing link in the genetic coding" that's what discovery channel said :)

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Go Blue
"missing link in the genetic coding" that's what discovery channel said :)

Sorry but that just doesnt do it for me. Ive seen way too many humans that are obviously missing a link or two of "genetic coding".:p

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Sorry but that just doesnt do it for me. Ive seen way too many humans that are obviously missing a link or two of "genetic coding".:p

Hence why they still drag their knuckles and occasionally crawl to get where they're headed. :D

[big daddy russ]

I didn't feel like reading all ten pages, but I'd like to know where they found 17k freakin' people who study this particular phenomenon. What kind of scientists were asked? What is their level of credibility?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not completely sold on global warming, but it's because of the amount of misinformation out there. Do any of you really believe that our pollution has zero impact on global warming? I'm not saying that we're single-handedly causing it or that we're not, I'm just saying there's definitely some level of impact caused by us.

The real question isn't even, "Are we the cause of global warming?," it's, "How much of it is because of us?"

[big daddy russ]

Should I send in a completed petition? See how carefully they review this stuff?

link (http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf)



By the way, in case nobody else bothered to do a background check on this petition, I took the liberty. I googled the source (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine doesn't exactly have the same ring as Harvard or Stanford) and came up with these links within the first few results.

Arthur Robinson, founder of OISM, is the only employee. The others listed on the Board of Directors only work with him "on occassion." (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine)

"Obscure group known as the OISM." (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=oregon_institute_of_science_and_ medicine_1)




ROFL. This guy's a complete nut. He's the only employee in the place, has a board of directors consisting of his son and a few people he's worked with in the past (on other stuff, NOT global warming), and somehow managed to carefully review 20k signatures to a petition (according to updated info on his website). Wow, what an incredibly misleading test.

[Old Tiger]

Al Gore invented the internet....I saw him do it, TWICE!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I didn't feel like reading all ten pages, but I'd like to know where they found 17k freakin' people who study this particular phenomenon. What kind of scientists were asked? What is their level of credibility?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not completely sold on global warming, but it's because of the amount of misinformation out there. Do any of you really believe that our pollution has zero impact on global warming? I'm not saying that we're single-handedly causing it or that we're not, I'm just saying there's definitely some level of impact caused by us.

The real question isn't even, "Are we the cause of global warming?," it's, "How much of it is because of us?" Russ, go back one page and look at the great success that was known as the Kyoto Accord. Remember that this was supposed to curb global warming and reduce emissions.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Russ, go back one page and look at the great success that was known as the Kyoto Accord. Remember that this was supposed to curb global warming and reduce emissions.
The Kyoto Treaty was a complete failure. Everyone signed it, then didn't do anything about it.

I'm still up in the air about how much of an effect we have on global warming. It's been proven that certain gases have a "greenhouse effect" on the world, I just want to know exactly how much. I don't believe it's as bad as everyone says it is, but at the same time I'm not gullible enough to buy everything that quiz was selling. Those were some of the most slanted facts I've seen concerning global warming so I checked the credibility of the quiz.

Granted, I expected it to fall flat on its face, but it lived up to my expectations.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
The Kyoto Treaty was a complete failure. Everyone signed it, then didn't do anything about it.

I'm still up in the air about how much of an effect we have on global warming. It's been proven that certain gases have a "greenhouse effect" on the world, I just want to know exactly how much. I don't believe it's as bad as everyone says it is, but at the same time I'm not gullible enough to buy everything that quiz was selling. Those were some of the most slanted facts I've seen concerning global warming so I checked the credibility of the quiz.

Granted, I expected it to fall flat on its face, but it lived up to my expectations. What facts were slanted?

[Black_Magic]

Folks who think Global warming is human caused are trying to convince the conservatives with the Laissez-faire attitude. they belive government does too much as it is to limit businesses and individuals. These people will never be convinced to take measures to save the planet. They will always fight ANY regulation. Get use to it. The solutuion is simple. Vote for folks who will save things and forget about the folks who are so worried about losing a dime that they would rather do nothing. They are so opposed to change and spending any money to save the planet or environment that you will NEVER convince them. Let them just Piss and moan about the measures that are taken after the fact. Its going to happen. More and more scientist and politicians are aware of Man made Global warming and are going to take measures to stop it. maybe to late because of these other folks but it will happen. Time will work to our advantage.;) SO just let them piss and moan about it when it happens.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Folks who think Global warming is human caused are trying to convince the conservatives with the Laissez-faire attitude. they belive government does too much as it is to limit businesses and individuals. These people will never be convinced to take measures to save the planet. They will always fight ANY regulation. Get use to it. The solutuion is simple. Vote for folks who will save things and forget about the folks who are so worried about losing a dime that they would rather do nothing. They are so opposed to change and spending any money to save the planet or environment that you will NEVER convince them. Let them just Piss and moan about the measures that are taken after the fact. Its going to happen. More and more scientist and politicians are aware of Man made Global warming and are going to take measures to stop it. maybe to late because of these other folks but it will happen. Time will work to our advantage.;) SO just let them piss and moan about it when it happens. What about your precious Kyoto Accord? How did that turn out?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Folks who think Global warming is human caused are trying to convince the conservatives with the Laissez-faire attitude. they belive government does too much as it is to limit businesses and individuals. These people will never be convinced to take measures to save the planet. They will always fight ANY regulation. Get use to it. The solutuion is simple. Vote for folks who will save things and forget about the folks who are so worried about losing a dime that they would rather do nothing. They are so opposed to change and spending any money to save the planet or environment that you will NEVER convince them. Let them just Piss and moan about the measures that are taken after the fact. Its going to happen. More and more scientist and politicians are aware of Man made Global warming and are going to take measures to stop it. maybe to late because of these other folks but it will happen. Time will work to our advantage.;) SO just let them piss and moan about it when it happens.


And once again u try to turn it into a political issue

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What about your precious Kyoto Accord? How did that turn out? So , you believe people speed on the highway and dont get caught most of the time so we should not have speed limits???? So if people violate agreements everyone should violate them? come on!!:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So , you believe people speed on the highway and dont get caught most of the time so we should not have speed limits???? So if people violate agreements everyone should violate them? come on!!:rolleyes: Once again you miss the point. The Kyoto agreement had some good intentions, yet it would have severely hurt our economy. So we didn't handcuff ourselves and bow to what the rest of the world wanted us to do, yet we did a better job than almost everyone that signed the accord.

And notice that this news is on the back burner. Typical. I can guarantee you that if the U.S. had signed that agreement and had not lived up to our end, we would have been crucified in the court of world opinion.

[STANG RED]

What is funny but sad at the same time is, when the earth naturally starts cooling back down within it's typical cycle, these global warming alarmists will be all too anxious to take the credit for saving the planet and all of humanity. What a joke! Granted not a very funny joke, but just wait and watch it happen.

[shankbear]

There are a great number of scientists already saying that the warming cycle has ended and that another cooling cycle is in progress. GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!!!! We're all gonna freeze. PETA will not like that because the fur industry will boom.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What facts were slanted?
In that quiz??? Pretty much all of them. You can easily take a set of facts and use them to mislead someone, and he did just that.

I think I was one of the first people on the board to bring up the fact that global warming was part of a geologic cycle several years ago and I still believe it, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that we have zero effect on the climate change like the test was leading us to believe. Sure, temperatures now are cooler than they were in the middle ages and we're still on the back end of an ice age, but let's face the facts: one degree change in 100 years is significant whether or not we want to recognize it. The fact that we ignore it isn't going to change the fact that it's real. Now to what extent? I can't answer that. I'm locked somewhere in the middle of the argument and still don't know what to believe. I just know what not to believe.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
In that quiz??? Pretty much all of them. You can easily take a set of facts and use them to mislead someone, and he did just that.

I think I was one of the first people on the board to bring up the fact that global warming was part of a geologic cycle several years ago and I still believe it, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that we have zero effect on the climate change like the test was leading us to believe. Sure, temperatures now are cooler than they were in the middle ages and we're still on the back end of an ice age, but let's face the facts: one degree change in 100 years is significant whether or not we want to recognize it. The fact that we ignore it isn't going to change the fact that it's real. Now to what extent? I can't answer that. I'm locked somewhere in the middle of the argument and still don't know what to believe. I just know what not to believe.


Russ, I think that is a fair assessment. My logical progression is to weigh out the pros/cons of taking the ignore approach or the proactive approach. After I weighed out those things I firmly believe it is better to take a proactive approach, because the benefits of taking that course of action will be positive in so many ways. What is wrong with being accountable for our actions and our abuse of the environment? What is wrong with finding cleaner/cheaper burning fuels? Cleaner energy?

Even if it is not contributing to global warming we are still polluting the airways, waterways, etc. What is wrong with cleaning them for the health benefits of people residing in those areas? Why would it be bad to not depend on the unstable middle east for fuel sources?

If you think about it in terms of the benefits of acting now, I think there is only one choice. Atleast that is my opinion.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
What is wrong with finding cleaner/cheaper burning fuels? Cleaner energy? Absolutely nothing. But that's not the debate. If it were that simple, everyone would be on board. But the extreme "man caused global warming" crowd wants to cripple our economy and basically shut the USA down by the recommendations they want. If we did what they want, then entire industries would collapse, in turn collapsing our economy.

The hypocritical thing is that some of these same people are some of the biggest polluters.

I'm all for cleaner air and cleaner fuels. That can be and should be done through research.

[JasperDog94]

On another note, why can't we build more nuclear power plants? I was under the assumption that nuclear power is relatively safe now. Anyone know anything about nuclear power?

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Absolutely nothing. But that's not the debate. If it were that simple, everyone would be on board. But the extreme "man caused global warming" crowd wants to cripple our economy and basically shut the USA down by the recommendations they want. If we did what they want, then entire industries would collapse, in turn collapsing our economy.

The hypocritical thing is that some of these same people are some of the biggest polluters.

I'm all for cleaner air and cleaner fuels. That can be and should be done through research.
Doesn't Al Gore have like a 20k a month electric bill?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Russ, I think that is a fair assessment. My logical progression is to weigh out the pros/cons of taking the ignore approach or the proactive approach. After I weighed out those things I firmly believe it is better to take a proactive approach, because the benefits of taking that course of action will be positive in so many ways. What is wrong with being accountable for our actions and our abuse of the environment? What is wrong with finding cleaner/cheaper burning fuels? Cleaner energy?

Even if it is not contributing to global warming we are still polluting the airways, waterways, etc. What is wrong with cleaning them for the health benefits of people residing in those areas? Why would it be bad to not depend on the unstable middle east for fuel sources?

If you think about it in terms of the benefits of acting now, I think there is only one choice. Atleast that is my opinion.
I agree with you 100%. I'm all for keeping the earth clean because it was pretty before we were here and that's all the reason in the world for me to do my part. Sure, Houston and Dallas are a great place to get a job, but they're not much on the eyes or the lungs. I'd rather do everything possible to keep a cloud of smog (which, by the way, is proven to cause health problems whether or not it affects the environment) out of the Hill Country and East Texas just because I love Texas too much.

Just because we're not all tree-huggers doesn't mean we can't all get on board with helping out the environment to an extent... and that includes measures to keep the air clean. Sure, I'm a member of the Surfrider Foundation, but I'm not about to chain myself to a tree in the Amazon or lay down in the sand dunes to prevent them from building a house there, I just think it spoils what we have around us. I love walking down the beach on a clear day out near Fish Pass on Mustang Island and enjoying the miles of undisturbed island or hiking through Big Bend and looking at everything around me without seeing a cloud of smog on the horizon or swimming in the Devil's River and not having to worry about passing hordes of empty beer cans like you do at the Guadalupe.

You don't have to be an extremist to get on board with these things. I think most of the people on DL could agree with that. I think you can apply these same ideals that we could all get on board with to the ideals of the all the crazies out there and find a nice middle ground. And that's where I am right now.

[RMAC]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
On another note, why can't we build more nuclear power plants? I was under the assumption that nuclear power is relatively safe now. Anyone know anything about nuclear power?

We've discussed in one of my engineering classes. Nuclear power is much safer than it was in the 70's and 80's and probably the 90's. The reactors are run more by computers than by people. Chernobyl happened due to malfunctions in the safe-modes of the computers. The computers had been programmed to shut down the reactors when the heat levels got to where they did, but they malfunctioned and didn't. Needless to say, the computers we have now are massively better and faster than the ones towards the end of the cold war. I saw on the History Channel a plant directer saying something to the effect of that if the computers even sense the possibility of the reactor having a meltdown that the computers will shut the reactors down automatically. So I would think yes, nuclear energy is very safe and the cleanest form of energy today, aside from solar and wind energy.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
On another note, why can't we build more nuclear power plants? I was under the assumption that nuclear power is relatively safe now. Anyone know anything about nuclear power?
I had a long conversation about this with my little bro (who studied all this in college) last night. He said that in the short term, nuclear power is by far the cleanest way to produce energy, but that they're concerned about the long-term effects of nuclear waste. I'm all for it as it'll be cheaper and cleaner right now, and between now and 100 years from now we can work on a better way of disposing it. I joked around about launching it off into space last night, but as far-fetched as it may be, that's not a half-bad idea. I'm sure we can find some way to get rid of it by then.

I've heard in the past (don't know if it's true or not, though) that France is powered completely off nuclear energy. If they are, I think that's awesome. That may be the one thing I like about the country. :D

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I joked around about launching it off into space last night, but as far-fetched as it may be, that's not a half-bad idea. I'm sure we can find some way to get rid of it by then.
That is what I was going to say. But what happens if the rocket malfunctions and a pod of nuclear waste explodes over a country or the ocean?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Emerson1
That is what I was going to say. But what happens if the rocket malfunctions and a pod of nuclear waste explodes over a country or the ocean?
Blame it on the Communists.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I agree with you 100%. I'm all for keeping the earth clean because it was pretty before we were here and that's all the reason in the world for me to do my part. Sure, Houston and Dallas are a great place to get a job, but they're not much on the eyes or the lungs. I'd rather do everything possible to keep a cloud of smog (which, by the way, is proven to cause health problems whether or not it affects the environment) out of the Hill Country and East Texas just because I love Texas too much.

Just because we're not all tree-huggers doesn't mean we can't all get on board with helping out the environment to an extent... and that includes measures to keep the air clean. Sure, I'm a member of the Surfrider Foundation, but I'm not about to chain myself to a tree in the Amazon or lay down in the sand dunes to prevent them from building a house there, I just think it spoils what we have around us. I love walking down the beach on a clear day out near Fish Pass on Mustang Island and enjoying the miles of undisturbed island or hiking through Big Bend and looking at everything around me without seeing a cloud of smog on the horizon or swimming in the Devil's River and not having to worry about passing hordes of empty beer cans like you do at the Guadalupe.

You don't have to be an extremist to get on board with these things. I think most of the people on DL could agree with that. I think you can apply these same ideals that we could all get on board with to the ideals of the all the crazies out there and find a nice middle ground. And that's where I am right now.

I think we can all get on board with that russ, in fact I'll bet most of us are and have been on board with those thoughts all along. What we cant abide is the radical crazies that are using scare tactics along with bad science and poorly thought out solutions and are willing to leap head long into trying to solve problems that may not even exist, but will most certainly come with a rather heffty price tag. But no doubt, cleaner air and water are a must, and we should always continue to strive to meet those ends. We just want to make sure the real solutions are truly addressing the real problems and not just throwing pot shot wads of money, time, and resources at only possibly perceived problems that may not even exist in the first place. More unbiased research has to be done to accurately identify what (if any) impact we are actually having on the planet, and then maybe good sound science can then be used to address real problems with real solutions. I just think some people are trying to jump the gun here, and are having knee jerk reactions to what could easily be a lot of misinformation.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by STANG RED
I think we can all get on board with that russ, in fact I'll bet most of us are and have been on board with those thoughts all along. What we cant abide is the radical crazies that are using scare tactics along with bad science and poorly thought out solutions and are willing to leap head long into trying to solve problems that may not even exist, but will most certainly come with a rather heffty price tag. But no doubt, cleaner air and water are a must, and we should always continue to strive to meet those ends. We just want to make sure the real solutions are truly addressing the real problems and not just throwing pot shot wads of money, time, and resources at only possibly perceived problems that may not even exist in the first place. More unbiased research has to be done to accurately identify what (if any) impact we are actually having on the planet, and then maybe good sound science can then be used to address real problems with real solutions. I just think some people are trying to jump the gun here, and are having knee jerk reactions to what could easily be a lot of misinformation.
I agree with that, too, but this quiz was radicalism on the other side of the argument and I didn't want people to get caught up in the idea that global warming isn't man-made at all. While I agree with you that it may be a overblown, I'm not about to believe that we've had no effect on it. Sound science has also proven that CFC's were the cause of the reduction of ozone and that increased levels of carbon dioxide really do lead to a warming effect. I'm just trying to find the middle ground. It's not as bad as they say, but it's not as good as this quiz would leave you to believe. While we shouldn't destroy our economy to take these measures, we should be taking more steps to make things right. We don't have to rack the federal budget to do a little more.

[charlesrixey]

8/10

i guess Human Ecology wasn't such a bad class after all!

[Black_Magic]

Look Either we do contribute to Global warming or we do not. IF we do at all we need to try to take measures to curb it regardless of what India does. You must be a complete idiot if you think we have NO effect on Global warming. Of course we do. how much is debatable. I keep hearing a cost argument. we better pay some now so we can be able to pay anything in the future.. And Stang Red. Who said anything about throwing away money or waisting money?? You automaticaly think that will happen. I think Detroit should do what ever it takes to make more fuel efficient cars. You got something against getting 35mpg out of a SUV or your next Pick up??

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look Either we do contribute to Global warming or we do not. IF we do at all we need to try to take measures to curb it regardless of what India does. You must be a complete idiot if you think we have NO effect on Global warming. Of course we do. how much is debatable. I keep hearing a cost argument. we better pay some now so we can be able to pay anything in the future.. And Stang Red. Who said anything about throwing away money or waisting money?? You automaticaly think that will happen. I think Detroit should do what ever it takes to make more fuel efficient cars. You got something against getting 35mpg out of a SUV or your next Pick up??
Blackie, I honestly think everyone on the board thinks the same way. It's obvious that this quiz is complete crap, and anyone who agrees with it 100% just isn't well-enough informed or has an axe to grind. Stang Red agreed with me that we need to take steps to reduce it, I think he's just hesitant to give up too much to the radicals on the other side because it will cost all of us.

I compare it to buying a car. You have two extremes: the buyer and the seller. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible. The seller (let's call them the environmental extremists) wants you to pay full sticker. Everyone has to meet in the middle somewhere. My somewhere is doing more than we are now, but not stretching the budget even more paper thin than it already is. Maybe using private entities to help us out, and maybe even spurring the economy a tiny bit by doing so. There are ways out of it that could work out for everyone, but it's hard to find who to trust in this whole thing.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Blackie, I honestly think everyone on the board thinks the same way. It's obvious that this quiz is complete crap, and anyone who agrees with it 100% just isn't well-enough informed or has an axe to grind. Stang Red agreed with me that we need to take steps to reduce it, I think he's just hesitant to give up too much to the radicals on the other side because it will cost all of us.

I compare it to buying a car. You have two extremes: the buyer and the seller. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible. The seller (let's call them the environmental extremists) wants you to pay full sticker. Everyone has to meet in the middle somewhere. My somewhere is doing more than we are now, but not stretching the budget even more paper thin than it already is. Maybe using private entities to help us out, and maybe even spurring the economy a tiny bit by doing so. There are ways out of it that could work out for everyone, but it's hard to find who to trust in this whole thing.
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars.

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars.

Why target the oil companies? Their ROA (return on assets), which is their net income divided by their total assets is less than Microsoft, Apple, and many other companies. Yes, they are making alot of $ right now, but not as much as a % of what they have invested. That is like saying -- OK Microsoft, you are making too much money right now, we are going to tax you more and use the money to research alternative energy. That doesn't make sense to me. Punish an industry that is doing well. It wasn't that long ago that oil was $6 per barrell. I know this is off the subject a little, but I want Black Magic to explain to me the logic of targeting the oil companies. Maybe there is something I don't understand.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars.

Blackie, this may be rare, but on this I agree 100% with you. Instead of fighting it, I dont understand why the big oil companies cant see the tremendous oppertunity for huge profits in the alternative fuels and clean energy industries. Just on pure greed alone, I'd think they would be all over this. And they could get lots of good PR out of the deal at the same time. I think its a matter of not seeing the forrest for the trees myself. Of course that is one of the biggest problems with our wall street driven economy. Industries are forced to be short sighted and only look as far as 1 fiscal year down the road in an attempt to keep the almighty price per share constantly growing.

[sahen]

hey look another long global warming thread...its been a few months since the last one, i wonder how long until we get another one after this one dies...

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars.
I'd like to see more natural gas and propane vehicles and filling stations, but I don't know all the cons to that. How much would the price of each increase if a larger load was placed on either industry? Is their any loss of power in the engines? Any safety issues?

I don't know enough about it all. All I know that ethanol's not a good solution because of the emissions that go into refining it and that everyone's concentrating on hydrogen cars right now. Apparently, hydrogen is the best alternative fuel source out there. Can store it in compressed cells half the size of your average gas tank, gives incredible power, and can run much, much farther on a "tank" than traditional gas tanks... I've heard estimates of tens of thousands of miles on a single hydrogen cell. I guess we'll see.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by sahen
hey look another long global warming thread...its been a few months since the last one, i wonder how long until we get another one after this one dies...
Haha. I think this is a rare thread where everybody's going the same direction, they're just getting their from different places.

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Haha. I think this is a rare thread where everybody's going the same direction, they're just getting their from different places.

I agree. And, since this is mostly a football thread, I'll use a football story. Vince Lombardi told a reporter one time that on Sunday nights after a game and all day Monday that the Packer coaches were all together and trying to prepare for the next weeks game, they would almost always have a different idea about what would work on both sides of the ball. He said there was a lot of cussing and yelling and all that kind of stuff, and every once in a while a good ol fistfight. But, by Tuesday afternoon, when they met with the team, they would have decided on something to go with, and he felt it was very important for all the coaches to appear united and trust what they had come up with. In other words, he wanted the team to see a united group of leaders and have confidence that the plan they had put together was a good one. I wish our country could have the same sense. I know that is impossible. I have the feeling that most HARD CORE liberals hope that we fail in Iraq so that they can say they were right. And I'll say that if it were the other way around, the HARD CORE conservatives would hope the same thing. None of them would probably admit it. I get frustrated feeling the 2 parties are pulling so hard from the left and from the right that it is keeping the country from moving straight ahead.

[sahen]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Haha. I think this is a rare thread where everybody's going the same direction, they're just getting their from different places.

oh...i havent actually read it, i know the older ones were arguments....i figure anything i say would be nullified since i work in research for exxonmobil...

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars. I can tell you one thing about oil companies that drill offshore. Before they can even drill a single well they will spend about 1 BILLION DOLLARS on a single drilling and production platform. So before they can even make that $100 a barrel oil they gotta spend some bucks just to spud in on the 1st well.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by nobogey72
And I'll say that if it were the other way around, the HARD CORE conservatives would hope the same thing. None of them would probably admit it. I get frustrated feeling the 2 parties are pulling so hard from the left and from the right that it is keeping the country from moving straight ahead.


I disagree with all my heart. I dont want to get into it, but I do disagree. And I would be willing to bet the majority of the democrats feel the same way.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by sahen
i know the older ones were arguments....
Nothing much has changed. :D ;)

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by sinfan75
I can tell you one thing about oil companies that drill offshore. Before they can even drill a single well they will spend about 1 BILLION DOLLARS on a single drilling and production platform. So before they can even make that $100 a barrel oil they gotta spend some bucks just to spud in on the 1st well. And they have had to spend Millions of dollars 4-8 years ago when the price was $20 a barrel and they made money. It is now $100 a barrel. Costs of pulling it out of the ground have not gone up THAT much. Proffits are at record levels.. Record levels of ANY company in ANY industry in World history. My Father worked for Chevron for 40 years, I am well aquanted with cost of getting it out of the ground.. You cant fool me into feeling sorry for the oil companies at all.:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I guess expecting the Oil corporations who are making money hand over fist to help out would be expecting too much. I think they have been gouging us for years. they use to make a profit by pulling it out of the ground at $18 a barrel. Now they get $100. I think it is time for them to do either one of two things. Cut it down for US consumers or Pay a Tax that goes to funding research and development of alternative and more fuel efficient cars. If the environmentalists would allow us to drill in ANWAR (or however you spell it) our dependency on foreign oil would drop to nearly zero. The price of oil (and in turn gas) would drop significantly. It's the dependency on foreign oil that's driving up the price. Not to mention the fact that the US hasn't built a single refinery in the past 25 to 30 years because of all the governmental regulations.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
And they have had to spend Millions of dollars 4-8 years ago when the price was $20 a barrel and they made money. It is now $100 a barrel. Costs of pulling it out of the ground have not gone up THAT much. The government has sooo many rules and regulations (many are justified) that it costs a ton of money to even start drilling...especially offshore.

Again, the main two problems with the price of oil are:

1. Too much dependency on foreign oil.
2. No new refineries built in the last 25 to 30 years.

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I disagree with all my heart. I dont want to get into it, but I do disagree. And I would be willing to bet the majority of the democrats feel the same way.

I'm glad you feel that way, and I would hope that you are right about most of the hard cores either way. Sometimes I lose confidence that we all are supposed to be on the same team.:(

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
And they have had to spend Millions of dollars 4-8 years ago when the price was $20 a barrel and they made money. It is now $100 a barrel. Costs of pulling it out of the ground have not gone up THAT much. Proffits are at record levels.. Record levels of ANY company in ANY industry in World history. My Father worked for Chevron for 40 years, I am well aquanted with cost of getting it out of the ground.. You cant fool me into feeling sorry for the oil companies at all.:rolleyes:

Magic, I challenge you on the part about record levels for any industry and company. Like I stated in an earlier post, Microsoft earns more as per their assets than Exxon/Mobil. I'm still waiting for you to respond to that statistic. I guess my biggest difference with you on this is that I think the market should dictate what happens. Supply and demand still works. When more manufacturers keep coming out with hybrids and other alternatives, the market will dictate that Exxon spend $ on R&D to take advantage of alternative technology. Personally, I hope that happens. I don't like $3 gasoline, I don't like the possibility that fossil fuels are damaging. I would love for there to be other options. And, I am confident that it will happen. There is not an infinite amount of fossil fuel. Read the article in this month's Texas Monthly. Don't you think that oil companies are smart enough to be looking at other options. Tax the hell out of them and they may or may not.

[RMAC]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
And they have had to spend Millions of dollars 4-8 years ago when the price was $20 a barrel and they made money. It is now $100 a barrel. Costs of pulling it out of the ground have not gone up THAT much. Proffits are at record levels.. Record levels of ANY company in ANY industry in World history. My Father worked for Chevron for 40 years, I am well aquanted with cost of getting it out of the ground.. You cant fool me into feeling sorry for the oil companies at all.:rolleyes:

Well why not tax the coal or natural gas industries? I remember when oil was $10 a barrel and I remember my dad umpiring little league baseball games to make extra money on top of working 60+ hours a week, so you can say what you want, but you won't hear a word out of me damning the oil companies or high gas prices. Our world as a whole has a love for oil, not just the oil companies. Did you write on a piece of paper today? Did you put on a shirt? I'll bet you your wages that you directly funded the oil companies by doing just those 2 things. Oh yes Blackie, we use oil for more than just running our cars and ruinning the planet. It's a 2-way street. Oh, and there's a HUGE difference in a few hundred million to drill a well and a BILLION. If you had a billion dollars, and spent $1 a second without stopping, it would take you 33 years to spend it all. I'm not going to type in all the numbers, but if you compare the numbers now vs. the numbers from the mid 90's you talked about, then you'd see that the price for producing a well has increased exponentially since then. But I doubt you'll listen to me.

[sahen]

Originally posted by nobogey72
Magic, I challenge you on the part about record levels for any industry and company. Like I stated in an earlier post, Microsoft earns more as per their assets than Exxon/Mobil. I'm still waiting for you to respond to that statistic. I guess my biggest difference with you on this is that I think the market should dictate what happens. Supply and demand still works. When more manufacturers keep coming out with hybrids and other alternatives, the market will dictate that Exxon spend $ on R&D to take advantage of alternative technology. Personally, I hope that happens. I don't like $3 gasoline, I don't like the possibility that fossil fuels are damaging. I would love for there to be other options. And, I am confident that it will happen. There is not an infinite amount of fossil fuel. Read the article in this month's Texas Monthly. Don't you think that oil companies are smart enough to be looking at other options. Tax the hell out of them and they may or may not.

like i said before, i work for exxonmobil in the research dept. if anyone thinks they aren't researching alternative fuels then they are nuts (not saying you are, just saying in general)....just because you are reseraching it doesnt mean you will find a solution, i know exxon, cheveron, and bp at least have whole research groups on this all have different answers but none of them can come up w/ something feasable at the moment...this isnt an easy problem to fix, if it was then we would have fixed it already...

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by sahen
oh...i havent actually read it, i know the older ones were arguments....i figure anything i say would be nullified since i work in research for exxonmobil...
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your side of the argument. You're probably more informed on the subject than just about anyone else on the board.


Originally posted by rockdale80
I disagree with all my heart. I dont want to get into it, but I do disagree. And I would be willing to bet the majority of the democrats feel the same way.
I think he's talking about the strict idealogues. You're not as liberal as some would like to believe. More of a moderate liberal.

They say that idealists make the worst dictators because they value the idea more than the people the idea is supposed to protect. The world's two greatest mass murderers were both idealogues, and you see traces of that on both sides of the coin in American politics... both staunt conservatives and bleeding heart libs. Timothy McVeigh was a psychotic conservative. The Weathermen were very liberal.

[sahen]

russ, i know some i guess but i dont do research for the alternative fuels group, im in a different group...i was jsut saying that exxon along w/ its counterparts are doing research, but my colleagues taht work out there basically say its dang near impossible at the moment, everytime they think they have something it ends up emitting something else that is bad or has another bad effect or it is more costly than gasoline....its a losing battle at the moment at least at exxon, all the companies are secreative but it appears it is that way across the industry...

[bebo24]

Originally posted by RMAC
Oh, and there's a HUGE difference in a few hundred million to drill a well and a BILLION. If you had a billion dollars, and spent $1 a second without stopping, it would take you 33 years to spend it all. I'm not going to type in all the numbers, but if you compare the numbers now vs. the numbers from the mid 90's you talked about, then you'd see that the price for producing a well has increased exponentially since then. You mean to tell me that you honestly belive that the cost of pulling oil out of the ground has gone up nearly 10x in the last 10 years???? PLEASE! Sell that bull to someone else. I live in the middle of the oil patch and I know cost of production have not risen anywhere near that much. Like I said they made a profit at $20 per barrel only 6 -7 years ago. Now its $100 a barrel. Where have you been hiding. Exon posted the record profit just 8 months ago..:doh: But you keep feeling sorry for them.

[RMAC]

Originally posted by bebo24
You mean to tell me that you honestly belive that the cost of pulling oil out of the ground has gone up nearly 10x in the last 10 years???? PLEASE! Sell that bull to someone else. I live in the middle of the oil patch and I know cost of production have not risen anywhere near that much. Like I said they made a profit at $20 per barrel only 6 -7 years ago. Now its $100 a barrel. Where have you been hiding. Exon posted the record profit just 8 months ago..:doh: But you keep feeling sorry for them.

2 things; I never said the cost drilling had gone up 10 fold and I never said I felt sorry for them, I simply said you won't here me calling them evil for making money. Trust me, these companies are looking for other forms of energy, otherwise, they won't exist in another 50 years. I'm sure they're all saying, "Yeah, we're just going to ride this oil boom until there is no more oil to drill for then just fire all of our 60,000 employees because we won't need them anymore. Oil companies now will be the companies providing us with our various energies here in 100 years.

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by bebo24
You mean to tell me that you honestly belive that the cost of pulling oil out of the ground has gone up nearly 10x in the last 10 years???? PLEASE! Sell that bull to someone else. I live in the middle of the oil patch and I know cost of production have not risen anywhere near that much. Like I said they made a profit at $20 per barrel only 6 -7 years ago. Now its $100 a barrel. Where have you been hiding. Exon posted the record profit just 8 months ago..:doh: But you keep feeling sorry for them. $1 billion is to build a platform offshore to START DRILLING!!! Then you can add a few million more to drill a well and THEN you can start pulling oil out. I worked for company that builds offshore drillig/platforms. I just throwin out a figure.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by sinfan75
$1 billion is to build a platform offshore to START DRILLING!!! Then you can add a few million more to drill a well and THEN you can start pulling oil out. I worked for company that builds offshore drillig/platforms. I just throwin out a figure. Uhhhh they have been building platforms out at sea constantly for years and years. your missing the point. Are you saying that building platforms at sea is a new deal????:thinking: RECORD PROFITS.... They are making a killing off of the american people and our economy is sufering for it. as long as you have two oil guys in power nobody will do a thing.

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Uhhhh they have been building platforms out at sea constantly for years and years. your missing the point. Are you saying that building platforms at sea is a new deal????:thinking: RECORD PROFITS.... They are making a killing off of the american people and our economy is sufering for it. as long as you have two oil guys in power nobody will do a thing.

Black Magic,

Using your logic of taxing oil companies due to RECORD PROFITS, why not also hit pharmacutical companies, and technology companies. Do you not think that drug industry is also making all they can make, without worrying about who can afford it. You have yet to respond to my challenge about Microsoft. I guess your non-response is that you can't answer it because you haven't heard a Democrat tell you what you are supposed to think about that comparison. BTW I am 85-90% Democrat, although I hate to be labeled. I just happen to not understand why oil companies are the target. Where would we be without them? More dependant on foreign is my guess.

[sahen]

i always wondered if the record profits exxon or any oil company brings in would be much different than their profits 10 or 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation...i have no idea, just wondering...

[RMAC]

Originally posted by sahen
i always wondered if the record profits exxon or any oil company brings in would be much different than their profits 10 or 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation...i have no idea, just wondering...

I still think that the profits today would be greater. Over the last 10-20 years, there hasn't been a boom that lasted this long. There was a spike in the early 80's then another around the time of the Gulf War, but from about 96-99 the pickins were pretty slim. Cude for so cheap a 10 year old can buy it ain't fun at all.

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Uhhhh they have been building platforms out at sea constantly for years and years. your missing the point. Are you saying that building platforms at sea is a new deal????:thinking: RECORD PROFITS.... They are making a killing off of the american people and our economy is sufering for it. as long as you have two oil guys in power nobody will do a thing. But the platforms they build now and the last 15 years or so are floating platforms anchored to the ocean floor by tension legs. they don't sit on jackets like the old days. much more high tech than before. These platforms are actually reusable. once they finish one field they can cut loose the tension legs and move it ti the next field. And one other thing I may be wrong but oil companies don't set the price of oil per barrel. I believe oil producing countries that set oil prices.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by sinfan75
But the platforms they build now and the last 15 years or so are floating platforms anchored to the ocean floor by tension legs. they don't sit on jackets like the old days. much more high tech than before. These platforms are actually reusable. once they finish one field they can cut loose the tension legs and move it ti the next field. And one other thing I may be wrong but oil companies don't set the price of oil per barrel. I believe oil producing countries that set oil prices. Don't forget supply and demand. The less we are allowed to drill here (plus the lack of new refineries) means more dependence on foreign oil. They are the ones setting the price.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by nobogey72
Black Magic,

Using your logic of taxing oil companies due to RECORD PROFITS, why not also hit pharmacutical companies, and technology companies. Do you not think that drug industry is also making all they can make, without worrying about who can afford it. You have yet to respond to my challenge about Microsoft. I guess your non-response is that you can't answer it because you haven't heard a Democrat tell you what you are supposed to think about that comparison. BTW I am 85-90% Democrat, although I hate to be labeled. I just happen to not understand why oil companies are the target. Where would we be without them? More dependant on foreign is my guess. Why would Oil companies be a target? look at this. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991)
Poor old oil companies. :( Wonder where those record profits are coming from?? my check book from the pump. They made a profit at $20-$25 a barrel . now its just the main reason ALL prices are going up. but you go ahead and defend those poor old strugling companies.:rolleyes:
As far as the Drug companies. heck yeah!! do the same to them . Its insaine the cost of some of the drugs now day. but you go ahead and defend them too. not to much longer now though, once the threat of the veto is taken away some things can be done by congress to protect the average american consumer. the day of giving big business a free ride to stick it to the american consumer may be closing for a few years.

BY the Way.... Anybody know what the Price some venuzualans pay for a gallon of gas???? wonder why americans cant have a little help or relief too.
Check out what everyone else is paying for gas. even the russians are cheaper.
LINK (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)

[RMAC]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Why would Oil companies be a target? look at this. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991)
Poor old oil companies. :( Wonder where those record profits are coming from?? my check book from the pump. They made a profit at $20-$25 a barrel . now its just the main reason ALL prices are going up. but you go ahead and defend those poor old strugling companies.:rolleyes:
As far as the Drug companies. heck yeah!! do the same to them . Its insaine the cost of some of the drugs now day. but you go ahead and defend them too. not to much longer now though, once the threat of the veto is taken away some things can be done by congress to protect the average american consumer. the day of giving big business a free ride to stick it to the american consumer may be closing for a few years.

BY the Way.... Anybody know what the Price some venuzualans pay for a gallon of gas???? wonder why americans cant have a little help or relief too.
Check out what everyone else is paying for gas. even the russians are cheaper.
LINK (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)

Blackie, please go read up on OPEC, learn a thing or two about them. Oh, and don't poste a link from almost 3 years go. That is all.

[sahen]

thats 2005 in that link but almost all those countries that are paying less than us actually let their companies drill their oil, unlike our country...just a thought, its a lot cheaper if your getting it out of ur backyard instead of someone else's backyard....

also, venezuela may have cheap gas but since crazy man took over i wouldnt really want to live there....thats just me personally but he is the reason y their gas prices are so low...

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Why would Oil companies be a target? look at this. LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991)
Poor old oil companies. :( Wonder where those record profits are coming from?? my check book from the pump. They made a profit at $20-$25 a barrel . now its just the main reason ALL prices are going up. but you go ahead and defend those poor old strugling companies.:rolleyes:
As far as the Drug companies. heck yeah!! do the same to them . Its insaine the cost of some of the drugs now day. but you go ahead and defend them too. not to much longer now though, once the threat of the veto is taken away some things can be done by congress to protect the average american consumer. the day of giving big business a free ride to stick it to the american consumer may be closing for a few years.

I'm not feeling sorry for the oil companies, nor do I think any one else should either. Also, I'm not defending drug companies as you said. I'm just curious why oil companies are always the ones that are singled out, or I should say the only one in history to ever be singled out (windfall profits tax). Hillary didn't say she wanted to hit oil, drugs, and technology. She simply said she wanted to hit oil companies, and that is what I hear from your posts and I don't understand it. Sure, gasoline affects everyones pocketbooks. But so does drugs, and so does computers in one form or another.

BY the Way.... Anybody know what the Price some venuzualans pay for a gallon of gas???? wonder why americans cant have a little help or relief too.
Check out what everyone else is paying for gas. even the russians are cheaper.
LINK (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by sahen
thats 2005 in that link but almost all those countries that are paying less than us actually let their companies drill their oil, unlike our country...just a thought, its a lot cheaper if your getting it out of ur backyard instead of someone else's backyard....

also, venezuela may have cheap gas but since crazy man took over i wouldnt really want to live there....thats just me personally but he is the reason y their gas prices are so low...

One other minor misnomer. The government makes more money off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies do and that is a fact. In fact the average gas station makes money on coffee not gas. The fact that the dollar is weak also drives up oil prices. The oil companies are making great profits. But I did not see anybody standing in line to give them money when the barrel was going at 10 dollars a barrel and they were losing money. So I would be willing to listen to blackie if he would line up to give them money when they are losing it as fast as he seems to want to take it when they are making it.

[Old Tiger]

god bless you all. it's all your fault there is global warming. you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

[sinfan75]

Bottom line on all this was global warming and the U.S. not signing some agreement to help curb all this when several other countries did. We had like a 6.6% increase in emissions while every other country was in double and triple digits. So that means the oil companies and every other industry in this country are pretty abiding by the environmental laws set by our government. Maybe if other countries set the type of restrictions the U.S. does this world would have cleaner air and we'd probably still have global warming and then the radicals would probably say its all because we fart too much

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by lakers
If you want data then watch the movie I talked about above. My opinion is based on the last 3 weeks of research in my class and the respected opinion of my professor.

3 weeks and we should take your word? lol... scientists aren't given degrees after 3 weeks...

I'm torn between this issue, I think it is possible that humans can cause global warming, then yet again I think it's possible that this is a cycle...

every time this topic pops up I have to go to this history lesson... so just incase anyone missed it:

An ice age that effected Northern Europe ended in the 1850s... why would it all of the sudden warm up in the 1850s?

Another reason I like that story is because that ice age is the reason why we have so much great beer from Europe... fruit couldn't grow in Northern Europe during the ice age, but different wheats/grains/whatever were a lot easier to come by, meaning the Northern Europeans abandoned their wine-making and brewed more beer...

Thank you Ice Age :D

[Gobbla2001]

My other opinion on this issue:

why even talk about it? honestly? the majority of dems will follow Gore and the majority of repubs will follow the conservative point of view...

I'm not repub, dem or indy... Smell my eyes... I'm Derick...

[Gobbla2001]

And I might piss some people off, but so what if we are screwing up the earth... we're living here doing our thing... Jesus is coming back before it has a chance to get as bad as predicted, so why should I care? No one will be living here anyway...

but while I am here, leave some trees and pick up your trash, it looks nicer that way
:D

gotta go, need to start my car and leave it running for a few hours...

[crabman]

In reply to the big oil companies making too much money, remember oil companies are not private entities. They are publicly traded corporations whose stock is somewhere buried in just about everyone's 401(k) plan. You, me, and everyone else profits by them profiting. There may be a few top executives who make a buttload of money but that is a small price to pay to be able to hold their stock.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by crabman
In reply to the big oil companies making too much money, remember oil companies are not private entities. They are publicly traded corporations whose stock is somewhere buried in just about everyone's 401(k) plan. You, me, and everyone else profits by them profiting. There may be a few top executives who make a buttload of money but that is a small price to pay to be able to hold their stock.

dear lord, leave the facts out of this...

hey, crabman, I know of a good guide down in POC just incase you get bored one day... he's boatin' pretty big trout right now... was gunna try to get out with him tomorrow morn but I'm swamped at work...

just incase you're interested...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Bottom line on all this was global warming and the U.S. not signing some agreement to help curb all this when several other countries did. We had like a 6.6% increase in emissions while every other country was in double and triple digits. So that means the oil companies and every other industry in this country are pretty abiding by the environmental laws set by our government. Maybe if other countries set the type of restrictions the U.S. does this world would have cleaner air and we'd probably still have global warming and then the radicals would probably say its all because we fart too much Thats Right!! so we need to stop the things we are doing to become more fuel efficient and go back to poluting the air like we did 30-40 years ago until everyone else does what we think they should do!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Thats Right!! so we need to stop the things we are doing to become more fuel efficient and go back to poluting the air like we did 30-40 years ago until everyone else does what we think they should do!


Way to make an extreme conclusion..See your wanting us to fall lockstep with an agreement that has proven NOT to work. Why agree to something that is not working when we are doing a better job than the countries who signed it?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Thats Right!! so we need to stop the things we are doing to become more fuel efficient and go back to poluting the air like we did 30-40 years ago until everyone else does what we think they should do! So we should sign the agreement even though we're doing a better job than everyone that signed it?:crazy1: :crazy1:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Way to make an extreme conclusion..See your wanting us to fall lockstep with an agreement that has proven NOT to work. Why agree to something that is not working when we are doing a better job than the countries who signed it? Because it gives the man caused global warming crowd "warm fuzzies".;)

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So we should sign the agreement even though we're doing a better job than everyone that signed it?:crazy1: :crazy1: If we are going to do a better job than everyone else then whats the harm??:thinking: Here is novel Idea.. Since we are seen as the leader of the free world and everyone seems to do what we do over time, Lets set the example for everyone else.:eek: If we dont sign it ( the LEADER) why would anyone do it??:thinking:

[Gobbla2001]

some food for thought for all of the people who say Bush has done nothing to help stop global warming:

you're right, but it's what he HASN'T done that is helping stop global warming... he was seconds away from dropping bombs on Iraq, North Korea and Iraan (considered China just for the hell of it), but at the last second he said to himself, "Ya know what, droppin' bombs on these countries may seem to be the best thing to do right now, but if these bombs have a negative impact on our environment we may suffer in 100 years from temperatures that are 3 degrees above normal... that would be a ridiculouslyasmasticatedy foolish thing to do..."

Environment 1 Global Warming 0

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
some food for thought for all of the people who say Bush has done nothing to help stop global warming:

you're right, but it's what he HASN'T done that is helping stop global warming... he was seconds away from dropping bombs on Iraq, North Korea and Iraan (considered China just for the hell of it), but at the last second he said to himself, "Ya know what, droppin' bombs on these countries may seem to be the best thing to do right now, but if these bombs have a negative impact on our environment we may suffer in 100 years from temperatures that are 3 degrees above normal... that would be a ridiculouslyasmasticatedy foolish thing to do..."

Environment 1 Global Warming 0 I have absolutly no doubt that your closer to being right than you ever could imagine. That my friend, is what is really funny about what you just wrote.;)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
If we are going to do a better job than everyone else then whats the harm??:thinking: Here is novel Idea.. Since we are seen as the leader of the free world and everyone seems to do what we do over time, Lets set the example for everyone else.:eek: If we dont sign it ( the LEADER) why would anyone do it??:thinking:

Because if you sign something that is inferior just to say hey we signed it, your accepting a lesser standard to "look good" How does that help?

I would rather us stick to our guns than sign it just to look good if it truly is not going to help

[Gobbla2001]

in the Home and Garden section of the Victoria Advocate today, they had a larrrrrrgggggeeee deal about going green, and changing your shower heads and toilets to different ones that do not hurt the environment...

are you serious? my pooper and rain-maker have a negative impact on the environment?

I believe that just about as much as I believe Noah put two of each animal on a large ark... I can't even get two cats in the back of my truck...

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
in the Home and Garden section of the Victoria Advocate today, they had a larrrrrrgggggeeee deal about going green, and changing your shower heads and toilets to different ones that do not hurt the environment...

are you serious? my pooper and rain-maker have a negative impact on the environment?



That's a good point...I personally believe that my poop has more of a negative effect on the environment than the pooper...you can even smell the harmfulness that the poop is causing.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
That's a good point...I personally believe that my poop has more of a negative effect on the environment than the pooper...you can even smell the harmfulness that the poop is causing.

I pitty the foo that has to study our crap to figure that one out...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Because if you sign something that is inferior just to say hey we signed it, your accepting a lesser standard to "look good" How does that help?

I would rather us stick to our guns than sign it just to look good if it truly is not going to help Just how does it hurt by signing it?? If we are doing better then how would it hurt us at all?? this reminds me of the Leauge of Nations( grandfather to the UN) started just after the end of WWI. It was the US Idea. Every nation in Europe became a member and most around the world as well. The one nation that would have given it the most credibility was the US ( the one who had the Idea in the first place). BUT the US Congress would not ratify it..... The good old Isolationist kept us from being a member. Thats A BIG reason the Leauge of nations failed was that the US was not a member. This is kinda like that situation.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Just how does it hurt by signing it?? If we are doing better then how would it hurt us at all?? this reminds me of the Leauge of Nations( grandfather to the UN) started just after the end of WWI. It was the US Idea. Every nation in Europe became a member and most around the world as well. The one nation that would have given it the most credibility was the US ( the one who had the Idea in the first place). BUT the US Congress would not ratify it..... The good old Isolationist kept us from being a member. Thats A BIG reason the Leauge of nations failed was that the US was not a member. This is kinda like that situation.

You keep asking what does it hurt..I ask what does it help to sign something that basically is just being done to look good. That is what is wrong with politics, alot of ceremoinal signing of acts that they never truly intend to fufill.

To sign something soley to look good has no positive impact, and in fact it is a negative impact because countries will not want to take a true step in cleaning things up because they will say, hey we signed the Kyoto act, what more do you want

And the League of Nations failed not just because the US did not join, but because in the end France and Britian were far more concerned about their own interests than that of the greater good and they never intended to truly be a council to protect the world over their own interest

Your right it is alot like this..To many countries in the League Of NAtions were happy to say look were in this league together we signed the paper, but we truly are not going to honor it and never intended to, but dont it look good that we signed it

[Black_Magic]

I have told you how it helps us to sign it. It helps to show leadership and to show comitment. I say Sign it AND Do it. You say we already do it.... Then Great!! what harm does it to do ACTUALY sign it???? Your argument is like saying we should not have a speed limit becuase people break it all the time and dont get caught so we should not have a speed limit. The whole principle is to make a commitment to do what WE can do. We can only controle what WE do. We worry way too much about IF the other will follow through. WE should do what WE can. Show leadership. both on paper and in action. IF we already do it then no harm done at all... If we dont sign it then it shows the rest of the world that the LEADER wont do it so why should we.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I have told you how it helps us to sign it. It helps to show leadership and to show comitment. I say Sign it AND Do it. You say we already do it.... Then Great!! what harm does it to do ACTUALY sign it???? Your argument is like saying we should not have a speed limit becuase people break it all the time and dont get caught so we should not have a speed limit. The whole principle is to make a commitment to do what WE can do. We can only controle what WE do. We worry way too much about IF the other will follow through. WE should do what WE can. Show leadership. both on paper and in action. IF we already do it then no harm done at all... If we dont sign it then it shows the rest of the world that the LEADER wont do it so why should we.

Because it is a treaty that has no true force behind it, that is why

You dont have a speed limit set just to say hey look we have a speed limit. If the police did not enforce the law, then why have it?

It is not that the other countries are not being caught, it is that nothing is being done about it once they are caught

If we accept a lesser system in place and just say ok we will sign it just to sign it, then we are not showing the world we are not a leader, but are willing to go along with others just to make us all feel better

A leader stands by it's belief even if others do not. A true leader will go alone at times until others realize what they are doing is not truly helping but simply looking good.

I would perfer us not signing something just to save face and truly finding a better way.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Because it is a treaty that has no true force behind it, that is why


Then your saying it does not hurt even if we cant follow though after signing it..... What your saying does not make sense. Your saying dont sign something we already agree with and do just because it has no force to MAKE those people do it. YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT... Its an Agreement. we are all Getting together and Saying we need to make a change we all know needs to happen. we are all signing an AGREEMENT to take measures to lessen our impact on the air polution that we all know is getting worse. and you dont want us to sign it because we cant FORCE people into doing it??:doh: ITS and AGREEMENT to make a positive change for the good of the world. NOT A ARMISTICE...:doh: If they dont do it how does that hurt us??? we are not doing it to make money. we are doing it to make a positive impact on the environment.:doh:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Then your saying it does not hurt even if we cant follow though after signing it..... What your saying does not make sense. Your saying dont sign something we already agree with and do just because it has no force to MAKE those people do it. YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT... Its an Agreement. we are all Getting together and Saying we need to make a change we all know needs to happen. we are all signing an AGREEMENT to take measures to lessen our impact on the air polution that we all know is getting worse. and you dont want us to sign it because we cant FORCE people into doing it??:doh: ITS and AGREEMENT to make a positive change for the good of the world. NOT A ARMISTICE...:doh: If they dont do it how does that hurt us??? we are not doing it to make money. we are doing it to make a positive impact on the environment.:doh:


Because if you sign something that you know will only cost money and will not work then it does not make ANY positive impact, and the numbers show that.

All you will get from countries is...hey we dont need to do anything else cause look we signed the Kyoto treaty

It is a waste to do stuff just to look good..period. It in no way makes a positive impact to sign something that countries start violating, flaunting, or never intending to follow in the first place. All that does is weaken the position and make it harder to truly implement something later down the road

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Because if you sign something that you know will only cost money and will not work then it does not make ANY positive impact, and the numbers show that.

All you will get from countries is...hey we dont need to do anything else cause look we signed the Kyoto treaty

It is a waste to do stuff just to look good..period. It in no way makes a positive impact to sign something that countries start violating, flaunting, or never intending to follow in the first place. All that does is weaken the position and make it harder to truly implement something later down the road Exactly. Why sign something that will cost more money when you're doing a better job than everyone else that signed it?

Notice how the countries that signed it are getting NO negative press for failing to live up to it. Do you think the US would be afforded that same lack of press if the shoe were on the other foot?

Kyoto Accord = Overrated:hand:

[Ranger Mom]

This has nothing to do with anything....I just ran across the picture and thought it was funny!!

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Drakhirdrak/LOL%20Pics/STFU-Stop_Posting.jpg

Carry on!!

[Ranger Mom]

http://blog.advoor.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/global.jpg

[Black_Magic]

Again we see even an argument to not even sign and agreement on something that we already do. Something we can easily do. this argument comes from folks who are against cleaning the air if is cost money. Good thing your attitude is in the minority. But your keeping the faith that is for sure. Kinda like a group of folks who think a certain polititan has done a good job. Those numbers too tend to keep dwindling with time. But keep the faith anyway. LOL:clap: Its ok. I would bet with a dem congress and President we get better at cleaning stuff up regardless of the red neck trash the environment attitude some have. It comes down to votes in the end. Not much longer to go .Tick tick tick

[shankbear]

Blah, blah, blah, blah. This is sounding a bit POLITICAL to me. I might be wrong.........never know.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Again we see even an argument to not even sign and agreement on something that we already do. Something we can easily do. this argument comes from folks who are against cleaning the air if is cost money. Good thing your attitude is in the minority. But your keeping the faith that is for sure. Kinda like a group of folks who think a certain polititan has done a good job. Those numbers too tend to keep dwindling with time. But keep the faith anyway. LOL:clap: Its ok. I would bet with a dem congress and President we get better at cleaning stuff up regardless of the red neck trash the environment attitude some have. It comes down to votes in the end. Not much longer to go .Tick tick tick

This is when I know you have no argument because u try to paint me into a corner that I dont belong

You dont know my political views, and this issue has NO place for politics, maybe your all for it simply because of YOUR political views...How Sad

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by shankbear
Blah, blah, blah, blah. This is sounding a bit POLITICAL to me. I might be wrong.........never know.
:thumbsup: