mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Feb 18, 2009 21:08:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 18, 2009 21:57:35 GMT -5
Finally, something is being done to protect humanity!! The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are unprecedented. They haven't been this high since the dinosaurs went extinct. If they couldn't survive, we have no chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Feb 18, 2009 22:59:19 GMT -5
PROOF, Saunterelle Post your PROOF. Or are you just spreading more lies?
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 19, 2009 14:33:18 GMT -5
Finally, something is being done to protect humanity!! The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are unprecedented. They haven't been this high since the dinosaurs went extinct. If they couldn't survive, we have no chance. Well shut your mouth for a change and stop spewing all the CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Feb 19, 2009 16:29:43 GMT -5
Saunterelle, here are three points you may not have considered in your knee-jerk reaction to the original post: - Every carbon-based living thing on the planet relies on carbon dioxide for a portion of its living cycle.
- Every respiring animal on the planet, including you, exhales carbon dioxide. Does that mean that you must be more aware of the poisonous gasses you exhale?
- Every plant on the planet relies on carbon dioxide for nutirents and photosynthesis. Artificially limiting the carbon dioxide on the planet will starve the very forests that the ennvironmental movement is clammoring to protect and expand.
How do you explain this dichotomy? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Feb 19, 2009 16:52:57 GMT -5
What saunterelle also fails to notice in his green glee is this from the linked article in the OP...
So Congressman Dingell... the man who has served longer than any member of the House, ever, and a Democrat to boot thinks that this CO2, cap and trade BS is... well, BS. Even if we cast an eye askance, as the NYT did, at Mr. Dingell's carrying the auto industry's water, the fact remains that the American auto industry is in deep, deep trouble. It has already been deemed "too big to fail" and is being infused with tens of billions or taxpayer dollars. So ask this question....
Why in hell would it be prudent to saddle an already troubled industry with such onerous schemes when it could very well push those industries over the brink for once and for all. Especially over theory and computer models that are without basis in the scientific record of our planet?
CO2, as Gaffney astutely notes, is a fertilizer. The amount of "reduction" that the whack jobs pushing this bilge say they can acheive is a factor of minimal impact on a planetary scale. Especially when the entire "cap & trade" methodology is applied which does nothing to really reduce emmission, it merely allows minimal producers to sell for money a portion of their government decreed "allotment" to larger producers. The emmissions remain the same and money changes hands... with fat commissions to the traders, of course.
It's a brave new world......... not. It's the same old socialist re-distribution of wealth scheme dressed up in recycled green curtains. But unlike Scarlett O'Hara, there is nothing of substance hiding inside the fabric.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Feb 19, 2009 17:05:02 GMT -5
Hey! Most of this warming has come right along with the health and fitness fad. All that exercise has caused people to breathe heavier, producing more CO2. Must be all that EXERCISE that is causing the problem!
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 19, 2009 17:09:35 GMT -5
Finally, something is being done to protect humanity!! The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are unprecedented. They haven't been this high since the dinosaurs went extinct. If they couldn't survive, we have no chance. Well shut your mouth for a change and stop spewing all the CO2. I must be in one of my intolerant moods today. I have no use for this BS. |
|
|
|
Post by digger on Feb 19, 2009 23:27:59 GMT -5
... The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are unprecedented. They haven't been this high since the dinosaurs went extinct. If they couldn't survive, we have no chance. Soooo, who was it that was there to measure the CO2 levels during the time the dinosaurs went extinct? Was it maybe Al Gore? C'mon he invented the Internet, why not time travel too? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 19, 2009 23:57:53 GMT -5
don't you know it digger? it was the scientists of course. and we all know that scientist are never wrong, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 21, 2009 16:50:12 GMT -5
yet another blow to the al gore disciples:
Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
By Alex Morales
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’
The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.
The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.
The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.
“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.”
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Feb 21, 2009 16:50:56 GMT -5
Hooray! I'm a Master Debater.  |
|
