Global warming---no gun relavence

[HankB]

. . . does MTBE have tp flow straight out of your tap?

IIRC, MTBE is a gasoline additive the environmentalists forced refiners to add to gasoline to make it burn "cleaner." Nice result, eh? Thanks, guys.

The best analysis I heard on the Kyoto treaty is that a bunch of the world's socialist, semi-socialist, commie, and turd world pestholes realized that they weren't going to catch up economically to the USA any time soon unless they changed their own systems. This would cost the leaders personal power, and cause governments to collapse, as the "coalitions" of greens, socialists, social Democrats, and what-have-you wouldn't tolerate the kinds of reforms needed. So, since improving themselves wasn't in the cards, the only way they could advance was to pull us down. Kyoto was the vehicle for this, as it would hamstring US industry, transfer US wealth to the world's kleptocracies via pollution credits, and exempt places like Red China and India.

Kyoto was, and is, a dagger aimed at the jugular of the US economy for the SOLE PURPOSE of damaging the US economy - "environmentalism" was only a convenient camouflage.

On global warming, desertdog has a couple of good questions regarding the Ice Ages. Over the past few million years, much of the Earth has been cold enough to be covered with glaciers hundreds, perhaps thousands, of feet thick. Then it's warmed up enough to MELT these glaciers, worldwide. This has happened repeatedly. Cavemen's camp fires? I don't think so.

So to the global warming alarmists who cite computer models to identify the "dangers" I ask a simple question: IF YOU RUN YOUR MODELS BACKWARDS, DO THEY ACCURATELY PREDICT THE PAST??

Until you can honestly say "yes" . . . go away and play with your toys some more, and don't come back until you have something verifiable.

 

[fulloflead]

It's the RATE of warming that makes it different from what has happened naturally in the past. You obviously haven't even TRIED to learn anything about the science behind the theories - you just throw out a question you THINK hasn't been answered and lazily sit back and listen only to those who tell you what you think you already know.

This whole "Global-Warming-is-a-hoax" argument REEKS of the same "logic" that Creation Scientists use where they start with the conclusion they want and work backward from there.

Isn't it odd that all the hoax-criers are politicians and/or energy execs FIRST and scientists second. Most of the "hoax" websites are POLITICAL websites, meanwhile there's a scientific consensus among unbiased scientists and scientific journals the world over.

The jury isn't out. The conclusions are just inconvenient to right-wing environmental policy makers. That policy, by the way, isn't based on science. It's only based on ONE thing and ONE THING ONLY! I'll give you a hint what it is:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[shermacman]

Fulloflead, your post and your sig are diametrically opposed.

All the scientists who believe in global warming are on the government teat. Whether directly or through universities, they all share the common trait of singing for the emperor. Your silly condemnation of $$$$$$$$ is in fact truer than you realize.

 

[fulloflead]

You thought I lost my temper? I'm entertained. I'm here aren't I? How many of you hang out on liberal political forums?

Are all the scientists around the world affected by the same teat?

I don't see how scientists who have their research funded by the government is the same as political donors being insulated from having to be environmentally responsible.

Opposition to environmental regulation doesn't financially harm scientists and/or people who support environmental protection. However, regulation does tap the profits of corporations who are political donors.

Notice how much politicians love ethanol? It'll make people money.
Lawmakers just aren't very creative to figure out how to make money off being environmentally friendly. Fortunately for you and me, the energy companies themselves (a few anyway) aren't that short-sighted and are working on solutions - the auto industry is beginning to TRY.

Just don't expect a Republican administration to pressure changes to occur any faster than ABSOLUTELY neccessary. They also keep moving that mark, thus the argument over Global Warming.

 

[thorn726]

IIRC, MTBE is a gasoline additive the environmentalists forced refiners to add to gasoline to make it burn "cleaner." Nice result, eh? Thanks, guys.

complete BS. environmentalists called for an addirtive t oburn the gas cleaner- the simplest being ethanol form corn.

BUT = OIL companies ca nproduce MTBE themselves for less, so THEY convinced gov't s who are in their pocket anyway to allow them to use it.

reagrdless, i still see all most of you are capable of is saying
there's no such thing as pollution, you shouldnt have to change anything in your life to protect the environment.

unbelievable

maybe you all should visit some unregulated areas like china or india and see if you still think no noe should bother caring about the environment.

sheesh. don't you guys want places to go shooting???

oh i get it, you got places, doesnt matter if your kids ahave a place right, that's their problem.

see you in the plastic dome!!!

-ps think when we all live in domed cities you'll still have the rbka?

i can't wait till you get your first OxYGEN bill.

go on, drive yer SUV, dump yer motor oil down the drain, turn up the AC and party!!! it is not gonna last forever.

 

[gc70]

I want to howl and roll on the floor laughing when I read about Kyoto as "a step in the right direction" to address so-called global warming.

Kyoto is nothing more than an international wealth redistribution scheme.

"Developing countries" (China, India, etc.) get a free pass on Kyoto. "Underdeveloped countries" get to sell their "underuse" of natural resources to "developed countries" (in Europe and North America) that "oversue" natural resources.

Is it any wonder that most of the countries in the world happily signed on to Kyoto and cynically used the environs' claims of "saving the world" as a smokescreen for this worldwide case of attempted robbery. The only incredible part of this sorry saga is that the guilt-ridden Europeans willing signed up to commit economic suicide.

On the lighter side: New Zealand is making an honest effort to meet their Kyoto obligations, although I have not seen anything recently about exactly how they are going to reduce or contain sheep farts.

 

[thorn726]

ps- there's you gun relevance=

honestly, i dont see guns as much of a contributer. lead in some cases is getting into water, minor things, but the use and manufacture of arms, not an environmental problem.

BUT= you think when the environment is gone it wont affect guns?
ever read any stories about what those dome cities are like?

what will the arms policy be on space stations and off planet colonies?

this is gonna matter more and more, as we run out of viable earth.

what i really don't get is i thought gunners were outdoors people who would want to preserve the outdoors.
i guess not. i guess the indoor range is fine with you guys.

it is really sad you think because many environmental types are snti gun, that you just write off all possibility the environment may be suffering.
oh , it's just anti gun talk.

sure.

the sky is brown, the kids in richmond all have asthma, marin has the highest breast cancer in US, its all nonsense.
NO WAY does it have anything to do with all the auto exhaust, the factories,. power plants, none of it.
we should do nothing.

burn baby burn!

 

[shermacman]

Berkeley boy writes in Instant Messenger language.

Yes, we want pure dioxin out of our water taps. We want unadulterated arsenic oozing from our genetically engineered mad cow beef.

LOL!
G2G!
***?!

 

[Fletchette]

It's the RATE of warming that makes it different from what has happened naturally in the past. You obviously haven't even TRIED to learn anything about the science behind the theories - you just throw out a question you THINK hasn't been answered and lazily sit back and listen only to those who tell you what you think you already know.

The rate of warming has indeed been greater. There have been several woolly mammoths found encapsulated in glacial ice that had grass in their mouths - insinuating that they were frozen to death very quickly and remained that way to this day.

There are other bits of evidence supporting a rapid cooling in the past.

By the way, not everyone who is skeptical of (human induced) global warming is a Republican. Some are even scientists!

 

[Crosshair]

If we would just put out those coal fires in northern China that would go a long way's to helping the environment.

 

[dustind]

ever read any stories about what those dome cities are like?

What do you mean by that statement? Are refering to some short story or sci-fi novel?

thorn726 and FullofLead: You guys need to start making sense and attacking the ideas that have been presented, or state your own. Rants about evil conservatives, corporations, and religious people alone will not get you very far. I would love to debate you, but you have not presented any argument.

As for hanging out a liberal forums. I have been to democratunderground many times, it is probably the largest left winged forum in the world. It is not a very shining example of humanity. Go see for yourself. If you know of any better ones that have people that behave rationally like adults I would be happy to check them out.

 

[Gifted]

What do you mean by that statement? Are refering to some short story or sci-fi novel?

Many, actually. I'm sure some titles will come up. You ever see The Fifth Element? That's generally the more dismal view of the future. Others are similar, but everyone's so happy that it isn't really clear.

MTBE replaced lead as an anti-knocking agent. I don't think it had much to do with burning cleaner, just getting rid of the lead. Not pleasant to breathe. Of course, they put that gas in leaky tanks, and then it became as much as if not more of a problem than the lead.

And your evil corporations? Many jumped on the bandwagon, becuase the "environmentally friendly" replacements cost more to make, and industries had to be retooled to bring them into compliance(see freon and the refridgeration/AC industry). And they made a killing. In the meantime poorer countries can't afford compliance, and suffer.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

sn't it odd that all the hoax-criers are politicians and/or energy execs FIRST and scientists second. Most of the "hoax" websites are POLITICAL websites, meanwhile there's a scientific consensus among unbiased scientists and scientific journals the world over.

Why don't you do a little reading on the subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/

Your arm waving and weird ideas about how opposition to the theory of catastrophic global warming is some vast right wing conspiracy is just plain nuts.

One thing you failed to do is provide any iota of data to back up this junk science crap about global warming.

Here's a little data to get you started:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm

It's pretty obvious that the shreiking Luddites in the Green Party don't have a shred of evidence that there is any problem with global warming.

I guess folks like MIT Professor of Meterology Dr. Robert Lindzen Ph.D., who roundly disputes the theory of *global warming*, just doesn't qualify as an expert on climatic change. In your strange universe I guess he is just a stooge of the vast right wing conspiracy:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Yep, Lindzen is just another "hoax crier"

 

[MarkDido]

Hawk Said:

::ahem::

Carbon dioxide and water vapor are not pollutants.

Pollution and global warming are separate issues.

Nevertheless, environmental extremism has, regrettably, killed far more people than pollution. The DDT scam numbers are horrifying. Incidentally, the main charge being made in "Silent Spring" was that bird egg shells were getting thin.

Conservatives and independents like the environment just fine, but some can remember being railroaded into believing hokum. Everybody played together nicely when the problem was real. Take a look at the crud that hung over our cities 30 years ago. We don't get many rivers catching on fire anymore either.

Real progress has been made. More progress will be made. But misleading statements have been made before to advance an agenda and that won't change. We need to learn the difference.

Bird eggs vs. malaria? Some bargains weren't worth it:

Anybody remember the 4 firefighters that burned to death fighting a forest fire a few years ago. They were hunkered down, waiting for an air-tanker drop that never came. The air-tanker was not allowed to scoop water out of a nearby river because it might have harmed the fish.

Anybody go to jail for this?

 

[ravinraven]

It ain't about pollution.

"there is no such thing as pollution to some of you it seems,"

Global warming and pollution are two separate items. Pollution is crap in the rivers and in the air and the oil seeping into your rose garden from the abandoned gas station next door. The environment CAN be changed, cleaned up or made worse by human activity.

Global warming/cooling is a natural occurance that man has no control over. Point 3 percent [0.3%] of "greenhouse" gasses are produced by industrial activity. So we're going to manipulate point three percent of something and cause the whole thing to do our bidding. Right. That is like having a lever 100 feet long and you have less that four inches to manipulate it with. Get real.

Sacrificing our industry, soverignty [check that spelin Wulf] and cash to the idiotic idea that we can somehow change the natural future is exactly like the old holy men tossing virgins into the crater to stop a volcano from erupting. We laughed at those benighted fools. We are suppose to worship the benighted fools who signed the Kyoto suicide pact.

I read somewhere that human intellect has not increased in the last 10,000 years. That's sure proven by Kyoto if nothing else.

The global warming religion is about control and nothing else. But if you can get enough idiots to believe in it, facts don't matter anymore. Belief trumps fact every time.

rr

 

[BenW]

To put temp change into perspective of the planet's life cycle, see:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig6.html
Note that this is a "pro-global warming" site, and short time scale data are much more easy to come by nowadays than say, 100 million years ago. Even with these guys skewing the scale, we have a long way to go before we hit historical maximums. It's best to remember that the world does not revolve around humans-- we're just along for the ride.

To check out how Berkeley has been doing the last 100 or so years, see:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl

 

[Gordon Fink]

This whole “Global-Warming-is-a-hoax†argument REEKS of the same “logic†that Creation Scientists use where they start with the conclusion they want and work backward from there.

Global warming is no hoax. It’s happening, just as climatic history would suggest. The recent mean-temperature increase has certainly been rapid, given that the “Little Ice Age†didn’t end until the mid-19th century A.D. Since the end of that deviation coincides well with the Industrial Revolution, it’s tempting to suspect human activity as a cause, but correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation.

More study is needed to establish how much or how little of an effect human activities have on natural climatic cycles. When this is accurately determined, then we can discuss the ramifications of attempting to control the global climate. Do we even want to hold the planet at a moderate interglacial mean temperature?

~G. Fink

 

[HankB]

You obviously haven't even TRIED to learn anything about the science behind the theories - you just throw out a question you THINK hasn't been answered . . .

So are you saying the global warming models DO accurately predict the past? Even the models that don't include mountain ranges and ocean currents?

Notice how much politicians love ethanol? It'll make people money.

. . . environmentalists called for an addirtive to burn the gas cleaner- the simplest being ethanol form corn.

These two posts were sequential and taking them at face value I see that environmentalists supporting ethanol are really politicians trying to make people money!

. . . maybe you all should visit some unregulated areas like china or india and see if you still think no noe should bother caring about the environment.

China and India? You're using the countries which are EXEMPT from Kyoto as examples?

What amuses me about the global warming alarmists is that some of them - and I mean some of the same promininent individuals - were writing about "the coming ice age" a couple of decades ago.

 

[fulloflead]

Junkscience.com is a POLITICAL website run by someone who used to defend Philip Morris. (So much for your attacks on my tobacco reference, huh?)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience

You jump on me for not presenting an argument, yet your idea of debating seems to be just posting a spin website who's primary motivations are political run by someone who's not even a scientist.

You whip out that "Right-wing conspiracy" rhetoric at your earliest opportunity, yet some people on this thread think Kyoto is a world conspiracy to bring down the US? Do you know how you guys sound sometimes?

Why would I debate a website with a political agenda when I have the world scientific community behind me and I can laugh at you all for taking it as an article of faith? (Yes, just like Creationism and people who think the dinosaurs didn't exist and their bones were just planted by Satan to fool us.)

Here's your debate; you could have the other side of the argument if you actually wanted it:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp
http://www.globalwarming.net/
There's plenty more where that came from.

Compare websites until your heart's content.
(See, I can play that game too.)
My work here is done. I'm getting bored with this now anyway. You guys are predictable. I'm going to go watch Fox News now. You see, there's this drinking game where every time someone says the word "Liberals"...

 

[richyoung]

"Junkscience.com is a POLITICAL website run by someone who used to defend Philip Morris. (So much for your attacks on my tobacco reference, huh?)"

Yet unstated by you is any FALSEHOOD at the website, not to mention the fact that ALL of the scientific data is credited to the sources.

"You jump on me for not presenting an argument, yet your idea of debating seems to be just posting a spin website who's primary motivations are political run by someone who's not even a scientist."

Over 19,000 scientists signed a letter to the President urging him NOT to sign the Kyoto Accords, because the case for anthropogenic induced global warming has not been proven, and there is serious doubt about its veracity. Satellite data show NO global warming over the last 30 thirty years. Weather balloon thermosond data show NO global warming over the last thirty years, AND agree with the satellite data. The ONLY data record showing SLIGHT global warming is the Surface Site temperature record, which is the one most prone to bias, and does NOT agree with EITHER satellite or balloon data. Which one do the proponents of global warming refer to? The surface readings. Lastly, CO2 is not a leading indicator of global warming - it is a trailing indicator, as proven by antarctic core samples. The reason is simple - the ocean is a major carbon sink in the form of dissolved CO2. When it warms up, it can't hold as mich dissolved CO2, so some escapes into the air. Try this at home - pour two glasses of cold soda out of the same bottle into the same size glass. Put one in the refrigerator, and leave the other out on the counter. Check every 15 minutes and see which one goes flat first - (HINT - it won't be the one in the fridge...) .

"You whip out that "Right-wing conspiracy" rhetoric at your earliest opportunity, yet some people on this thread think Kyoto is a world conspiracy to bring down the US? Do you know how you guys sound sometimes?"

Like stone-cold realists - I remember the Canadians trying to use the "acid rain" myth to force us to buy their surpluss hydroelectric power instead of generating our own. I remember the fake "ozone hole". I remember Alar, DDT. the coming Ice Age, sacharine, "widespread heterosexual AIDS", and various other examples of bad science.

"Why would I debate a website with a political agenda when I have the world scientific community behind me"

Not hardly, buckaroo...

" and I can laugh at you all for taking it as an article of faith? (Yes, just like Creationism and people who think the dinosaurs didn't exist and their bones were just planted by Satan to fool us.) "

If you buy off on eveolution as a cause of speciationin complex organisms, I reccomend a course in critical thinking and a review of Intelligent Design, as well as a basic statistics course. Mathmatically, there isn't any way to get from "non-life" to where we are now in the amount of time that has elapsed based soly on random mutation and selective reproduction, based on what we know about genes, molecules, and the way they work.

"My work here is done. I'm getting bored with this now anyway. You guys are predictable. I'm going to go watch Fox News now. You see, there's this drinking game where every time someone says the word "Liberals"..."


??? Your old enough to drink? Liquor, I mean - not juice boxes?

 

[shermacman]

Gordon Fink nails this one, fulloflead. Global warming is real and has been real for the last 12000 years. Here in Massachusetts the ice from the last glacier was two miles thick. It has melted and retreated and not because of Og, Mrs. Og and the Og children driving around in SUV sized Flintstone mobiles.

There are problems, certainly the undeveloped world and the left-over Communist states are the worst contributors to environmental destruction, but the Earth is a better place because of our existence.

 

[hipower22]

Anyone out there heard of "Global Dimming"?

We had a show on TV here recently which postulated that global dimming is reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet so that global warming is not increasing at the rate previously predicted.

This is bad, according to the show's "experts", because when emissions reduce as Kyoto takes effect global warming will grow at an alarming rate.

The show was produced by the BBC

 

[Art Eatman]

I think you're incorrect about MTBE, thorn. Today's NYT had an excellent article about it. The why of its coming to use as a solution to a government request, its blessing by the EPA, and the resultant problems ensuing from leaking gasoline storage tanks.

I do not see it as condoning pollution when objecting to overblown statements about environmental protection. To repeat, some of my own professional expertise is in that realm.

Re Kyoto: It is easy for Canada, England, Germany and France to be supportive. As example, 76% of the electricity in France comes from nuke plants. The other countries are also way ahead of us, with the US only having some 16% of its electric supply from nukes.

For the US to reduce CO2 emissions to anything below the levels of 1990, as per Kyoto, would probably solve our illegal alien problem. 25% unemployment is not noted for vast numbers eating in restaurants or having outside labor mow lawns.

China, now importing more oil than does Japan, is in the initial stages of building 35 pebble-bed nuclear reactors for electricity. They've been importing coal, one of the reasons for their pollution problems there. And their particulates come east, across the Pacific.

Per a NOAA "squib", NASA data indicates less CO2 in the air mass leaving the US over the Atlantic than in the air mass arriving from the Pacific. I personally attribute that to two things: New growth forests of replants by both the timber and paper industries; and our vast agricultural efforts.

I can believe that average temperatures are rising slightly from the various data sources, although nowhere nearly as much as the doomcryers would have us believe. Since various species are expanding their habitats northward, it's quite possible that there is some warming (whitewing dove; some caterpillars). However, I believe it is hubris to blame homo sap for the increase.

Another view could be that were it not for our particulates and gaseous emissions, we might be back in a Little Ice Age. Lord knows there are enough gaseous emissions.

Art

 

[shermacman]

I love the newest fear-mongering "global dimming" concept. More hysterical junk science based on what? The thousands of solar radiation measuring devices that have been monitored for the last several centuries? Satellite data over Western Europe from the Dark Ages? What are they basing their data on? And don't tell me tree rings and ice core samples.

 

[publius]

>and also "The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn ??? (sorry).<

Lomborg. Excellent book from an ex Greenpeice member.

Here's a review of the book.

BTW, for those still forlornly searching for gun relevance in this Roundtable topic, just remember, it's two short leaps from virtually any topic to gun relevance.

1. It will be regulated by the feds, almost certainly under the "authority" of the commerce clause.

2. ANY kind of commerce clause abuse can wind up affecting gun rights.