RE: California shoots headshot (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

ownedgirlie -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 2:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

That's inaccurate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html (go down to "transportation sector")

Doesn't it strike people as odd that the government should be putting out information about greenhouse-gas emissions when the same fucking government allegedly doesn't believe in global warming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

All those who complain about gas from autos do not realize that the effects of car cas is but one tiny fraction compared to to airline fuel - huh.


Thanks for the link.  I will check it out.  Years ago I heard a reputable speaker (my memory crashed this summer so I do not recall who it was) saying otherwise.

As for global warming, it depends which side of the government you ask, and quite interestingly, I have seen studies in both directions.  One claimed the earth's temperature has actually dropped over a prolonged period of time.  The result is that it's hard to know who and what to believe as politicians seem to speak to their agenda, rather than the truth. 



Chaingang -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 3:03:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
...we sue fast food restaurants for making us fat...


No, we sue them for misrepresenting their products as normal food of the type you can buy at the supermarket. It isn't - instead it's highly processed, artificially flavored, utterly toxic garbage. And you shouldn't have to ask for nutrition info - it should be posted and printed on their food wrappers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
...we sue tobacco companies for making us sick...


Again, we sue them for misrepresenting their products as normal tobacco when it is anything but that. See:

-----

I don't smoke. For a really long time I thought that cigarettes were just tobacco wrapped in paper with a filter tip. That's not actually true and the current health warning found on most cigarette packaging is inadequate to the task of explaining the truth about cigarettes. Famed tobacco industry whistle blower Jeffrey Wigand has taught the whole world that cigarettes are actually seen by Big Tobacco as a mechanism for the delivery of nicotine to the brain of the consumer - that they intend and design addiction as a consequence of the use of their cigarette products. We thereby learned that the design and manufacturing of cigarettes is a complex process "...including the chemistry of tobacco smoke, the science of growing and processing tobacco, and the use of additives such as ammonia to make nicotine more available to the smoker’s brain." (http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/031147.htm).

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=274160

-----

If these industries were honest and up front, then you could make your comments in fairness. But those industries have built empires to rival the strength of nations on endless lies. People of past decades really didn't know that tobacco wasn't just tobacco - no one did! You can't just be smug about it now just because you aren't suffering the damages of those many years of lies. It's not fair.

Now in a few more decades what you say might be more fair. But commercials are stronger than truth and the truth is sometimes hard to discover.



Lordandmaster -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 4:13:30 PM)

Uh huh, but the Department of Energy evidently admits that humans emit greenhouse gases.  GREENHOUSE GASES.  Not just carbon dioxide...they themselves call it GREENHOUSE GASES, and tell us how to limit them.

So...

Which part of the theory was it again that he doesn't accept?

(The whole issue is beyond laughable, anyway, because it follows from what you just said that he believes he is more qualified than scientists to assess the science...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Bush has never said utright that he doesn't believe in Global Warming he says that the science is not enough to convince him that man is the largest major component that many of the scientists want to make it out to be.



Lordandmaster -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 4:17:42 PM)

Yup, exactly.  The same goes for Middle-East intelligence, incidentally.  Coincidence?  What you're starting to find in all branches of government is the set of opinions put together by the careerists who have spent their lives studying the subjects they're assigned to study...and the ideological head that doesn't want to hear any of it and thinks it knows the truth already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

As for global warming, it depends which side of the government you ask...



ownedgirlie -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 8:40:08 PM)

Aww c'mon Chaingang, I was just trying to make a point that we are a sue-happy society who often fails to take responsibility for ourselves.

I know all about the fast food industries tactics, in fact I recently wrote a paper on it.  It's an intriguing topic, and I'd be happy to start a thread on it so as to not hijack this one. 



mnottertail -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/21/2006 8:43:24 PM)

I call them farts.





philosophy -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 4:35:24 AM)

"California is THE most anal State in the entire US when it comes to emissions."

...anal? emission? is this a fart joke?.......

"I call them farts."

...oh it is........



Archer -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 5:55:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Uh huh, but the Department of Energy evidently admits that humans emit greenhouse gases.  GREENHOUSE GASES.  Not just carbon dioxide...they themselves call it GREENHOUSE GASES, and tell us how to limit them.

So...

Which part of the theory was it again that he doesn't accept?

(The whole issue is beyond laughable, anyway, because it follows from what you just said that he believes he is more qualified than scientists to assess the science...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Bush has never said utright that he doesn't believe in Global Warming he says that the science is not enough to convince him that man is the largest major component that many of the scientists want to make it out to be.




See exactly as I said I mentioned 3 questions and you avoided them all.

Top that off with the restating of the question, Man Produces Greenhouse Gases. OK that is a fact.
But Man produces greehouse gases is not the scientific equivolent of Man is responsible for X% of the inreases in global temperatures.
But the shabby science tells us the temperatures have risen by 0.10 degrees on average and that man produces greenhouse gases and leaves the false impression that the entire rise in temperatures is all because man produces greenhouse gases.
Leaving out the multiple facts that would dispell that impression.



meatcleaver -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 6:14:44 AM)

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for the correlation between human produced greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution and the rise in temperature. Take out gases produced by human activity and there is a gap between forcast temperature and the actual temperature. If human activity is so insignificant, why is this?



knothere -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 6:19:49 AM)

addendum: because man grows sheep,cows and pigs in very large numbers for consumption(much higher than would occur in natue,btw) and we have locked up in our products,factories wells,pipes and plastics a lot of otherwise available water and materials, man has tipped the balance even further than simple ....farts.just a happy lil thought.....



Archer -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 6:32:54 AM)

meatcleaver, every projection I have ever seen leavess out one or more of 3 also proven facts, Increased solar Temperatures, the closer proximity of so many temperature recording stations to now Urbanized locations and the effect that proimity plays on average temperatures at that station, the thickening of the South Polar Ice caps.

BTW I ever claimed mans contrition was insignificant I claimed that by not taking out the other variables that effect the problem we have no idea how much of it is man and how much of it is natural cycle. I have no doubt tat man plays a part nd I would not be surprised that it is even as much as 30-40% responsible. But so many of the other side make the situation sound as if man is the ONLY reason for Global Warming and that is just flat out wrong, philosophicly as well as scientificy.



Lordandmaster -> RE: California shoots headshot (9/22/2006 10:37:09 AM)

You keep bringing this up, and--as I told you last time--all of your supposed "proven facts" are red herrings.  Solar variation accounts for at most one quarter of the rise in global temperatures, and probably much less than that.  NASA blew that nonsense out of the water seven years ago:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

As for your other "proven facts"...there are temperature recording stations on Antarctica.  Are those "urbanized locations" too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

meatcleaver, every projection I have ever seen leavess out one or more of 3 also proven facts, Increased solar Temperatures, the closer proximity of so many temperature recording stations to now Urbanized locations and the effect that proimity plays on average temperatures at that station, the thickening of the South Polar Ice caps.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875