Topic: So it's global warming is it ?

[paulages]

speaking of strawman arguments.... al gore's wealth= green tech is BS? 

for the record, i think that a person or entity's potential motives (or financial stake) can often say volumes about their position, which is what i was trying to say in regards to typical GW deniers. many companies and even people have much to gain by accepting the status quo... if global warming isn't happening and we are not causing it, then everything we are doing must be okay. i was simply trying to point out that the same things purported to be causing GW are also causing other obvious problems (pollution of waterways, air pollution, etc), and many people and industries are looking for an excuse to keep doing these things.

[donny]

I agree.
 follow the money. Look at how much money the people who cry global warming earn, in grants, etc.they have their own industry.

[mlinder]

"we are putting lots of co2 into the air, and cutting down trees (which help reduce co2) and high co2 has been historically PROVEN to coencide with increased temperatures" granted it wasn't spelled out as such, but I'm sure it was the intent of the "deforestation" point.

It has...?


(God, I thought I was done here... I am, I promise...)

[coldright]

Come on Mark, talk about water vapor.  Please. 

[mlinder]

Come on Mark, talk about water vapor.  Please. 

It's made of meat!

[Inigo Montoya]

To an extent, that graph does somewhat show a correlation between high co2 and higher temps, to an extent. Nut as it has been proven that trees(and other plants) convert co2 into o2, cutting down trees reduces the amount that can be converted.

[mlinder]

To an extent, that graph does somewhat show a correlation between high co2 and higher temps,

lol wut?

[mlinder]

Meat chart!

[Inigo Montoya]

Well if you can't see there is no point in trying to show you.

[coldright]

Mark, am I understanding you correctly?  As CO2 decreases, MEAT increases and causes global tilting?

[mlinder]

Well if you can't see there is no point in trying to show you.

Then if we can't see human-created global-climate-change theres no point in trying to find it.


I love your logic, duders. It only works to prove things you want to be true

[mlinder]

Mark, am I understanding you correctly?  As CO2 decreases, MEAT increases and causes global tilting?

INDEED!

[mlinder]

Sorry guys, I honestly wont be posting anything serious in this thread any longer. I will be talking about the dangers of meat, though.

[coldright]

Meat makes methane Mark.  

[Bob Wessner]

.. and methane is 17 times worse in terms of the greenhouse affect. I guess we could/should blame it all on McDonald's. 

[mlinder]

Meat makes 18% of greenhouse gasses!

(p.s. I rather like the leopard background on my graph, don't you? I think it adds a certain je ne sais quoi, something...)

[Terry in Australia]

"it has been proven that trees(and other plants) convert co2 into o2,"

That'd be right. You prick, you let me go out and mow my lawn when I wanted to go for a ride, and purposely held back this information that may well have bolstered my argument with "the handbrake" that my apparent poor yard maintenance was in actual fact my small contribution to saving the planet.

Now I've got a nice smooth lawn, but I've probably burned a big friggin' hole in the Ozone layer, all because you're jealous that it's summer here and I can go riding (if I can escape from the "ball and chain") while you have to sit there in your frozen igloo feeling sorry for yourself. Bloody irresponsible environmental butcher! I'm telling big Al!    

[TwoTired]

I agree.
 follow the money. Look at how much money the people who cry global warming earn, in grants, etc.they have their own industry.

Yes, follow the money.  Who will gain the most from "green".  "Scientists" with grants. Government, via taxation/fees on a carbon products/items (no "common man" is safe), and closer binding of people to government.   Subsidies/tax breaks for those who go "green" (lobbyist driven),  Recyclers who gain from sold product and get free collection, labor (often sorting) of raw material by "the common people".  And new industries whose business plan hinges on public acceptance of "green" and fear of "global warming".

No wonder the politicians, lobbyists, and media (with their advertisers) have jumped on the bandwagon.  There is an enormous new market out there to exploit.
How many old products have you seen that suddenly tout being "green".  Some are the same old products with new labeling.  Do you think that is coincidence?

Whatever you are selling doesn't even have to be true, you just need the majority to accept it.  Sales and marketing can sell any product to the masses.  You just have to relay in the right way, by appealing to the baser instincts of humans.  

If whoever is blocking your business/profit plan is making CO2, put them into the role of a villian intent on harming your children. (survival of species instinct and protection of one's offspring instinct.)

It's a capitalist's war going on.  And, whichever way it goes, will have the masses paying more for it both monetary and percentage of lifetime expended.

[mlinder]

I wouldn't worry about it. According to my graph, everything ends next Thursday.

[TwoTired]

I wouldn't worry about it. According to my graph, everything ends next Thursday.

Interesting that you picked green for the meat line of your graph.
Me thinks you may be....

"affected".


Would have been more appropriate to have a black & blue line, methinks.


 

[mlinder]

I'm color blind

[MCRider]

I agree.
 follow the money. Look at how much money the people who cry global warming earn, in grants, etc.they have their own industry.

Yes, follow the money.  Who will gain the most from "green".  "Scientists" with grants. Government, via taxation/fees on a carbon products/items (no "common man" is safe), and closer binding of people to government.   Subsidies/tax breaks for those who go "green" (lobbyist driven),  Recyclers who gain from sold product and get free collection, labor (often sorting) of raw material by "the common people".  And new industries whose business plan hinges on public acceptance of "green" and fear of "global warming".

No wonder the politicians, lobbyists, and media (with their advertisers) have jumped on the bandwagon.  There is an enormous new market out there to exploit.
How many old products have you seen that suddenly tout being "green".  Some are the same old products with new labeling.  Do you think that is coincidence?

Whatever you are selling doesn't even have to be true, you just need the majority to accept it.  Sales and marketing can sell any product to the masses.  You just have to relay in the right way, by appealing to the baser instincts of humans.  

If whoever is blocking your business/profit plan is making CO2, put them into the role of a villian intent on harming your children. (survival of species instinct and protection of one's offspring instinct.)

It's a capitalist's war going on.  And, whichever way it goes, will have the masses paying more for it both monetary and percentage of lifetime expended.

AND....

trading in carbon credits is a whole new market for wall street scumbags. Transactions create fees. THat's all they care about.

[edbikerii]

Speaking of Cap & Trade, here's an excellent article that points out how the American people are going to get screwed:

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.

Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

[Frostyboy]

All the to-ing & fro-ing in this whole business reminds me of a adage my father once mentioned to me.
I'm happy to share it here:

"Statisticians use numbers the same way as a drunkard uses a lamp post - More for support than illumination."
 

[Rocking-M]

To an extent, that graph does somewhat show a correlation between high co2 and higher temps, to an extent. Nut as it has been proven that trees(and other plants) convert co2 into o2, cutting down trees reduces the amount that can be converted.

Damn idiots. What the hell do you think happened to trees before we started harvesting and managing forest.
You ever heard of "forest fires".  Do you think that little fires just started and then burned out, oh say like, after a 1/4 acre?
Even when we fight forest fires now a days we have massive burns, I'd think we could even multiply that by 100 and
come way short of the massive burns that probably occurred historically.

But then again, if your talking about cutting trees for housing developments, suburbia, urban sprawl, etc.... Yea it's a bad practice.
City dwellers should be housed underground.