quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Little did he know then what we know now in an age of scientific enlightenment - that the sun is the primary cause and climate change has always existed in cycles.

Isn't saying the sun is responsible for global warming an extreme oversimplification?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lapidoth

It's the liberal "AGENDA".

That's why they will not let up no matter what.

quote:

Unless the earth's magnetic field changes, which I've heard it does.

quote:

CO2 has no effect on how much radiation the Earth's magnetic field can bounce back into space seeing as how the magnetic field's protection takes place primarily in the airless void of space.

quote:

Let's see, venus is alot closer to the sun and it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2, the eath's atmosphere is 0.038% CO2.

quote:

It's the liberal "AGENDA". That's why they will not let up no matter what.

quote:

quote:

It's the liberal "AGENDA". That's why they will not let up no matter what.



So if other nations around the world also support curbing CO2 emissions does that mean liberals rule the world?

quote:

Scientists meet to dispute global warming theory

NEW YORK CITY - The A-list of manmade climate-change skeptics is meeting in New York City for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I have to say the current discussion in this thread is a bit moot, since the House added a 300 page amendment to the 1200 page bill the day of it's passage, and very few peiople voting on it (nor likely many of the people discussing it here) have any idea what it will actually do. From what is known, it will do almost nothing to reduce greehouse gasses; though it may create enough bureauctratic regulation to increase fuel costs and hurt businesses. Just another gift from our dreamy-eyed President and his know-nothing congress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t
There are several reasons why Venus is so hot. It's extremely slow rotation period, and lack of a magnetic field are others in addition to its CO2-based atmosphere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeman2

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

"Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation
Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama's ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.

Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation."

SOURCE

Actually, I started a thread on this, but I suppose we can close that down and use this one instead.

According to the climatologist CHip Knappenberger, this bill would only moderate temperatures only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two tenths of a degree at the end of the century. So is this worth millions in lost jobs, trillions in lost income with 50-90% higher energy prices?

I once believed in the whole sky is falling carbon emissions theory but now I'm not so sure which includes the findings of Chip Knappenberger. It is because Obama and company refuse to pursue clean nuclear power in favor of coal producing energy, which is by far the dirtiest of the dirty carbon emitting culprits. Nuclear power had ZERO carbon emissions. So what does this tell me? It tells me that they really don't believe what they are saying, unless they think that nuclear power has the same chance of destroying the planet as fossil fuel emitting energy. LOL. I now believe it is all a big myth in order to rob us further of our hard earned tax money. Of course, what about the poor? Certainly the Dems won't allow the poor to go without being able to heat or cool their homes with these insane energy prices. That's right, the government will allow them rebates and credits for low income families to be able to afford to do so. So who do you suppose will take up that tab? That's right, the beast of burden tax payer (aka smuck). Wherever you find inequality and/or debt, he will be there!!

For me the whole sky is falling via carbon emissions arguement is mute simply because I think there are enough obvious reasons to get off foreign oil ASAP. So what has been done to do that I wonder? In short, nothing with this bill included. What we need are viable energy alternatives instaed of blindly taxing the populace in the hopes of another energy source that is "safe". In fact, are there any "safe" energy sources? Producing Solar panels is toxic to the environment and wind power kills birds!!! There just is no satisfying these environmental wackos and I fear the public won't understand this until they go to turn on a light switch and nothing comes on.

So in the meantime I guess we just drink the Obama grape juice and not drive SUV's. Never mind the fact that one of his plane rides to Hawaii burns the equivalent of a person driving an SUV for an entier year!! These hypocrites sicken me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox

Hm, Chip Knappenberger...

sourcewatch has some interesting info... apparently the man has a history of working for "scientific" groups funded by Exxon Mobil... forgive me for not considering him a neutral or authoratative source when he speaks out against environmentalist efforts

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Little did he know then what we know now in an age of scientific enlightenment - that the sun is the primary cause and climate change has always existed in cycles.

Isn't saying the sun is responsible for global warming an extreme oversimplification?

Even with increased solar activity, with a climate not impacted with extra CO2 content the bulk of such radiation would just bounce back into space from the earth's magnetic field.

The question is how much of that extra CO2 is trapping what's left within the atmosphere. Look at Venus; it's a perfect example of GW run amok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Little did he know then what we know now in an age of scientific enlightenment - that the sun is the primary cause and climate change has always existed in cycles.

Isn't saying the sun is responsible for global warming an extreme oversimplification?

Even with increased solar activity, with a climate not impacted with extra CO2 content the bulk of such radiation would just bounce back into space from the earth's magnetic field.

The question is how much of that extra CO2 is trapping what's left within the atmosphere. Look at Venus; it's a perfect example of GW run amok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

Good grief!

The sun is definitely the primary cause of global warming. Without the sun, all other circumstances being equal, we would be extremely cold. It is our primary source of heat and man's contribution is so infinitesimal that it is insignificant.

quote:

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle...

While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global warming are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009)

quote:

Look at Venus; it's a perfect example of GW run amok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

quote:

Look at Venus; it's a perfect example of GW run amok.

....and not one SUV driving human on the planet.

Hmmmm

quote:

Microorganisms are still part of Earth's chemical cycles, but most of the energy that flows through our biosphere today comes from photosynthetic plants that use light to produce organic material. When did photosynthesis begin? Archaean rocks from western Australia that have been dated at 3.5 billion years old contain organic material and fossils of early cyanobacteria, the first photosynthetic bacteria (footnote 6). These simple organisms jump-started the oxygen revolution by producing the first traces of free oxygen through photosynthesis: Knoll calls them "the working-class heroes of the Precambrian Earth" (footnote 7).

Cyanobacteria are widely found in tidal flats, where the organic carbon that they produced was buried, increasing atmospheric oxygen concentrations. Mats of cyanobacteria and other microbes trapped and bound sediments, forming wavy structures called stromatolites (layered rocks) that mark the presence of microbial colonies (Fig. 16).
http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=1&secNum=7

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

It is their religion and Al Gore, etc are their prophets and priests..

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

It is their religion and Al Gore, etc are their prophets and priests..

Dare I suggest that Limbaugh is worshipped just as much as Gore?
Dare I also suggest that many pro-business capitalists do not listen to Limbaugh? That many people who accept Global Warming think Al Gore is still crazy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
I do think that some of the panic over global warming is overblown. For those of us old-earthers, nearly every ton of carbon in the form of coal, oil, or natural gas was in the atmosphere during the carboniferous period. The earth was much warmer back then, but life obviously survived. However, the far-right is running out of global warming conspiracy theories faster than we are running out of oil. The best move for Limbaugh et al is to accept global warming and either suggest we do nothing or support nuclear energy and market-driven initiatives rather than letting the liberals hijack the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
Man i am getting tired of this new liberal tactic, try to convince the right to "accept global warming" and offer solutions even though we are in a cooling cycle a decade long. Standing up for what one believes in is the way to go, not bowing down because it is the easy thing to do.

quote:

But the next bubble to burst may be far more salutary. In a few years enough data may build up, at long last, to **** the climate catastrophism bubble. By this I mean “the science” of panicky predictions. Yes, “global warming” may soon become an international embarrassment. And then we will witness a whole lot of experts skulking off to write their next research grant proposal in a well-deserved ignominy.

I just hope this happens in time for a new Congress to repeal Waxman-Markey -- before its most burdensome caps kick in, ensuring a long, ugly life to our deepening depression.

quote:

Clean environment? -- NO!

Anyone who thinks a TAX will change the weather belongs in a padded cell.
Over 31,400 Scientists say AGW is a hoax!
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Government by Bunko Scam has nothing to do with Environment.
Even Australia & Japan who started this AGW scam have backed off of it.

The objective of this AGW hoax is power to micro-manage the lives of citizens.
Cap & Trade is a massive tax on energy.
YOU will pay MUCH more to drive your car, heat or cool your home & cook your food.
The cost of manufacturing & transportation will skyrocket thus sending many jobs overseas.
(Maybe YOUR job!)
This will be accompanied by runaway inflation forcing retirees on fixed income and the working poor who live from paycheck to paycheck to accept the Government dole the tax is intended to provide.
The intent is to forcefully create a permanent dependent class that can't be restored to their previous independent state.

These Politicians are DELIBERATELY doing grievous harm to the American people.
Just voting them out of office is not enough punishment for what they are doing.
They should be stripped of all their assets just like they do to Drug Dealers!

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
The Telegraph disagrees.

quote:

So does conservative Big Ten school, Penn State

quote:

So yes, I'm tired of the conservative tactic of denying what is clearly self-evident. You guys came up with a few reasons why it's gotten warmer, and all of them have been debunked.

quote:


Now acceptance of global warming is moving from the moderates to the conservatives and even a few ultraconservatives. It is time for us to realize that we are running out of fossil fuels and need to switch to a new energy technology that we have exponentially more reserves of- like nuclear. Incidentally, continued burning of fossil fuels also causes global warming; nuclear doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady

One of the Posted Comments; I found to be right-on:

quote:

Clean environment? -- NO!

Anyone who thinks a TAX will change the weather belongs in a padded cell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox


Hm, Chip Knappenberger...

sourcewatch has some interesting info... apparently the man has a history of working for "scientific" groups funded by Exxon Mobil... forgive me for not considering him a neutral or authoratative source when he speaks out against environmentalist efforts

quote:

acid rain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

Cap & Trade worked for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and the resultant acid rain. So we have at least one example of the exact same sort of tax effectively "changing the weather."

-Dan.