|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 12:31:26 PM
|
|
|
LizzieJ.
Posts: 257
Joined: 6/30/2009
Status: offline
|
Rushing things like this grows the beast and gives the beast more power over the lives of it's citizens.
Only the citizens can stop this beast from taking control of our lives. Citizens must speak out. They must be involved. They must vote the bums out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 12:31:49 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
I wish we had an amendment to the constitution requiring that all legislation stand on it's own and not be buried in 1200 page documents or tacked on to necessary bills.
It would take forever for anything to get done then. Plus, both parties use riders all the time - both at the national and state level.
It's just the nature of the beast, like it or not.
Taking forever to do the right thing is fine with me and I am not giving either party a pass on this and if it is a nature of the beast then the beast must be tamed or put out to pasture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 1:15:42 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
I agree that we need to go nuclear but using scare tactics is not the way to accomplish that. There are plenty of logical arguements for going nuclear and hint hint many on the right have been trying to do so for a long time but have been twarted by environmentalists (which is odd) and government reluctance to support it.
I totally agree with you that Al Gore's scare tactics are stupid and sometimes even laughable, but it's just as foolish to try and let your political leanings influence the science.
Every indication we have is that CO2 levels are rising, the earth has actually warmed over the past 10 years if at a slightly slower pace, and that changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have had more influence on our temperature than solar variances over the past 100 years. Global Warming proponents admit that the sun has contributed less than 0.1 degrees C global average temperature change over the past 100 years; in the meantime, greenhouse gases have contributed about 1* C.
Republicans are free to ignore the issue, downplay it, or suggest market solutions. But to attack relatively apolitical scientists seems to be a bit foolish, too.
quote:
A total myth
Acid rain is generally considered to be self-evident. Just take a look at this pH map; the more populated and more coal-intensive eastern section of the country- particularly areas downwind of the Midwest- gets lower pH rain than the west:
http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/pH/html/ph.html
In fact, SO4 concentrations as measured in Maine have decreased by anywhere from 20%-40% in the 17 years from 1983 to 2000 as pollution controls came into force:
http://www.umaine.edu/WaterResearch/data_access/sulfate_graphs.htm
SO4 found in water is one measure of acidity.
Meanwhile, between 1982 and 1994, as many controls on SO4 emissions came into force, acidity in many northeastern lakes improved.
All of this indicates that acid rain is probably real. Is it possible that the same people who gave you your incorrect opinion on acid rain gave you similar opinions on other environmental issues?
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/30/2009 2:51:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 1:25:42 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 1154
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Republicans are free to ignore the issue, downplay it, or suggest market solutions. But to attack science itself seems to be a bit foolish; you might as well join the flat earth society.
Your "issue" is not well defined, and it is not the 'what' (CO2 rising due to solar cycles) but the 'why' and the 'how' that is debated.
And science isn't being attacked, its being slandered because it's a whore that puts out based on whomever provides it's funding. Science gets in bed with what ever politician or entreprenuer that gives it funding. That's why science is not absolute but subjective and is subject to being disproved on a daily basis.
follow the money trail and it will lead to "man made" (taxable) global warming.
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 2:13:17 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1234
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Everything they have done so far has been a cram job. "This is too important to delay." "We're in a crisis - we have to act NOW!" "There is no time to waste...." "Too important to allow to fail." Bailouts, killing off GM and Chrysler, cap and trade, cabinet appointments, on and on ad infinitum. Some voted for "change," we all got change.
And as a side note, I'll bet you wouldn't hire someone without giving him/her specific instructions as the fascist machine in Washington is doing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LizzieJ.
If the staffers report to work at 8:00 am and discovered this 300 page amendment how much time do you believe is required for them to review these pages, understand them, write the report,seek clarification and run to numbers and allow the one voting on the bill to mull it over ?
When I pay someone to do a job. I demand they do the job to the best of their ability. This was a cram job.
_____________________________
"Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen." - Martin Luther
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 2:16:10 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
I totally agree with you that Al Gore's scare tactics are stupid and sometimes even laughable, but it's just as foolish to try and let your political leanings influence the science.
I am reading data not political leanings
quote:
Every indication we have is that CO2 levels are rising,
which they have done occassionally since the world began.
quote:
the earth has actually warmed over the past 10 years if at a slightly slower pace,
Actually no it hasn't. The trend has been down even though CO2 trends have skyrocketed.
quote:
and that changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have had more influence on our temperature than solar variances over the past 100 years. Global Warming proponents admit that the sun has contributed less than 0.1 degrees C global average temperature change over the past 100 years; in the meantime, greenhouse gases have contributed about 1* C.
First of all there has been only about 0.7 C in increase in a century (which you continue to ignore began slightly after a protracted cold spell). Secondly it is the Goddard space center that has now made the statement that solar activity has played a SIGNIFICANT part in the warming of the past century and that the current downward trend mirrors a decrease in solar activity.
quote:
Republicans are free to ignore the issue, downplay it, or suggest market solutions. But to attack relatively apolitical scientists seems to be a bit foolish, too.
There is nothing apolitical about the majority of the scientists still touting global warming and the apolitical nature is even less aparent in the scientists that hold to anthropogenic global warming.
There is money to be made and power to be had in GW.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 2:17:56 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: letusreason
Your "issue" is not well defined, and it is not the 'what' (CO2 rising due to solar cycles) but the 'why' and the 'how' that is debated.
Not just CO2 concentrations rising, but global temperatures, as well. Jan 1 1999- Jan 1 2009 was the warmest decade in recorded history.
quote:
And science isn't being attacked, its being slandered because it's a whore that puts out based on whomever provides it's funding. Science gets in bed with what ever politician or entreprenuer that gives it funding. That's why science is not absolute but subjective and is subject to being disproved on a daily basis.
So are you saying that all these rich people are funding it? If they were really interested in their best interests, wouldn't they be spending their money fighting for lower taxes?
Atmospheric Science is generally regarded as a hard science. That's why all the major research universities agree on the basic reality and causes of global warming:
Stanford
Harvard
Ole Miss
The University of Illinois
The University of Virginia
Besides Stanford and Harvard, I've posted some of the most conservative of the research schools up here; even Ole Miss accepts Climate Change without any reasonable doubts. This isn't a liberal money thing; this is a science thing. These rich people are worried about their beachfront homes, not their supposed renewable energy investments (worth a tiny fraction of the value of the nation's oceanfront property.)
quote:
follow the money trail and it will lead to "man made" (taxable) global warming.
Conspiracy theory alert!
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/30/2009 2:26:26 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 2:33:52 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
Actually no it hasn't. The trend has been down even though CO2 trends have skyrocketed.
See my links. I think Penn State University and,heck, the Washington Times, are going to be pretty accurate. I don't know where your sources are coming from, but I don't see links to research schools or other reputable sources.
quote:
Secondly it is the Goddard space center that has now made the statement that solar activity has played a SIGNIFICANT part in the warming of the past century and that the current downward trend mirrors a decrease in solar activity.
Stanford and NASA agree that it has contributed a significant amount to climate variation, but as discussed, they also note that those numbers are getting completely trumped by global warming.
quote:
There is nothing apolitical about the majority of the scientists still touting global warming and the apolitical nature is even less aparent in the scientists that hold to anthropogenic global warming.
There is money to be made and power to be had in GW.
Indeed; there is money to be made in global warming. Reduced agricultural land areas mean higher food prices. And if millions of homes go underwater, there will be a housing boom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 2:55:03 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
See my links. I think Penn State University and,heck, the Washington Times, are going to be pretty accurate. I don't know where your sources are coming from, but I don't see links to research schools or other reputable sources.
Actually in previous threads which you participated in there were research articles posted and you chose to ignroe them. And as i already explained from your links one major issue is that the penn state article doesn't address the current trend only that these are some of the hottest years in the past 1300 even though they are trending downward, as in we already past a peak( and as i stated earlier 1300 years ago we were in a warmer period and then a cold period which we are just climbing out of). Secondly Mann, you know the "researcher" who is in your penn state article has been drug over the coals for cooking numbers to produce graphs that show favor to his position.
quote:
Stanford and NASA agree that it has contributed a significant amount to climate variation, but as discussed, they also note that those numbers are getting completely trumped by global warming.
So the amount of warming caused by humans as trumpeted by the AGW crowd needs to be adjusted to reflect the numbers produced by the NASA study which show that solar variations alone could account for up to 25% of the warming of the past century. THAT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.
quote:
Indeed; there is money to be made in global warming. Reduced agricultural land areas mean higher food prices. And if millions of homes go underwater, there will be a housing boom.
Well since the sea level rises that would be needed are based on models that have been shown to be very inaccurate in their portrayal of the expected mechanism of the warming of the Earth if it were to warm accordig to GW theory you must forgive me if i don't move to higher ground.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 3:05:57 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
Actually in previous threads which you participated in there were research articles posted and you chose to ignroe them. And as i already explained from your links one major issue is that the penn state article doesn't address the current trend only that these are some of the hottest years in the past 1300 even though they are trending downward, as in we already past a peak( and as i stated earlier 1300 years ago we were in a warmer period and then a cold period which we are just climbing out of). Secondly Mann, you know the "researcher" who is in your penn state article has been drug over the coals for cooking numbers to produce graphs that show favor to his position.
You mean the right-wing blog links?
Again, post a reputable source, and I will look into it.
Even if the PSU guy is cooking up numbers, he is a mere drop in the bucket of evidence of global warming in the past decade- evidence that even the conservative Washington Times acknowledges.
quote:
So the amount of warming caused by humans as trumpeted by the AGW crowd needs to be adjusted to reflect the numbers produced by the NASA study which show that solar variations alone could account for up to 25% of the warming of the past century. THAT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.
It has- remember that the sun runs in cycles. Global temperatures have increased over the past decade despite us being in the cooler portion of the solar cycle, as reported on the Stanford site I linked you to.
quote:
Well since the sea level rises that would be needed are based on models that have been shown to be very inaccurate in their portrayal of the expected mechanism of the warming of the Earth if it were to warm accordig to GW theory you must forgive me if i don't move to higher ground.
I am not concerned about the sea level rises. I am concerned about the fact that we are changing our atmosphere and all of the unknowns involved. The models are predicting anything from 2-3 degree celcius increases to 5 degree celcius increases, and anything from 1 meter to 5 meter rises. The science obviously isn't perfect, but we should be paying attention. More importantly, I am concerned about the fact that we will run out of oil and fossil fuels before we have the chance to fulfill some of the more dire projections.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 3:12:55 PM
|
|
|
rowsdower
Posts: 30
Joined: 10/21/2005
Status: offline
|
I've resigned to the fact that the cult of man made global warming (and let's be clear, it IS A CULT) will not be swayed no matter how much real data and science proves otherwise. Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models (which is what the IPCC hangs its coat on), but by repeatable observations. Glaciers could be crashing through the streets of washington as we head into another ice age and they'd still maintain that we are warming the planet and need to tax the guy who ran his stove ten minutes too long.
I also understand why people are so gullible when it comes to the environment and man made global warming. And this seems to be the case with most liberals and progressives: they are easily manipulated by emotion. That's right, give a liberal an emotional story, heartwrenching drama, no matter how fictitious, and they will lay their lives on the line for it. Show a cropped photo of a polar bear swimming alone in the water (it could be at a zoo), tell them the bear is going to die because there's no more ice, and watch the hysteria build. Watch policies get made, watch money change hands and watch Washington ram a self-righteous cause down our throats.
Liberals and progressives want to feel good about themselves; that they are doing something good for the world. It's like some twisted personal atonement for existing on the planet. That's why they push so hard for socialist programs. Again, they're saving the world, working toward a man-made utopia. Problem is it leads to tyranny and dictatorships.
And so I've realized that if the global warming alarmists can't feel good about themselves except by jumping on this crusade to save the earth (man, that feels good), there's no way in heck they would ever accept the possibility that they're wrong about this and can lighten up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 3:22:13 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rowsdower
I've resigned to the fact that the cult of man made global warming (and let's be clear, it IS A CULT) will not be swayed no matter how much real data and science proves otherwise. Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models (which is what the IPCC hangs its coat on), but by repeatable observations. Glaciers could be crashing through the streets of washington as we head into another ice age and they'd still maintain that we are warming the planet and need to tax the guy who ran his stove ten minutes too long.
Do you have any evidence that this scientific perspective is a cult? I just came back from a meeting with Al Gore, the Masons, and the Rockefellers, and the Minister of Disinformation informed us that no evidence of brainwashings or our red bishops' hats has leaked out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 3:28:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
I am not sure why this is even turning into a debate about global warming; the legislation about which this thread is actually considering shows no evidence whatsoever of doing anything at all about global warming. Nothing, nada, zilch.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 3:35:03 PM
|
|
|
LizzieJ.
Posts: 257
Joined: 6/30/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not sure why this is even turning into a debate about global warming; the legislation about which this thread is actually considering shows no evidence whatsoever of doing anything at all about global warming. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Shhhhhhhhhhh Jack, no one is suppose to know that. It's the new Obama transparency.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:19:03 PM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 1896
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: online
|
quote:
If acid rain was a myth, why did the rain in Wheeling, WV in 1979 have a pH of 1.5-2.2
Correction...acid rain caused by man is a myth.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:23:31 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
quote:
If acid rain was a myth, why did the rain in Wheeling, WV in 1979 have a pH of 1.5-2.2
Correction...acid rain caused by man is a myth.
So was the increase in pH between 1982 and 2000 as a result of reduced SO4 concentrations in water, during the time regulation on SO4 emissions came into force magic? It had absolutely nothing to do with human activities? The aliens in their spacecraft decided to stop dropping sulfuric acid from the sky?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:35:30 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Even if the PSU guy is cooking up numbers, he is a mere drop in the bucket of evidence of global warming in the past decade- evidence that even the conservative Washington Times acknowledges.
so you have no problem using data from a "scientist" known to cook the books but cry out everytime anyone from an organization who any minute way is connected to an oil company makes a contrary statement? Very consitent.
quote:
It has- remember that the sun runs in cycles. Global temperatures have increased over the past decade despite us being in the cooler portion of the solar cycle, as reported on the Stanford site I linked you to.
Weren't it you who posted that the telegraph didn't believe this decade showed a cooling trend?(that wasn't claimed in any of your articles by the way, they all claim that this decade is "the second warmest"). Well the telegraph also says There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Here is another interesting article
quote:
“The University of Alabama, Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade,” Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first director of meteorology, told me. “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”
quote:
I am not concerned about the sea level rises. I am concerned about the fact that we are changing our atmosphere and all of the unknowns involved. The models are predicting anything from 2-3 degree celcius increases to 5 degree celcius increases, and anything from 1 meter to 5 meter rises. The science obviously isn't perfect, but we should be paying attention. More importantly, I am concerned about the fact that we will run out of oil and fossil fuels before we have the chance to fulfill some of the more dire projections.
Well since the models have proven to be completely inaccurate in predicting the sequence of warming forgive me if i don't jump on your bandwagon. Also what has failed to be explained to me is how CO2 is the culprit when it's precentage in the atmosphere has risen to a whopping 0.0383% which would be completely overshadowed by the radiative forcing from water vapor which makes up more of the atmosphere and has a greater radiative forcing coefficient.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:48:17 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
so you have no problem using data from a "scientist" known to cook the books but cry out everytime anyone from an organization who any minute way is connected to an oil company makes a contrary statement? Very consitent.
PSU is a well known source with certain research standards. I am sure that if there is anything seriously wrong with the numbers, they would not have published the article.
quote:
Weren't it you who posted that the telegraph didn't believe this decade showed a cooling trend?(that wasn't claimed in any of your articles by the way, they all claim that this decade is "the second warmest"). Well the telegraph also says
Well, I guess we shall see. We will have to wait for the next trough in this alleged cycle to see if it's higher than the previous trough.
quote:
Well since the models have proven to be completely inaccurate in predicting the sequence of warming forgive me if i don't jump on your bandwagon. Also what has failed to be explained to me is how CO2 is the culprit when it's precentage in the atmosphere has risen to a whopping 0.0383% which would be completely overshadowed by the radiative forcing from water vapor which makes up more of the atmosphere and has a greater radiative forcing coefficient.
I think we have plenty of evidence in the extrema- look no further than the carboniferous period if you want to see what happens when all of our fossil fuels get converted back to Carbon.
No, it's not as bad as Greenpeace would have you think, but the situation is as the models generally predict- warmer temperatures, higher sea levels.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:56:02 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
No, it's not as bad as Greenpeace would have you think, but the situation is as the models generally predict- warmer temperatures, higher sea levels.
But according to the models, if the warming were from greenhouse gases the atmosphere would warm in a very specific pattern and that has been proven to not be the case in reality. Now if the fundamental basis of the models is flawed why would you trust their outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 9:58:08 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
But according to the models, if the warming were from greenhouse gases the atmosphere would warm in a very specific pattern and that has been proven to not be the case in reality. Now if the fundamental basis of the models is flawed why would you trust their outcomes.
I trust the overall argument: more CO2= higher temperatures. It makes sense from a physics standpoint and is confirmed by geological history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 6/30/2009 10:05:03 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 1844
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
But according to the models, if the warming were from greenhouse gases the atmosphere would warm in a very specific pattern and that has been proven to not be the case in reality. Now if the fundamental basis of the models is flawed why would you trust their outcomes.
I trust the overall argument: more CO2= higher temperatures. It makes sense from a physics standpoint and is confirmed by geological history.
the problem is that the geological history had far more CO2 than we will ever be able to place into the atmosphere, we are incapable of extracting that much fossil fuel from the earth. But the overall arguement to tie the CO2 to the current warming trend was based on a now proven flawed model.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 7/1/2009 1:59:34 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2916
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: NYC by way of Chicago
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
the problem is that the geological history had far more CO2 than we will ever be able to place into the atmosphere, we are incapable of extracting that much fossil fuel from the earth. But the overall arguement to tie the CO2 to the current warming trend was based on a now proven flawed model.
Know how they came up with the terms "Pennsylvanian and Mississippian Periods"?
These were coal formations that were created during the carboniferous period. In fact, much of the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period eventually turned into fossil fuels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
According to observations in Hawaii, CO2 concentrations are now higher than they were at the end of the Carboniferous- about 350 ppm. (This is not something that should provoke alarm, though it is something we should be concerned about.)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
If we had enough fossil fuels, assuming straight-line CO2 concentration growth, we'd hit the roughly 1500 ppm CO2 concentrations that the Carboniferous period averaged within about 250 years. My view is that we will run out long before that, but assuming that temperature is a straight-line function of CO2, we should then expect a 2-3 degree celcius increase in temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 7/1/2009 2:08:43 PM
|
|
|
LizzieJ.
Posts: 257
Joined: 6/30/2009
Status: offline
|
Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.
Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called “The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 7/2/2009 12:24:29 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 554
Status: offline
|
quote:
All those who think this is so great, what possible benefit is there to this country, other than lining the pockets, of the Gore family, GE, and other Democrat cronies, in this bill?
I hate to quote my own post, but there are 97 replies, on this thread, and not one Obama supporter, can tell anyone why "Cap and Trade"(sounds like a quaint little mall store, for soccer moms, don't it?) is such a great thing for the United States of America.
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: House passes climate-change bill - 7/2/2009 1:00:40 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 554
Status: offline
|
...but I can see how some were convinced that it was the right thing to do...$$$$$ CHA-CHING! $$$$$
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
