PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming


BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 10:30 PM
Agreed, It only takes a few minutes of watching the other major networks and I switch over to Fox. "Global warming" is a perfect example of why I do .... we can examine it issue by issue and Fox is where I usually end up.

LOL.......are you still to ignorant to admit global warming is for real.......Damn, the bush administration has even accpted that it is real...........

Take a look at the science............

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 10:33 PM
LOL.......are you still to ignorant to admit global warming is for real.......Damn, the bush administration has even accpted that it is real...........

Take a look at the science............

Yeah, let's take a look:

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

But keep on swallowing the gospel according to Al Gore.

GBMelBlount
05-08-2008, 10:36 PM
LOL.......are you still to ignorant to admit global warming is for real.......Damn, the bush administration has even accpted that it is real...........

Take a look at the science............

Are you aware that the earth has cooled by .7 degrees centigrade in the last year? That has reversed in 1 year all of the suppposed efffects of global warming over the last century. The variations of the sun and eccentricities of the earth's rotations have far more to do with temperature variations imo. Also, 95% of greenhouse gases are caused by water, not human activity. There is also more greenhouse gas created by the swamps in the world than human activity. Feel free to call me ignorant if you like. It doesn't change the facts.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 10:38 PM
Yeah, let's take a look:



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

But keep on swallowing the gospel according to Al Gore.

And thats the promblem.............Global warming doesnt mean that the world is "GETTING WARMER", it is a global climate change...........

Be humble and watch inconvienent truth.........(maybe you have?)

My favorite example (Plolar Bears are being put on the endangered species list.
Why you ask.............(Because they are losing the land that they live one)..


Oh.......and its not Gore preaching this..........He is not a scientist.......Hes just intelligent enough and open minded enough to listen

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 10:41 PM
And thats the promblem.............Global warming doesnt mean that the world is "GETTING WARMER", it is a global climate change...........

Be humble and watch inconvienent truth.........(maybe you have?)

My favorite example (Plolar Bears are being put on the endangered species list.
Why you ask.............(Because they are losing the land that they live one)..


Oh.......and its not Gore preaching this..........He is not a scientist.......Hes just intelligent enough and open minded enough to listen

So "warming" doesn't really mean "warming?" Sounds like he hung around Clinton too long. You're being sold a bill of goods by a fairly large group of environmentalists and scientists pushing an agenda. They don't know any more about what the climate of this planet is going to be like in 50-100 years than you or I do. That's a fact.

Preacher
05-08-2008, 10:43 PM
LOL.......are you still to ignorant to admit global warming is for real.......Damn, the bush administration has even accpted that it is real...........

Take a look at the science............


Once again... the parallels are uncanny.

If anyone is too blind to see these parallels, then I am scared to see what this country will look like in 30 years...

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 10:45 PM
I think the scientis have a pretty good idea of what is happening........And yes, global warming does not only mean warming.........Sorry.....but true story....One of the proponents of global warming has argued that it should be called "global climate change" (or something like that). because people will only go by the name instead of reading and researching the topic..............Obviously, you have not researched the topic all that much or you would have known this.

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 10:52 PM
I think the scientis have a pretty good idea of what is happening........And yes, global warming does not only mean warming.........Sorry.....but true story....One of the proponents of global warming has argued that it should be called "global climate change" (or something like that). because people will only go by the name instead of reading and researching the topic..............Obviously, you have not researched the topic all that much or you would have known this.

Yes, I have researched the topic plenty. Guess what? I found that the climate is in a contant state of flux - always has been, always will be. What's more, these climate models are unable to reverse predict climate patterns that have ALREADY HAPPENED, but I'm supposed to accept their predictions for the future? Sorry, not happening. But you keep the faith that these scientists know exactly what they're talking about. It's that kind of thinking that is why it was accepted as fact that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe for centuries.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 10:56 PM
Yes, I have researched the topic plenty. Guess what? I found that the climate is in a contant state of flux - always has been, always will be. What's more, these climate models are unable to reverse predict climate patterns that have ALREADY HAPPENED, but I'm supposed to accept their predictions for the future? Sorry, not happening. But you keep the faith that these scientists know exactly what they're talking about. It's that kind of thinking that is why it was accepted as fact that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe for centuries.

Yes........also that Capernicus did not really see moons around Jupiter so the cathloic chruch sentenced him to house arrest because it wasnt in the bible..
i believe that in 1982 the cathloic church finally accepted that he was right.

Question: How old do you believe the earth is?

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:02 PM
Yes........also that Capernicus did not really see moons around Jupiter so the cathloic chruch sentenced him to house arrest because it wasnt in the bible..
i believe that in 1982 the cathloic church finally accepted that he was right.

Question: How old do you believe the earth is?

I believe the Earth to be several billion years old, personally. Which is what makes predicting future climate patterns (which contain HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of variables) all the more trickier - these models typically only use statistical samples of weather patterns over the last several hundred years at the MOST - not a large enough sample to make an accurate prediction for a planet that is several billion years old, sorry. And considering the hundreds of millions of variables involved in the Earth's climate, it's extremely difficult (if not impossible, even with the supercomputers currently available) to make accurate predictions based on the changing of one or even several variables (greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in this case). There's still a bit too much Kentucky windage and guesswork involved in the prediction of future climate patterns for me to take them at face value without questioning them.

Preacher
05-08-2008, 11:05 PM
Yes........also that Capernicus did not really see moons around Jupiter so the cathloic chruch sentenced him to house arrest because it wasnt in the bible..
i believe that in 1982 the cathloic church finally accepted that he was right.

Question: How old do you believe the earth is?


I find this to be an interesting question... and quite loaded.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:08 PM
Did you watch inconvience truth............If not........Will you watch it with an open mind?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:09 PM
I find this to be an interesting question... and quite loaded.

Explain preacher.............What you thinkin :popcorn:

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:15 PM
Did you watch inconvience truth............If not........Will you watch it with an open mind?

To be honest, no I haven't seen it - and yes, I'll definitely try to catch it. I've done a lot of my own independent research reading papers written by scientists in both camps (yes, there is a large contingent of respected scientists out there who question the MAIN causes of global climate change, much as I do). That's the thing - I don't question if the climate is changing - it is - like I said, the climate is in a constant state of flux. I do, however, question the causes. I think the sun is expanding and getting hotter too - after all, there has been a measurable receding of the polar ice caps on Mars as well. The question is how big a role has human activity played in the change? That is what I think many are missing the boat on, and that is what I think is so hard to pin down.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:19 PM
we are a major producer of the green house gases that are being trapped in our atmoshpere.

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:23 PM
we are a major producer of the green house gases that are being trapped in our atmoshpere.

Yes, but how much of a role are the greenhouse gases playing? That is what I think they haven't definitively nailed down. And like I said, there is no real consensus in the scientific community on it:

Not All Scientists Agree
While the majority of mainstream scientists agree that global warming is a serious problem that is growing steadily worse, there are some who disagree. John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is a respected climatologist who argues that global warming isn’t worth worrying about.

Christy reached that opinion after analyzing millions of measurements from weather satellites in an effort to find a global temperature trend. He found no sign of global warming in the satellite data, and now believes that predictions of global warming by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century are incorrect.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm

Preacher
05-08-2008, 11:26 PM
Explain preacher.............What you thinkin :popcorn:

honestly...

Many people who have argued from the positions you have over the last day or two also have a perjorative view of Christians who disagree with ANYTHING that "science" puts out... however, science is actually a bunch of facts strung together through philosophical arguments.

It isn't the facts that I disagree with, it is their interpretation and further philosophical arguments that many people disagree with.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:32 PM
I have to search for the article, and i will if you would like.......However, last year there was a piece of land (coveed in ice), and scientist belive that it would melt within the next 30-40 years!.

one year later, all the ice has melted.........some say it is an example that global warming is progressing faster than we (they) think, or it is worse then previously thought).

There is evidence of rising water levels along the coast and in the neighboing marsh lands. (look up blackwater refuge in maryland).

I think that global warming is something that should be looked at and actions should be taken to prevent it.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:34 PM
honestly...

Many people who have argued from the positions you have over the last day or two also have a perjorative view of Christians who disagree with ANYTHING that "science" puts out... however, science is actually a bunch of facts strung together through philosophical arguments.

It isn't the facts that I disagree with, it is their interpretation and further philosophical arguments that many people disagree with.

Im just saying that religious beliefs should not get in the way of scientific facts.
I understand that many christians who live strictly by the bible or believe it word for word believe that the earh is only approx. 6,000 years old....

I believe I am a christian man, however, i also look at logic and scientific facts

Preacher
05-08-2008, 11:38 PM
Im just saying that religious beliefs should not get in the way of scientific facts.
I understand that many christians who live strictly by the bible or believe it word for word believe that the earh is only approx. 6,000 years old....

I believe I am a christian man, however, i also look at logic and scientific facts

Actually, there is no reason for science and belief to be divergent. Actually, for all but a couple centuries, the two NORMALLY stood hand in hand.

As did education and christianity... philosophy and christianity, etc. etc.

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:39 PM
I have to search for the article, and i will if you would like.......However, last year there was a piece of land (coveed in ice), and scientist belive that it would melt within the next 30-40 years!.

one year later, all the ice has melted.........some say it is an example that global warming is progressing faster than we (they) think, or it is worse then previously thought).

There is evidence of rising water levels along the coast and in the neighboing marsh lands. (look up blackwater refuge in maryland).

I think that global warming is something that should be looked at and actions should be taken to prevent it.

Like I said, I'm not questioning climate change - it's a fact. However, wouldn't the fact that the loss of ice at the South pole of Mars indicate that there are external, non-human factors at play here?

Mars would make a lousy host for the Winter Olympics. Yes, there's the lack of air to consider. But more important, Martian snow turns out to be rock hard. Worse, it is melting away at an alarming rate.

In fact, Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Borski
05-08-2008, 11:39 PM
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)
By Dennis Avery Thursday, May 1, 2008

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so....[continued] (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)...

----------------------------------------------------

Also the sun has exactly 0 sunspots right now

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/09may08/midi163.gif

No sunsposts = less solar activity = cooler weather on earth.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:41 PM
Actually, there is no reason for science and belief to be divergent. Actually, for all but a couple centuries, the two NORMALLY stood hand in hand.

As did education and christianity... philosophy and christianity, etc. etc.

So...do you belive scientifically that the earth is appros 4.5 billion years old?
Or.. do you belive religiously that the earth is approx. 6,000 years old?

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:43 PM
Here is what I was really trying to get at in terms of non-human factors as far as climate change is concerned - fundamental physical changes in the Sun itself (i.e. getting hotter):

WASHINGTON (AP) - The sun is getting hotter, adding heat to an Earth already thought to be warming from greenhouse gases.

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight. The increase is only a small fraction of the total heat from the sun, but in a century it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming thought to be caused by greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

And once again, how accurate is their analysis, especially in light of making a prediction so far (an entire century!) into the future?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:44 PM
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)
By Dennis Avery Thursday, May 1, 2008

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so....[continued] (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)...

----------------------------------------------------

Also the sun has exactly 0 sunspots right now

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/09may08/midi163.gif

No sunsposts = less solar activity = cooler weather on earth.


Temperatures from the sun have no effect on global warming.........it is the heat that is trapped in our atmoshpere that can not escape due to the green house gasses

Although.....Rush believe that the reason for global warming is that our air is so clean that it allows more sunlight in....not the case

MACH1
05-08-2008, 11:46 PM
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)
By Dennis Avery Thursday, May 1, 2008

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so....[continued] (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871)...

----------------------------------------------------

Also the sun has exactly 0 sunspots right now

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/09may08/midi163.gif

No sunsposts = less solar activity = cooler weather on earth.

Yep, I think this (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) was already posted in another thread, but its basicly the same thing about a ice age coming. So much for global warming. :coffee:

Borski
05-08-2008, 11:47 PM
Temperatures from the sun have no effect on global warming.........it is the heat that is trapped in our atmoshpere that can not escape due to the green house gasses

Although.....Rush believe that the reason for global warming is that our air is so clean that it allows more sunlight in....not the case

Radiation and solar winds do have an effect on earth, and every planets temperature, even Pluto.

MACH1
05-08-2008, 11:48 PM
Temperatures from the sun have no effect on global warming.........it is the heat that is trapped in our atmoshpere that can not escape due to the green house gasses

Although.....Rush believe that the reason for global warming is that our air is so clean that it allows more sunlight in....not the case

:rofl:

fansince'76
05-08-2008, 11:50 PM
Temperatures from the sun have no effect on global warming.........

Well, I just posted an article highlighting an egghead climatologist from Columbia University saying it does have an effect....

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-08-2008, 11:52 PM
Radiation and solar winds have an effect on earth, and every planets temperature, even Pluto.

yes but its not the cause of global warmimg.........

Global warming is cause by heat being trapped in our atmosphere.........The sun is good.........Greenhouse gasses bad!


Oh..........and pluto is no longer considered a planet

Borski
05-09-2008, 12:03 AM
yes but its not the cause of global warmimg.........

Global warming is cause by heat being trapped in our atmosphere.........The sun is good.........Greenhouse gasses bad!




Regardless of if its the "cause" or not, it does have a major effect.


The Maunder Minimum was the period between about 1645 and 1700 when there were barely any sunspots on the Sun. this coincided with the Little Ice Age.

Oh..........and pluto is no longer considered a planet

Gah! I keep forgetting.....Don't worry Pluto, you'll always be a planet to me!

fansince'76
05-09-2008, 12:04 AM
yes but its not the cause of global warmimg.........

Global warming is cause by heat being trapped in our atmosphere.........The sun is good.........Greenhouse gasses bad!


Oh..........and pluto is no longer considered a planet

According to the headlines last week, the sun is not to blame for recent global warming: mankind and fossil fuels are. So Al Gore is correct when he said, "the scientific data is in. There is no more debate."....It was perhaps a reaction to the BBC Trust's recent criticism of the Corporation's bias when reporting climate change: but sadly, it only proved the point made by the Trust.

The BBC was enthusiastically one-sided, sloppy and confused on its website, using concepts such as the sun's power, output and magnetic field incorrectly and interchangeably, as well as not including any criticism of the research.

But there is a deeper and more worrying issue. Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion.

The report argues that while the sun had a significant effect on climate during most of the 20th century, its influence is currently dwarfed by human effects. It says that all known solar influences since about 1990 are downward and because global temperature has increased since then, the sun is not responsible.

No. The research could prove the contrary. Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion.

Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat.

The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve.

So look on the BBC and Al Gore with scepticism. A scientist's first allegiance should not be to computer models or political spin but to the data: that shows the science is not settled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/15/do1508.xml

Like I said, you're being sold a bill of goods. Keep believing it, and I'll keep right on questioning it. I'm not questioning that climate change exists, I'm questioning the causes and the EXTENT of those causes. And as this is an op-ed piece, here are the credentials of the guy who wrote it:

Dr. David Whitehouse is an astronomer, former BBC science correspondent, and the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley & Sons)

Not exactly an uninformed opinion.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-09-2008, 12:14 AM
Okay, I believe in global warming........You do not........(based on current scientific research supporting global warming)

Can we agree that we need alternative means of energy?

fansince'76
05-09-2008, 12:17 AM
Okay, I believe in global warming........You do not........(based on current scientific research supporting global warming)

Can we agree that we need alternative means of energy?

I do believe the climate is changing - I've said that several times - I dispute the causes and the extent of those causes. And yes, I agree - we needed to get off oil 20 years ago (at least).

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-09-2008, 12:20 AM
I do believe the climate is changing - I've said that several times - I dispute the causes and the extent of those causes. And yes, I agree - we needed to get off oil 20 years ago (at least).

thats why i said basedon current scientific research that promotes global warming.

Gas by my house is $3.52 and i understand that is lower than most states......Its crazy

Borski
05-09-2008, 12:30 AM
Okay, I believe in global warming........You do not........(based on current scientific research supporting global warming)

Can we agree that we need alternative means of energy?

Yes, I am a huge supporter of alternative energy. Nuclear, Hydrogen, Solar, Wind, and Water are all avalible for us to use. We need to get off oil fast. Why are we supporting middle eastern economies who happen to hate the United States with what is currently our lifeline? The sooner we get off oil the sooner our economy is better.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-09-2008, 12:34 AM
Yes, I am a huge supporter of alternative energy. Nuclear, Hydrogen, Solar, Wind, and Water are all avalible for us to use. We need to get off oil fast. Why are we supporting middle eastern economies who happen to hate the United States with what is currently our lifeline? The sooner we get off oil the sooner our economy is better.


No....The sooner the season starts the sooner we can stop talking about things that really we have no ability to change.......Go Steelers:tt02:

Borski
05-09-2008, 12:34 AM
General Motors and Toyota both said recently that they are ready to produce hydrogen powered cars for the masses, but they are waiting for the government to put some sort of infrastructure in place.

I remember reading an article stating only 12,000 of the 300,000 gas stations nationwide would need to add a hydrogen pump to fuel 99% of America.

Borski
05-09-2008, 12:37 AM
thats why i said basedon current scientific research that promotes global warming.

Gas by my house is $3.52 and i understand that is lower than most states......Its crazy

Its about the same price here, My family is getting a scooter this summer for short distance travel. 121 mpg sounds good.

Preacher
05-09-2008, 12:51 AM
I do believe the climate is changing - I've said that several times - I dispute the causes and the extent of those causes. And yes, I agree - we needed to get off oil 20 years ago (at least).


Count me in on that...

We have a navy that has been able to handle nuclear power for years without incident...

There is no reason why we can't have SMALLER nuclear plants all over the country to drive our power needs for homes and cities.

Supplement that with solar power (at a much reduced cost than it is now), and we can pretty much cut oil usage to manufacturing and transportation use. That, plus opening our oil reserves in ALaska, drilling off shore, and a couple other places in AMerica would keep us off of foreign oil.

Then we make an effort to find another source for cars energy.

Yeah, I would have NO problem with a pattern like that.

X-Terminator
05-09-2008, 01:11 AM
Okay, I believe in global warming........You do not........(based on current scientific research supporting global warming)

Can we agree that we need alternative means of energy?

Why is it that when someone questions the science/causes of global climate change, the first thing you and many others who think we're all doomed say is that we don't believe it's happening? Of COURSE it's happening. But I do not, nor will I ever, think that man and man alone is the primary cause of global climate change, as so many of the doomsdayers think. There are WAY, WAY too many factors that come into play here; human activity is just one of them. The Sun's activity has far more to do with climate change here on Earth than you are willing to admit - it is, in fact, the BIGGEST reason. If you don't believe so, then explain the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus that makes it much hotter than it should be at its distance from the Sun. Last time I checked, there aren't any humans there. Many scientists also believe we're in an interglacial period when the Earth's climate naturally warms after a long period of cooler temperatures. After all, the last major ice age happened just 10,000 years ago. And you actually believe that man can destroy a planet by itself in 100+ years? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Anyway, yes, we can definitely agree that we need to find and use alternative energy sources. As I said before in another thread, we should be leading the world, but our government has done everything in its power to stand in the way. If they would put more money into them and make it much easier for companies to bring alternative energy into the market, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now because of high oil prices.

Aussie_steeler
05-09-2008, 05:59 AM
Down under we have discovered some important new evidence that suggests that global warming is indeed real.


Please consider our statiscally analysis of a new data set which we believe supports the global warming hypothesis.


Glad to be of service to our northern hemisphere scientific community colleagues.





http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-global-warming-06R.jpg

Preacher
05-09-2008, 06:34 PM
Down under we have discovered some important new evidence that suggests that global warming is indeed real.


Please consider our statiscally analysis of a new data set which we believe supports the global warming hypothesis.


Glad to be of service to our northern hemisphere scientific community colleagues.


http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-global-warming-06R.jpg



:chuckle:

hilarious.

GBMelBlount
05-09-2008, 07:54 PM
Count me in on that...

We have a navy that has been able to handle nuclear power for years without incident...

There is no reason why we can't have SMALLER nuclear plants all over the country to drive our power needs for homes and cities.

Supplement that with solar power (at a much reduced cost than it is now), and we can pretty much cut oil usage to manufacturing and transportation use. That, plus opening our oil reserves in ALaska, drilling off shore, and a couple other places in AMerica would keep us off of foreign oil.

Then we make an effort to find another source for cars energy.

Yeah, I would have NO problem with a pattern like that.

Completely agree with all the above. Also, France (I think) has had terrific results with nuclear power plants.

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2008, 04:36 PM
The Second someone attempts to raise my taxes because of Global Warming I'm going to revert back to my habit of burning old tires in my back yard. Screw it. If they are going to make me pay for pollution and the littering of others, I may as well get a bang for my buck. I love those pretty green flames.

Crying Indian be Damned.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2008, 04:39 PM
Keeps the skeeters away too.

stillers4me
05-13-2008, 04:41 PM
The Second someone attempts to raise my taxes because of Global Warming I'm going to revert back to my habit of burning old tires in my back yard. Screw it. If they are going to make me pay for pollution and the littering of others, I may as well get a bang for my buck. I love those pretty green flames.

Crying Indian be Damned.

:tt03:

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2008, 04:42 PM
Keeps the skeeters away too.

Heck yeah it does! And the Possums!

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-14-2008, 04:52 AM
.......and pluto is no longer considered a planet

Pluto I understand...He is a dog...right?

Its Goofy that gives me the heebie jeebies.