Bush changes position on Global Warming

[red states rule]

I say again:

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?
I thought you realized that the word "occasionally" refers to timing and not extent.

ONE eruption deposited more CO2 then man ever has MM

What part of that statement do you not understand?

 

[maineman]

ONE eruption deposited more CO2 then man ever has MM

What part of that statement do you not understand?

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

what part of THAT question do YOU not understand?

 

[red states rule]

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

what part of THAT question do YOU not understand?

Since we would have a very difficult time matching the eruption of Mt St Helens - why are the tree huggers so worried?

 

[maineman]

Since we would have a very difficult time matching the eruption of Mt St Helens - why are the tree huggers so worried?

so let me get this straight..... five years ago, let's say, nature causes a minor earthquake which in turn causes a sewer line in your neighborhood to rupture and spill raw sewage all over your nicely mowed lawn. Do you think that event then justifies and rationalizes you continuing to walk out onto your front yard and piss and shit every day from then on?

 

[red states rule]

so let me get this straight..... five years ago, let's say, nature causes a minor earthquake which in turn causes a sewer line in your neighborhood to rupture and spill raw sewage all over your nicely mowed lawn. Do you think that event then justifies and rationalizes you continuing to walk out onto your front yard and piss and shit every day from then on?

Libs are blowing the global warming "crisis" all out of proportion by using their usual scare tactics

 

[maineman]

Libs are blowing the global warming "crisis" all out of proportion by using their usual scare tactics

you suggested that because volcanoes pollute, that we should be concerned about human caused pollution. I posed a hypothetical and you ran away from it.

would you or would you not start shitting and pissing in your own front yard?

just answer the question and quit running away from EVERY debate.

 

[red states rule]

you suggested that because volcanoes pollute, that we should be concerned about human caused pollution. I posed a hypothetical and you ran away from it.

would you or would you not start shitting and pissing in your own front yard?

just answer the question and quit running away from EVERY debate.

When confronted with logic and facts, you have to change the questions

You are the track star around here

 

[maineman]

a fairly straightforward discussion:

here is the question, RSR:

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

the question is posed to YOU. Do YOU believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into our atmosphere is a good thing for Mother Earth? YOU. yes or no.

to which you reply:

Of course not

However, vovcanos emit more CO2 into the air then man does

that prompts me to ask:

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

to which you reply:

Occasionally?

Mt St Helen's sprewed more co2 into the air then man ever has

seeing as you obviously misunderstood the meaning and use of the word "occasionally", I reiterated for your benefit:

I say again:

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?
I thought you realized that the word "occasionally" refers to timing and not extent.

ONE eruption deposited more CO2 then man ever has MM

What part of that statement do you not understand?

Whoa! so a volcano dumps a lot more stuff than man does? OK.... but I ask again:

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

what part of THAT question do YOU not understand?

to which you respond:

Since we would have a very difficult time matching the eruption of Mt St Helens - why are the tree huggers so worried?

...seeming to indicate that tree huggers (and everyone else) should not be concerned about man made pollution at all, because volcanoes also pollute occasionally.... that is a bizarre point of view, so I pose a hypothetical in order to get you to explain that better:

so let me get this straight..... five years ago, let's say, nature causes a minor earthquake which in turn causes a sewer line in your neighborhood to rupture and spill raw sewage all over your nicely mowed lawn. Do you think that event then justifies and rationalizes you continuing to walk out onto your front yard and piss and shit every day from then on?

but...rather than answer the straightforward hypothetical, you say:

Libs are blowing the global warming "crisis" all out of proportion by using their usual scare tactics

and then you tell ME that I am running away??????

 

[DeadCanDance]

It simply means the peer reviewed crap you stand by as at the very least no better than the peer reviewed crap I've read.

and to correct you yet again the above was not my assertion. I never stated that reason it was credible was because it was peer reviewed. I just stated that many of their citations are from peer reviewed sources as well. They cited literally hundreds of soources congratulations on finding one that supports your position. Im sure i could do the exact same with yours.

It simply means the peer reviewed crap you stand by as at the very least no better than the peer reviewed crap I've read.


We just established in the previous 20 posts, that you CAN'T provide peer-reviewed research from peer-reviewed scientists to support your position.

All you did was mention Fred Singer's book. His book and conclusions weren't scientifically peer reviewed. All he did was cite the work of a few climate scientists. Scientists, that in fact do NOT dispute anthropogenic global warming. And then Singer substituted his on (non-peer reviewed) conclusions on global warming.

 

[Vintij]

You got it all wrong RSR. Next time check with me before you start a scientific argument.

What you do have right is, yes volcanos do emitt H20 and Co2 as well as sulfur, into the atmosphere. Causing a sort of warming effect initially. What you dont realize is that the ash from the volcano spreads hundreds even thousands of miles in every direction depending on how big the volcano is. This ash diffuses the suns rays back onto space rather than letting it get trapped in with the c02.

When mount Pinatabu erupted in 91, this study was conducted and it was later discoverd that with the ash blocking the sun rays, photosynthesis had to be an adaptible process for the plants to produce oxygen and survive. What the plants did with less sunlight is thrive from this extra co2 spewed into the air from the volcano on mount Pinatabu, which also resulted in lower tempuratures. They adapted to the less sunlight and more co2 producing more oxygen and surviving through the volcanic event because of checks and balances.

So what that means is, volcanic emissions can NOT cause global warming because plants are known to adapt to less sunlight and more co2 using respiration at a faster rate to convert the extra co2 back into oxygen quicker. What they are not known to do is, adapt to man made co2 which does NOT diffuse rays from the sun, causing a greenhouse heating effect different from the effect of volcanic emissions, this then slows plant respiration causing a warming effect because the plants can not convert the co2 with so much sunlight, it takes darkness to convert co2. (plants are in respiration only at night)

THey are completely different and in no way related. You need infrared rays to cause climate change, volcanic ash blocks that.

So your wrong once again.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It simply means the peer reviewed crap you stand by as at the very least no better than the peer reviewed crap I've read.


We just established in the previous 20 posts, that you CAN'T provide peer-reviewed research from peer-reviewed scientists to support your position.

All you did was mention Fred Singer's book. His book and conclusions weren't scientifically peer reviewed. All he did was cite the work of a few climate scientists. Scientists, that in fact do NOT dispute anthropogenic global warming. And then Singer substituted his on (non-peer reviewed) conclusions on global warming.

You haven't established anything of value. If you flick your bic you add to anthropogenic global warming. Can you prove how much anthropogenic global warming is actually being caused by the greenhouse effect compared to other reasons? No, you can't. That rather elusive information has yet to be scientifically established. Singer's point of view is just as valid as any other point of view you can come up with and I'd like to see you to prove otherwise.

You liberals take a few facts that fit in with your socialist agenda and run with them. Al Snore just uses the liberal media hype for glorifying his bogus claims. He's just part and parcel of the new world order that wishes to place the world under socialist controls.

As far as Bush is concerned, he's no longer a real leader of the conservatives. You liberals should be thanking him for all he's been doing for you. However, with regard to global warming he still refuses to support mandatory limits for emissions and this is what is ticking off the socialist world, especially Europe. If we did what Europe wanted we would wind up in the same economic trash heap just like them. Emission controls costs money and would increase the cost of our goods. China and India are not abiding by any mandatory emission controls and they would be able to undercut our prices on the world market. That would destroy our leading economic power. Of course the anti-American socialist-commies would just love to see that happen.

Bush's voluntary plan for emissions controls should address some of the concerns that will be brought up in the G-8 summit meeting but he's not going to bow to unfair demands that would economically destroy us. China has finally come up with a spiffy new plan for environmental management but it still refuses to adhere to mandatory emissions controls, as does India. Until both China and India adhere to the same demands, I see no reason for the U.S. to shoot itself in the economic foot.

 

[red states rule]

You got it all wrong RSR. Next time check with me before you start a scientific argument.

What you do have right is, yes volcanos do emitt H20 and Co2 as well as sulfur, into the atmosphere. Causing a sort of warming effect initially. What you dont realize is that the ash from the volcano spreads hundreds even thousands of miles in every direction depending on how big the volcano is. This ash diffuses the suns rays back onto space rather than letting it get trapped in with the c02.

When mount Pinatabu erupted in 91, this study was conducted and it was later discoverd that with the ash blocking the sun rays, photosynthesis had to be an adaptible process for the plants to produce oxygen and survive. What the plants did with less sunlight is thrive from this extra co2 spewed into the air from the volcano on mount Pinatabu, which also resulted in lower tempuratures. They adapted to the less sunlight and more co2 producing more oxygen and surviving through the volcanic event because of checks and balances.

So what that means is, volcanic emissions can NOT cause global warming because plants are known to adapt to less sunlight and more co2 using respiration at a faster rate to convert the extra co2 back into oxygen quicker. What they are not known to do is, adapt to man made co2 which does NOT diffuse rays from the sun, causing a greenhouse heating effect different from the effect of volcanic emissions, this then slows plant respiration causing a warming effect because the plants can not convert the co2 with so much sunlight, it takes darkness to convert co2. (plants are in respiration only at night)

THey are completely different and in no way related. You need infrared rays to cause climate change, volcanic ash blocks that.

So your wrong once again.

Did I say they caused "global warming"? No

I said they emit more CO2 then we do

More and more reports are coming out debunking the global warming nuts


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

 

[Vintij]

Did I say they caused "global warming"? No

I said they emit more CO2 then we do

More and more reports are coming out debunking the global warming nuts


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

Your right they do emit more co2 than humans do. But if that co2 has nothing to do with global warming, then the amount that is emitted has nothing to do with global warming or this thread.

As I said before, the less sunlight caused by the ash, gives plants more respiration time to convert co2 faster.

So if we want to stop anthropogenic global warming, (after we learn more about it) It should not be as hard as everyone makes it out to be. There are so many things we can do to reverse it, if it ever gets to the breaking point.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your right they do emit more co2 than humans do. But if that co2 has nothing to do with global warming, then the amount that is emitted has nothing to do with global warming or this thread.

As I said before, the less sunlight caused by the ash, gives plants more respiration time to convert co2 faster.

So if we want to stop anthropogenic global warming, (after we learn more about it) It should not be as hard as everyone makes it out to be. There are so many things we can do to reverse it, if it ever gets to the breaking point.

What damn "breaking point"?

Your statements are based upon a blind faith in what Al Snore and the socialist UN et al is claiming. You can have as many climate models as you like which can spit out all kinds of scary predictions, but if they are not based upon solid facts they are essentially useless. Except to bolster leftist scare tactics.

1. Can you explain why co2 has in the past been a lagging factor, not a causal factor in global warming?
2. Can you explain how the Roman Warming or the Medieval Warming happened without man-made emissions?

The globe may be warming, that is true. That's certainly better than a cooling off period. If the seas rise, people will just have to move inland. If it gets hotter, people will just have to move northward or get more air conditioners. The world has heated up before. It's not some catastrophic event you liberals have to wet your pants about.

 

[Vintij]

What damn "breaking point"?

Your statements are based upon a blind faith in what Al Snore and the socialist UN et al is claiming. You can have as many climate models as you like which can spit out all kinds of scary predictions, but if they are not based upon solid facts they are essentially useless. Except to bolster leftist scare tactics.

1. Can you explain why co2 has in the past been a lagging factor, not a causal factor in global warming?
2. Can you explain how the Roman Warming or the Medieval Warming happened without man-made emissions?

The globe may be warming, that is true. That's certainly better than a cooling off period. If the seas rise, people will just have to move inland. If it gets hotter, people will just have to move northward or get more air conditioners. The world has heated up before. It's not some catastrophic event you liberals have to wet your pants about.

Obviously you didnt understand what I was saying. I said IF it gets to the breaking point. I did not say it will, nor do i predict it will.

And no, I havent seen the inconvienient truth, I know what I know based on research related to scientific studys of natural events and how that relates to man made co2 and climate change.

Your ranting about nothing. I am the advocate here, not the liberal. I am the one who said we need to know more about the recent spike in tempurature in order to act on anything. I am the one who told you that climate change has been going on in nature for billions of years. I am the one that said even if the current spike in tempurature is tied to anthropogenic causes, we can still reverse the process fairly easily. Your preaching to the chior here buddy. There is literally nothing you can tell me that I dont already know about climate change. So move along.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obviously you didnt understand what I was saying. I said IF it gets to the breaking point. I did not say it will, nor do i predict it will.

And no, I havent seen the inconvienient truth, I know what I know based on research related to scientific studys of natural events and how that relates to man made co2 and climate change.

Your ranting about nothing. I am the advocate here, not the liberal. I am the one who said we need to know more about the recent spike in tempurature in order to act on anything. I am the one who told you that climate change has been going on in nature for billions of years. I am the one that said even if the current spike in tempurature is tied to anthropogenic causes, we can still reverse the process fairly easily. Your preaching to the chior here buddy. There is literally nothing you can tell me that I dont already know about climate change. So move along.

I'll move along when I damn well feel like it. When you say "gets to the breaking point" it implies that there is actually is a "breaking point"...and there is no proof that one even exists.

Sorry if I mistook you for a liberal. You will then agree that the Kyoto accords are just a solution looking for a problem?