Easily understood graphs

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Jan 28, 2009.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,680
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Not too bad. Much misinformation, but at least they admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The comparison of CO2 and water vapor was the same old misinformation, but, given that is all they have, what would one expect. Mentioning the time that water vapor spends in the atmosphere, under 10 days, would not have bolstered their arguement.


    The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a think tank. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations Funding
    Foundations gave the following amounts to the National Center for Policy Analysis think tank in 2005: [3]

    Sarah Scaife Foundation - $125,000
    Earhart Foundation - $40,000
    Armstrong Foundation - $45,000
    The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. - $195,000
    Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation - $25,000
    Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation - $25,000
    The NCPA web site states that in 2006 it receives 62% of its funding from foundations, 21% from corporations, and 17% from individuals. [4] Between 1985 and 2005, the Center received $8,499,850 in 161 separate grants.

    Previous years:

    Castle Rock Foundation
    Earhart Foundation
    JM Foundation
    Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
    John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
    Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
    Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
    Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
    DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
    El Paso Energy Foundation
    ExxonMobil Foundation
    Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
    Lilly Endowment
    Procter & Gamble Fund
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Of course, one might be more impressed were this from a scientific society, or a National Academy of Science. Or if were even from a major university. A political organization, for that is what a conservative thing tank is, is hardly something that I would quote in a scientific debate.
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    war is good...it kills humans....the source of all "bad" co2.....hey wait vegitarians only eat plants which like co2....and the don't eat meat which use to be animals that breath out c02.......kill all vegitarians......
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,680
    Right.
    So we are to only accept info from people who believe in Global Warming is that what your saying?
    I post my info, you post yours, we all make a decision based on all the info.
    And we don't listen to Politicians and Scientists who say "Global Warming is fact. The debate is over. Give us your money".

    Right?
     

Share This Page