Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming

[Missourian]

I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, CoolCent . com

I just came unhinged like a loose storm door and neg'd this spammer.

 

[G.T.]

It is really getting scary these days when you can't disagree with the establishment and speak your mind.

How long before it becomes a crime to say that you do not believe that man is going to destroy the earth in a matter of years because of Global Warming?

How long before it becomes a crime to state that you do not believe that all life started as a single cell organism in a primordial muck?

How long before it becomes a crime to say that you believe that all human life whether still in the womb or not is precious and deserves a chance to live?

How long before it becomes a crime to say that you think all politicians are corrupt?

Immie

that's fear mongering, there's no slippery slope happening of speech becoming illegal

Really? And you guys are not denigrating Rick Perry because he doesn't believe your theory?

You think that what I said can't happen? It has happened before and it can happen again. See post #77.

Immie

I'm not you guys, I'm me. Denigrating is not arresting. Get real.

 

[Missourian]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has this

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

Yes, it is true, but the problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, and if you add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you cut down trees at the same time, you are going to increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years.

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

 

[konradv]

I don't know CrusaderFrank but that's a funny comment.

He's on his nuts harder than an intern named Lewinski

Love your signatures about The Rabbi.

This guy has neg repped me 2 times n two days for disagreeing with him on Rick Perry.

Rep appears to be total BS. Most of it seems to be a CON circle-jerk, so I just revel in my lowly status. Look how many people post nothing but trash, yet have high numbers?!?!

 

[Big Fitz]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.

Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data.

Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming - Yahoo! News

.

Oh thank God! I was worried he actually believed in the fantasy religion of GlowBull Wurming the Chicken Little spout all the damn time. May he slit the throat of that fraud if elected.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, CoolCent . com

How much do they charge for the Global Warming Reverser 4000?

 

[konradv]

A politician doesn't believe a lie. That's news?

The real question is why does anyone believe in global warming depsite all the evidence to the contrary?

Because the "evidence to the contrary" usually isn't that at all. It's mostly just people saying, "what about natural cycles?", "what about the sun?" or "what ended the Ice Age?", as if all those natural forces weren't already factored into the theory. Despite all those natural variations, when you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, you still get warming that can't be explained, except as a result of human activity.

 

[Stashman]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has this

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

Yes, it is true, but the problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, and if you add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you cut down trees at the same time, you are going to increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years.

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

 

[Immanuel]

that's fear mongering, there's no slippery slope happening of speech becoming illegal

Really? And you guys are not denigrating Rick Perry because he doesn't believe your theory?

You think that what I said can't happen? It has happened before and it can happen again. See post #77.

Immie

I'm not you guys, I'm me. Denigrating is not arresting. Get real.

No, but in post #77, you were denigrating Rick Perry and those that don't agree with you.

It is a slippery slope. It wasn't all that long ago that President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law followed shortly by the NSA Wiretapping. Followed by President Obama extending the Patriot Act. Now we are making it punishable by large fines for not purchasing Health Insurance and Cap and Trade is on the horizon.

Not a slippery slope my ass.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has this

​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

You have no idea what 'cost effectiveness' is do you?

Let's answer this. Are you willing to lose your job, be forced into a smaller and less safe car, smaller colder in winter, warmer in summer home, and more expensive costs of living all for a dent in less than a 1% increase on a substance that has no hard evidence it does ANYTHING to the environment save making plants grow better?

Look at an 8th grade earth sciences book at atmospheric composition and see the percentage of atmosphere that is CO2. Then consider that mankind's contribution of that is even a minuscule fraction of a single percent of THAT. And you're trying to tell me that our contribution is the sole reason that the weather is going whacky???

Are you stoned, stupid or just fucking nuts?

 

[Stashman]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

​

Wikipedia has this

​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?






Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

You have no idea what 'cost effectiveness' is do you?

Let's answer this. Are you willing to lose your job, be forced into a smaller and less safe car, smaller colder in winter, warmer in summer home, and more expensive costs of living all for a dent in less than a 1% increase on a substance that has no hard evidence it does ANYTHING to the environment save making plants grow better?

Look at an 8th grade earth sciences book at atmospheric composition and see the percentage of atmosphere that is CO2. Then consider that mankind's contribution of that is even a minuscule fraction of a single percent of THAT. And you're trying to tell me that our contribution is the sole reason that the weather is going whacky???

Are you stoned, stupid or just fucking nuts?

My bitch is about how our elected officials are being paid off more than anything else. Apparently this is okay with you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

You have no idea what 'cost effectiveness' is do you?

Let's answer this. Are you willing to lose your job, be forced into a smaller and less safe car, smaller colder in winter, warmer in summer home, and more expensive costs of living all for a dent in less than a 1% increase on a substance that has no hard evidence it does ANYTHING to the environment save making plants grow better?

Look at an 8th grade earth sciences book at atmospheric composition and see the percentage of atmosphere that is CO2. Then consider that mankind's contribution of that is even a minuscule fraction of a single percent of THAT. And you're trying to tell me that our contribution is the sole reason that the weather is going whacky???

Are you stoned, stupid or just fucking nuts?

My bitch is about how our elected officials are being paid off more than anything else. Apparently this is okay with you.

You confuse CO2 with pollution. It isn't. Therefore your argument is void. There is more evidence in 'science' for pay coming from you chicken littles who want to forward global fascism than there is from private industry saying stop being gullible!

you're preaching for the luddite cause, and let's face it, that failed when it was first tried UNDER Mad King Lud.

 

[Missourian]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has thisThey cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

But 1%of GHG isn't man made.

Only 0.28% is.

The 5.5% excludes water vapor, but water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.

From NOAA:

Water Vapor

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

NCDC: Greenhouse Gases
​

 

[Steelplate]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.

Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data.

Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming - Yahoo! News

.

shocker

 

[Big Fitz]

A conversation with Chris and Old Rocks from another thread last year. I commend them both on their honesty:
.
.
..

.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring.

And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

​

Wikipedia has thisThey cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?






Excerpted from this thread:http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ecedes-10-miles-in-8-years-4.html#post1341995

​

.
.
.
.
EDIT (2011) - And that figure DOES NOT include water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Including water vapor reduces human impact to .28 percent.

Even if 1% is man made we should take steps to fix it.

I have no sympathy for cooperate America belly aching because regulation would cause them to spend mega bucks to clean up their pollution.

I have no sympathy for the oil industry who pays our elected officials to speak on their behalf over this issue. The average American citizen does not have millions to pay these politicians to speak on their behalf.

When did we get to the point were are officials can be bought off by cooperate America?

But 1%of GHG isn't man made.

Only 0.28% is.

The 5.5% excludes water vapor, but water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.

From NOAA:

Water Vapor

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

NCDC: Greenhouse Gases
​

They don't care about the truth. It's all about creating global eco-fascism. Environmental(case)ism is nothing more than a delivery system for a product no sane person wants.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data.

Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming - Yahoo! News

.

shocker

Only 35% of Americans believe in man-made global warming.

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

[RDD_1210]

You mean there are actually people out there in the 21st century that don't think Man Made Global Warming is real? LOL. Seriously?!? Hahahahaahahahahah.

 

[Stephanie]

Yahoo news is becoming JUST as dishonest as the lamestream media. You might want to get your news from other sources.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yahoo news is becoming JUST as dishonest as the lamestream media. You might want to get your news from other sources.

Such as? What would you suggest?

 

[Urkie]

It's not a proven theory but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that global warming is real. To just say there's no chance in hell that it exists is like saying you still think the earth could be flat...