Funny how 31000 scientists disagree with global warming

[Meister]

And your reason for this statement is?

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?

 

[Meister]

Last off topic post.

Car standards started in 1978
The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments.
1978 18 mpg
1979 19 mpg
1980 20 mpg
1981-84 22, 24, 26, and 27mpg
1985 27.5 mpg
1986-1989, passenger car standards were lowered.
1990 27.5 mpg, where it has remained


Looks like I'm average for US fuel mileage standards. The gas guzzling tow vehicle and my racing consumed 94.71 gallons last year (tax write off, so I have all my receipts). I bet I use less gas than 80% of Americans (last years total mileage for my 1995 was 4207 miles), I don't drive much (very short commute), only skiing burns a lot. If Subaru was forced into better fuel mileage standards then my Subaru would get better mileage, not gonna risk my life in the mountains for 10-20% better mileage.

So; what's your point? You trying to throw something that's not going to stick

Actually, you being such an evironut, you could have done much more. Think how much more you could have saved in your "carbon footprint" theory, if you had an electric car?just sayin ...

 

[KittenKoder]

Or, alternatively, you could get your climate info from Red Dawn, who is so expert in this area that he can conveniently dismiss the opinions of PhDs.

Let's even say it's not 9,000. Let's say it's half that number. Actually, let's be really cynical and say it's 25%. That's still a shit load of people better qualified than probably anyone on this board. If they are skeptical, their opinions deserve to be heard. If the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming what harm can it do to listen to the concerns and address them in language that everyone can understand? The only "harm" is if the concerns start to make some sense and the tidal wave of climate research funding starts to dry up.

Rockhead will be on here to tell you how stupid you are for not bowing down to his point of view and that the scientists you speak of are not real scientists.

Maybe, and he's welcome to if he wants.

I have no problem with people defending their positions, but I don't like politically motivated double standards when it comes to science.

The political crap is old. I miss the days when scientists did things just to learn instead of posting reports to get funding.

 

[k2skier]

Last off topic post.

Car standards started in 1978
The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments.
1978 18 mpg
1979 19 mpg
1980 20 mpg
1981-84 22, 24, 26, and 27mpg
1985 27.5 mpg
1986-1989, passenger car standards were lowered.
1990 27.5 mpg, where it has remained


Looks like I'm average for US fuel mileage standards. The gas guzzling tow vehicle and my racing consumed 94.71 gallons last year (tax write off, so I have all my receipts). I bet I use less gas than 80% of Americans (last years total mileage for my 1995 was 4207 miles), I don't drive much (very short commute), only skiing burns a lot. If Subaru was forced into better fuel mileage standards then my Subaru would get better mileage, not gonna risk my life in the mountains for 10-20% better mileage.

So; what's your point? You trying to throw something that's not going to stick

Actually, you being such an evironut, you could have done much more. Think how much more you could have saved in your "carbon footprint" theory, if you had an electric car?just sayin ...

You clueless dolt, you have NO clue about me STFU.

 

[Meister]

Last off topic post.

Car standards started in 1978
The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments.
1978 18 mpg
1979 19 mpg
1980 20 mpg
1981-84 22, 24, 26, and 27mpg
1985 27.5 mpg
1986-1989, passenger car standards were lowered.
1990 27.5 mpg, where it has remained


Looks like I'm average for US fuel mileage standards. The gas guzzling tow vehicle and my racing consumed 94.71 gallons last year (tax write off, so I have all my receipts). I bet I use less gas than 80% of Americans (last years total mileage for my 1995 was 4207 miles), I don't drive much (very short commute), only skiing burns a lot. If Subaru was forced into better fuel mileage standards then my Subaru would get better mileage, not gonna risk my life in the mountains for 10-20% better mileage.

So; what's your point? You trying to throw something that's not going to stick

Actually, you being such an evironut, you could have done much more. Think how much more you could have saved in your "carbon footprint" theory, if you had an electric car?just sayin ...

You clueless dolt, you have NO clue about me STFU.

I know that you and Old Rocks are enviro whacko's, and that you don't walk the walk...but do talk the talk. So just maybe until you do walk the walk you should STFU.

 

[Sinatra]

Actually, you being such an evironut, you could have done much more. Think how much more you could have saved in your "carbon footprint" theory, if you had an electric car?just sayin ...

You clueless dolt, you have NO clue about me STFU.

I know that you and Old Rocks are enviro whacko's, and that you don't walk the walk...but do talk the talk. So just maybe until you do walk the walk you should STFU.

They can walk behind my German-brand SUV.

No GM-Chrysler State-Made Obamaautos for me...

 

[jreeves]

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?

Lets think about the math here $42k for the RAV 4, you can get a comparable SUV for 22K. So if you subtract 42K from 22K that is a difference of 20K. So tell me how long it will take you to recover that cost if you drive an average of 12K miles in a year. It would only take you about 36 years or so....

 

[jreeves]

And your reason for this statement is?

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?

Like I said hypocrite when you start eating that vegan diet, people will take you seriously.

 

[Chris]

Rockhead will be on here to tell you how stupid you are for not bowing down to his point of view and that the scientists you speak of are not real scientists.

Maybe, and he's welcome to if he wants.

I have no problem with people defending their positions, but I don't like politically motivated double standards when it comes to science.

The political crap is old. I miss the days when scientists did things just to learn instead of posting reports to get funding.

Do you know any scientists?

 

[Chris]

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?

Like I said hypocrite when you start eating that vegan diet, people will take you seriously.

Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.

 

[jreeves]

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?

Like I said hypocrite when you start eating that vegan diet, people will take you seriously.

Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

 

[Chris]

Like I said hypocrite when you start eating that vegan diet, people will take you seriously.

Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

 

[KittenKoder]

Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

Actually, with a very low solar radiation level, CO2 should be higher for us to survive.

 

[Chris]

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

Actually, with a very low solar radiation level, CO2 should be higher for us to survive.

So, you admit that our added CO2 is warming the earth?

 

[jreeves]

Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

No, but if you do then you should do your part.

 

[jreeves]

What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

No, but if you do then you should do your part.

I answered your question, now tell me, how you don't see it hypocritical to not eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions when you claim it is such a huge problem?

 

[KittenKoder]

So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?

Actually, with a very low solar radiation level, CO2 should be higher for us to survive.

So, you admit that our added CO2 is warming the earth?

No, but here's something you missed (and your peer pressured scientists avoided), when there is a lower solar level plant life is less capable of processing the CO2 they need, thus the levels will naturally rise, since less of it is being transformed back into O2 ... so ... it's natural, however now we need to find a way to help the plant life or risk becoming extinct since it will also grow less while still being consumed at the same rate. However, since all the money has been wasted on bribing scientists to get them to support the global warming hoax, we no longer have those funds. So, thanks to you nuts, we're fucked as a species.

 

[tigerbob]

Maybe, and he's welcome to if he wants.

I have no problem with people defending their positions, but I don't like politically motivated double standards when it comes to science.

The political crap is old. I miss the days when scientists did things just to learn instead of posting reports to get funding.

Do you know any scientists?

Several.

 

[Chris]

The political crap is old. I miss the days when scientists did things just to learn instead of posting reports to get funding.

Do you know any scientists?

Several.

Name them....

 

[Chris]

Actually, with a very low solar radiation level, CO2 should be higher for us to survive.

So, you admit that our added CO2 is warming the earth?

No, but here's something you missed (and your peer pressured scientists avoided), when there is a lower solar level plant life is less capable of processing the CO2 they need, thus the levels will naturally rise, since less of it is being transformed back into O2 ... so ... it's natural, however now we need to find a way to help the plant life or risk becoming extinct since it will also grow less while still being consumed at the same rate. However, since all the money has been wasted on bribing scientists to get them to support the global warming hoax, we no longer have those funds. So, thanks to you nuts, we're fucked as a species.

Thanks for admiting that CO2 warms the earth.