Unreal.....

[Six]

Watching a show called " Wheelers Dealers " . Its out of the UK and two guys buy second hand cars, fix them and resale them.

Not a bad show, they're working on a Dino now.

Any way they've gone overboard on the enviro-bs in the new season. Just heard the little guy refer to " those nasty C02's".

Do these gloabal warming obsessed morons understand that without C02 our planet would be a lifeless desert ?

Do their beady eyes glaze over you when mentioned photosynthesis and how plants need C02.
.

[jmac00]

These are simple guys, if it comes out an exhaust tube it must be bad for the planet

[Slatts]

Watching a show called " Wheelers Dealers " . Its out of the UK and two guys buy second hand cars, fix them and resale them.

Not a bad show, they're working on a Dino now.

Any way they've gone overboard on the enviro-bs in the new season. Just heard the little guy refer to " those nasty C02's".

Do these gloabal warming obsessed morons understand that without C02 our planet would be a lifeless desert ?

Do their beady eyes glaze over you when mentioned photosynthesis and how plants need C02.
.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Much like a little bit of an increase in contaminant levels in a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere

No, don't thank me, I'm happy to do your research for you.

[jpsmith1cm]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

on this we agree.

When weather forecasters can do better with their radar and computers than I can by watching the horizon, I'll believe them.

Mankind doesn't even close to understand our own environment, yet we propose to manage and modify it.

[Slatts]

on this we agree.

When weather forecasters can do better with their radar and computers than I can by watching the horizon, I'll believe them.

Mankind doesn't even close to understand our own environment, yet we propose to manage and modify it.

Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

[jpsmith1cm]

Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

We don't understand the system well enough to determine if we have or have not been modifying it.

[Six]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Much like a little bit of an increase in contaminant levels in a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere

No, don't thank me, I'm happy to do your research for you.

First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/...maker-2525.php

It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sceptics.html

I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.

[Space Racer]

This is one of the charts GW believers refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png

This is one of the charts we GW deniers refer to:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...26957f9970d-pi

Notice how much taller the Medieval Warm Period is.

GW deniers believe the data in the first chart was doctored by a small group of scientists with a political agenda.

GW believers refuse to consider data from charts which preceded the GW movement. For them, GW is a religion, and Al Gore is Jesus Christ.

The rest of us think it's just a cult.

For more climate charts, please see http://www.c3headlines.com/temperatu...l-proxies.html

[Six]

This is one of the charts GW believers refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png

This is one of the charts we GW deniers refer to:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...26957f9970d-pi

Notice how much taller the Medieval Warm Period is.

GW deniers believe the data in the first chart was doctored by a small group of scientists with a political agenda.

GW believers refuse to consider data from charts which preceded the GW movement. For them, GW is a religion, and Al Gore is Jesus Christ.

The rest of us think it's just a cult.

For more climate charts, please see http://www.c3headlines.com/temperatu...l-proxies.html

I dont deny climate change. How would we have climbed out of the last ice age if it wasnt for all of the Ford Excursions and Pontiac Goats ?........ wait thats not right.

Any way I deny mans impact on the climate as expressed by hypocritic politicians and. government funded scientist. All in the interest of forwarding an agenda.

[tunnel_rat]

As I recall from my hazy H.S. days, plants need CO2 like we need oxygen. So.....CO2 is bad? Oxygen good or bad? So basically EVERYTHING is gonna kill us all and the poor, fragile planet as well, huh? What, ya wanna live forever??

[WebCTRL]

Seems we've been modifying it without understanding it for some time now.

I can't comment on the meteorologists in your neck of the woods but around here their hit rate is uncanny.

I'd like to see your research for this. The last link you provided stated that most of the CO2 emitted by humans was dissolved in the ocean. I'm curious how we're changing the environment, the facts not the emotions from the tree huggers.

[tunnel_rat]

I'd like to see your research for this. The last link you provided stated that most of the CO2 emitted by humans was dissolved in the ocean. I'm curious how we're changing the environment, the facts not the emotions from the tree huggers.

That's all it is. Emotion is nice, but facts and planetary history sometime have to take precedent over feelings.

[geerair]

First I research quite a bit before I post things of a political or financial nature on this or any other forum.


Second you wont get any thanks from me for posting subjective garbage like that as a scientific resource.

You know how Wiki works right ???? The people who fill it's virtual pages are not vetted in the least.

But you're going to argue that based someones interpretation as presented on Wikipedia that with out a doubt anthropogenic climate change is occurring and the only solution is for massive governmental intervention in the form of punitive tax's and regulation against corporations and the tax payer.

Or crappy GM cars subsidized by the American tax payer because NO ONE wants to buy them.


That somehow dolling out billions to now bankrupt "green energy " companies and trying to shut down industries that are the life's blood of our economy is going to fix "climate change" ?

That setting up a carbon trading enterprise that charges companies and people for emitting a gas that currently in our atmosphere represents on a molecular level about a 1/25000 ratio of Co2 molecules to air is going to save us from eminent doom ?

Forget the fact that Al Gore who pushed for carbon trading was financially attached to a number of green energy companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

You realize that a doubling of our Co2 in the atmosphere minus any outside non man influenced changes like volcano's, weather patterns, sun anomalies, etc would cause less than a 1 degree C increase in surface temperatures ?

Thats a doubling of the above ratio which we wouldn't see at current levels for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But we need liberal politicians to indoctrinate our kids through public schools with crap like "A inconvenient Truth " to save the earth.

Get a look at his new diggs off the coast of Montecrito California, According to "A inconvenient truth " it's supposed to be under water in a couple of years. Nice huh ?
http://www.worldpropertychannel.com/...maker-2525.php

It's "inconvenient" that the University of East Anglia refuses to provide raw data to back up it's assertions that we were causing global warming even when pressed by legal methods AND when E-mails were exposed showing their researchers manipulated historical temperature data to get the conclusion they wanted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sceptics.html

I could go on and and with verifiable links ( Not Wikipedia ) that shows how "climate change" has basically been used as a tool by politicians to gain money and power but with little evidence to back up their theories people like you should know by now that you've been had.

Slatts posts an article based on mainstream, up to date peer-reviewed scientific climatology research which you immediately scorn as unvetted and biased.

So after congatulating yourself on the depth and objectivity of your research, we find that your self-praised research consists of two articles about Al Gore and an outdated op-ed.

Not really what any moderately intelligent person would call credible.



By the way, eight independant investigations found no evidence of manipulation of data or fraud on the part of the climate scientists.



You ridicule wiki but it could have spared you from posting such laughable content.