#41
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No, it's not "close to impossible to interpret all the data". It's done every day. We have already measured the results of changes we have made, and seen the good they will do, for example concerning acid rain and pollution in cities.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming" http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And it will be good to have Vladimir Putin and a bunch of crazed militant Ayatollahs have untold wealth? Please NEVER teach social studies EVER!!! |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Since when do the anti global warming scientists get the headlines? And why would any of the scientists mentioned in just the posted article have no validity? Says who? You have no idea which side is correct, you just think you do. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, yes, yes. I can find so many more the other way. Its silly to keep up the charade. THE CONSENSUS is clearly over at least the last 50 years the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere has increased. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The second part is exactly opposite of what Obama's adm. has posited. The idea is that oil going to levels that are high will FORCE us to use alternative sources (because they are now competitive) which will cause EXACTLY the opposite of what you posted. A painful oil punch will FORCE a switch. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE THE ADMISTRATION BELIEVES. GET OFF THE OIL. did i yell? Do you think our reliance on oil importation is a problem? |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A beautiful example of what unrestricted industry causes. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
it is laughable. Bogus cubed. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Solar and wind energy are not good large scale sources because it costs way too much to produce. The main reason being that there are only a few areas of the country that have a climate conducive to those alternates and it will cost a fortune to get the energy created to the other areas. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Electricity is a source of energy. Hybrid cars can be charged by electricity. Do we need to go further? And who is confusing the issues? 2. No it does not cost way too much to produce if other sources become more expensive. It costs way too much now because we buy mostly from foreign companies and we have no infrastructure set up like we do for oil. The energy created will cost to move to begin with. Once a grid is set up which will be expensive, it will not be. Nuclear energy is clearly a transitional option. You did not mention Nuclear. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
They will be the example for us. They are experimenting with their environmental health right now. They have already made a few coal powered plants that emit much less CO2 than ours as well as particulate matter. Very expensive though. But they work better than anything we have. So maybe we can Japan them. Steal their ideas and make them less expensive. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Are you kidding? When crap like this starts a SCIENCE explaination, I stop reading. The funny thing is I am a skeptic also. But not brainwashed. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|