Globaloney - Global warming is not man made!

[Bill Call]

As to the assumption that responsible caretaking of resources, working away from a disposable society founded on cheap oil will lead to

I don't think the current warming is man made. You do. We are not going to agree on that. (However, we might have some proof one way or the other over the next few years. Sunspot activity is begining to decline. If the Earth starts to cool then the global warming skeptics are right).

In any case we can agree that using renewable non-polluting forms of energy makes a lot of sense. Nuclear, solar, wind, etc. and more efficient cars make a lot of sense.

I don't trust our politicians to make the right choices. Democrats and Republicans have both signed on to fuel produced by corn. There are a lot of energy choices out there. The choice of government?

Turn food into gasoline.

[Kenneth Warren]

Maybe it's really fried baloney from Mars.

Source:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

[Mark Crnolatas]

An interesting link regarding opinions of scientists' opinions on global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists ... al_warming

[dl meckes]

Maybe it's really fried baloney from Mars.

Ken-

I forgot to thank you for this really wonderful line - and the link that went with it - but mostly for that line.

[Bill Call]

One of the drivers behind global warming (in theory anyway) is cow flatulence. Cow flatulence actually produces more "global warming" gases than cars!

While some have suggested changes in diet to eliminate cow flatulence others have suggested cow corking. (The cork is strategically placed to keep the flatulence from escaping the cows digestive tract). See the UN's report: Cow Corking, Capitalism, Carbon Credits and Global Warming.

Others have suggested a new type of indulgence. In the middle ages you could escape punishment for sins by buying an indulgence from the Pope. Worried about that village that you burned? No problem, send a check to the local church for instant forgiveness.

Al Gore has used a similar means to escape guilty feels about his energy prolific life style. He buys carbon credits that allow him to pollute guilt free.

Now even the little guy can buy peace of mind:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... edits.html

THINK GLOBALLY ACT LOCALLY!!

On the local level, for a small fee I will forgo the bean soup. Send a private message if you are truly concerned about global warming. The fee is reasonable and the amount of gas eliminated is substantial.

Oh hell (I mean Heck) why bother with the PM? Here is the offer: I will fail to consume one bowl of bean soup for each $10 you send. Since I am capable of failing to consume an infinite amount of bean soup my actions can have a substantial affect on the amount of green house gas emissions (in theory anyway).

[dl meckes]

Well ok, Bill!

That's the Green entrepreneurial spirit!

This thread is turning more interesting all the time...

[Jeff Endress]

Interesting that in yesterday's development the Supreme Court of the United States of America (YES THAT SUPREME COURT) determined that it was within the mandate of the EPA to reduce carbon dioxide automobile emissions. Some reasoning along the lines that "well, it couldn't hurt..."

But, it will be even more interesting to see what the EPA actually does

Jeff

[Bill Call]

The recent Supreme Court ruling is not based on law or science but on religous grounds. 5 justices have faith in global warming so they have embarked on a crusade to crush the infidel.

I am actually warming up to the idea of a "growing" constitution. On Monday the court can find that a right you thought you had no longer exists. But there is no need to worry because on Thursday that right can pop back into existence. It's like Obama's quantum constitution. Rights just pop in and out of existence like quarks. Anyway...

If record warmth is a sign of global warming why isn't record cold a sign of global cooling? See

http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-s ... &article=3

The globaloney crowd still hasn't learned not to have its meetings in the middle of winter. Their global warming meetings end up being over shadowed by cold weather.

Here is some advice to the global warming alarmists: Have your seances in August instead of January and February. That way if there is a hot day in August you won't look like complete fools when you start screaming the end is near.

[Brian Pedaci]

Bill...

Calm down. Have a cookie. Global warming is about gradually rising global average temperatures, anecdotes about a cold snap in April are irrelevant.

What do you understand the Supreme Court decision to mean? Here's how I see it:
- the Congress has mandated the EPA to investigate threats to the environment that threaten human health and safety
- the current administration of the EPA has claimed that they do not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, although they do already regulate other auto and industrial emissions.
- Supreme Court says that, until the evidence is in that greenhouse gasses do NOT contribute to global warming, the EPA has the authority and the responsibility to treat them as they would any other air pollution. That evidence should be on scientific grounds, not policy or political grounds as it has been.


Did I get it right?

Automakers are willing to consider stronger emissions controls, but will not self-regulate themselves. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has stated that they believe there should be a "federal, economy-wide approach to the reduction of greenhouse gasses." It's as if they're ASKING the government to pass regulation on the subject.

You've acknowledged that there's warming, but don't agree that it's the result of human activity, right? If things are getting warmer naturally, why doesn't it make sense for humanity to do the equivalent of taking off their sweater?

[Bill Call]

What do you understand the Supreme Court decision to mean?

The Congress had the opportunity to regulate so called green house gas emissions and declined to do so.

The EPA, under its congressional mandate, declined to regulate so called green house gas emissions because such regulations were beyond the scope of its legal authority.

5 aging radicals on the court invented a new mandate out of whole cloth, ignoring the law and the science.

What does it mean to regulate green house gas emissions? Elimination of coal plants? Mandatory walk to work days? Forcibly relocating people to the central cities?

According to global warming theory water vapor and flatulence have a greater affect on the warming of the Earth than carbon dioxide. How will the EPA regulate them and by what authority?

On the other hand, I am warming up to the idea of a "living", "evolving" constitution. Perhaps one day the court will rule the income tax unconstitutional or mandate the elimination of whole federal departments. Why not? If they can imagine it they can make it so.

Maybe we should start electing the Supreme Court. That way the people on the court won't have to read opinion polls to determine the law. You might lose a right one year but you have a chance to get it back the following year.

Just to be fair, the losers of Supreme Court elections should be declared the winners every other election cycle. That way everyone gets a chance to change the constitution.

How can the loser be the winner? Just apply modern judicial standards. If the "L" was a "W" and the "O" really meant "INN" and "OR" was interpreted as "ER" then loser is actually winner. The legal term for this process is Abracadabra.

[Charyn Compeau]

Bill -

If I am to understand you correctly:

You do not feel that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is harmful.

Is that a correct summation of your feelings about carbon dioxide emissions?

Charyn

[Bill Call]

Bill -

If I am to understand you correctly:

You do not feel that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is harmful.

Is that a correct summation of your feelings about carbon dioxide emissions?

Charyn

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide produced by American cars has no affect on climate.

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you called a tail a leg how many legs would a dog have?"

"Five", came the answer.

"No", said Lincoln, "A dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg".

[Bill Call]

Since there is now overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming is a myth it is time not to bury this topic but to resurect it. Why? Because Barack Obama will attempt to implement his kleptomaniac agenda under the guise of "healing the environment".

The most worrisome aspect of this slight of hand is that He will have the support of some very prominent Republicans.

[Jim DeVito]

Since there is now overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming is a myth it is time not to bury this topic but to resurect it. Why? Because Barack Obama will attempt to implement his kleptomaniac agenda under the guise of "healing the environment".

The most worrisome aspect of this slight of hand is that He will have the support of some very prominent Republicans.

Bill, come on man. "Since there is now overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming is a myth"

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

This is why I am glad to see the repubs go. Perhaps now science can be allowed back in the white house and jesus allah buda... can take a back seat.

[Dustin James]

As appealing as Cow Corking sounds for containing methane - and the logic of man trying to behave better, we may have a much bigger problem. Even bigger than China pumping out smoke at levels that are off the charts.

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/post_3.php

Short excerpt...

"The fear is that the thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will dump methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will dwarf any human attempts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

"The Earth hasn't been this warm for millions of years," said Schrag. "All that carbon that's stored in Siberia is going to get released, we just don't know whether it will be in a thousand years or a hundred years. And if it's the shorter time scale, then it's real trouble. There's enough carbon there to essentially lose control of the system."

.