What favorite programs are you talking about? The ones that make your state consistently one of the top 5 welfare states per capita from a federal taxes paid to federal taxes returned perspective. Do I have to look up the ratio and rank again?
Just a sheeple pointing out the obvious once again regards.
Let's see the sourced non-cherry picked data for the last statement please.
If CO2 is not responsible or the primary driver then taking action to limit or control CO2 emissions could be a mistake from a climate perspective. I am not convinced that limiting CO2 emissions or taking a serious "polluter pays" approach (i.e., individual responsibility) to the discharge of any pollutant is bad from a long term economic perspective. As I see it, pay now or pay later in one form or another.I hear this type of rhetoric from farmers and developers all the time. "I am all for conservation/ clean water, etc, but......". If this were true the steady decline of environmental quality would not be happening. To put it in perspective, I am as skeptical of this preamble statement as some here would be about the statement, "I'm all for 2nd amendment rights....." Please clarify the meaning of your second sentence so I can respond better. What linked resources are you talking about? Fossil fuels?I am all for a clean planet. I expect that most here feel the same way (good stewards and all that). But your (the global warming crowd) ideas of how to use the resources needed for good stewardship and linking that to global warming is a waste of those resources.Energy policy and environmental policy are often linked. Drilling and ANWR are a great example. These policies are also often both linked to long term economic health. I could agree that they are not linked by global warming only if CO2 is not a driving force.BTW, I believe energy policy and issues and environmental issues are two separate things and are not linked by global warming.
Last edited by Henry V; 01-07-2009 at 09:35 PM. Reason: corrected spelling error and missed quotation marks
Yes it is a blog, but it sources its data. There are hundreds of sources that point to sunspot activity being responsible for global climate change. What a crazy idea, the sun responsible for temperatures.
“The University of Alabama-Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade,” Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first Director of Meteorology, told me. “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”
It really boils down to 2 things.
do you believe in God and what he says in his words
Or you don't believe in God ,therefore you have to try to explain what goes on through your fears of the unknown to justify your existance. ie. evolution,,bla bla bla. and all that other new age philosophies. Total silliness to me.
Its simple to blow around with any wind of doctrine,,,,you will always be dooped until you decide to commit yourself to a true standard.
My 2 cents for now and I'll send you a bill later
Since I don't really know all that much about the intricacies of Global Warming and really don't have an opinion either way I started to look around the net to see what I could find. Of course opinions ranged from " we will be burnt to a cinder in twenty years" to " This is all a giant conspiracy to help politicians get elected". However I did find a web site I thought was pretty objective in it's observations
. What was clear to me was that different people take different opinions from the same data.
If interested in reading it go to this site: http://ecoworld.com/features/2006/10...warming-facts/
At least we had the onions to eliminate one of the main 'earmarkers' from our congessional constituancy. But then, you have voted in a dude that has seen fit to put him back into controlling another facet of government, which I'm sure you are very proud. Kinda like your states 'counting' ballots until you get your socialists in office.
It must really piss you off that so many of your states hunters have found it better in our state. How's that for changing the subject?
Put your blinders back on Henry, and pony up the $$$ your newly elected group of socialists will be legislating. Hope you can afford it, because you indeed are a sheeple.
When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.
The debate over whether or not greenhouse gases were causing global warming goes back to the early 60's when I was student studying earth sciences. The issue was not even on the political radar screen at the time. Already the correlation was becoming evident.
There are bound to be differences from year to year. One year's deviance from the trend does not negate the theory. It is kind of like watching a man going up the stairs flinging a yo-yo. If you keep an eye on the yo-yo you are going to come to the conclusion that things go up and down. But if you keep your eye on the man then you can see where the trend is heading.
There is a part of the debate worries me. The No Warming stance has been fueled by the energy companies--Exxon in particular. They are running scared over CO2 emissions caps as you would expect them to be. They have funded a number of far right wing folks to carry that message for them.
In science there are going to be dissenters, as there is in every community. However, the majority( 90% the last figure I saw) of atmospheric scientists believe the global climate is in peril. From what I have seen and from the people I know in the field, I have to throw my lot in with the majority. But, like many of you I wish it weren't so.
Last edited by zeus3925; 01-10-2009 at 08:37 PM.