The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 22 of 45 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 445

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Follow the money.. The Heartland Institute - look it up.

    A nice objective "think tank"





    Looks like what I said a page ago is happening:


    Here are two articles about their "study" and process.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ience-campaign

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...dibility-test/
    It is obvious that one can argue the credibility of either side.

    But let me ask you about 3 questions.

    1. Do you think the concept of significant man made global warming is more complex that predicting the effect of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, on the surronding area?

    2. Do you think "ceditable" scientists got it wrong in their conclusions?

    3. If your answer is "yes" to the 2 above questions, how can one be so sure of the conclusions drawn on either side?

  2. #212
    Senior Member 2tall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taos, New Mexico
    Posts
    7,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooseGooser View Post
    Sometime when you dont have a THING to do,, search Chem Trails and Evergreen program!!


    That'll get ya going!!!

    F'n government!

    Gooser
    Gooser, you been hangin' out in Taos?????? You forgot to add DUMBS (deep underground military bases) (not a dig at you or me) to your list of evil doings by black SUV's and guvermint spies.

    Besides, who gives a damn if global warming or ocean pollution is our fault, (I happen to think both are). What the heck is wrong with making some improvements, changes and giving up a little convenience here and there and trying to do better? We don't need to un-invent the combustion engine, just use the ones we have a little more responsibly, switch from dryer to clothes line once or twice a week, walk or ride your bike when feasible, don't buy water in plastic bottles, etc. None of those are big changes, but if enough people tried it there would be big improvements. Quit politickin' and start acting accountable for your place on this earth. Earn the right.
    Carol,
    Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
    Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
    Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
    http://newhoperetrievers.com

  3. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    It is obvious that one can argue the credibility of either side.

    But let me ask you about 3 questions.

    1. Do you think the concept of significant man made global warming is more complex that predicting the effect of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, on the surronding area?

    2. Do you think "ceditable" scientists got it wrong in their conclusions?

    3. If your answer is "yes" to the 2 above questions, how can one be so sure of the conclusions drawn on either side?
    1. Yes. But this is a bit like apples and oranges.
    2. Not sure. The vegetative community is still recovering 30 years later. Could you point me to any reports where a bunch of scientists published that the area would be devastated or would not recover. Also, are there scientific reports of others that said it would recover at a pace similar to what has been observed?
    3. Not sure it matters what my answers to 1 and 2 were. I have looked at the reports and the empirical data and have made a decision. So have you. One of us is mostly right. There are lots of theories in science. The GW/CC theory has strong support among climate scientists and the evidence continues to strengthen. Multiple climate models have been calibrated to the last 100 years and they provide good evidence just as MT. St Helen's experience demonstrates on plant community recovery in future similar events.

  4. #214
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    1. Yes. But this is a bit like apples and oranges.
    2. Not sure. The vegetative community is still recovering 30 years later. Could you point me to any reports where a bunch of scientists published that the area would be devastated or would not recover. Also, are there scientific reports of others that said it would recover at a pace similar to what has been observed?
    3. Not sure it matters what my answers to 1 and 2 were. I have looked at the reports and the empirical data and have made a decision. So have you. One of us is mostly right. There are lots of theories in science. The GW/CC theory has strong support among climate scientists and the evidence continues to strengthen. Multiple climate models have been calibrated to the last 100 years and they provide good evidence just as MT. St Helen's experience demonstrates on plant community recovery in future similar events.
    As to your response to #1, in a general sense they are the same. Both are the study of the impact on the environment, 1 the eruption and emmission aof gases and ash and the other the production of CO2 on the environment. To be sure they are also different in that one was high localized in the scheme of things and the other more generalized as it pertains to earth. My point really had nothing to do with the impact of each but rather that one is more complex than the other and that the scientists were wrong in predicting the impact of Mt St Helens. It has been years since I have read anything about the eruption but what I do remember is that the scientists,based on progressive radiuses from the center, predicted the length of time given the distance from Mt St Helens, how long it would be before one would see microbial, plant and animal life. Very quickly they realized that they missed the recovery time by decades. One thing I do remember is that they saw plant life far sooner and far closer to Mt St Helens than they expected. My impression at the time was that I was amazed at how quickly nature was recovering and haw bad the scientists missed it. There was no controversy. In fact they considered it a great learning experience. At the time the issue was what impact the eruption would have on the envoronment of the US,something which interested many of us. Can't remember where I read it nor do I think that is important. One other thing that also makes this different from global warming is that there was no political impact dependent on the result. This cannot be said of global warming.

    as to #3 I only put forth the example of Mt St Helens to point out that if the scientists could miss that badly then it certainly was in the rehlm of possibility that they could miss on global warming, ON EITHER SIDE. I am concerned as to the effect of CO2 on the environment but I am also concerned as to the effect of the solutions offered. If you don't believe in income redistribution. If you do not agree tht "from those according toability, to those according to need", the impact does matter. If you do believe in the converse, then the solution is more appealing.

    I will close with a statement I once heard. "I had rather see everybody poor that somebody rich". Personally, I had rather see the highest standard of living possible, that is with those able to pull the wagon, PULL THE WAGON. Income distribution is of no consequence to me so long as all can participate with whateve they have.

  5. #215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    ..... I am concerned as to the effect of CO2 on the environment but I am also concerned as to the effect of the solutions offered. If you don't believe in income redistribution. If you do not agree tht "from those according toability, to those according to need", the impact does matter. If you do believe in the converse, then the solution is more appealing.

    I will close with a statement I once heard. "I had rather see everybody poor that somebody rich". Personally, I had rather see the highest standard of living possible, that is with those able to pull the wagon, PULL THE WAGON. Income distribution is of no consequence to me so long as all can participate with whateve they have.
    Should I post a list of scientific theories that have been proven mostly true? Relativity perhaps? or is that not complicated enough. Science is all about testing hypothesis and finding answers.

    Income redistribution has been brought up several times. I certainly have not mentioned it and do not see how efforts to reduce CO2 will redistribute wealth. To the contrary, a case could be made that increasing the cost of carbon based fuels will disproportionately affect lower income people where the cost of goods would increase and since a much greater proportion of their income is for these goods compared to the wealthy.

    A market-based cap and trade program reduced emissions responsible for acid rain 20+ years ago. It did not redistribute wealth. It also did not substantially increase electricity costs.

    Please present your theory on how market-based and/or regulatory approaches to reducing CO2 emissions would redistribute wealth.

    On the flip side, if temperatures warm, food systems are disrupted, and the 70+% of the world population that lives relatively close to sea level is displaced, what kind of standard of living will there be and will there be more or fewer people pulling the wagon then?

  6. #216
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2tall View Post
    Gooser, you been hangin' out in Taos?????? You forgot to add DUMBS (deep underground military bases) (not a dig at you or me) to your list of evil doings by black SUV's and guvermint spies.

    Besides, who gives a damn if global warming or ocean pollution is our fault, (I happen to think both are). What the heck is wrong with making some improvements, changes and giving up a little convenience here and there and trying to do better? We don't need to un-invent the combustion engine, just use the ones we have a little more responsibly, switch from dryer to clothes line once or twice a week, walk or ride your bike when feasible, don't buy water in plastic bottles, etc. None of those are big changes, but if enough people tried it there would be big improvements. Quit politickin' and start acting accountable for your place on this earth. Earn the right.
    2tall....I have no problem with "making some improvements" as long as the Government doesn't force it on me and some "idiot" like Al Gore and a number of bogus (but well paid by my tax dollars) does not make money off of lying about it!

  7. #217
    Senior Member 2tall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taos, New Mexico
    Posts
    7,819

    Default

    I'm glad you have "no problem" being a better human being. Now stop changing the subject and change your ways a bit.
    Carol,
    Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
    Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
    Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
    http://newhoperetrievers.com

  8. #218
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2tall View Post
    I'm glad you have "no problem" being a better human being. Now stop changing the subject and change your ways a bit.
    If you do not want an answer don't ask the question....and I quote "What the heck is wrong with making some improvements, changes and giving up a little convenience here and there and trying to do better?"

  9. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    It is obvious that one can argue the credibility of either side.

    You can argue anything. The Flat Earth Society would still argue with astronomers who claim the earth is roundish
    Do your homework objectively Cary and it is pretty clear that in the true scientific community there really is not a second side

  10. #220
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    You can argue anything. The Flat Earth Society would still argue with astronomers who claim the earth is roundish
    Do your homework objectively Cary and it is pretty clear that in the true scientific community there really is not a second side
    Not a second side????? Something the Flat Earth Society would have said. You might look up the term THEORY to see whether there may be a 2nd side or not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •