The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 45 of 54 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #441
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    624

    Default

    [QUOTE=paul young;1205150]Tumblr

    Boy, I wish that was the case.

    I had GM on the brain. After going through all of our vehicles yesterday, which is not my forte or expertise, only 4 fell under the recall notices from GM. I am sure, my sis, will find one or two more when she gets back from Jersey.

    As far as the pot/marijuana the comparison. Alcohol is now a controlled legal substance and has been for years. If alcohol is used responsible and pot used responsible what is the problem? Thus, I don't see/have a issue with Marijuana being in the same class as alcohol. Somebody shouldn't have to spend 30 years in jail because of a three strikes you're out program. 2 and 2 is sometimes hard to put together.

    However, it is very funny that Colorado residents feel they are being profiled, by surrounding states, being pulled over by their law enforcement officers. Maybe we should develop a new Ethnic group on applications. The Colorado Americans.

    Yes, I cannot help myself sometimes because if you accept nothing makes sense, in the media and government reports, a lot more things will start making sense.
    Last edited by Dan Storts; 04-01-2014 at 07:49 PM.

  2. #442
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,734

    Default

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rt-alec-torres
    This is an interview with the fellow who took his name off the IPCC report. He believes in climate change, but he's not on board for the alarmist tone of the UN's report.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #443
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,734

    Default

    It does get confusing when one spends $500,000 on a study that says we should take the ethanol out of the gasoline ... and simultaneously be giving grants to help put more ethanol into the gasoline. I guess it only makes sense to politicians.

    Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

    A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/21/study-shows-ethanol-produces-worse-pollution-than-gasoline-n1826957


    Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 04-21-2014 at 11:47 AM.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #444
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    137

    Default

    "As has been said on POTUS umpteen times; "FOLLOW THE MONEY"
    We all know that the Koch's and the rest of the fossil fuel industry is purely altruistic and has no political agenda

    Yep, and this guy had no agenda at all....
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1961299.html
    He just really cares...........
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

  5. #445
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    It does get confusing when one spends $500,000 on a study that says we should take the ethanol out of the gasoline ... and simultaneously be giving grants to help put more ethanol into the gasoline. I guess it only makes sense to politicians.


    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/21/study-shows-ethanol-produces-worse-pollution-than-gasoline-n1826957


    Come on Gerry you are posting Swampy like half truths now. The study was on Cellulosic fuels made from corn waste and the possibility of a higher carbon foot print if too much waste is removed from fields and not left to decay and put carbon back into the soil.

    It a nutshell " The study says it will be very hardtop make a bio-fuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue ", said David Tillman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels emissions from farm to tailpipe.

    Tillman said it was the best study on the issue he has seen so far.

    And FYI, the idea of using waste instead of a food source for any ethanol is still a better option. It appears however that corn residue is not a good option and hopefully we shift to a better waste source.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  6. #446
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Bracing for climate change? It’s here, study says

    U.S. seeing sweeping changes as warming worsens, scientists warn



    By Justin Gillis


    New York Times


    The effects of humaninduced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, scientists reported Tuesday.

    The government’s new national assessment of global warming found:

    ● Water is growing scarcer in the nation’s dry regions.

    ● Torrential rains are increasing in its wet regions.

    ● Heat waves are becoming more common and more severe.

    ● Wildfires are growing worse, and forests are dying under assault from heat-loving insects.

    Such sweeping changes have been caused by an average warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over most land areas of the country in the past century, the scientists found.

    A federal study of climate change’s effects on the United States predicts that polar bears will disappear from Alaska by 2050 as a result of global warming.



    If carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases continue to escalate at a rapid pace, they said, the warming could exceed 10 degrees by the end of this century.

    “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the scientists declared in a new report assessing the situation in the U.S.

    “Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced,” the report continued. “Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours.

    “People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.”

    The report is the latest in a series of dire warnings about how the effects of global warming that had been long foreseen by climate scientists are already affecting the planet.

    Its region-by-region documentation of changes in the United States, and of future risks, makes clear that few places will be unscathed — and some, such as northerly areas, are feeling the effects at a swifter pace than had been expected.

    Alaska in particular is hard hit. Glaciers and frozen ground are melting; storms are eating away at fragile coastlines no longer protected by winter sea ice; and entire communities are having to flee inland — a precursor of the large-scale changes the report foresees for the rest of the country.

    The study, known as the National Climate Assessment, was prepared by a scientific panel overseen by the government and received final approval Tuesday.

    Some fossil energy groups, conservative think tanks and Republican senators immediately assailed the report as “alarmist.”

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said President Barack Obama was likely to “use the platform to renew his call for a national energy tax.”

    Leaders in the fossil fuel industry, which is responsible for a large amount of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide, said their energy is needed and the U.S. can’t afford to cut back.

    “Whether you agree or disagree with the report, the question is: What are you going to do about it? To us, that is a major question,” said Charlie Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. He called the report “overblown.”

    The White House, which released the report, wants to maximize its impact to drum up a sense of urgency about climate change — and thus to build political support for a climate change regulation that Obama plans to issue in June.

    But instead of giving a Rose Garden speech, Obama spent Tuesday giving interviews to local and national weather broadcasters on climate change and extreme weather. The goal was to help Americans connect the planetary problem of global warming caused by carbon emissions from cars and coal plants to the changing conditions in their back yards.

    In the Northeast, the report found a big increase in torrential rains and risks from a rising sea that could lead to a repeat of the kind of flooding seen in superstorm Sandy.

    In the Southwest, current water shortages are likely just a foretaste of the changes to come, the report found.

    The report did find some benefits from climate change in the short run, particularly for the Midwest, such as a longer growing season for crops and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes.

    But it warned that these were likely to be countered in the long run by escalating damages, particularly to agriculture.

    The report was supervised and approved by a committee representing a cross section of U.S. society, including representatives of two oil companies.

    It is the third national report in 14 years, and by far the most urgent in tone, leaving little doubt that the scientists consider climate change an incipient crisis.

    This report includes information from the Associated Press.



    A dead carp lies in the dry lake bed of O.C. Fisher Lake near San Angelo, Texas.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  7. #447
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    I believe there is new name for this, it has morphed from "Man-Made Global Warming" or "Global Warming" or "Climate change" into the new standard, "Climate Disruption!"
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #448
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,570

    Default

    Golddogs....Since you decided to bring me back into this goofy thread topic....and since you insist on using Grossly Liberal sources on your posts...I noticed something on Drudge today that applies.... 'GLOBAL WARMING', 'CLIMATE CHANGE', 'CLIMATE DISRUPTION'... And I am old enough to remember the term 'Global Cooling' being sent out by the same nuts.....can't you all just give it a rest?
    Last edited by swampcollielover; 05-07-2014 at 09:16 AM.

  9. #449
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Golddogs....Since you decided to bring me back into this goofy thread topic....and since you insist on using Grossly Liberal sources on your posts...I noticed something on Drudge today that applies.... 'GLOBAL WARMING', 'CLIMATE CHANGE', 'CLIMATE DISRUPTION'... And I am old enough to remember the term 'Global Cooling' being sent out by the same nuts.....can't you all just give it a rest?
    Simple solution: ignore it. That seems to be something you excel at.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  10. #450
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,734

    Default

    I'm surprised they used that polar bear photo again, when this year it was reported the bears were endangered due to TOO MUCH ice!

    Just saw a History Channel spot called "That's Impossible". It was about how the govt/military is studying ways to control the weather for military purposes. I don't remember all the technical details, but it cited ways to impact the ionosphere electronically. If this technology can be used for military purposes, God knows how it could be used for political purposes! Nothing will protect us from the negative possibilities of such knowledge except the character of those humans who unlock these possibilities. I don't know if History Channel has any political "lean" right or left.

    Some facts still hard to change: how do you get China and India to stop their use of fossil fuels (their necessity being to care for their many millions in population by growing their economies) as they are replacing many times the gases reduced by the rest of the world. And now we see countries like Germany (big into fuel alternatives) heading back to fossil fuels because the cost of energy has risen to the point where it is stifling their economy. Not sure Putin (or any of his successors) will jump on the bandwagon either. Russia might actually benefit overall from some global warming?

    Even if we accept all of this as inevitable fact, is it really possible for the western world to make enough impact to offset the impacts from those countries who do not want to participate? At this point it does not appear so.

    Pragmatically, wouldn't we be better advised to increase our own economic wealth to better adapt/protect ourselves from the weather change impact, than to expend our energies fighting a battle we cannot win when pitted against the opposite motivations of Russia, China and India? It's like expecting the Dems to rail "war on women" against those jerks in Nigeria, who figure they're "entitled" to sell teenage girls into slavery, and expect it to make a difference in how the jerks behave.

    No citations here since I am not refuting any of the statements made My opinion is simply about what is the best action to take if we accept these statements as irrefutable fact. If we don't have the leverage to prevent the inevitable, would it not be better to adapt/prepare for survival of the adverse effects?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

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