speedy 0 #26 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteI'm guessing less than 1% of the world's population flies in a given year..... not that this should get in the way of anyone's righteous indignation. As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 January 26, 2007 QuoteNo I didn't, I asked what the other causes were. You jumped to the conclusion that I think it's all human caused and implied I wasn't doing enough. When you say "what other causes can there be" and then try to ridicule someone that points out a natural cause, I'd say your mind is pretty closed to anything EXCEPT manmade causes. QuoteYes you stay on the fence, that way you can avoid any responsibility. There's that knee-jerk again - better make sure those shoes are well-tied so they don't fly off! QuoteI'm done. Bring a debate next time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteI'm guessing less than 1% of the world's population flies in a given year..... not that this should get in the way of anyone's righteous indignation. As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) But it is more honest than claiming everyone on the planet is "flying about in... SUVs" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #29 January 26, 2007 you don't have to be a scientist to see that desertification and the dessemation of huge areasof virgin forest(most of what was there only hundreds of years ago), is the direct result of human activity. These sort of things do add to climate change but maybe not on the scale that we have been led to believe. some organisations claim milions of dollars for research etc. and i guess this is what the argument is about. but the fact remains... .. we don't need to change the climate to destroy the lifeforms that have taken 1000,000's of years to develop (or 7 days in the hands of god abut 10,000 years ago if you are that way inclined) people are fucking the planet there is no argument against that. wheather the effects are enough to change the climate well.... who knows?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 January 26, 2007 I appreciate the explanation - that makes your point a lot clearer - thanks!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #31 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm guessing less than 1% of the world's population flies in a given year..... not that this should get in the way of anyone's righteous indignation. As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. I'm afraid you'll have to show me the statistics to support that wager.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #32 January 26, 2007 QuoteBut it is more honest than claiming everyone on the planet is "flying about in... SUVs" Lol, Ok that was good.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuote6.5 billion humans do not fly about in jets and drive SUV's. Some do, but not all 6.5 billion. When was the last time you saw a cow driving an SUV? In about 800 Far Side cartoons through the '90's ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #34 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm guessing less than 1% of the world's population flies in a given year..... not that this should get in the way of anyone's righteous indignation. As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. I'm afraid you'll have to show me the statistics to support that wager. You mean you don't require a peer reviewed scientific explanation Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #35 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm guessing less than 1% of the world's population flies in a given year..... not that this should get in the way of anyone's righteous indignation. As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. I'm afraid you'll have to show me the statistics to support that wager. You mean you don't require a peer reviewed scientific explanation Wikipedia is my weaknessDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 January 26, 2007 QuoteSo much for a consensus that green house gas emissions are warming the planet. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #37 January 26, 2007 I particularly like this part of the petition: The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #38 January 26, 2007 >So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase >our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind. I recall the "doctors" who recommended smoking for people's health. Because it relaxed you, of course. Indeed, one of the strategies of the cigarette companies was to make it appear that there was a healthy debate on whether smoking was really bad for you. It gave smokers an "out" - a way to believe that they weren't really doing themselves any harm by smoking. It worked brilliantly. They spent a few million on PR and reaped hundreds of millions in increased sales. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #39 January 26, 2007 Quote>So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase >our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind. I recall the "doctors" who recommended smoking for people's health. Because it relaxed you, of course. Indeed, one of the strategies of the cigarette companies was to make it appear that there was a healthy debate on whether smoking was really bad for you. It gave smokers an "out" - a way to believe that they weren't really doing themselves any harm by smoking. It worked brilliantly. They spent a few million on PR and reaped hundreds of millions in increased sales. Were there 17,000 US scientists endorsing that practice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #40 January 26, 2007 17,200 from a samples size of? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #41 January 26, 2007 I'm extremely curious to know what the results would be of a verification campaign... emailing 100 randomly chosen from this list with the question, "Did you knowingly sign this petition?" I'm just curious... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #42 January 26, 2007 >What are the other causes of global warming? CO2: Combustion of fossil fuels Clearcutting/burning of forests Methane: Agriculture (primarily rice) Termites Leaks/vents from oil rigs Other gases: CFC releases Ozone N2O Insolation: Solar output cycles (11-year cycle) Incidence cycle (several cycles overlap here) Long term change in output (not yet seen) Land use changes in albedo Other: Cloud nucleation by cosmic radiation Direct heat pollution from thermal power plants High altitude particulates/aerosols (coal burning, volcanoes etc) Contrail-initiated cloud formation Positive feedback effects: Methane from melting permafrost Decreased albedo from melting snow/ice Note that all of the above change the heat budget; some are negative and some are positive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #43 January 26, 2007 QuoteInsolation: Solar output cycles (11-year cycle) Incidence cycle (several cycles overlap here) Long term change in output (not yet seen) So even those notorious deniers at the BBC have got it wrong. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #44 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo much for a consensus that green house gas emissions are warming the planet. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google. O.K. I guess I should dismiss those 17,200 people than signed as crackpots also. It must feel good to have Al Gore on your side instead of all those crackpots. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #45 January 26, 2007 >So even those notorious deniers at the BBC have got it wrong. Long term. In solar terms, long term means a noticeable trend over hundreds of thousands of years. The sun has several shorter-term cycles, including the 11-year sunspot cycle, the 22 year Hale cycle, the 87 year Gleissberg cycle and the 210 year Suess cycle. There are undoubtedly longer cycles we have not yet seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #46 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo much for a consensus that green house gas emissions are warming the planet. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google. O.K. I guess I should dismiss those 17,200 people than signed as crackpots also. It must feel good to have Al Gore on your side instead of all those crackpots. I see you didn't take my advice and do any research on Dr. Art Robinson. His list was discredited years ago as being made of, in part, fictitious names. His original list contained several very famous names, Dr. B.J. Honeycut, Dr. Benjamin Franklin Pierce, Dr. Frank Burns . . . Maybe you remember those names from the TV series M.A.S.H.? I can not, in my wildest dreams, give him any credibility now.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #47 January 26, 2007 QuoteI particularly like this part of the petition: The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. So according to these 17,200 "scientists" we should actually increase our CO2 output for the benefit of all mankind. I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. But if you want to change your hybrid for a SUV, go ahead. It doesn't worry me. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo much for a consensus that green house gas emissions are warming the planet. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google. O.K. I guess I should dismiss those 17,200 people than signed as crackpots also. It must feel good to have Al Gore on your side instead of all those crackpots. I see you didn't take my advice and do any research on Dr. Art Robinson. His list was discredited years ago as being made of, in part, fictitious names. His original list contained several very famous names, Dr. B.J. Honeycut, Dr. Benjamin Franklin Pierce, Dr. Frank Burns . . . Maybe you remember those names from the TV series M.A.S.H.? I can not, in my wildest dreams, give him any credibility now. From the linked website: QuoteOf the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #49 January 26, 2007 QuoteFacts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. I agree. Which is why I do NOT believe anything the man has to say.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #50 January 26, 2007 Google OISM and Petition and you will find lot s of critics of OISM, the petition itself, how it was run, and what the results mean. The petition and OISM sound like a load of baloney TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
