EXXON Mobile
- Started
- Last post
- 152 Responses
- JazX0
Really?
Can you answer those questions then, Mr. Scientist?
Those are just a few that I dug up. If levels were just as high 8,000 years ago according to physical core samples, what does that say.
Right.
- spk0
haha... jazx. there's no point in rebutting your pitiful oil funded arguments - you are a perfect example of why lawyers don't let defendants take the stand.
its too bad this country is run by foolish men like yourself.
a friend of mine is a very well respected geologist at the university of minnesota specializing in climate science - his view is that if mankind doesnt take swift action now on global warming we will see very serious consequences in our lifetimes.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarm…
ever heard about the cod fisheries in newfoundland..?
you are one of the poor sops that thought the fish would never run out.
- JazX0
ahhhhh, insults during an argument, quite mature of you, and typical of Newstoday btw.
Fisheries and oil reserves are different animals my friend. What's that about?
let's go back to my original point. Of course we are emitting high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. That can be measured to an extent. That doesn't mean we are anywhere near levels that have existed in the past and that there aren't other outstanding factors that cause detrimental effects.
- spk0
"The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/2…
no serious scientists argue that global warming is NOT happening...and a serious threat to world/human health.
get with the program jazX.
- JazX0
big deal, that's his opinion and findings. you believe what one man has to say about it just because Bushie told him to shut up. Sad.
"In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
Uhhmmm yeah, try China and India adding to this bigtime as well.
- spk0
what the f*ck is your point jazx?
that its OK to force a repeat of prehistoric carbon levels...?
do we need to school you on what the socio-economic impacts are going to be? and get your republican ass thinking about the cost benefit analysis of NOT getting our carbon emissions undercontrol?
- Rand0
I think of derek's dad at least once a day
- spk0
"that's his opinion and findings. you believe what one man has to say" -jazx (aka smallmind)
do you know what the words "scientific consensus" mean?
there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming and this it is a bad thing for life on this planet.
the only deniers out there are energy company funded hacks.
get with the program. foo
- JazX0
hee hee you make me laugh man really you do. Accusing me being from a certain political party based upon a few posts in a science-oriented thread on a design website.
Just for raising a few questions about the authenticity of 'The Greenhouse Effect' THEORY.
Ahhh designers on science. Cracks me up actually to see you guys not at least doubt a little, which actually is the nature of good science.
Flawed.
- mrdobolina0
I read a figure that 90% of scientists agree. That means nothing then?
- spk0
whats to doubt?
buring fossil fuels creates c02
c02 is a heat trapping gas
temperatures are rising
ice cores prove rapidly rising levels of c02 due to human activity
what the fuck? what do you want?
- JazX0
what the f*ck is your point jazx?
that its OK to force a repeat of prehistoric carbon levels...?
do we need to school you on what the socio-economic impacts are going to be? and get your republican ass thinking about the cost benefit analysis of NOT getting our carbon emissions undercontrol?
spk
(Jan 30 06, 14:57)of course there is no reason to return to prehistoric levels, but that's not to say that it would completely destroy us as a planet, even if it did. Why is it you ignore the other theories that are out there that might be causing CO2 to rise?
I can accept that fuel emmissions need to be curbed and that we strain the Earth's resources. However, even if we do this it might not matter much. Who's to say that it will crub the total effect? Especially since it has happened in the past, recorded in the rock record, without human endeavors.
- spk0
"I can accept that fuel emmissions need to be curbed and that we strain the Earth's resources."
we're making a little headway.
"However, even if we do this it might not matter much."
perhaps - but what choice do we have..? buy a hummer and party on?
less fortunate and less polluting people worldwide cannot hope to make a difference - nor the next generation - its our responsibility to take action against our big business friendly goverment and our own selfish - stupid polluting ways.
.. ill be able to look my nephew in the eyes and say i tried to do what i could to save the world we had - for his generation. i dont know about you jazx - it doesn't sound like it.
- JazX0
c'mon man.
Ultimately, I'm just trying to say that there are other factors that should be taken into consideration and addressed in defense of any theory.
I grow tired of seeing people see what 90% of a certain group believes and think it's gospel.
That's not always the case and if it were, we'd still be believing in a lot of bad science. Because popular thought isn't always correct.
Not that I completely disagree with the findings of that scientist that was hushed. I don't believe any scientist should be hushed.
Get me?
- mrdobolina0
you're sitting on the fence again.
- JazX0
No, no, no... I just like to look at both sides of an argument.
I'd lean more towards that guy's theory being incorrect on certain levels in that he doesn't address those questions I posed or ones like them. Just trying to make sense to spk.
Anyway this is way too broad of an argument with too few scientific facts. Sorta' pointless on a certain level.
_out
- khilled0
buddy from nasa was going to make a public adress about greenhouse gases and was to 'connect the dots' so to speak between global warming industry and future projects and technology but had the public relations people quiet him because they feared it would agrivate the bush administration...mainly because it began to get into policy and basically IDEAs to change it for the public instead of bland 'non bias' information...his message would have been similar to blairs, and bush don't want scientists talking like they got something to say
- spk0
dude. the only people that saying there are two sides to the global warming or that there is a debate - are the oil and coal companies and the clownies they can find/fund to support their assinine arguments about debate.
here mutherfucker - the chairman of shell oil (no pansy liberal) lays it out:
"Oxburgh continued: “No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon that we are at present.” He believes the only feasible solution is carbon sequestration and fears that, “If we don’t have sequestration I see very little hope for the world.”"
http://www.globalwarming.org/art…
game. set. match. - you wanna stick your head in the sand like the rest of the nutcases that don't care about ruining the world - go ahead.
- khilled0
he'll also say anything to keep profits booming and his share holders comfortable about the next dacade...if he says anything that amounts reduction or supports kyoto and threatens the stock price he's not doing his job...he's still full of shit
- khilled0
in other words he won't say a damn thing if it implys a serious reduction