Co2

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Lordblood

In addition to carbon dioxide fossil fuel combustion emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide- all of which makes water more acidic, and it all comes back down as acid rain, which has proven to change environments drastically. There are plenty of reasons to move away from fossil fuels (and combustion in general) other than global warming.

Then can we assume you have gotten rid of all your vehicles that use fossil fuel? How about your electric, does it come from coal or oil? If so have you disconnected from the line. Kinda like Al Gore riding around in his private jet complaining about carbon footprint. If all of you advocates would give up your use of fossil fuels we all would be better off, no? Until that time....

AKL

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Then can we assume you have gotten rid of all your vehicles that use fossil fuel? How about your electric, does it come from coal or oil? If so have you disconnected from the line. Kinda like Al Gore riding around in his private jet complaining about carbon footprint. If all of you advocates would give up your use of fossil fuels we all would be better off, no? Until that time....

AKL

Oh absolutely, show me a viable option and I'll jump on it. Unfortunately, no viable option exists. But we all know that, the point is that green technology should be emphasized and innovated on. You can't just switch the entire world onto non-carbon energy overnight.

Also, that political argument does not work as an attack to the scientific fact that fossil fuel burning is changing the world dramatically.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Don't know if is "legal" to post this, but if you hit this link you will find some interesting new NASA data on CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AKL

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Don't know if is "legal" to post this, but if you hit this link you will find some interesting new NASA data on CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AKL

careful now, because the link is an op-ed written by a senior fellow at the heartland institute. HI is vehemently opposed to climate change data and has stated that global warming would even be helpful, not harmful. they are so anti-"climate science" that they sponsor the international conference on climate change, which is a twice-yearly get-together for climate change deniers who are so rabidly against any data that shows evidence for climate change, that even moderate skeptics have avoided associating themselves with the group...

[Perfectlap]

What does these 'climate change deniers" have to say about the mercury and other contaminants? Do think those toxins have anti-oxidant and cholestorol lowering properties?

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by tonycarreon

careful now, because the link is an op-ed written by a senior fellow at the heartland institute. HI is vehemently opposed to climate change data and has stated that global warming would even be helpful, not harmful. they are so anti-"climate science" that they sponsor the international conference on climate change, which is a twice-yearly get-together for climate change deniers who are so rabidly against any data that shows evidence for climate change, that even moderate skeptics have avoided associating themselves with the group...

I see, the senior fellow is and "Activist"? And therefore should be taken with skepticism? How about the religious climate change folk, should we be skeptical? How about his evidence, can we look at that first before we rush to name calling?

AKL

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

I see, the senior fellow is and "Activist"? And therefore should be taken with skepticism? How about the religious climate change folk, should we be skeptical? How about his evidence, can we look at that first before we rush to name calling?

AKL

The problem, I suspect, is that this group is using NASA data when it shows that climate change isn't occurring, but would call NASA a "government-funded propaganda machine" when the data would show a trend towards climate change. Brings to mind the BS about people rejecting that the healthcare law would reduce spending because the CBO was fed bad data.

Yes, you should be skeptical about all data until it is proven to hold water on multiple occasions. Such is the nature of science.

I would presume you reject the "hockey stick" model, though that has been put out by the same scientists that put out this data.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Lordblood

The problem, I suspect, is that this group is using NASA data when it shows that climate change isn't occurring, but would call NASA a "government-funded propaganda machine" when the data would show a trend towards climate change. Brings to mind the BS about people rejecting that the healthcare law would reduce spending because the CBO was fed bad data.

Yes, you should be skeptical about all data until it is proven to hold water on multiple occasions. Such is the nature of science.

I would presume you reject the "hockey stick" model, though that has been put out by the same scientists that put out this data.

There are many dissenting voices out there but have not been heard. However more keeps coming out. The Polar Bear scare is another "fact" that is now coming under scrutiny. Yes, we do now and forever have had climate change. The Man Made therefore Tax and regulation is the cure solution is the problem. Also how many records were really broken during this last heat wave (in July mind you)? Central Park NY was broken by a couple of degrees if I am correct and breaks the 1929 record. Now I ask, what was going in in 1929? Global Warming? Tons of CO2? Not enough or too many SUV's or Fords on the road? Too many questions to pass legislation on in my opinion. Also any dissenters are labeled "deniers" and dismissed out of hand thereby ending debate. This only happens when your argument is weak.

AKL