| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author
 |
Message |
Wolfman
Super XM Fan
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 10338
Location: Williston, ND
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Daninsky wrote: | | Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present? |
Why? because too many of the ones that you select to preach your religion TOTALLY ignore ANY evidence that does not fit the agenda of your political party.
_________________
2012 Chevy Volt (7k)
2012 Ram 1500 Quad Cab 4x4(6k)
2004 Saturn Ion Redline (9k)
1996 Tiffin Allegro Bay (43k)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32158
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present? |
Why? because too many of the ones that you select to preach your religion TOTALLY ignore ANY evidence that does not fit the agenda of your political party. |
| Quote: | Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
The most extreme change in Earth surface conditions during the Cenozoic Era began just after the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs approximately 55.0 million years ago. This event, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), was associated with rapid (in geological terms) global warming, profound changes in ecosystems, and major perturbations in the carbon cycle.
Global temperatures rose by about 6 °C (11 °F) over a period of approximately 20,000 years. That is a 0.0003 °C (.00055 °F) increase per year. |
damn that man-made global warmin' to hell
| Quote: | Snowball Earth
The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 Ma (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. There are a number of unanswered questions, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water. |
damn that man-made global coolin' to hell.
| Quote: | It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot. |
damn that lerner and loewe to hell
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32158
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what would evidence of non-climate hotifyin' look like?
dumbfuck?
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGunslinger
Gone to pot. Poaster of the Weak weener.
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 18525
Location: was here
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| donc13 wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | I get the distinct feeling that you guys feel that an accident at a nuclear power plant is acceptable collateral damage for 'progress'; but you feel that a possible nuclear strike by Iran would be the end of the world and must be prevented at all cost.
Hell - it's not a feeling - it's the Sky-Gods honest truth.
WTF is wrong with you people?
| Quote: |
Here is the list of U.S. reactors using the GE Mark 1 design:
Reactor Location Size Year operation began
Browns Ferry 1 Decatur, AL 1065 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 2 Decatur, AL 1118 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 3 Decatur, AL 1114 MW 1976
Brunswick 1 Southport, NC 938 MW 1976
Brunswick 2 Southport, NC 900 MW 1974
Cooper Nebraska City, NE 760 MW 1974
Dresden 2 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Dresden 3 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids, IA 581 MW 1974
Hatch 1 Baxley, GA 876 MW 1974
Hatch 2 Baxley, GA 883 MW 1978
Fermi 2 Monroe, MI 1122 MW 1985
Hope Creek Hancocks Brdg, NJ 1061 MW 1986
Fitzpatrick Oswego, NY 852 MW 1974
Monticello Monticello, MN 572 MW 1971
Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego, NY 621 MW 1974
Oyster Creek Toms River, NJ 619 MW 1971
Peach Bottom 2 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1973
Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1974
Pilgrim Plymouth, MA 685 MW 1972
Quad Cities 1 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Quad Cities 2 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 620 MW 1973
|
|
The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste, and that is exercabated by us having no place to put it, so it is stored ON SITE like at Fukishima and we know what happened to it there.
Had Yucca Mt. been opened and high level waste been stored there, that would be less and less of an issue. But people when ballistic about how the waste would be shipped to Yucca Mt. But those same people don't go ballistic about how the fuel gets TO the reactor in the first place.
And yea, Chernoble was an accident, more "acceptable" to the world than Iran driving a nuke into Tel Aviv and setting it off. |
Thank You Doc for speaking some common sense.
I need some help here to get through the fog. 
_________________
Went looking for intelligent life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daninsky
Thug 4 life
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9892
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present? |
Why? because too many of the ones that you select to preach your religion TOTALLY ignore ANY evidence that does not fit the agenda of your political party. |
I simply go by science's best evidence.
Can you find a scientific org that says man-made climate change is untrue?
The only people being selective, with an agenda, and dogmatic beliefs are the deniers.
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32158
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Hoaxland wrote: | what would evidence of non-climate hotifyin' look like?
dumbfuck? |
dumbfuck?
if its hot, its because of global warmin' if its cold, its because of global warmin'. whether the glaciers advance or retreat -- global warmin'.
so how would you falsify a theory of man-made climate change?
you're a man of Science, you should understand this concept.
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daninsky
Thug 4 life
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9892
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Hoaxland wrote: | | Richard Hoaxland wrote: | | what would evidence of non-climate hotifyin' look like? |
if its hot, its because of global warmin' if its cold, its because of global warmin'. whether the glaciers advance or retreat -- global warmin'.
so how would you falsify a theory of man-made climate change? |
lol wut?
are you trying to confuse weather with Climate Change, again?
Seemingly the most intelligent conservative here, and this lameness is the best you can do?
All the answers to all your questions are but a click away:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32158
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daninsky wrote: | | Richard Hoaxland wrote: | | Richard Hoaxland wrote: | | what would evidence of non-climate hotifyin' look like? |
if its hot, its because of global warmin' if its cold, its because of global warmin'. whether the glaciers advance or retreat -- global warmin'.
so how would you falsify a theory of man-made climate change? |
lol wut?
are you trying to confuse weather with Climate Change, again?
Seemingly the most intelligent conservative here, and this lameness is the best you can do?
All the answers to all your questions are but a click away:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arhives/2007/05/start-here/ |
do you know what falsifying a theory means? I'm asking you. I'm not going to read your wall of weather reports.
I'm wondering if you have any idea what you're talking about, or just repeating what you've read somewhere.
how would a scientist falsify a theory of man-made global weathering?
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XM in Dallas
Moderator/XMelot #3/XM Suck-up/PLM/IE8-elot
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 46025
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donc13 wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | Waymore wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | Nuclear is still too scary for my preference.
I did an insurance job down next to the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in Monroe Michigan area years ago. Place was right on the river and whole area looked like some old backwoods lakefront with modest shacks and dirt roads laid out like a bad trailer park...
..........
So when Fukushima went critical after the earthquake/tsunami in Japan and they put out 50 mile alert I looked on map and saw that I am well within that sort of zone at 45 miles from Fermi.
......
Maybe I'm just paranoid; but if you live within 50 miles or so of a nuke plant: could they ever evacuate everyone in the 50 mile circle in time?
....... |
I'm 35 miles from Shearon Harris, I've been here since '83 and only remember one somewhat scary incident .....
now the only thing scary is that security unionized and they probably still aren't up to code with federal fire safety regulations |
There are 25 Mark One Nuclear plants in the US that are active.
Fukushima were Mark One designs. |
Misplaced fear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html |
No it is not: without waste storage we can all rely upon each nuclear site becomes an ever growing pile of potential disaster.
Fukushima showed the waste to be as big or bigger of a problem as the fuel in use.
Saying not to worry about the waste is like saying don't worry about the deficit or don't worry about shoreline erosion; sooner or later you just can't ignore some things.
Lots of people get all worked up about Iran getting nukes; the worst case scenario with an Iranian bomb matches the worst case scenario with a meltdown.
Then we look at New Hampshires Yankee nuke plant and the leaking radioactive isotopes into the ground water and we realize it's a Mark One design and we shrug off the alarm bells even though we have no clear idea where the leak is...
No: we aren't as smart as the government and industry hacks want you to believe.
The NRC wanted to shut every Mark One reactor down in the 70's; but decided that to admit they were that dangerous and that the science had been that flawed would be to deal a death blow to the entire nuclear industry.
Be afraid; be very afraid. |
Did you read the article? And it doesn't even address the explosions at fossil fuel plants that we've seen for years. We have actual deaths in the United States from burning fossil fuels, but we have potential deaths from nuclear. Whenever there's any kind of issue at a nuclear plant, the press goes into a frenzy. But you never see stories about the pollution deaths that we have year in and year out. |
And you do know, that if a coal plant had to operate under NRC regulations, they'd be shut down due to radon emissions, don't you?
People absoultely freak out at the word "radiation" with NO concern for the amount or type of radiation. |
Yeah, that's not surprising. I wonder if the nuclear alarmists fly to their conferences. If so, they've probably sustained more radiation than anyone ever has in the U.S. as the result of a nuclear accident.
_________________
Classic Vinyl/Classic Rewind: Why have one great channel when you can have two crappy ones instead?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XM in Dallas
Moderator/XMelot #3/XM Suck-up/PLM/IE8-elot
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 46025
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present? |
Why? because too many of the ones that you select to preach your religion TOTALLY ignore ANY evidence that does not fit the agenda of your political party. |
And because...ummm...it's easier to predict the past than the future.
_________________
Classic Vinyl/Classic Rewind: Why have one great channel when you can have two crappy ones instead?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XM in Dallas
Moderator/XMelot #3/XM Suck-up/PLM/IE8-elot
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 46025
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daninsky wrote: | | Wolfman wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present? |
Why? because too many of the ones that you select to preach your religion TOTALLY ignore ANY evidence that does not fit the agenda of your political party. |
I simply go by science's best evidence.
Can you find a scientific org that says man-made climate change is untrue?
The only people being selective, with an agenda, and dogmatic beliefs are the deniers. |
Yeah, except that little e-mail incident where they swept contradicting evidence under the rug. Good job trying to minimize that, by the way.
_________________
Classic Vinyl/Classic Rewind: Why have one great channel when you can have two crappy ones instead?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TRG
Super XM Fan
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 17957
Location: Great Desert Southwest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daninsky wrote: | | TRG wrote: | | donc13 wrote: | | People absolutely freak out at the word "radiation" with NO concern for the amount or type of radiation. |
This parallel is fitting in the "global warming" thread. Natural warming cycles are widely accepted. However, unsubstantiated theories regarding man affecting said cycles make the alarmists go psycho. "Radiation" is another one of words like "global warming" that make the alarmists "freak out" as you put it. If it were not for solar radiation the earth would be a very cold, dead place. |
By "alarmists" do you mean every scientific organisation the world over? |
No, just the ones getting paid to say that man is to blame.
| Daninsky wrote: | | And by "unsubstantiated theories" do you mean decades of scientific data? |
No, a few decades doesn't even scratch the surface. We need to go back millions of years. When we do we see that there have been sharp increases in warming long before man stepped foot on the planet. Your global warming gods discard way too much data that doesn't fit your little panacea.
.
_________________
Praying for our brothers and sisters devastated by tornados in Texas and Oklahoma
http://www.redcross.org/
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
needmoredecibels
Super XM Fan
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 26302
Location: Joisey, exit 5
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daninsky wrote: | are you trying to confuse weather with Climate Change, again?
Seemingly the most intelligent conservative here, and this lameness is the best you can do? |
When the argument is weak, deflect by telling people they are confused about what their terminology means.
_________________
It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our job to arrange the meeting. - US Marine billboard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32158
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| needmoredecibels wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | are you trying to confuse weather with Climate Change, again?
Seemingly the most intelligent conservative here, and this lameness is the best you can do? |
When the argument is weak, deflect by telling people they are confused about what their terminology means. |
dumbfucky can't explain his science, and apparently doesn't really understand how science works in real life -- he still has no idea what it means to falsify a hypothesis. he's satisfied with his wall o' weather reports. he's got the faith of a three year old child.
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daninsky
Thug 4 life
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9892
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| XM in Dallas wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: |
The only people being selective, with an agenda, and dogmatic beliefs are the deniers. |
Yeah, except that little e-mail incident where they swept contradicting evidence under the rug. Good job trying to minimize that, by the way. |
Huh. Minimize what? there was never any there there except right-wing accusations.
Please do some homework I know you are much smarter that you've presented yourself the last few days.
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
