Environmentalists and Musclecars

[Troy]

I think its funny that gasses emitted by everyday cows (yes those things with horns that make milk) are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the automobiles worldwide.

I say you're wrong! 





I don't think milk cows have horns.

Troy

[Big Lebowski]

  Oh they're coming for your Charger, don't kid yourself. The Kyoto treaty "ratified" means your Charger and everything pre '82 or w/ an open tank vent system (your Charger) is on the list.

  BTW...The little Ice Age (1400-1800) made the Earth's temps go down 2-7 degrees, then back up 2-7 degrees untill in the 1850's where man added another 1 degree, mostly before 1940. Total Bull$hit.

[bull]

I think its funny that gasses emitted by everyday cows (yes those things with horns that make milk) are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the automobiles worldwide.

I say you're wrong! 





I don't think milk cows have horns.

Troy

Troy, you city boy! Although you are partially correct. Dairy farmers (pretty much all farmers and ranchers) prefer polled animals to prevent injuries to close-quartered cows but several breeds of cows and many if not most dairy cows have/had horns.

"CATTLE

Most dairy cattle look as if they are polled (hornless). Actually the five leading breeds of dairy cattle in terms of purebred registrations; Holstein, Jersey, Brown Swiss, Ayrshire and Guernsey and all horned. There are polled (hornless) strains in the Holstein and Jersey breeds but these are not important as they amount to less than 5% of the total numbers. So, if you look at a cow and she has horns you can believe that she really does have them. However, things aren't always as they seem. Even if she does not have horns, She might really (genetically).She won't tell you, you'll just have to learn to tell by looking if they have been removed.

HORN REMOVAL

In most dairy cattle systems, horns are removed by ten days of age. At that age the horns are very small and are easily removed by various methods."

http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci103/horns.html University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

[jamie1974]

   This is an interesting article: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
   

   From the article (written by one of the premier climatologists in Canada):

"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."

[pettyfan43]

   This is an interesting article: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
   

   From the article (written by one of the premier climatologists in Canada):

"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."

Yeah but that doesn't count, He's not a liberal and doesn't buy into the alarmists theories and has not aligned himself with the democrat party and doesn't support algore's goffy BS movie! There for he can't a be a credible scientist. I mean he can't be correct if he doesn't agree with the liberals can he?

[defiance]

Liberal?  Democratic party?  So, our current president is a liberal democrat?  Since he has specifically stated that the evidence has now convinced him (previously a steadfast critic of the theory) that global warming is a reality, and that it is man-driven, does that mean he's now a liberal Democrat?
This has nothing to do with liberals, nor does it have to do with democrats.  Once again, attacking the credibility of the arguer without confronting the argument.  What a surprise.

Meanwhile, Tim Ball is on the payroll of the "Friends of Science", a "non-profit group" funded primarily by the contributions from oil industry.  Another surprise.  Furthermore, he was actually a professor of Geography at Winnipeg, not Climatology.  His Ph.D was Climatology, but according to the documents of a libel suit the man filed against Dan Johnson (who called him on these and other lies), there have been repeated deceptions by the guy. 

This is the kind of crap that comes up when you really start digging on some of these people.  It's really sad how effective this sort of short-sighted obfuscation is at dilluting the truth.

[jamie1974]

Liberal?  Democratic party?  So, our current president is a liberal democrat?  Since he has specifically stated that the evidence has now convinced him (previously a steadfast critic of the theory) that global warming is a reality, and that it is man-driven, does that mean he's now a liberal Democrat?
This has nothing to do with liberals, nor does it have to do with democrats.  Once again, attacking the credibility of the arguer without confronting the argument.  What a surprise.

Meanwhile, Tim Ball is on the payroll of the "Friends of Science", a "non-profit group" funded primarily by the contributions from oil industry.  Another surprise.  Furthermore, he was actually a professor of Geography at Winnipeg, not Climatology.  His Ph.D was Climatology, but according to the documents of a libel suit the man filed against Dan Johnson (who called him on these and other lies), there have been repeated deceptions by the guy. 

This is the kind of crap that comes up when you really start digging on some of these people.  It's really sad how effective this sort of short-sighted obfuscation is at dilluting the truth.

  So if Greenpeace or the Sierra Club pay then there's no agenda?

  Here are some additional scientists who oppose global warming concensus:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

[pettyfan43]

LOOK You and I are never gonna agree, Simple as that. I don't buy into the BS theory, I thing the whole deal is a load of CRAP and even TODAY there was a story about the Greenland and the fishing industry being hindered BY THE AMOUNT OF ICE in the area right now. The most that has been in that area in over 40 YEARS.

There is a LOT of evidence that the earths temperature cycle is a natural phemomenon. Not so much of a theory. EVIDENCE that it has DONE THIS BEFORE. About every 1500 years or so the sun has temperature fluctuations.

This is what seems to be happening again.

The democrats and liberals seem to be the ones REALLY pushing this THEORY.  Yet at the same time, the same LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS that seem to be so concerned about the Environment and the earth are the ones with multiple LARGE SUVs and fly in private jets and have MULTIPLE 15 thousand square foot homes.

I'll believe them a little more when THEY start acting like they give a crap!

I do NOT agree with what you say and I DO NOT buy into this crap, SORRY I DO NOT. You made comment about "armchair PHDs" and I believe you should clean up your own back yard before you start in on mine. In other words THE THEORY YOU ARE PUSHING IS NOT THE ONLY THEORY. You are absolutely unwilling to  accept that it COULD well be a natural phenomenon. You are absolutely convinced algore is right. I say the whole thing is a scam. Lots of "Professors and scientists" are getting paid to come up with these findings. As I said, CAN"T GIVE UP all that Grant money and all those "Donations".

Hell there isn't any true proof that we have ANYTHING to do with GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS A THEORY !

The FACT is that THIS PLANET goes through TEMPERATURE CYCLES, and the scientist in the story has just as much credence as the people you keep bringing up. As I said before, I LOOK AT BOTH SIDES of issues BEFORE I make a decision on what i believe, and to be blunt about it, I just DON'T SEE enough evidence to say that the theory you are damned and determined is fact really is. PERIOD, I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU and there sure seems to be a  money trail that leads back to the liberals and the socialists in the democratic party.

They are so concerned about the planet but do NOT give a crap about the people in it! They are so concerned about making Ethanol so we can have "green fuel" that they are literally starving people in south american countries because those countries can't afford CORN (this is what ethanol is made from) which is a STAPLE of their diet.

Basically they have said in so many words Eat Less Corn! In some of these places this is the BASIS for their diets!

There are way too many things in this world we still don't understand, but starving people because you want "clean Fuel" is a bunch of crap.

I wouldn't call the President a liberal democrat, but he isn't a scientist either. He can only do so much, and if enough people have told him this, maybe they have convinced him. He has however bent to meet the democrats on certain issues for political gain on other issues, this is NOT out of the realm of possibility.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD AND I CAN NOT SPEAK FOR HIM!

As for attacking the arguer, you REALLY should read some of your replies to me. You have done this on numerous occasions. In several replies to me, the FIRST THING YOU DID was to try to discredit me.

As I said I DO NOT agree with you on this. THat is just how it is, and unless you have some really serious proof, I don't see changing my mind anytime soon.

[jamie1974]

  Once again, attacking the credibility of the arguer without confronting the argument.  What a surprise.

Meanwhile, Tim Ball is on the payroll of the "Friends of Science", a "non-profit group" funded primarily by the contributions from oil industry.  Another surprise.  Furthermore, he was actually a professor of Geography at Winnipeg, not Climatology.  His Ph.D was Climatology, but according to the documents of a libel suit the man filed against Dan Johnson (who called him on these and other lies), there have been repeated deceptions by the guy. 

This is the kind of crap that comes up when you really start digging on some of these people.  It's really sad how effective this sort of short-sighted obfuscation is at dilluting the truth.

   Defiance, you criticize the act of ad hominem, and then in your next paragraph you launch into your own  attack on the credibility of the Timothy Ball without confronting the arguments he makes against global warming.

[defiance]

It's not ad hominem if his only argument is that he is credible and says it is so.  I apologize if I've overlooked some other argument, but the article you linked is him ranting about his qualifications and indicating that he should be listened to because of those qualifications.  In a case where personal qualifications are the issue, discussing the flaws of those qualifications is not ad hominem.

Furthermore, YES, if Greenpeace or the Sierra Club pay then there's DEFINITELY an agenda - but the majority of scientists discussing this issue are NOT - they're on the payroll of governments worldwide, many of whom (such as ours) were opponents of the theory for quite some time - they're on the payroll of universities.  And yes, there are also some on the payroll of clearly biased organizations.  But when you eliminate those that are provably biased (on BOTH sides), you end up with a whole lot of people still saying there's a problem.

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering.  I've given you MOUNDS of credible evidence that the theory of human-driven global warming is credible, that detractors are in the overwhelming minority, and that so far every detractor I've personally looked at has credibility issues.  If at this point you still can't see the reality, there's clearly some reason you don't want to.

[65post]

How can these Environmentalists tell what is going to happen 10 -20 -100 years from now when they cannot  tell FOR CERTAIN what next weeks weather is going to be ! Give me a break. Until these guys can GUARANTEE the SHORT TERM  I am in NO WAY going to let them TELL me what to expect 100 years from now.These are part of the same gang that say humans started from tad poles who later on grew into apes then into human beings.Sometimes I wonder if some did.Right now in Quebec if you have a 95 and up SUV or PU that has anything over a 5 Ltr. motor you now have to pay an additional $125.00 ( TAX )  when you put plates on them.And when you go to put a set of new tires on you pay an extra $3.00 ( TAX )  per tire.All this money supposedly goes toward helping the ENVIRONMENT.Governments are not all turned off by this whole global warming thing because it will be another CASH COW for them.God help us. Terry

[jamie1974]

It's not ad hominem if his only argument is that he is credible and says it is so.  I apologize if I've overlooked some other argument, but the article you linked is him ranting about his qualifications and indicating that he should be listened to because of those qualifications.  In a case where personal qualifications are the issue, discussing the flaws of those qualifications is not ad hominem.

Furthermore, YES, if Greenpeace or the Sierra Club pay then there's DEFINITELY an agenda - but the majority of scientists discussing this issue are NOT - they're on the payroll of governments worldwide, many of whom (such as ours) were opponents of the theory for quite some time - they're on the payroll of universities.  And yes, there are also some on the payroll of clearly biased organizations.  But when you eliminate those that are provably biased (on BOTH sides), you end up with a whole lot of people still saying there's a problem.

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering.  I've given you MOUNDS of credible evidence that the theory of human-driven global warming is credible, that detractors are in the overwhelming minority, and that so far every detractor I've personally looked at has credibility issues.  If at this point you still can't see the reality, there's clearly some reason you don't want to.

    I am not convinced that global warming is or is not a reality, and I don't know at this point who I can trust. Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is a reason I remain reluctant to acknowledge that global warming caused by human intervention. It threatens a hobby that I love. The average american and scientist doesn't have as much at stake. It doesn't threaten them. To them, all it means is driving another rice box to work that has a different motor in it. Or maybe upgrading their furnace. Or having to buy margarine from a paper carton. So before I'm willing to agree that there is a problem, you better believe I am going to go through every nook and cranny with a magnifying glass...constantly challenging the evidence brought before me. The typical American has no motivation to be so skeptical.

  Don't make the mistake of equating skepticism with delusion. Science and the media have proven time and time again how irresponsible reporting and spinning of events can influence individuals. So if I lack faith in the motivations of the masses, its not for lack of justification or sound judgement.

   I doubt that I would be as skeptical as I am if the environmentalists were not threatening an important part of my life. I think that I would be much more willing to embrace the possibility of global warming if environmentalists could find a way to clean up the problem without threatening my way of life first. I raised the question in an earlier post. Why is it that instead of leaving our lifestyles unscathed and focusing on taking existing co2 out of the air, environmentalists seem to take the stance that we should change our lifestyles first and find methods of subtracting co2 second.

   I would think that if they took that kind of an approach it would not threaten industry and individuals lifestyles...thereby lessening much resistance they are experiencing from folks much like myself.

   

[Brock Samson]

this is great!