[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

Okay, 3, 5, whatever.

I think those are skewed, albeit slightly. I'd say it's more 10-90. However, even if we were to vanish from the face of the planet today, it would still be close to a century before our traces were returned to normal. The US alone is dumping over 50 tons of co2 daily upwards, and China is opening a new coal factory daily.

I'm afraid the 3-4% figure is correct .... according to those scientists who believe in man-made global warming.
I would suspect that the figure is actually lower. Even so, that means that the USA (estimated 20% conmtributor of GHG emissions, would be about 1/2 of 1% overall contributor. I am searching out the link that Stoner posted claiming the 3-4% figure. It was a while back, but even he didn't dispute the figure in the source he posted.
I've searched & searched. I don't even think it was posted in this thread. Suffice it to say that it was a reputable source, according to our mutual friend.

Absolutely correct. Matter of fact, I've been saying for years that the global warming will, in fact, trigger a mini-ice age as the salinization of the oceans drops (due to glacial melting) and slows down the Atlantic Conveyer Belt. That slows down, the waters in the North Atlantic stop moving, PLUS are less salty, could very easily increase the size of the icepack almost literally over the course of a decade.

Okay then. When/if this cooling begins (hopefully before the entire atmosphere is evaporated. then what will be the result of man's kooky efforts to launch mil;lions of shade umbrellas into orbit or dumping gigatone of Iron dust into the oceans?
I sup[pose then I would agree with man-made climate change .... but the fault will be from the kooks who didn't trust the planet's natural cycles to even themselves out.

The iron dust is actually a rather viable and interesting idea. I know it works on the smaller scales, but I am unsure on the larger, and haven't read any of the reports on it. You should seriously look into it; you may just change your mind. Here's a good link on it.

I will look into it, but I can't imagine how deliberately polluting the oceans will be productive.

Spot on. As I mentioned earlier, an extended period of quiet solar activity has been linked to the mini-ice age 400 or so years ago (or was it 300? too lazy to look it up).

As for Gore, he's a loon.

Well, I'm glad you agree on that mark. Too bad your opinion isn't shared by the majority of elected Democrats, or Democrat voters. (<-- just for you, Bassetman)

The fact of the matter is that if Global warming will be responsible for global cooling then acting rashly could make this next ice age even worse, don't you think? (this assumes, of course, that any action would be significant enough to cause a global climate change)

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

No.
I'm done with your BS and misrepresentations.

Nice to see you too.

[compushlep]

Even after the water has risen past their ignorant arses, some Deniers will obtusely refuse to climb down from their manure loaders ...

[bassetman]

No wonder the right deny the facts!

Congressional hearing heats up over changes to climate reports

Democrats lay out a paper trail that they say shows how non-scientists edited scientists' work to downplay the impact of global warming.
By Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — Government scientists, armed with copies of heavily edited reports, charged Monday that the Bush administration and its political appointees had soft-pedaled their findings on climate change.

The accusations led Democrats and Republicans at the congressional hearing to accuse each other of censorship, smear tactics and McCarthyism.

To underscore their charges of the administration's oil-friendly stance, Democrats grilled an oil lobbyist who was hired by the White House to review government climate change documents and who made hundreds of edits that the lawmakers said minimized the impact of global warming.

"You were a spin doctor," Rep. John A. Yarmuth (D-Ky) told the lobbyist.

Republicans targeted a NASA director who testified about administration pressure, accusing him of political bias, of politicizing his work and of ignoring uncertainties in climate change science.

And they disputed his contention that taxpayer-funded scientists are entitled to free speech. "Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah).

....http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

[bill.aam]

Liberals..... I can't see how giving over 1,400 interviews is somehow considered being "muzzled". At first he says that NASA denied his interview with NPR because "they" didn't want his message out. Later in the hearings he himself states he was denied permission to do the NPR interview because he violated NASA's press policy.. None of this could be about the $250,000 he got from the Heinz foundation.

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.
"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Mr. Deutsch, who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons. Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews , Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions. (Rules, Smules, I'm a liberal, they don't apply to me)

Mr. Hansen received a $250,000 grant from the Heinz foundation

Rest of the Story

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Sure wish he'd come back, though.

ditto. Big time ditto.

But here's the link for you anyhow. Google, my friend, is a tool. So simple a caveman could use it.

http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=10346

here's what I googled to get that.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...22&btnG=Search

[valis]

there are certain undeniable facts out there. Lan named them all. He's correct on them all. The earth IS warming. CO2 IS at it's highest point in history, and that is going back over 100 million years, and man HAS contributed to it, although nowhere near the amount that many people think. The facts are all right in front of everyone's face. All you need to do is look past the spin.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by person

You think I'm ignorant, gee I wonder how you come up with such wonderful observations consider you barley know me?

Or are you just pi**ed off I hijacked the thread?

Hi person,

There is a thread, Malapropisms (LOL) here, in the Random subforum that would love to have your post that I quoted above! I barley know you as well! If I knew you any better would that be due to barley being used in making beer, ale, and whiskey?

-- Tom

[valis]

don't forget the double entendre of what yer called when you are tanked in the U.K.

[lotuseclat79]

Ok, what are you called when you are tanked in the U.K.?

-- Tom

[person]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi person,

There is a thread, Malapropisms (LOL) here, in the Random subforum that would love to have your post that I quoted above! I barley know you as well! If I knew you any better would that be due to barley being used in making beer, ale, and whiskey?

-- Tom

Use it if you want, it's just an example of my crap spelling.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

ditto. Big time ditto.

But here's the link for you anyhow. Google, my friend, is a tool. So simple a caveman could use it.

http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=10346

here's what I googled to get that.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...22&btnG=Search

Many thanks, Valis.

In Stoner's defense he was refering to the geological record, and not any modern measurment.

Something I failed to read in his quote.

Anyway, the 107 degree history, while only a theory, is likely based on certain details in the oceanic paleologic record.

Which, BTW, points directly to the cyclical nature of global climate change with the absence of human contribution.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Ok, what are you called when you are tanked in the U.K.?

-- Tom

Another word for "whizzed".

[valis]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Ok, what are you called when you are tanked in the U.K.?

-- Tom

pi$$ed.

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Which, BTW, points directly to the cyclical nature of global climate change with the absence of human contribution.

which is what I've been saying for about 10 years now. It's all cyclical. The kicker is the that the co2 is the highest it's ever been, and there will be some ramifications from that, no matter how you slice it. But yes, it's all cyclical, and remarkably regular about it as well.