[bassetman]

Originally Posted by valis

That's not science, though. That's a study that was flawed from the outset. I could do a study on length neck of a giraffe versus a hippo and get favorable results, no matter who funded it.

Simple physics denotes that the caddy should (*should*) be safer in a head-on collision, especially as the beetle's front end was largely empty space, where the caddy's was a big ol' hunk of DEEEEtroit eye-ron.

You got it! So untill we get the study or see a review of it we don't know how it was designed.

[bill.aam]

Al Gore Unveils Solution to Global Warming


This Product may save the world

Washington, DC—
Al Gore is about to launch a product that could potentially cut greenhouse gases by an estimated 21% and may also save the world, if it's not too late already.

The product, an anti gas liquid, which will be marketed as 'Al's Anti-Gas Cow Formula', was developed by Al Gore himself. Tipper Gore helped with the testing of the product.

Newsbender interviewed Al Gore at the premeire of his new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore conveniently explained why this amazing product is so important.

"Methane is a major cause of global warming, and cows are a leading producer of methane. If we can get all the farmers of the world to begin administering 'the formula' to their herds, we may be able to save the earth before it's too late. At $4.99 a bottle, it's a steal."

The former Vice President told us that he came up with the idea while spending the night in his barn.

"Tipper and I had a little spat over who gets to hold the remote control, so I decided to spend the night in the barn. Well, I don't know what it was but something just kept telling me, Al you must find a solution to cow flatulence. The world is counting on you."


Mr. Gore also told us he plans on introducing a product to help cows stop burping, which is another leading cause of global warming. It will be known as 'Al's Burp Be Gone Cow Formula'. The launch of 'Burp Be Gone' had to be pushed back due to some unanticipated side effects. "Tipper had a bad reaction to the dose I gave her. She basically started turning blue and had to be rushed to the local veternarian, but we'll work it out."

All the profits from 'Al's Anti-Gas' will reportedly go toward construction of 'Al Gore's Ark', which he's currently in the process of building. The Ark is expected to be operational by the summer of 2012, just in case the 'Anti-Gas' and 'Anti-burp' formulas prove to be too little too late in the fight against global warming and the oceans flood the earth.


In the attached pictures ,Al gives a dose to a cow, then he waits for the results

[bassetman]

Bill, did you have A science class in HS? Assuming you are out!

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Bill, did you have A science class in HS? Assuming you are out!

I see we have another one...

[compushlep]

There is NO debate among credible climate scientists about whether or not climate change is real ... that debate is over, long over.

There's irrefutable evidence on which the overwhelming majority of scientists agree, that human activity is responsible for the change. IPCC, which is one of the largest scientific bodies ever put together on any scientific issue (2,000+ climate scientists from 100+ countries) has made conclusions/findings which were endorsed by the National Academies of Science of all G-8 countries, plus China, Brazil and India.

The Royal Society of Canada – together with the national academies of fifteen other nations – also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part:
"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change."


Yet there remain "Skeptic" or "Deniers" ...

" -- these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly – for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public, and policy makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change."

The above was condensed from this article, read it if you want ... I say 'IF' because I notice that most local non-scientific deniers on Civ Deb don't bother reading what they don't like to 'hear', nevermind trying to understand it ...

There are many great links in the article, addressing additional topics like: 'Who are the skeptics?' or 'Who funds the skeptics', with the one more pertinent to this thread called:

'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' - Responses to the most common skeptic arguments

I'd suggest searching its extensive response database to save time and 'breath' before anyone starts to argue again that climate change is not real, or that it is not caused by humans, or that credible scientists do not agree, etc.

[valis]

and the debunking:

In a recent flurry of media releases, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) warned of "Dire Global Climate Consequences Ahead... with up to a 10.5ºC warming in the next century and devastating rises in seas levels and more killer storms". In their 2001 report they claim that "climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region of earth." They have cited what they believe to be as evidence that the disastrous warming has already begun. They believe the climate catastrophe will be global in nature and lead to potentially enormous loss of life.

Not all of us believe that we have seen or will see catastrophic global warming. We challenged the magnitude of the current and future warming and the notion that Greenhouse gases are largely responsible for any observed warming in the story Global Warming - Is It For Real? Are Greenhouse Gases To Blame?. We even presented evidence for a possible global cooling in the near future due to changes that have been occurring in the oceans and on the sun in that story and in the story Quieter, Longer Solar Cycle Number 23 Could Signal Significant Climate Shift.

link

[compushlep]

Debunking my arse ... let D'Aleo put his 'interpretations' in front of a peer panel of credible climate scientists and then see how it holds up. Why doesn't he write a paper and present it officially instead of spouting in the media in the hopes of confusing an audience who doesn't know any better?

Nooo ... he's doing exactly what the article I posted pointed to ... 'speaking' to the media/general public, in order to muddle.

[valis]

I wouldn't exactly call that pandering. I would call it showing the flaws of a few panicky scientists. Yes, mankind has had an impact on the weather. However, the earth's weather IS cyclical, no matter how much you wish to ignore it, and while we've affected it, I hardly think that we've affected it to the level that your crew of super scientists state.

btw, you can add whitley streiber to that list of yours; he co-wrote a book with another dingbat called 'The Coming Global Superstorm' that deals with this also. God alone knows why my dad gave it to me. I had to spend a weekend up there de-programming him.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by valis

I wouldn't exactly call that pandering. I would call it showing the flaws of a few panicky scientists. Yes, mankind has had an impact on the weather. However, the earth's weather IS cyclical, no matter how much you wish to ignore it, and while we've affected it, I hardly think that we've affected it to the level that your crew of super scientists state.

btw, you can add whitley streiber to that list of yours; he co-wrote a book with another dingbat called 'The Coming Global Superstorm' that deals with this also. God alone knows why my dad gave it to me. I had to spend a weekend up there de-programming him.

Neither would I call it 'pandering' ... it was a poor choice of words, so I edited it out. But the rest I said stands.

You are prime candidate for carefully reading my earlier post, and I don't mean that with disrespect ... you're just confused as most "Skeptics" are.

[valis]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Neither would I call it 'pandering' ... it was a poor choice of words, so I edited it out.

was going to say......I quit drinking 9 years ago, and I'm pretty damn sure pandering was there a minute ago.....

[valis]

Originally Posted by compushlep

You are prime candidate for carefully reading my earlier post, and I don't mean that with disrespect ... you're just confused as most "Skeptics" are.

I'm not a skeptic, and I'm a bit more educated on this subject than you would think at first glance. I've done my research; I know when and why the last ice age was, I also know that carbon emissions are high now, but not as high as they have been in the past. So be careful when you cast that first stone, comp; you know not whom you will hit.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by valis

I'm not a skeptic, and I'm a bit more educated on this subject than you would think at first glance. I've done my research; I know when and why the last ice age was, I also know that carbon emissions are high now, but not as high as they have been in the past. So be careful when you cast that first stone, comp; you know not whom you will hit.

Fair enough ... but have you discussed your research findings with a climate scientist? A credible one?

By the way, I don't 'wish to ignore' anything. I do have an extensive background in meteorology as it pertains to aviation, as well as a long practical background in research ... so I'd like to think I'm able to at least read and interpret scientific reports

If I haven't done the investigative leg work myself, I tend to rely a lot more on what the experts say, not on what some 'debunker' with questionable motives may put in the media.

Unless and until that 'debunker' is prepared to back up his claims, interpretations, 'research', or whatever, in front of a panel of expert credible authorities on the subject, what he has to say is nothing but speculation ... no matter how presentable he makes it look.



PS I don't normally talk about my background, but in this case I pre-emptively mentioned it because of what transpired here earlier in this thread. My Curriculum Vitae can be PM'ed to any non-believers

<edited sp>

[valis]

no reason to pm me anything; all my research is done due to insomnia and a general inquisitiveness. But I've read enough to know that not ALL of global warming is anthropologenic.

more later, it's getting late here.
v

[valis]

here's a fun little link on the matter....I hadn't realized just how much the climate had fluctuated over the eon's......

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[lighthouse]

Someone was getting a bee in their proverbial bonnet about the taxation on engine size of a vehicle a while ago - might have had something to do with the fact that he had a petrol guzzling 4.8 litre TransAm - which is a tad excessive for any country particularly this one. Talk to anyone who had a Rover 3.5 in the late 70s-80s about that one!