Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I won't hold my breath." Here, educate yourself. Enjoy... <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G..._warming</a> <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a>
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Really plpeters? Prove it. What problems?" From the EPA site: <<While food production may benefit from a warmer climate, the increased potential for droughts, floods and heat waves will pose challenges for farmers. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.>> More here: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...ure.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And then where would Red Robin get their fries? Not Idaho. Nope. Quebec. At least they'd be French fries.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Your links prove nothing, plus giving links as your argument is boring. I have a million links I can give out all day long. It's lazy." Sorry, but I just don't have the time to get a degree on the subject and become a climate expert, which I would need to actually provide the answers to those questions myself. But what I can do is listen to the current scientific consensus instead of the wild fringe – and the consensus is that global warming is real and is happening. And while you may think that you have to “give up your freedoms†to stop it, I don’t agree. But clearly, if you’re going to ignore the scientific community, then I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Wyatt66 "And while you may think that you have to “give up your freedoms†to stop it, I don’t agree. But clearly, if you’re going to ignore the scientific community, then I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise." You have NOT listened to the scientific community. You have been sucked into the global warming fear machine that is lying to you. You have decided to only hear the side that is hysterical and full of nonsense. I gave you a link to 400 scientists who say AGW is bogus. These are guys who head of climate departments in major universities around the world. Read what THEY have to say and you will wonder why you wasted any time worrying about this hoax. I have read both sides for years now and I have NO doubt this is a scam, a hoax, a way to control people. Finally, if every CO2 emission was stopped on the whole planet guess what would happen to the temp? NOTHING It would still go up and down like it has for millions of years.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Wyatt66 Passholder. Still avoiding any tough questions I see. Still insisting on calling me beau. LOL You got crushed on the Limbaugh thread. Think twice before starting another one.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "<a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...teReport" target="_blank">http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...teReport</a>" 400 scientists, huh? Out of how many in the world? Here are just the numbers from the IPCC alone: <<People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors[42]. Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...ributors</a> And that's just contributers to the IPCC report. 400 scientists doesn't seem quite as impressive when seen in that light, now does it? But like I said before, this isn't going to change your mind. It's quite obviously made up on this topic, and nothing I post will change it.
Originally Posted By Wyatt66 plpeters... did you read the link I put up? OK, Give me some actual names on your list from the IPCC who say man made global warming is real. Good luck. You should learn how the IPCC works and how the reports are published. It is so misleading, many scientists have demanded their name be taken off the IPCC reports. I ask for names because you can't get many names of real climate scientists who buy into AGW. Another GREAT book for you... " Scared to Death " It covers scares that turned out to be bogus. The chapter on global warming is really done well and it covers the IPCC in great detail. If I wanted to, I could give you a list that has 20,000 scientists who say AGW is a hoax.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Totally different situation. Brazil is clearing rainforest to plant sugar cane for ethanol. In the U.S. farmers are growing on acreage previously planted.>> I said ethanol was hurting the planet. This supports my argument, don't you think? If there were no market for ethanol, rainforests wouldn't be cut down at this alarming rate. If you can't see the connection....
Originally Posted By woody >>This guy studies YEAST -- what exactly makes him an expert on climate change? You'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.<< I do think the Global Warming consensus is a bunch of nothing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Because you somehow magically know more about it than the majority of climate scientists who study it?
Originally Posted By woody >>Because you somehow magically know more about it than the majority of climate scientists who study it?<< Who knows how many are actually climate scientists?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The bulk of them, presumably, who belong to organizations made up of climate scientists. They tend to be able to get into such organizations easier than people who study yeast. FYI, from Science Magazine: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...702/1686</a> "Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain." (snip) "Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." (snip) "PCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8)."
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
