Retread ZOT! Who is the moderator in this thread?

[PATRICKHENRY REPUBLIC]

I would like to get permission to post a question to other Freepers. TY.

[rottndog]

I guess the lameness factor depends on how much other people's money they spend. I guess that would make congress the most lame.

But once you're in lame-land, gradations really don't matter too much.

[sionnsar]

Now THAT'S a Troll's Wet Dream....

Almost, but not quite. Around here they wanted to spend billions to elevate I-90 through the wilderness areas so the animals could pass underneath.

Beyond the expense, can you imagine the millions to billions of tons of earth-warming global-greenhouse CO2 gas that such structures would cause? The greenies wanted it... but we conservatives saved the Earth (Mother) from their wastrel wishes and destructive desires.

And do you think we ever got any thanks from them...?

[sionnsar]

I guess the lameness factor depends on how much other people's money they spend. I guess that would make congress the most lame.

That's dangerousness. Lameness is the stupidity with which they waste it.

[rottndog]

Not to mention all the Global Warming gases released in it's construction.....

But they really fooled you--while you were using resources to fight the elevated highway, they were gleefully hard at work coming up with other ways to waste your money on their religion.

[sionnsar]

Hm. Still venting...

At least I have my tagline back.

[rottndog]

Speaking of Global Warming *choke* *gag* *snort*, I posted this the other night, but didn't get any response. What do you think?

"One thing I have wondered about concerning CO2 from man-made combustion....

People think we burn a lot of things today, but how much burning was going on during WWII? Not only was Industrial capacity vastly increased, running 24/7/365 with NO environmental restrictions on emissions, but all of the combustion involved with running the war machine on the war fronts, added to all the literal burning of vast swaths of Europe and Asia, added to all the combustion involved with transport of supplies between continents, added to all the oil burned when oil tankers were torpedoed at sea....And what was the result on the world climate with all those things considered? I don't think there were any effects on the climate. At the very least, why is there no accounting of this when discussing the increase in CO2 levels over the course of the 20th century?

And then consider that Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines belched out more CO2 than all of mankind in it's history, in a period of weeks, and we never hear how THAT affected the climate.

It's all a bunch of hogwash---or as I put it, the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated in all of human history.

Al Gore is a Moron, or certifiably insane, or both. The people that follow him rightfully earn the title of GORONS!
3,019 posted on 03/22/2007 9:07:13 PM PDT by rottndog (If you don't believe in the abolition of government run schools, your views aren't radical enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3013 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]"

[NicknamedBob]

"Guess I can tiptoe in and quietly ping the list when nobody's looking... "

Who rang that bell? Can't you see the sign that says, "Bell Out of Order"?

[rottndog]

All I saw was a sign that said "This Sign Out Of Order"...

[Monkey Face]

No speeding accidents there, for sure!

[Monkey Face]

You got no responses because everyone agreed with you!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Global warming....SNORT GIGGLE CHORTLE GUFFAW !!

[sionnsar]

People think we burn a lot of things today, but how much burning was going on during WWII? Not only was Industrial capacity vastly increased, running 24/7/365 with NO environmental restrictions on emissions, but all of the combustion involved with running the war machine on the war fronts, added to all the literal burning of vast swaths of Europe and Asia, added to all the combustion involved with transport of supplies between continents, added to all the oil burned when oil tankers were torpedoed at sea....And what was the result on the world climate with all those things considered? I don't think there were any effects on the climate. At the very least, why is there no accounting of this when discussing the increase in CO2 levels over the course of the 20th century?

I dunno. Things were no doubt rather dirtier then (and it got worse into the 70s), but consider that one limitation, our oil "producing" capabilities, are hugely larger than they were then, and we're using all we produce.

It's hard to tell, because things have changed in two directions from WWII to now.

Houses were smaller then and with fewer energy-using appliances (as a boy the "dishwasher" was the one who washed the dishes, and the clothes were dried on a line -- outside in summer, in the laundry room in winter). Being smaller, the lighting requirements were less. There were fewer houses then. But they were less well insulated than today.

Commercial buildings (17% of US energy usage today) have grown consistently larger in number and size -- and since the 70s they've become considerably more energy efficient. It was only some 25 years ago that new electronics technology, replacing pneumatic technology that came in prior to WWII, allowed the commercial building equivalents of "set-back" thermostats and other energy-saving strategies.

Automobiles get better mileage than before. I remember when the VW bug was hailed for its 20-or-so MPG (and laughed at otherwise). My wife's Jimmy today gets roughly the same mileage as the old Bugs, and she grouses. But there are an *awful* lot more cars on the road today (not to mention more roads). I remember when most families had one car -- per family, not per driver.

Consumer items: Music appliances went from phonographs with two or three vacuum-tubes to "hi-fi"s (about the time the AM radio standardized on a 5-tube design) and stereos with more tubes --those things could put out a fair amount of heat!-- before the first transistorized, er, solid-state stuff appeared on the market. TVs, which really became a mass consumer item from the late 50s to the mid-60s, weren't around in WWII. And the late-60s/early-70s color TVs put out a LOT of heat. All that has improved hugely... but now we have computers that consume more energy than the old vacuum-tube appliances, and in this household we have three such beasts. (They spend most of their time turned off, but that's not true elsewhere, and when they're on, well, the "computer room" is the warmest room in the house.)

"Burning" alone isn't necessarily the cause of an increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels today. If we burn only "plant fuels" (or forests, or fields), we're only contributing to the inevitable(?) carbon cycle of atmosphere-plant-atmosphere. If (*BIG* IF!) we humans are contributing to global warming via CO2, it's by digging up the subterranean ("fossil") carbon and dumping that into the atmosphere.

Your question, even in the narrow context you put it, is a good and thoughtful one, rottndog! And all I can do to answer it is... we didn't have the capacity to dig up and release "fossil" carbon then that we have today.

Not that I think the evidence puts the blame to human activity. It doesn't appear to.

[sionnsar]

All I saw was a sign that said "This Sign Out Of Order"...

Well, "Sin agad air" (there you have it). The warning sign saying the ping was out of order, so the ping was issued.

BTW, has anyone spotted the Lost Post recently?

[NicknamedBob]

The only real problem I see in the "Global Warming" brouhaha is the possibility that some warming may be going on.

It becomes a problem because even if it is a continuing rebound from the last ice age, or caused by a more energetic sun, it becomes too easy for the illiterate minions of the Communists-in-the-Forests to blame Human activity for it.

My analysis seems to have settled on increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide as a way out of the Global Icebox that is an ice age. With ice sheets covering the mid-latitudes and deserts appearing from a lack of rainfall, it's no wonder that carbon dioxide might accumulate and contribute to a greenhouse effect on an iceball Earth.

But the process has an upper limit too, imposed by the accumulation in the atmosphere of water vapor. This gas literally boils up from the tropics as a result of solar activity, and radiates heat away from Earth at a prodigious rate.

Even if CO₂ contributes to warming, increasing cloud activity and cover literally swamp its effects.

[sionnsar]

Al Gore is a Moron, or certifiably insane, or both.

He is neither, in today's culture. It is my perception that he saw a road to near-dictatorial power, the kind sought by a soul who claimed that she was named for an adventurer who only becamme famous after she was born, and took it. That it appears to be gong off into the weeds is our fortune.

fomenting are leaving us increasingly vulnerable to a Hitler, Pol Pot or Lenin/Stalin nightmare. IMHO.

[sionnsar]

Any engineer wlil recognize "negative feedback," without which Life As We Know It (today) could never even have come to pass.

But I am tired (not only of Congress!) and need to go away until tomorrow.

S

[stephenjohnbanker]

"fomenting are leaving us increasingly vulnerable to a Hitler, Pol Pot or Lenin/Stalin nightmare. IMHO"

Agreed!

[stephenjohnbanker]

"Even if CO2 contributes to warming, increasing cloud activity and cover literally swamp its effects"

Yep, good point.

[sionnsar]

Yikes. What happened to my sentences...?

[stephenjohnbanker]

Methinks we both work long hours, and have a great deal of responsibility, so I hereby forgive both of us : )