Posted on 06/29/2003 11:05:33 PM PDT by sfwarrior
SF...a great article! I've been wondering some of those points myself.
Your "arguments" would appear to be that of a DU spy.
It's funny, if it's too hot, it's because of global warming, if it's too cold, it's because of global warming....when is it just the way the weather is??????
Oh, I forgot, liberals always have to have someone to blame for everything...nothing can just "be". ;o)
Of course this would just prove the falicy that social security is a retirement supplement and not a "tax". That you are supposed to be able to get out what you pay into it.
Jerry may never get elected but this idea might get legs from the poverty pimps on the left who want to keep some people poor and loyal to the democrat party.
Yeah, it's good to see conservatives that aren't in denial of climate change or enviromental problems in general for the sake of ideology. Some like Carry_Okie seem to think property rights and enviromental protection are compatible.
There are things that cause atmospheric changes besides cars omitting carbon dioxide, for instance, the large wild fires in Arizona and New Mexico. Not only do they omit carbon dioxide into the air (at a rate far greater than all the SUV's in those states) but they generate so much heat that it causes a change in the pressure systems.
Would I call that global warming? I guess if you want to get technical, fire is warm and it's warming the global atmosphere around it...but there have been natural wild fires for centuries cause by lightning. Conservation Departments in every state have "controlled" brush fires to renew natural prairie grass areas. In Illinois the DEA is regularly having LARGE bon fires and field burnings to destroy the "hemp" that grows naturally & rampidly here...left over WWII when farmers used to grow hemp to make ropes.
Then there's the fact that our weather measuring tools, tehcniques and record keeping are far more advanced than they were even 50 years ago, which can attribute to some of the "apparent" global warming.
Next, we can talk about sun spots/flares, that have been shown to cause great "phenomena’s" in our weather patterns here. Did we cause the sun spots with our SUV's???? Doubtful.
But you know, if you really think SUV's are such a problem, perhaps you should write Senator HitLIARy Clinton a letter...Saturday at her book signing here in Chicago, the one that she had to have an entarage of Secret Service at tax payers expense for her private gain of the book signing (I sure hope Simon & Schuester are reimbursing the tax payers for all that expense) She had not one, but two LARGE SUV's in her motorcade of 6 cars....interesting position for a Senator who's so concerned about the environment.
Not hardly, but I suggest you get your facts straight. The environmentalists take enough stupid postitions that conservatives don't have to add to them. You discredit your own "side" of the debate with such arguments.
There are things that cause atmospheric changes besides cars omitting carbon dioxide, for instance, the large wild fires in Arizona and New Mexico. Not only do they omit carbon dioxide into the air (at a rate far greater than all the SUV's in those states) but they generate so much heat that it causes a change in the pressure systems.
First, you apparently missed the photo essay I posted on FR about the damage done by the Rodeo/Chedisky Fire. Second, to attibute weather changes to a fire, except on the most ephemeral basis, is extremely foolish. On balance, a forest fire releases additional carbon dioxide only in the short term. If there wasn't any fire, fungi would eventually emit the carbon anyway when the wood rots. After a fire, a fraction of the carbon in the root bolls remains underground and the forest regrows to adsorb more than was released (if it doesn't burn first). Therein lies the real problem with increased CO2. The forest grows faster and thicker than ever due to the fertilization effect of CO2 and will probably burn hotter and more frequently than its historic norm. In modeling the long term effects of resource management, one should probably not look at a forest as either a source or a sink of atmospheric carbon.
In fact, there is only one major carbon sink that can be modified by human behavior, and that is the amount adsorbed by the oceans in the skeletal remains of dynoflagellates such as foraminifera. Fertilizing the algae upon which the forams feed can definitely accelerate atmospheric carbon sequestration. Whether that's worth it or not is another matter. I have my doubts.
Then there's the fact that our weather measuring tools, tehcniques and record keeping are far more advanced than they were even 50 years ago, which can attribute to some of the "apparent" global warming.
There is no longer much doubt that the troposphere is slowly warming, so putting any apparent changes up to "measurement error" (other than the urban heat island effect) is probably not a productive stance. You are correct to attribute the bulk of atmospheric temperature change to variation in solar radience, so stay with that one. Very little (if not undetectable) warming is due to increased CO2. Attributing climate change to anthropogenic global warming due to human consumption of hydrocarbons is indeed a hoax.
But you know, if you really think SUV's are such a problem, perhaps you should write Senator HitLIARy Clinton a letter...Saturday at her book signing here in Chicago, the one that she had to have an entarage of Secret Service at tax payers expense for her private gain of the book signing (I sure hope Simon & Schuester are reimbursing the tax payers for all that expense) She had not one, but two LARGE SUV's in her motorcade of 6 cars....interesting position for a Senator who's so concerned about the environment.
I don't need this kind of ignorant crap directed at me. I've never taken a position on SUVs and my opinons on the threat to our freedom the Hildabeast poses are easy to find by a search on this site which you were apparently too lazy to do. Go find a liberal to rant to.
First, you apparently missed the photo essay I posted on FR about the damage done by the Rodeo/Chedisky Fire.
I did not see it. I just joined FR in March of this year, and no one has pointed me to it, although I'd be extremely intereseted in it. I have an ecology class coming up in my BS program (finishing late in life) and it might prove helpful.
You are correct to attribute the bulk of atmospheric temperature change to variation in solar radience, so stay with that one
See, you do learn things from The Discovery Channel! Actually, I am not sure it was DC, but one of those channels had a very interesting program on about sun spots & solar flares. It made great sense to me. Then the Sci-Fi Channel had this movie about global flooding & other weather extremities due to Solar Flares (this goes back a few years) it was a very very interesting (the guy from Third Rock played one of the leads).
I don't need this kind of ignorant crap directed at me. I've never taken a position on SUVs and my opinons on the threat to our freedom the Hildabeast poses are easy to find by a search on this site which you were apparently too lazy to do. Go find a liberal to rant to.
I'm sorry if that came across as it was directed to you, it was not. Again, I assumed you were a conservative (right) minded scientist, that was directed at Lefty & CoolC, perhaps I should have been clearer about that. Your first post I read on this thread did not appear to me that you at all blamed SUV's, rather you credited a more "real" explanation. So, I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. The tree-hugging hippiecrat comment was directed at CoolC as well...I take the position that when speaking to liberals, you need to talk in very simplistic terms, they don't understand too many big words. ;o)
I'm on the same side as you, while far less educated than you in that arena, I am interested in your opinions and find them fascinating, if not educating for myself and my general purposes. That being said, I hope you accept my humble apologies for coming across as attacking you.
If you want to learn a whole lot more about how to take the liberals to task for the environmental damage socialism is doing, and what to do about it, consider my book on the topic. It will give those liberal professors of yours a splitting headache.
From C-Span: Since January 1, 1984, all Members of Congress also participate in the Social Security system and are required to pay Social Security taxes.
Also see this page.
I do have a liberal transgender in the class (ugh!).....so I will make use of your information! She/he likes to site Michael Moore's lunacy constantly. Imagine, siting an uneducated sloth like Michael Moore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.