# Funny how 31000 scientists disagree with global warming



## KMAN (May 16, 2009)

An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.


Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Hear about it? We have heard about the dingbat group, OISM, for years. They operate out of a farmhouse near the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon, as happy a bunch of moonbats as one would ever with to see. Here is further informations concerning their "petition;

The Petition Project itself used to state:

&#8220; Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[19] &#8221; 




In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

&#8220; Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." 
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[20]
 &#8221; 

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

&#8220; Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition &#8212;- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers &#8211; a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[21] &#8221; 

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

&#8220; In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[22] 
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major Univesity states that global warming is real, we are the primary cause, and that it is a clear and present threat. Now that is tens of millions of scientists, all on clear and easy to verify lists of membership. Not wingnut fabrications.*


----------



## sarahgop (May 16, 2009)

i agree with kman


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. 

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Contents [hide]
1 Personnel 
1.1 Listed Faculty Members 
1.1.1 Deceased 
1.1.2 Active 
2 History 
3 Funding 
4 Case Study: The Oregon Petition 
5 Contact Information 
6 Articles and Resources 
6.1 Related SourceWatch Resources 
6.2 Sources 
6.3 External links 
7 Note 

[edit]Personnel 
The OISM website's homepage [1] says: 

The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects. 
The Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Ahh yes here is Old Rocks attempting to marginalize information he does not like. As Usual.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 16, 2009)

KMAN said:


> An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> 
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project








I'm glad I checked your link! 



> 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,*including 9,029 with PhDs*







So this mean any hack with a bachelor's degree in biology from Akron State University can sign the petition?  


Dude, how many of these "scientists" are actual real climate scientists, who are publishing peer reivewed climate change research in bonafide scientific journals?  

Let me save your fingers the trouble of dancing through Google:  Probably close to ZERO. 


Someone who isn't a bonafied expert who does research in climate science, doesn't have the credibility to fully judge the state of climate science.   Especially a list that contains mostly people with bachelors and master's degree, people who aren't trained and don't work in climate research. 

Do you go to a heart surgeon when you have a tooth ache?   No you don't.  You go to a medical professional trained in tooth aches.  A Dentist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...



Yes of course when faced with facts that you do not like try to marginalize them. Usual tactic of the left and losers.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 16, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...





Check out their petition.  Its just a piece of paper anyone can fill out, and claim to be ANYTHING     There's no verification process, no way to verify the person's actual profession. 

I think I'm going to fill one out and claim to be an astrophysicit!


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...




It doesn't take a genius to ask a question.  Einstein said that you never understand anything until you can explain it to your grandmother.  It sometimes does take a genius to answer the questions on Climate Change.  If it is understood, it should be explanable.  As of now, it is not.

Any agreement with the AGW stance on Global warming requires that real world facts be ignored, history be ignored, leaps of faith must be taken and models must be accepted ahead of actual data.

Forget who is voting for it and who is voting against it.  What is the reason that we should accept or reject this idea?  It's May in Indiana and so far in 2009, my AC has been on exactly 2 times.  If this is Global Warming, someone needs to tell my thermometer.  Maybe if we explain really well, it will register a higher reading.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes here is Old Rocks attempting to marginalize information he does not like. As Usual.



The online petition is bullshit.

Every major scientific society in the world understands global warming.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility. 

The results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. 

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. 

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> The results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
> 
> ...




We're talking about temperature differences that measure in the hundredths of a degree per year.  The causes include at least 10 very different causes and most of them increase and decrease in a cyclical routine extendending across years, centuries or milleniums.

The Global Warming measuring devices cover the surface of the Earth, orbit the Earth, float and dive in the oceans, sample the air, measure the emissions, photograph the surface of the planet with all parts of the spectrum of light and radiation, measure the mass and extent of ice, water, land mass, gravitational pull and wind and ocean current direction and velocity. 

Of course the survey did have 9 questions so I suppose that pretty much covers all of the possibilites.  Did they respond using real live, official Science-Guy Computers or just write their answers into the little circles with #2 pencils?


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

code, you miss the point.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Not only that, if we what we have already put into the atmosphere is causing the melting of both the Greeland and Antarctic Ice Caps, then what happens when the anthropogenic increase is at 60%? 100%? 

The fact remains, that of tens of millions of scientists arround the world, that dingbat group in Cave Junction can only must 31,000 signatures, and all too many of those are fake. But all the Scientific Societies in the world agree that global warming is real, that it is anthropogenic in origin, and that it is a clear and present danger.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > KMAN said:
> ...



Well, let's see. We leftists and losers now have the Executive, the Congress, and the Senate. We have every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world. Such sad pathetic losers. 

Facts cannot be marginalized. Bush and his admin tried it, and the failed wars, and economic debacle brought the reality to everybodies attention. Same for global warming. As it affects agriculture, as more areas have either too much or too little water, or both at differant times of the year, it will have everybodies attention. 

The accelerating melting of the ice caps, and glaciers that feed so many rivers that agriculture worldwide depends on, will create situations where all will know the reality of global warming, and curse those that denied and stood in the way of recognition of the danger for so long. Ideology never trumps reality. It may take a little time, but reality will bite those that deny it's existance.


----------



## Sinatra (May 16, 2009)

It should be noted that many on the UNIP are not actually scientists themselves.

The tide against the Global Warming machine has clearly shifted against them.  As noted in previous posts, tens of millions of dollars are now being spent in an aggressive ad campaign to regain the climate message in conjunction with the Congressional consideration of Cap n Trade.

Despite these millions being spent (notice all the commercials on TV lately calling for "new" energy?) the public continues to be largely indifferent to the much-wanted hysteria that once prevailed over this issue.

The earth remains in a cooling pattern.

Gas prices are rising again.

Calls for increased domestic oil production, natural gas production, and nuclear plant expansion will result - things that will all create tens of thousands of new, high paying jobs.

Alternative energy will continue to grow in importance - but slowly.

And the earth will keep on spinnin'....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Really? And which Scientific Society has changed it's stance? Last I looked, when there were stances on global warming changed, it was to even sterner warnings of the damage that we are even now seeing.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

sarahgop said:


> i agree with kman



Which means what? Do you have the faintest reason for doing so? Other than idiot talking points?


----------



## Sinatra (May 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> sarahgop said:
> 
> 
> > i agree with kman
> ...



OR - don't devolve into that kind of thing - it does not help your cause.

The fact is, interest in global warming as a legitimate concern continues to lessen.

This lessening is being fought hard by millions upon millions of dollars of ad campaigns to legitimize the issue with the public once again - but that in itself shows how the sands are shifting beneath the feet of the entire global warming industry.

That is a good thing, as the inherent self-serving interests behind this same global warming industry has long corrupted the needed scientific sanctity of the debate.

You clearly disagree - I have no problem with that.

You just happen to be wrong!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

I, and all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world. Hmmm.......................


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I, and all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world. Hmmm.......................



No, not all, quit lying, the only ones that agree with you are the peer pressured and bullied scientists.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I, and all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world. Hmmm.......................
> ...



You are the one that is lying.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> It should be noted that many on the UNIP are not actually scientists themselves.
> 
> The tide against the Global Warming machine has clearly shifted against them.  As noted in previous posts, tens of millions of dollars are now being spent in an aggressive ad campaign to regain the climate message in conjunction with the Congressional consideration of Cap n Trade.
> 
> ...



CO2 in the atmosphere increases every single day.

Every year we pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Anyone who thinks doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on the climate is a fool.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Name one scientist that does not get their funding through one of the companies they endorse or a government that does not want to control their populace. Just one, that agrees with GW hoax.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Have you ever talked to an atmospheric scientist?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Name one that is not endorsing a company they get funding from or funded by a government invested in controlling their population that agrees with the hoax, and a real scientist not a meteorologist with a fancy degree.


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I will take that as a "no." 
I suggest you go to a university near you and talk to one of the scientists about global warming. You really don't have any experience.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Name one that is not endorsing a company they get funding from or funded by a government invested in controlling their population that agrees with the hoax, and a real scientist not a meteorologist with a fancy degree. Why can't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I, and all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities in the world. Hmmm.......................
> ...



OK, which of the above do not agree? Which Scientific Society states that global warming is not happening? Which National Academy of Science? Which major University?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



*Many, many real scientists here;*
Home : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



LOL ... try harder, education institutes get a lot of government and private funding from corporations which all have reasons for it.


----------



## elvis (May 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



there you go again with that "real scientists" horseshit.  YOU are not a scientist at all.  Not even close.  Sorry, but carpentry school doesn't count.


----------



## Meister (May 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That's your answer, Chris?


----------



## Meister (May 16, 2009)

Why do you people argue with Old Rocks???  The man can see Mt. Helen's from his kitchen window.  That qualifies him to be the Einstein of global warming.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 16, 2009)

Meister said:


> Why do you people argue with Old Rocks???  The man can see Mt. Helen's from his kitchen window.  That qualifies him to be the Einstein of global warming.



LOL ... that means I must be an oceanographer! I can see the Sound from mine!


----------



## jreeves (May 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
These people aren't real scientists either...
*
&#8220;I am a skeptic&#8230;Global warming has become a new religion.&#8221; - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   
*
*&#8220;Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly&#8230;.As a scientist I remain skeptical.&#8221; *-  Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called &#8220;among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.&#8221;  

*Warming fears are the &#8220;worst scientific scandal in the history&#8230;When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.&#8221; - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  *

&#8220;The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn&#8217;t listen to others. It doesn&#8217;t have open minds&#8230; I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,&#8221; - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.  

&#8220;The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.&#8221; - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico  

*&#8220;It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don&#8217;t buy into anthropogenic global warming.&#8221; - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 
*
&#8220;Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.&#8221; &#8211; . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

&#8220;After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.&#8221; - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  

&#8220;For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  

&#8220;Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp&#8230;Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.&#8221; - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.  

&#8220;Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.&#8221; - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

&#8220;Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense&#8230;The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.&#8221; - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

&#8220;CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another&#8230;.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn&#8217;t pay to say so&#8230;Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver&#8217;s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.&#8221; - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

&#8220;The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.&#8221; - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.  # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! &#8211;Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')  

The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007&#8217;s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here:  Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours &#8211; Stay Tuned&#8230;  

Now watch Chrissy and get your rocks off on global warming state every dissenting opinion is funded by BIG OIL....

All the while they are the biggest fucking hypocrites on earth. They have both stated they are not vegans, while going to a vegan diet could accomplish this according to their own gods of the AGW cult....
Be Veg! Go Green! Save Our Planet: Global shift to vegan diet would reduce emissions and mitigate costs 80%.
Dr. Joop Oude Lohuis (M): If you would go for a completely meatless diet in the next 10-15 years, then in the year 2050 you would have a 70% reduction of attaining the climate goals That is a substantial cost reduction in getting to the same climate targets.

VOICE: Going even further, the researchers found that a completely vegan diet with no animal products would save an enormous 80% by 2050. What&#8217;s more, another benefit was discovered. Because plant-based diets produce much more food for humans than meat and dairy-based diets, some of the land not used to grow livestock could be turned back into carbon-absorbing forests, which are known to help reduce CO2 emissions.

Dr. Joop Oude Lohuis (M): We assumed that the grasslands that were not used by cattle anymore would go back to their natural state. For that reason, several parts of the world will grow forests and retain carbon in terms of more woodland.

VOICE: Dr. Oude Lohuis said the trend toward plant-based alternatives to meat has already gained momentum as consumers learn about meat&#8217;s harm to health and the environment.

Dr. Joop Oude Lohuis (M): If you look around in shops, maybe two years ago there were four, five, or six alternatives in terms of soy products or alternatives for a piece of meat. And now it has quadrupled; maybe there are 20 or 25.It&#8217;s a very easy way to change your buying behavior and have a fantastic quality of your meal. It saves lives as well.

VOICE: We thank Dr. Joop Oude Lohuis and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency for demonstrating to us the tremendous power of a plant-based diet in reducing both financial costs and our carbon footprint. May we all quickly make this free and immediately beneficial choice to save lives and our planet.

In July 2008, during a videoconference with our Association members in the United States, Supreme Master Ching Hai once more encouraged the worldwide trend toward vegetarianism.

All those positive changes do indicate the higher level of consciousness as the world population become more aware of the ephemeral nature of life and how fragile the planet can be and realizing their lifestyle habits should be changed. So now they begin to treat the environment with respect.
They begin to have more vegetarian choice. It&#8217;s good to see.
.
All that change is good. *And if we hasten this process, there will be Heaven on Earth. I hope we can make it. Just change to vegetarian diet. How easier can it be!*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Nor have I ever pretended to be. I just post irrefutable information from scientists which ticks you fools off to no end.


----------



## Meister (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




You don't tick me off Old Rocks...I just see who you really are.  Your right there on the left edge...that's it.  Now if I could just figure out how to get you to take that last step.


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It's not irrefutable, you daft ****.  you only think so because you refuse to take Al gore's dick out of your mouth.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Your posts are so intellectual and informative


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Kind of like how you call this "depression" we're in the second republican depression when it didn't begin until after the DEMOCRATS took control of Congress.  So again, you're a stupid fuck and partisan hack.


----------



## LaLinda75 (May 17, 2009)

*What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

LaLinda75 said:


> *What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.*



And your reason for this statement is?


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LaLinda75 said:
> 
> 
> > *What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.*
> ...



Maybe that she's amazed so many have bought into the global warming crap?   

What a concept.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 17, 2009)

Ummm, again, the petition is a PDF anyone can print out, anyone can sign, and anyone can claim they are are anything they want.   There's no way to verify  who signed this, or what their actual profession is. 

i can't freaking believe flat earth wingnut posted this and patted themselves on the back for it. 

This petition is a fucking joke


----------



## Sinatra (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many.  Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not.  Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate.  For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months.  Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency)  This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive.  The entire process has been corrupted for decades.

As for academic societies - I know well how those work too.  The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members.  It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.  

Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.

Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity.  Currently this is not happening.

Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university.  It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads.  And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions.  Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing.  And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated.  I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.

PS - the earth keeps on cooling.

I would rather it warm up a bit....


----------



## wihosa (May 17, 2009)

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?


----------



## code1211 (May 17, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...




Me, too.


----------



## code1211 (May 17, 2009)

wihosa said:


> No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.
> 
> Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.
> 
> What will you tell your children?




I have already told her that Mankind is pumping about 3% of all of the CO2 pumped every year.  Did you know that CO2 accounts for about 3% of all GreenHouseGases?  Assuming that GHG's account for about 65% of all warming, let's do the math:

The Planet has warmed by 0.7 degrees in 2000 years.  65% of that is .455 degrees.  CO2 is 3% of the total so let's call that share.01365.  Mankind's contribution is 3% of that so let's peg our culpability at .000409 across 2000 years.  On a per year average we come up with an average annual increase that is .0000002 degrees per year.

Put aside for the moment that the rate of temperature increase slowed in the more recent 1000 years over the previous 1000 years and that the global temperature is currently spot on in the middle of the temperature range of the last 10,000 years, 0.7 variation of temperature is not a big change; it is astonishing stability.

Did you know that the global temperature has risen today to a point that it was at 7000 years ago?  What has caused the decline in the intervening years?


----------



## Sinatra (May 17, 2009)

code1211 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.
> ...




Great response.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

wihosa said:


> No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.
> 
> Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.
> 
> What will you tell your children?



Hmm ... are you advocating then that all life (except plants) are forced to stop breathing?


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

wihosa said:


> No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.
> 
> Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.
> 
> What will you tell your children?



Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Your posts really are laughable.

The earth is warming, not cooling.

The polar ice cap and almost all of the glaciers are melting, not growing. 

Keep living in your fantasy world.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.
> ...



The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



No, most of it comes from coal powered power plants and cars.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yeah ... is there some little tag on each CO2 molecule that says "Made in ..."?


----------



## driveby (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




You fucking clown ,with the trading of cap-and-trade credits we run the risk of simply creating another example of quasi-wealth that will crumble when the market realizes absolutely no value has been created. In this scenario, large companies, (which Obama is supposed to be against) such as GE, would help establish the value of the credits, attempt to corner the market, and create false shareholder value by selling these trade credits that hold no value whatsoever. Once the market discovers there is no value in the paper, suddenly the market for them will crash, as will the companies holding them. Kind of like what's happening to the economy today due to the "fake" paper that made the banks and the credit market look much healthier than it really was. Then comes more bailouts, more spending, more debt that will be impossible to sustain, the same redundant cycle Oblahblah is shoving down our throats now. Then dumbasses like you will still try to find a way to blame Bush .........


----------



## code1211 (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




The Earth was warming until about 5 years ago.  It started to warm again in about 1980 after cooling for some time.  The warming and cooling trends lately seem to go in several decade spans.  CO2, in contrast, rises with amazing consistancy.  Warming and cooling and CO2 seem to be acting independantly lately.

The Arctic Sea ice Extent seems to have gotten bigger this year than last year which is a neat trick since the CONSENSUS of experts was that the ice would be almost entirely gone this year.  Oh, well.  Just when you thought that a consensus meant something.

The glaciers that are melting today are finishing an advance that began for most of them 5000 to 7000 years ago.  The glaciers are not remnants of the last Ice Age.  They are remnants of the cooling period that start at about 5000 BC.  We are returning to the climate that led to that time.

The climate of that time had nothing at all to do with SUV's or Coal fired power plants.  It was, however, much warmer than it was in 1650.  That cold snap also had nothing to do with CO2.  Warming out of that cold snap also had nothing to do with CO2.

This might be a fantasy world, but it's the one we live in.


----------



## Meister (May 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Actually, K.K., when a plant dies and decays it gives off quite a bit of CO2.  So I think we just need to destroy all life on Earth to make these global warming nuts happy.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 17, 2009)

another exciting thread with people with absolutly no formal education or training is science, pretending to be arm chair scientists. 


Me?   I'm no expert in climate physics.   I'll leave it to the experts to make conclusions. 

Oh, by the way, I think _every single bonafide scientific organization on the planet_ with expertise in climate science, agrees with what Chris and Old Rocks are saying. 

Every.  Single.  One.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Meister said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



True ... I stand correct, we need to destroy all life to make the environuts happy.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a solar minimum. That is not cooling, that is warming. 1998 and 2005 were neck and neck as the warmest years on record. Eleven of the warmest years on record have happened in the last thirteen years. That is hardly a cooling trend. I expect to see the records of 1998 and 2005 exceeded at least twice in the next five years. So, if that does not happen, then I am wrong. If it does happen, then you are wrong.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

driveby said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Fuck you, asshole.

CO2 is at the highest level in recorded history and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> another exciting thread with people with absolutly no formal education or training is science, pretending to be arm chair scientists.
> 
> 
> Me?   I'm no expert in climate physics.   I'll leave it to the experts to make conclusions.
> ...



Yep. But ol' Limp Rushbaugh knows better than all them there pointy headed lib-ba-ral sissy scientists


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Awe, the chrissy and O.R. at it again. How sweet, they must sleep in their little matching AL Gore feety pajamas....

Hypocrites...


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



You really have lost it.

It must suck to be a Republican right now. 

Like eating a shit sandwich.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Well ... it's idiots like you that made me go independent.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Hypocrite and you can't hide it....

So why you are eating that chicken sandwich think about the damage your doing to planet earth. You hypocrite...

I have told you this before troll, I am a registered independent. But I am sure it is hard for you to grasp, considering the religion you subscribe to. Now go back to bed and have sweet dreams as you rub your AL Gore baby doll.....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Oh my, another idiot with homosexual fantasies. Elvis, meat JR. JR, meat Elvis.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Al Gore is your fantasy. I have never even mentioned Al Gore.

You were McCain's butt buddy the entire campaign, so you may be a registered independent, but you are the biggest Republican I have ever seen.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Are you having troubles with your conscience? What part about this post was homsexual?

*Hypocrite and you can't hide it....
*
*So why you are eating that chicken sandwich think about the damage your doing to planet earth. You hypocrite...

I have told you this before troll, I am a registered independent. But I am sure it is hard for you to grasp, considering the religion you subscribe to. Now go back to bed and have sweet dreams as you rub your AL Gore baby doll.....*


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You don't need to mention him directly, all your scientists are in his pocket.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Hell no, I am not eating a chicken sandwich. I am eating a beef steak, complete with trimmingns. I would only enjoy it more were it venison or elk. Next year for that.


----------



## Meister (May 17, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> another exciting thread with people with absolutly no formal education or training is science, pretending to be arm chair scientists.
> 
> 
> Me?   I'm no expert in climate physics.   I'll leave it to the experts to make conclusions.
> ...


Says you, Old Rock, and Chris.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I was talking to Chrissypants, not you Old Rocks, but your the same type, a HYPOCRITE. You want everyone else to pay more for their energy, pay more for their automobiles. Yet you won't even do something as simple as going on a vegan diet to eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year. Hypocrite....


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are you sure that's not Chrissy's tube steak?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You love killing the planet!


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



All my scientists?

Including the ones in every other country in the world?

When will you get it through your thick skull that the melting of the polar ice cap and almost all of the glacers IN THE WORLD is not a political issue?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Hypocrite


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

All of those Indians eating Bison, and Africans eating wildebeast and other ruminants seems not to have affected the environment for thousands of years. Your arguement, like your whole persona, is silly.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



You really have lost it. You have nothing left except personal attacks. 

How sad. 

The country has totally repudiated your philosophy.


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


you're the one that fellates al gore on this board, cuntface.


----------



## Sinatra (May 17, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



Once again, great job.  And despite what a couple in here would like to think - many in the scientific community feel just as you do regarding this increasingly laughable topic.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Hypocrite, if your not then show how your consumption of meat and meat by products are not causing CO2 emissions?

Hypocrite- 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year...if you live another 40 years that would be a grand total of about 60 billion tons of CO2 emissions you could save the atmosphere from.....


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



He'll have to call Rev. Gore and get an answer for that one.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I repeat, you enjoy killing the planet ... yet expect everyone else to pay for products and services you "approve" of, hypocrite actually fits.


----------



## Meister (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Can you direct me to a link to prove this?  Or is this just your lame opinion?


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



He's a hypocrite, just like his hero, Al Gore, who flies around in his private jet "destroying the environment".


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



If AL Gore, Old Rocks and Chrissy lives another 40 years and they all go vegan. They together could save 180 billion tons of CO2 emissions but I don't look for any of three to do it. They will continue to be hypocrites and ask everyone else to sacrifice for their religion which is AGW.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



So you admit that CO2 is a danger....


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Sacrifice what?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Sacrifice- pay more for energy, pay more for automobiles, pay more for just about everything.....because just about all products and services require an element of energy to produce them.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



No, actually if we went green, we would pay less for energy.

It's called conservation. Ever heard of it?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


No you are making that claim, not me..

But if you want people to take you seriously, do your part. Eliminate 1.5 billion tons of what you claim is dangerous...


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Please, so your telling me that Hybrids are cheaper than traditional cars?


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I eliminated all future human created CO2.

I never had children.

Busted....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



With gas at 2.50 and going up, damned right that they are. And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Thank God you're not reproducing.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



What about the 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year that you are personally responsible for, I guess those are ok right? Hypocrite


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

Poor jreeves.

Busted again.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



LOL....How much does this Toyota package cost?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> Poor jreeves.
> 
> Busted again.



Hypocrite...1.5 billion tons of Co2 emissions is hypocritical at best


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


awe yes the hybrid..

Are hybrids too âun-greenâ to build? | Editors Blog
*These hybrid solutions would appear to be a very attractive solution to all concerned. But there are downsides to these solutions that is often overlooked. For example, their complexity and use of heavy, expensive and sometimes toxic materials (copper, lead or lithium, for example). There is the extra energy required to extract, transport and refine these rare elements in the first place. This must be added to the energy that goes into the manufacture of these new sub-systems. We have a double whammy debit. The extra and weighty components are going to need energy to be accelerated, cornered and braked for the lifetime of the host vehicle.
*
We can perhaps understand when these systems are adopted on the largest, most expensive and most uneconomical of 4X4s. But as a sensible solution in the majority of cars, can they compete in the most cost effective way?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Competition is Good: Thank You Honda
Here's something that should have happened years ago: Actual competition for the top spot in the dedicated-hybrid market. Thanks to the new Honda Insight which undercuts the Prius in price, Toyota is announcing a $1,000 price cut on the upcoming 2010 Prius, bringing the base price to $21,000, or $1,200 more than the $19,800 Insight hybrid. More details on 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid pricing below...

Toyota to Cut New Prius Hybrid Base Price to $21,000, Offer 5 Trim Levels : TreeHugger

21,000 for a midsized automobile with the best reliability record out there, and it gets 50 MPG.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Didn't you say a RAV4 in your previous post? Lmao...with a solar roof


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Boy, what a crock of shit you post. The Prius has a reliability rating that exceeds almost all other automobiles. The present batteries are NiMH, and the future ones will probably be Lithium. Both Nickel and Lithium are expensive enough that recycling of the batteries is a foregone conclusion. What is the battery in your present car made of, by the way?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



What about the family that has 3 children are they all suppose to pack into a Prius?


----------



## elvis (May 17, 2009)

How was Toyota able to bring the Prius down from 29k to 21k?  Competition alone?


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


This is what you posted previously and why I posted the article about hybrid 4x4's.

Your attempt at a distortion is rejected...
And were you driving an electric RAV 4 Toyota, and had solar on your roof, you would be paying nothing at all to the oil companies.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Silly ass. Have you never looked in one? The seat in back will easily accomodate three children. And there is a lot of room for luggage under that hatchback.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.

The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.

The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular ICE (internal combustion engine) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EV's have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.

Besides the batteries, controller and motor, the remaining systems in the RAV4 EV are comparable to the gas-powered RAV4, such as power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, tire wear and suspension components except for the power sources involved. The power brakes use an electric pump to provide vacuum instead of deriving vacuum from the engine manifold while the power steering and air conditioning systems use electric motors instead of mechanical energy delivered by fan belts. The passenger compartment heater is electrical.
Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Before you tell me what kind of vehicle I should be driving, quit emitting 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then, at least I will take you seriously, until then you are a hypocrite and shouldn't be telling anyone what to drive. BTW have you seen this...

Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems

I could not control the speed at the time. The car became heavy and moved very slowly, around 10 to 12 miles per hour, no matter how I pushed the accelerator. At the same time, the battery icon warning light was on with the word &#65533;Main&#65533; indicating there was a problem with the &#65533;main battery&#65533;. In such way, I moved slowly and cautiously my Prius with hazard warning signal on, heading home. By the time I got to my house, it was about 7:00PM, I called Toyota station where I have had my Prius checked periodically but there was no service reception after hour.

I came to Concord Toyota on Monday, July 11th and reported the incident. A Service Advisor of the Company had my car towed to Concord Toyota Dealer and reassured me that the main battery may be fixed without charge since my Prius&#65533;s main battery may not be mature enough to have problem. Concord Toyota got it fixed within few days. Toyota service agent called July 13th 2004 to let me know that I had to pay $520 for a problem he named &#65533;the sensor.&#65533; I inquired him a bit on the problem of loosing car power that I encountered on the street leading to the warning signal of Main Battery. Just a week later, I received a second Toyota Notice on the recall for fixing Prius&#65533;s main battery (the first notice was the recall for fixing the vibration of steering wheel.)

This time, with the Toyota notice, Concord Toyota conducted the inspection at no cost, because I already paid $520 for the real problem that happened to me on the street couple weeks ago! From the incident on 7/8/04, I have the following question: I believe the incident of loosing vehicle power during performance, which illuminated the Master Warning Light, and Hybrid System Malfunction Warning Light happening to my prius on July 8th 2004 was related to Toyota Notice for Potential Problem that I received lately.

Read more: "Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems" - Consumer complaints about Toyota Prius Battery Problems


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.
> 
> The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.
> 
> ...



Where is the price?

Never mind I found it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV#Discontinuance
The MSRP was *$42,000*


So let me get this right your initial cost is more and you pay more per mile....seems like a winner to me...


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Lmao...yeah right...I can see two children plastered against the rear drivers side window why the baby behind the passenger side stretches out in his car seat.....dumbass


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mileage costs
As of May, 2006, charging an RAV4 EV from full-dead to full-charge, at a rate of US$0.09 per kilowatt-hour, costs around $2.70. 


Yeah the oil companies wouldn't get shit just the electric company.....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2009)

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?


----------



## sealybobo (May 18, 2009)

KMAN said:


> An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> 
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project



This is rediculous.  Yesterday I saw a special on Australia and how they are going to make Melborne a zero emmissions city within 20 years or so.

Yea, that's a horrible idea.  

God forbid we stop polluting.

Whether its because we are warming the atmosphere or just giving ourselves cancer because the air is polluted, you right wingers are bad/stupid people.  If you are wrong, we all die.  And if we clean up the air, you'll go on forever arguing your nonsense.  

Stop it.


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> $2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.
> 
> By the way, JR, can you do basic math?



What electric car do you drive Old Rocks?


----------



## del (May 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > $2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.
> ...









yabba dabba doo!


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 18, 2009)

What if global-warming fears are overblown? - May. 14, 2009


> NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville.
> 
> A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hillbilly (May 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> $2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.
> 
> By the way, JR, can you do basic math?



I don't exactly follow what your point is. At 13.5 cents per kw/h it would be $4, just thought I'd toss that in. 

I do basic math quite well. I don't know where you get $1.25/watt it seems to me that $3.50 is about as good as you can do. Buy Solar Panels from Top Manufacturers at Lowest Prices I'm a good sport though, we'll use you figures. I'm going to power my home with your $1.25/watt panels. Here we go. 

Monthly usage 2400kw/h. Daily output of a 5kw solar system=16kw, monthly=480kw. Number of 5kw systems needed to power house=5. 25,000 wattsX$1.25= $31,250+$2,000=$33,250. At the price everyone else thinks solar panels cost= $99,750. With a battery system and wiring we could probably add another $3-5k to that. At your price it would take almost 10 years to recoup the inital investment if you don't have loss of output or a hailstorm or other problems. At the normal price that people in the real world would have to live with it would take 30 years to break even with regular from the grid power. Again that is assuming no other problems, like having to replace your roof which would cost extra, unless you have super long life shingles or something. So probably over 30 years. Of course the panels only last what 15-20 years? Not exactly a great deal. I would also have to buy both of the neighbors houses who live next to me in order to get all of my panels to fit and cut down the tree in the front yard which would mean I'd have to use even more panels to keep the house cool. So that'd be an extra few hundred thousand dollars. I think I'll just buy a power plant instead since I'm going to be spending a fortune I might as well power the whole neighborhood and make some money off of my investment.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 18, 2009)

Problem with Solar Power, they only work well in sunny areas, areas like mine where it's cloudy 300 days a year, well, they just won't work.


----------



## k2skier (May 18, 2009)

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 18, 2009)

k2skier said:


> I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.



Depends on how much you can afford ...


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2009)

k2skier said:


> I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.




I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?  
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk?  Old Rocks won't answer.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.
> ...



That's because Rocks drives a gas guzzler from the 60's! 

... at least I wouldn't doubt it.


----------



## k2skier (May 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.
> ...



1995 Subaru Legacy 2.2L 25mpg hwy
2005 Subaru Outback 2.5L 28mpg hwy
2003 Ford E250 van 5.4L 14mpg hwy (it was only used for 1,200 miles in 2008 towing a racing trailer)


----------



## k2skier (May 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > k2skier said:
> ...



If he answers, which I bet he will, I say it's a Volvo, Subaru or hybrid.


----------



## tigerbob (May 18, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...



Or, alternatively, you could get your climate info from Red Dawn, who is so expert in this area that he can conveniently dismiss the opinions of PhDs.

Let's even say it's not 9,000.  Let's say it's half that number.  Actually, let's be really cynical and say it's 25%.  That's still a shit load of people better qualified than probably anyone on this board.  If they are skeptical, their opinions deserve to be heard.  If the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming what harm can it do to listen to the concerns and address them in language that everyone can understand?  The only "harm" is if the concerns start to make some sense and the tidal wave of climate research funding starts to dry up.


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > k2skier said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (May 18, 2009)

What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL



Did you notice he was towing a racing trailer?  Hmmm, very suspect for a environmentalist.
I do better at conservation and polluting.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL
> ...



Me to, I don't drive at all and take the bus only when going more than a couple miles, otherwise I walk. Live alone in a studio so I'm not wasting any electricity, and turn off all the lights when not in use. Most environuts don't even come close, they should be paying me for carbon offsets. But I also don't advocate that any laws should be made to force crap that isn't proven to even help, especially when the real problem isn't even being considered.


----------



## k2skier (May 18, 2009)

Last off topic post. 

Car standards started in 1978 
The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments. 
1978 18 mpg 
1979 19 mpg 
1980 20 mpg 
1981-84  22, 24, 26, and 27mpg 
1985 27.5 mpg 
1986-1989, passenger car standards were lowered. 
1990 27.5 mpg, where it has remained 


Looks like I'm average for US fuel mileage standards. The gas guzzling tow vehicle and my racing consumed 94.71 gallons last year (tax write off, so I have all my receipts). I bet I use less gas than 80% of Americans (last years total mileage for my 1995 was 4207 miles), I don't drive much (very short commute), only skiing burns a lot. If  Subaru was forced into better fuel mileage standards then my Subaru would get better mileage, not gonna risk my life in the mountains for 10-20% better mileage.

So; what's your point? You trying to throw something that's not going to stick


----------



## Hillbilly (May 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL



Not many cars do better than that. European cars which have been so touted for their extreme fuel efficiency actually have a different method of computation for mpg so when they say 50 mpg it's really more like 36-38. I'm wondering how we can meet the expectation of 35 mpg average by 2010, or 2012, can't remember the date.


----------



## LaLinda75 (May 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LaLinda75 said:
> 
> 
> > *What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.*
> ...






*My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?*


----------



## elvis (May 18, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > KMAN said:
> ...



Rockhead will be on here to tell you how stupid you are for not bowing down to his point of view and that the scientists you speak of are not real scientists.


----------



## tigerbob (May 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Maybe, and he's welcome to if he wants.  

I have no problem with people defending their positions, but I don't like politically motivated double standards when it comes to science.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2009)

LaLinda75 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LaLinda75 said:
> ...



No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?


----------



## del (May 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LaLinda75 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (May 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LaLinda75 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (May 19, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Last off topic post.
> 
> Car standards started in 1978
> The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments.
> ...



Actually, you being such an evironut, you could have done much more.  Think how much more you could have saved in your "carbon footprint" theory, if you had an electric car?just sayin ...


----------



## KittenKoder (May 19, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



The political crap is old. I miss the days when scientists did things just to learn instead of posting reports to get funding.


----------



## k2skier (May 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > Last off topic post.
> ...



You clueless dolt, you have NO clue about me STFU.


----------



## Meister (May 19, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > k2skier said:
> ...



I know that you and Old Rocks are enviro whacko's, and that you don't walk the walk...but do talk the talk.  So just maybe until you do walk the walk you should STFU.


----------



## Sinatra (May 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



They can walk behind my German-brand SUV.

No GM-Chrysler State-Made Obamaautos for me...


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> $2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.
> 
> By the way, JR, can you do basic math?



Lets think about the math here $42k for the RAV 4, you can get a comparable SUV for 22K. So if you subtract 42K from 22K that is a difference of 20K. So tell me how long it will take you to recover that cost if you drive an average of 12K miles in a year. It would only take you about 36 years or so....


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> LaLinda75 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Like I said hypocrite when you start eating that vegan diet, people will take you seriously.


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Do you know any scientists?


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LaLinda75 said:
> ...



Personal attacks is all you have.

How sad.


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



What's sad is that you are a one liner. Now tell me how are you not a hypocrite, for calling for changes on everyone else, when you could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions and you refuse to do so.


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



So you admit that CO2 emissions are a problem?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Actually, with a very low solar radiation level, CO2 should be higher for us to survive.


----------



## Chris (May 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



So, you admit that our added CO2 is warming the earth?


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, but if you do then you should do your part.


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I answered your question, now tell me, how you don't see it hypocritical to not eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions when you claim it is such a huge problem?


----------



## KittenKoder (May 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, but here's something you missed (and your peer pressured scientists avoided), when there is a lower solar level plant life is less capable of processing the CO2 they need, thus the levels will naturally rise, since less of it is being transformed back into O2 ... so ... it's natural, however now we need to find a way to help the plant life or risk becoming extinct since it will also grow less while still being consumed at the same rate. However, since all the money has been wasted on bribing scientists to get them to support the global warming hoax, we no longer have those funds. So, thanks to you nuts, we're fucked as a species.


----------



## tigerbob (May 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Several.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...




Name them....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Thanks for admiting that CO2 warms the earth.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



*smirks* Didn't admit anything, but pointing out that we need more right now. Plants don't feed on heat, they feed on CO2 and require solar energy to process it. So more CO2 means more food for them to process, however with a lower solar level, they don't process as much, so there you go, more CO2 because plants cannot process it as well. Proof that it's NOT caused by humans. Thanks for playing mister One Track.


----------



## jreeves (May 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Chris don't you have a question to answer....you know the one about being a hypocrite?


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Sure you did. You said we need more CO2 to combat global cooling.

Thanks for admitting that CO2 warms the earth.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I never had children.

My carbon footprint in the future is zero.

Busted again.....


----------



## jreeves (May 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Please quote that hypocrite in bold....

Of course its not surprising you see things that really don't exist....hence your AGW fix


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2009)

jreeves busted and KK agreeing that CO2 causes the earth to warm.

A good night's work, I'd say.


----------



## jreeves (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Whether or not you had children is completely irrelevant and is only an attempt on your part to distract from your hypocrisy. What is relevant is your 1 1/2 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Now the same question?


----------



## jreeves (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves busted and KK agreeing that CO2 causes the earth to warm.
> 
> A good night's work, I'd say.



Seeing even more things that doesn't exist, yes I would say you are on a roll....


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Hmm ... odd that I didn't mention "global cooling" either. I only mentioned plants. Again, plants don't use heat, it's just bad for them to get too cold, but I didn't worry about that at all, what I do worry about is if there isn't enough CO2 AND solar energy, they starve, and if they starve, without funding, WE starve. Again mister On Track, thanks for playing.


----------



## Gurdari (May 21, 2009)

KMAN said:


> An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> 
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project




That site seems a bit sketchy... though I'm sure changing the chemical equation of our planet will not have any bad results, only good results.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...



The chemical composition can't change, what's here is here already, we cannot make something new from thin air. All we are doing is changing a small portion of those chemicals into other forms, and when I say small it's actually tiny in comparison to the size of the planet as a whole. Nature changes, that is how it works, that is how life changes as well, without drastic changes once in a while nothing ever gets better.


----------



## elvis (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves busted and KK agreeing that CO2 causes the earth to warm.
> 
> A good night's work, I'd say.



eots says the same types of things regarding conspiracy theories when people disagree with him.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves busted and KK agreeing that CO2 causes the earth to warm.
> ...



There's a difference between conspiracy nuts and environuts?


----------



## Hillbilly (May 21, 2009)

I'd be very surprised if there were 31,000 climatologists in the world.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Hillbilly said:


> I'd be very surprised if there were 31,000 climatologists in the world.



Climatology is only one of the sciences involved, and yes there are. Meteorologists have to study climatology, and trust me, there are more of those than you can count. We are also talking about less than 1% of the population, 8,000,000,000 people on the planet right now, 31,000 is very feasible.


----------



## code1211 (May 21, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> KMAN said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting tidbit.  The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype.  Not going to hear about this are you.
> ...




The chemical equation of the planet is one of redistribution, recombination and relocation.  When Carbon is sequestered or when it is emitted, it is still carbon.

Some time ago, the ppm of CO2 in the air was 7000 ppm.  It has become considerably cooler since that time and, as a result, the CO2 has reduced.  Throughout history, CO2 has always reacted to the rise and fall of temperature.  We are now seeing a rise in CO2 that is occurring outside of the natural cycle.

I have noticed that where I see aquariums, there are often fish.  If I throw a dozen fish into the street in front of my house, I doubt that an aquarium will grow up around them.  However, predicting a rise in temperature due to a rise in in CO2 follows the same steps of deduction.

A result cannot cause its cause.  The future cannot cause the past.


----------



## code1211 (May 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Hillbilly said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very surprised if there were 31,000 climatologists in the world.
> ...




The disciplines of science that feed into this debate include about every one of the sciences.  Oceanography certainly.  Plate tectonics.  Astronomy.  Astro physics.  Cryo whatever.  Geology.  Archeology.  Radiation.  I can't think of the study of anything, actually, that would not in some way be tangent to gathering data that would be helpful to this consideration.

Now that Cap and Trade is on the table, we can throw tax attorneys, ploiticians and Billy Mayes into the equations, too.  Hi!  Billy Mayes here for Mega Watt Wind Turbines!  I can hardly wait.


----------



## 52ndStreet (May 21, 2009)

"Global Warming " is all false, and part of a global conspiracy aimed at slowing the development of 
Third world countries. It is also part of a capitalist conspiracy, aimed at making money, off of peoples fears, about a rapidly warming Earth.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> "Global Warming " is all false, and part of a global conspiracy aimed at slowing the development of
> Third world countries. It is also part of a capitalist conspiracy, aimed at making money, off of peoples fears, about a rapidly warming Earth.



Third World countries keep fucking themselves up, they don't need this hoax to help them there.


----------



## code1211 (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




According to the folks who seem to know about this stuff, CO2 is a GHG and therefore by definition, does not actually warm the planet, but does prevent warmth from escaping into space.

It is not an arithmetic increase of effectiveness, though.  For every degree of warming caused by a given amount of CO2, adding that same amount of warming incrementally requires twice the amount of CO2.

So, If you would believe the AGW crowd, the amount of CO2 in the air right now has caused the planet to be more than 30 degrees warmer than than if there was no CO2 in the air.

The argument goes that a little CO2 caused a given amount of warming and allot of CO2 will cause allot.  However, that's not the whole story if we lay the warmiong at the foot of CO2.  The first degree of warmikng required a certain amount.  The second degree required twice that amount and so on.  We all know the stories of the peasant who is rewarded by the king with a grain of wheat on the condition that he gets a doubled amount of the previous days wheat every day for the remainder of his life and soon the entire wheat crop of the kngdom is his.

This is the same with CO2.  How much CO2 will be required at this point to raise the Global climate by one degree?  If the AGW theory is correct, a level of 560 ppm will do the trick.  The next degree will require a level of 1160 ppm.  The next degree will be hit with a level of 2320 ppm.  The next degree will see birds falling out of the air and humans passing out from oxygen deprivation, not heat stroke.

Can the CO2 concentration rise to this level?  It has before, but that was millions of years ago.  The simple truth, though, is that the global climate has been that warm within the last 120 thousand years and CO2 was nowhere near that level.  Why?  Beause CO2 concentration does not cause claimate change, it reacts to it.

At the end of the previous interglacial, without the benefit of CO2 levels this high, temperature was two degrees higher than today.

If temperature was dramatically higher and CO2 was dramatically lower, what may we gleen from this in terms of the global climate and its relation to CO2?


----------



## 52ndStreet (May 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > "Global Warming " is all false, and part of a global conspiracy aimed at slowing the development of
> ...



This is no "Hoax", these are the facts.Global warming, is a falsehood. Aimed at slowing third world development, and extracting monies from many of these governments,in the form of a Global Carbon Monoxide Tax. This Global Warming is all part of a Capitlalist industrialized nation fraud, and or ripoff of third world developing countries.!!$$


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



Reading comprehension glitch? I always call global warming a hoax ... but yeah, I can see why you wouldn't figure that out since you think "whitey" is to blame for all your woes.


----------



## 52ndStreet (May 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


No one mentioned anything about "Whitey", this entire Global warming hoax is affecting all
Races. You are the one injecting race into this issue, not me.!


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



No, you said it was to hurt third world nations, it's a hoax used to bilk millions from the wealthy countries, there is no profit in conning the third world ones. So, just following logic.


----------



## jreeves (May 21, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



The only CO2 that is warming the earth, emits from Chrissy's mouth, he is full of hot air. Lmao....


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



LOL ... he probably thinks he exhales O3!


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



How embarassing are your posts?

They are only personal insults.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting last night that CO2 causes the earth to warm.

You're the best!


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Reading comprehension ... not your strong suit.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2009)

KK, thanks again.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> KK, thanks again.



Well, regardless of how hard it is for you to read, thanks for you and your environuts for condemning us all by wasting all that money on shit that wound up doing nothing more than wasting money so now we have no funding for any way to help figure out how to help the plants for food! Yeah, thanks for killing us all.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KK, thanks again.
> ...



You guys are busted.

You can't argue that we don't have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent an ice age without the implication that CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the earth!

KK was busted and so are you!


----------



## KittenKoder (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, but stop and think about this a moment, I'll go slow so you don't pass out from all the facts zipping to you through cyber space.

Plants need two things to process the CO2 into O2, one is minerals and water, ie, food stuffs. The other is solar energy. Unbalanced solar energy will mean that they cannot process CO2 as quickly as they should. Now, here's what the hard facts are, the solar energy is lower, this can effect the temperature but it is not the only heat source for our planet. But we'll digress from that for a moment. Now, the plants are processing CO2 slower due to the lower solar activity. They process CO2 slower, so less of it is being converted back to O2. Now, are you still with us? Okay, the end result is of course a much higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, as for the actual temperature, a lower solar activity can also cause many other adverse effects in the planet, either by default or design, which can create more plate shifting, volcanic activity, less convection, etc.. However, as pointed out to you, we are starting to cool, which the timing fits since it takes a while for the heat to get here, it's slower than light, so we see the effect long before we experience it. Any questions?


----------



## jreeves (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


LOL....this coming from a hypocrite....LOL


----------



## Meister (May 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Busted....I was just saying that your one liners are getting real old, and they are.  You made my point for me...again, and again.  So go play in your sandbox Chris


----------



## Gurdari (May 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> > KMAN said:
> ...



um, ...we *are* changing the equation - you can do that with the same building blocks... you know what a chemical change is, right? Like when you burn some things? Your use of the word 'tiny' is subjective. Also, while drastic changes CAN be good - they can also be BAD. We are initiating changes without any ability to control them in the one ecosystem we all share. In normal circumstances nobody would be idiotic enough to do this ("Hey Bob, let's inject this untested compound into our bloodstream, it MIGHT make us super strong"), but I suppose in this case humanity has more important concerns like making money, or killing each other.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Right....

I have posted plenty of facts. But GW deniers ignore the facts.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Oh, like ignoring that fact that everything exhales CO2 and inhales O2, except plant which do the opposite? Like those facts?


----------



## elvis (May 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



No, he doesn't.  they don't gel with Sir Albert's agenda.


----------



## jreeves (May 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Are these the dealerships that closed?


----------

