The most stupid global warming argument ever...

[Kingsly]

I just got this FactCheck.org e-mail... Wow. Thats all I can say.

CEI Ad: "Energy"

Announcer: There’s something in these pictures you can’t see. It’s essential to life. We breathe it out.Plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth, and the fuels we find in it. It’s called carbon dioxide---CO2. The fuels that produce C02 have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love. Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? Carbon dioxide.

They call it pollution. We call it life.
So, car exhaust is life giving? And if we outlaw Co2 everyone will die? Will I go to jail for exhaling?
CEI Ad: "Glaciers"

Announcer: You've seen those headlines about Global Warming. The glaciers are melting. We’re doomed! That's what several studies supposedly found.
(The Cover of Science Magazine is shown opening up)
Announcer: But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite: Greenland ’s glaciers are growing, not melting; The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let’s force people to cut back, they say.

But we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke. It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.

Here is what the scientists behind the study say:
For one thing, the release said, Davis' study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet. More importantly, it said that growth of the interior ice sheet is just what scientists had predicted would happen as a consequence of global climate warming, bringing about more snowfall in previously arid regions of the continent.

CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent ($270,000) of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."

caio

[xsedrinam]

They must have made Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear (http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1380935/posts) required reading for staff.

[Black&Tan]

And if we outlaw Co2 everyone will die? Will I go to jail for exhaling?

No. You'll already be in jail because of something you said to someone over your telephone.

[aquajet]

They call it pollution. We call it life.

Perhaps we should all move to Mars then. After all, Mars' atmoshpere is composed of over 95% carbon dioxide. Imagine how much better life would be.

[SamIchi]

Yay for Carbon Dioxide!

[Dont Hurt Me]

George Bush "W" says there is no such thing as Global Warming, That should be good enough for everyone.:)

[Kingsly]

Yay for Carbon Dioxide!
yay for carb... *cough* ...bon... *horrible gargling sounds*... di...*slumps to the ground, dead*

[WildCowboy]

We should ban dihydrogen monoxide instead...that's the real danger.

[obeygiant]

George Bush "W" says there is no such thing as Global Warming, That should be good enough for everyone.:)


quote please

[Queso]

Wow. If I ever run for office, I want these guy's spin doctors.

That's if we haven't all drowned from the rising sea levels :rolleyes:

[CompUser]

We should ban dihydrogen monoxide instead...that's the real danger.

Oh yea, that stuff can kill ;)

---

Well, technically we could not survive with out C02. It is a key factor in respiration and with out it we would freeze to death at night.

Does anyone ever consider: "Global Dimming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

We should ban dihydrogen monoxide instead...that's the real danger.
Many people have drowned...so yeah...you are right :D

[Dr.Gargoyle]

George Bush "W" says there is no such thing as Global Warming, That should be good enough for everyone.:)
I think he said that it wasn't clear whether carbon dioxide could increase the temperature above the natural noise level. Hence, no need of signing the Kyoto protocol. :(
*Mental note: Buy a boat*

[Kingsly]

Actually, I am kind of looking forward to global warming. The resulting climate changes and subsequent ice age (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html) will clean up all the junk floating in the atmosphere.

[Dont Hurt Me]

quote pleaseHere some dribble,spin and double talk for you:rolleyes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
5 years later he has done as much on global warming as he has stopping those 10 million mexicans.:)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Actually, I am kind of looking forward to global warming. The resulting climate changes and subsequent ice age will clean up all the junk floating in the atmosphere.
...and we will be gone. I am not sure if find that particulary encouraging. I still think we all would be better off if Bush just would signed the Kyoto protocol.

The fat lady is warming up...

[huck500]

George Bush "W" says there is no such thing as Global Warming, That should be good enough for everyone.:)


I'm no GWB fan, but let's not attribute stuff to him that he didn't say...

Here's what he said about it during the debates in 2000:

Q: What about global warming?
BUSH: It’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions.
GORE: But I disagree that we don’t know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It’s pollution, carbon dioxide and other chemicals that are even more potent. Look, the world’s temperatures going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. And what are we going to tell our children?
BUSH: Yeah, I agree. Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Spin & double talk,patronizing sprinkled with nothing.

[Kingsly]

...and we will be gone. I am not sure if find that particulary encouraging. I still think we all would be better off if Bush just would signed the Kyoto protocol.

... like it would've made a difference? As far as I can tell, its already too late to stop global warming. If there was a kyoto protocol in the 60's, then yeah. But now, the effects are irreversible.

By the way, homo sapiens survived the other ice ages with just some animal skins and spears. What makes you think we cant with satellites, sno-cats and flamin' hot MacBook Pro's.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

GWB's defence is the same the tobaco industry has been used for years. It is statistically impossible to determine whether cigarettes causes lung cancer, since there are more or less infinite number of possible variables. Same arguments has been raised regarding global warming. There are no statistical proofs that carbon dioxide causes enough global warming leading to a significant change in climate beyond the natural fluctuations.
It is impossible to prove anything statistically, when you have infinite number of uncontrolable variables. The perfect loophole.

[Queso]

I just feel sorry for the polar bears. They are truly beautiful creatures, and they're going to die out if the icecap retreats :(

[Dr.Gargoyle]

... like it would've made a difference? As far as I can tell, its already too late to stop global warming. If there was a kyoto protocol in the 60's, then yeah. But now, the effects are irreversible.

By the way, homo sapiens survived the other ice ages with just some animal skins and spears. What makes you think we cant with satellites, sno-cats and flamin' hot MacBook Pro's.
You are right on thing. Even if we were to stop using fossile fuels today, we would still see an increase in the global warming for several decades. However, the battle isnt lost, but we seriously need to do something now. We need legislations preventing this madness now. Or rather, America as a nation needs to do that. Don't forget that you guys stand for 25% of CO2 in the world. :(

[MacFan782040]

The scarrier danger is the destruction of the rain forests. By 2050 they are predicted to be ALL gone.

Quite sad actually, when most species of animals and plants are concentrated in this area, many of which have not even been discovered yet, as well as plants with potential medicinal-value being destroyed before we even get the chance to test them.

[Kingsly]

You are right on thing. Even if we were to stop using fossile fuels today, we would still see an increase in the global warming for several decades. However, the battle isnt lost, but we seriously need to do something now. We need legislations preventing this madness now. Or rather, America as a nation needs to do that. Don't forget that you guys stand for 25% of CO2 in the world. :(
...tell me about it. I seriously see red when I see a housewife driving around in a truck that looks like it could tow the space shuttle.

[Queso]

The scarrier danger is the destruction of the rain forests. By 2050 they are predicted to be ALL gone.

I actually believe tropical deforestation is what's causing our climate change more than the CO2 emissions. Before we started wiping them out en masse, those forests regulated the environment for millions of years. If we'd left them intact, they might have kept the balance level however much carbon we pumped out.

Too late to find out now though.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I just feel sorry for the polar bears. They are truly beautiful creatures, and they're going to die out if the icecap retreats :(
Actually, they dying from drowning right now. Polar bears are excellent swimmers. However due to the increased ice melting, the polar bears has been forced to swim longer distances to their hunting/mating grounds. Many polar bears have been found drowned after being exhausted from swimming extreme distances.

[Sun Baked]

We should ban dihydrogen monoxide instead...that's the real danger.Actually, they said that is a more effective manipulator of global climate than CO2.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

...tell me about it. I seriously see red when I see a housewife driving around in a truck that looks like it could tow the space shuttle.
They wouldn't drive around Hummers and giant SUVs if your government taxed gas as they do here. We pay about $6/gallon here in europe, consequently we don't have that many gas guzzlers running around on our roads.
I fly over to US at least 4 times per year and from my very unscientific observations I would say you could cut your petrol consumtion in half if you just began to drive sensible cars instead of huge trucks and SUVs. The only way to get people drive more fuel efficient cars is by increasing the price on gas, until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.

[lem0n]

polar bear, penguin, panda, lion... TT_TT why can't people leave them alone and not hunt them down for stupid thing like rhino horn, its not going to make any guy less impotent.

[aquajet]

They wouldn't drive around Hummers and giant SUVs if your government taxed gas as they do here. We pay about $6/gallon here in europe, consequently we don't have that many gas guzzlers running around on our roads.
I fly over to US at least 4 times per year and from my very unscientific observations I would say you could cut your petrol consumtion in half if you just began to drive sensible cars instead of huge trucks and SUVs. The only way to get people drive more fuel efficient cars is by increasing the price on gas, until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.

You're just jealous that GM is offering to pay for American's gasoline in exchange for purchasing a Hummer. ;)

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1997090)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

You're just jealous that GM is offering to pay for American's gasoline in exchange for purchasing a Hummer. ;)

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1997090)
Well, after the sales of H1 dropped so low that GM had to end the production, I can see why GM was forced to come up this idea. Especially since GM has some serious financial problems and just don't have money to get something better out on the market. It is basically a cheap way to have ignorant consumers buy an outdated gas guzzler that will have zero resale value when GM lifts the price cap and the gas is $6/gallon. But then again, if have been unfavorably endowed and the blood pressures isnt all that anymore, what else can you do to prove your manhood. :rolleyes:

[Boggle]

Oh please, let's not pretend that Greenpeace and others aren't about politics instead of evnironmental reform and understanding.

At an environmental ralley in 2000 (I think it was here in DC), 5,000 people signed a petition carried around by 1 person w/ 1 clipboard -presumably with many pads of paper - over 6 hrs (that's roughly 14 ppl / minute) calling for congress to support a bill demanding the removal of all the hydrogen oxide from America's Water Supply by 2005. It was so sucessful a stunt that Penn & Teller duplicated it in their show ******** in the first season.

Liberal activists are no more informed than the conservative activists. Idiots comprise large percentages of both camps.

[lord patton]

I actually believe tropical deforestation is what's causing our climate change more than the CO2 emissions. Before we started wiping them out en masse, those forests regulated the environment for millions of years. If we'd left them intact, they might have kept the balance level however much carbon we pumped out.

Too late to find out now though.

Mature forests don't produce any net oxygen, and they don't reduce CO2 levels.

Yes, living vegetation converts CO2 to O2, but there's another side of the coin. When organic material decomposes, it releases CO2. If you take a forest that is not increasing in size or mass, it has no net effect on CO2 levels.

[Kingsly]

Liberal activists are no more informed than the conservative activists. Idiots comprise large percentages of both camps.
Thank you. I couldn't have put it better.

Like I said in the milk thread, Facts are your friend.

...until it becomes so expensive that it is an economic nightmare to drive around in a SUV.
Im in that boat right now. Anyone want to buy a landcruiser?
I want a Desiel VW Passat that gets 40+ MPG instead of 12 MPG.

[Sun Baked]

Im in that boat right now. Anyone want to buy a landcruiser?
I want a Desiel VW Passat that gets 40+ MPGWhat is wrong with the 60+mpg diesel Polo, besides the fact that you are the size of a bug about to splat across the hood of the landcruiser.

[Kingsly]

What is wrong with the 60+mpg diesel Polo, besides the fact that you are the size of a bug about to splat across the hood of the landcruiser.
Exactly. :D

[solvs]

CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent ($270,000) of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."
Since when are there 2 sides to the truth? There are a lot of people who know more about this type of thing than most of us do that say it's a problem. The other side, which seems to have a lot more to gain by not dealing with it, talks about how we have to research the subject first. And they've been saying that for the last ~6 years. And spread FUD like this to make people believe it's a made up cause, even though this should not be a political issue. Can't say I'm happy with the doomsdayers either, but some people care more about their own comfort than what's best for everyone. And that includes all the liberals I know who drive SUVs.

I'm not sure what it all means, but it couldn't hurt to cut down on pollution. If one side is wrong, worst case scenario is we didn't use up as much of our natural resources and can still breath easier (literally). The other side is wrong, we're all doomed.

[Queso]

Mature forests don't produce any net oxygen, and they don't reduce CO2 levels.

Yes, living vegetation converts CO2 to O2, but there's another side of the coin. When organic material decomposes, it releases CO2. If you take a forest that is not increasing in size or mass, it has no net effect on CO2 levels.

Normally yes, but surely when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere the density of plants in a given space increases slightly. It would take a huge area of tropical forest to absorb the entire CO2 increase, but's that exactly what we had. Eventually those plants do die, but their offspring also grow faster and larger thanks to the increase in nutrients around them from more rotting vegetation, so they continue to lock in the carbon. The important thing is to leave the whole system untouched and able to deal with the problem itself, which is exactly what we haven't done.