Campy Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Just curious- Increased airborne pollutants (sulfuric acid from coal and nitric acid from auto exhaust) have increased the amount and relative acidity of acid rain - measurements have been recorded indicating that the ph in rainfall can, and has, reached that of battery acid (~0.9). Aside from the harm it causes in ecosystems, when acid rain seeps into the ground it is corrosive to many rock types. When a sedimentary rock as prevalent as limestone, for example, is broken down by acid rain, it leads to faults slipping. No big deal if you're not on a fault line, right? Wrong. Undersea fault slips create tsunamis. In addition to fault slippage, sink holes open in karst topography (which constitutes the topography of much of the south east). No big deal, unless a busy interstate bridge collapses during rush hour in Atlanta and you happen to be on it. Another result is increased volcanic activity. Not living in Hawaii or the Pacific Northwest, who cares, right? Google "Krakatoa" and "yellowstone super volcano" What would be the harm in reducing the amount of pollutants in the air - and in turn make the planet a safer place?
Johnny Coli Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Good Read! http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/gal..._consensus.html Good read in that it points out the absurd lengths the anti-global warming, big oil apologist crowd is willing to go to make any of their points stick. You can't on the one hand argue that there isn't a consensus (which there most definately is), then attempt to compare big-oil flunkies to Galileo because he dared to go up against the earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe nuts. Galileo was doing science at a time when religion and superstition ruled. I'm pretty sure most would agree what side he'd be on today.
Alaska Darin Posted April 19, 2007 Author Posted April 19, 2007 Good read in that it points out the absurd lengths the anti-global warming, big oil apologist crowd is willing to go to make any of their points stick. You can't on the one hand argue that there isn't a consensus (which there most definately is), then attempt to compare big-oil flunkies to Galileo because he dared to go up against the earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe nuts. Galileo was doing science at a time when religion and superstition ruled. I'm pretty sure most would agree what side he'd be on today. Sure he would. I'm sure he'd trust the people who brought us the completely fallacious "Hockey Stick Graph" and garner more and more public money with every panic inducing, "sky is falling" proclamation. "We don't trust big oil or big business, but we embrace the biggest, most corrupt business on the planet." Sincerely, Liberals Now go back to the basement, toss on some punk rock, and pretend you actually stand up to the man.
Johnny Coli Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Sure he would. I'm sure he'd trust the people who brought us the completely fallacious "Hockey Stick Graph" and garner more and more public money with every panic inducing, "sky is falling" proclamation. "We don't trust big oil or big business, but we embrace the biggest, most corrupt business on the planet." Sincerely, Liberals Now go back to the basement, toss on some punk rock, and pretend you actually stand up to the man. Yes, Darin, global warming is a world-wide liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific elite. This is only a debate here in the confines of the PPP. Scientists rarely agree on anything and the fact that we almost unanimously agree on this issue should tell people something. I await your insult and the subsequent pile-on by your suck-ups.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Yes, Darin, global warming is a world-wide liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific elite. This is only a debate here in the confines of the PPP. Scientists rarely agree on anything and the fact that we almost unanimously agree on this issue should tell people something. I await your insult and the subsequent pile-on by your suck-ups. While there isn't a debate on WHETHER warming is happening or not, there most CERTAINLY is no consensus on the cause.
EC-Bills Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 While there isn't a debate on WHETHER warming is happening or not, there most CERTAINLY is no consensus on the cause. Shut up Joe. You are in bed with the polluters! -Al "Occidental Petroleum" Gore
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 More and more it seems that global warming is being used as a vehicle to advance global socialism. Should we be better stewards of the environment? Absolutely. Should we cripple the US economy in the process? Absolutely not. Until the leftwing enviro hippies can come to terms with that they should just eat their bean sprouts and STFU.
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 More and more it seems that global warming is being used as a vehicle to advance global socialism. As Lyndon Larouche just said today. Environmentalism is the legacy of Nazi gardening. (No, I'm not making that up either.)
Ramius Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Nazi gardening. For some reason when i heard this, i immediately had a mental image of Kurt godel hoeing in a corn field, and passing the corn stalks to HA who is burning them for fuel.
GG Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Yes, Darin, global warming is a world-wide liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific elite. This is only a debate here in the confines of the PPP. Scientists rarely agree on anything and the fact that we almost unanimously agree on this issue should tell people something. I await your insult and the subsequent pile-on by your suck-ups. Shall we rate the relative quality of the suckups for one side vs the other? You'd probably like life on the dark side much more.
molson_golden2002 Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 More and more it seems that global warming is being used as a vehicle to advance global socialism. Socialism in what way? Government control of the air?
Hollywood Donahoe Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 Socialism in what way? Further state regulation of industry.
Alaska Darin Posted April 20, 2007 Author Posted April 20, 2007 Yes, Darin, global warming is a world-wide liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific elite. This is only a debate here in the confines of the PPP. Scientists rarely agree on anything and the fact that we almost unanimously agree on this issue should tell people something. I await your insult and the subsequent pile-on by your suck-ups. Don't you work for big pharma? I'm sorry, I'm going to go ahead and completely discount your opinion on anything scientific because you work for an industry that screws the little guy for money (to say nothing of your specialty not being climatology - not a dig, just a fact as I'm not a scientist at all). Sound familiar? I don't have an suck-ups, nor do I need anyone to help me point out how hypocritical you are. You know it.
Johnny Coli Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 Don't you work for big pharma? I'm sorry, I'm going to go ahead and completely discount your opinion on anything scientific because you work for an industry that screws the little guy for money (to say nothing of your specialty not being climatology - not a dig, just a fact as I'm not a scientist at all). Sound familiar? I don't have an suck-ups, nor do I need anyone to help me point out how hypocritical you are. You know it. Climate change/global warming isn't just studied by climatologists, and it's effect is measured across many scientific fields. The consensus has been formed via research from marine biologists, ecologists, microbiologists, geologists, epidemiologists and on and on. It's not just someone sticking a thermometer out a window in ten different cities across the globe. There's a review that just came out in The Lancet, one of the oldest and prestigious medical journals in the world. The first line in the abstract (Climate change and human health: present and future risks (Pubmed link. I'll get the whole review when I get to the lab): There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate. It reviews the impact global warming is/will have on health risks. Like I said, the effect of global warming and the evidence for it will be measured/studied by more than climatologists.
Alaska Darin Posted April 20, 2007 Author Posted April 20, 2007 Climate change/global warming isn't just studied by climatologists, and it's effect is measured across many scientific fields. Gee, really? Do they all have their hands out too (for good reason, as the endeavor is important)? The consensus has been formed via research from marine biologists, ecologists, microbiologists, geologists, epidemiologists and on and on. It's not just someone sticking a thermometer out a window in ten different cities across the globe. Nah, it's 2000 different locations (it used to be 6000), most of which used to be far away from civilization, but that's no longer the case. Add to that a whole bunch of different data that when really analyzed tells us we pretty much know dick, so we're depending on skewed computer modeling and "sky is falling" type theories. Probably not a big money grab, as science is noted for being so far above that. here's a review that just came out in The Lancet, one of the oldest and prestigious medical journals in the world. The first line in the abstract (Climate change and human health: present and future risks (Pubmed link. I'll get the whole review when I get to the lab):It reviews the impact global warming is/will have on health risks. Like I said, the effect of global warming and the evidence for it will be measured/studied by more than climatologists. "The recent (globally averaged) warming by 0.5 degrees C is partly attributable to such anthropogenic emissions." Gee, that "partly" is super-scientific and seems so very concrete. I wonder why they didn't say "mostly?" Oh, because they don't really know. It's not science, it's SPECULATION based on very selective data groupings by people whose research depends on there being big problems. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why NYC's temperatures are significantly warmer while Albany's are slightly cooler. Are they not sharing virtually the same atmosphere, being that they're what, 130 miles apart? I'm sure climate change will have health affects. Some will be positive. Some will be negative. That's pretty much the nature of nature. You know, since the climate has been in constant flux since we've been smart enough to try and figure it out.
/dev/null Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 Further state regulation of industry. Those who don't see it are fools Those who do see it and object are heretics So spank my arse and call me a heretic. Global Warming = 21st century Marxism
Recommended Posts