Jeffksf B
Well-Known Member
A different look at the GW debate tonight on CNNheadline news at 7:00 and again at 9:00
http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/
I'll be watching.
http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/
I'll be watching.
Glenn Beck on Global Warming TV tonight
- Thread starter Jeffksf B
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Travis Munday
Well-Known Member
Hopefully its from a reasonable point of view and not from someone just looking to make a quick buck with stories of Armageddon and certain doom.
Frank Marano
Well-Known Member
I like Glenn Beck, about 98% of the time. Those other 2%, I want to yell outloud and I think that is what he tries to do. Yes he has his opinions, but sometimes he get a bit rediculous and goes far out on a limb to make points.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Good special. Course, I am biased. I listen to him nearly everyday and watch every night.
It's about time that someone prominant puts these "consensus" whackos in their place.
It's about time that someone prominant puts these "consensus" whackos in their place.
I watched it. I enjoyed the program. Interesting points.
I am one of those people that think this whole "Global warming movement" is BS.
Tom
I am one of those people that think this whole "Global warming movement" is BS.
Tom
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Was watching something on National Geographic Channel last night. The show was called "Naked Science" and was about CO2 in the crater lakes around the world....
There is a lake outside of Mammoth Springs, CA that emits 100 TONS of CO2 PER DAY.....
Gosh, I hate it when nature destroys itself. That was (1) geothermal lake of hundred around the world.
Considering that my "carbon footprint" (hahahhaa) is "quite high" at around 30 tons a year and the average is under 10 per year, this one lake is the equivalent of 3650 AVERAGE people per year.
That's nature for you. It goes and screws up a good theory like Man-Made Global Warming.
Mount Pinatubo ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas in 1991 ( a leading cause of ozone depletion)
The Pinatubo ash cloud reduced global temperature by .5-.6 C in 2002 and 2003.
A small volcano like Kiluea, HI releases more than double the amounts of SO2 than the dirtiest power plant in the US does.
Kiluea releases between 8-30,000 metric tons of CO2 DAILY.
Science CANNOT OFFER PROOF, only Mathematics offers "proof", hence when someone says that scientists have prooven that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming, they are patently wrong. Science is observation and speculation. Gravity is still theory, there is no way to scientifically prove that gravity exists.
Corelation is not causation.
That is just becuase some of the data happens to correlate, does not mean that is is the causal of the observation. Much of the data that Mr. Gore tends to spout actually is reproof that he is full of %^it. If one were to actually trend the rise of temperature with the rise of CO2, one would generally see that the temperature leads the CO2 rise, sometimes by as much as 800 years or so.
How does Mr Gore explain that between 1940 and 1979, "greenhouse" gases were rising, but temperatures were falling? It should be noted that between 1865 and 1940 we saw a rapid rise of temperature without significant rise of CO2.
Any dummy can look at a hockey stick graph and realize something bad from it. A trained monkey can call into question certain points of that same graph. Anyone with any analytical skills can poke giant holes in it. Anyone with a scientific or mathematical background can immediately note all the fundamental errors in this trnd graph (one of the biggest..... where is all the natural variations that occured in that time frame, all the margin or error calculations, the sampling error reports, etc). It doesn't take much time to pick apart Mr. Gore and his claims. Too bad we live in a nation and world full of Sheeple that take the "science" as it's fed to them.
Could you imagine what the world would be like today if humans had done as scientists said we should have done in the 1970's and dump soot all over the Arctic regions? And now they are talking about dumping millions of tons of iron dust into the oceans to generate a vigerous growth of plankton to obsorb CO2.... what will the long term consequences be? Environmentalists don't like us pumping treated sewage out to sea as the plankton growth spikes in those areas, killing all other forms of life (the plankton don't directly cause the death, but rather the spike in oxygen creates an algeal bloom and the algae kills everything else).... but they want to purposefully create this same effect?
Wow.
There is a lake outside of Mammoth Springs, CA that emits 100 TONS of CO2 PER DAY.....
Gosh, I hate it when nature destroys itself. That was (1) geothermal lake of hundred around the world.
Considering that my "carbon footprint" (hahahhaa) is "quite high" at around 30 tons a year and the average is under 10 per year, this one lake is the equivalent of 3650 AVERAGE people per year.
That's nature for you. It goes and screws up a good theory like Man-Made Global Warming.
Mount Pinatubo ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas in 1991 ( a leading cause of ozone depletion)
The Pinatubo ash cloud reduced global temperature by .5-.6 C in 2002 and 2003.
A small volcano like Kiluea, HI releases more than double the amounts of SO2 than the dirtiest power plant in the US does.
Kiluea releases between 8-30,000 metric tons of CO2 DAILY.
Science CANNOT OFFER PROOF, only Mathematics offers "proof", hence when someone says that scientists have prooven that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming, they are patently wrong. Science is observation and speculation. Gravity is still theory, there is no way to scientifically prove that gravity exists.
Corelation is not causation.
That is just becuase some of the data happens to correlate, does not mean that is is the causal of the observation. Much of the data that Mr. Gore tends to spout actually is reproof that he is full of %^it. If one were to actually trend the rise of temperature with the rise of CO2, one would generally see that the temperature leads the CO2 rise, sometimes by as much as 800 years or so.
How does Mr Gore explain that between 1940 and 1979, "greenhouse" gases were rising, but temperatures were falling? It should be noted that between 1865 and 1940 we saw a rapid rise of temperature without significant rise of CO2.
Any dummy can look at a hockey stick graph and realize something bad from it. A trained monkey can call into question certain points of that same graph. Anyone with any analytical skills can poke giant holes in it. Anyone with a scientific or mathematical background can immediately note all the fundamental errors in this trnd graph (one of the biggest..... where is all the natural variations that occured in that time frame, all the margin or error calculations, the sampling error reports, etc). It doesn't take much time to pick apart Mr. Gore and his claims. Too bad we live in a nation and world full of Sheeple that take the "science" as it's fed to them.
Could you imagine what the world would be like today if humans had done as scientists said we should have done in the 1970's and dump soot all over the Arctic regions? And now they are talking about dumping millions of tons of iron dust into the oceans to generate a vigerous growth of plankton to obsorb CO2.... what will the long term consequences be? Environmentalists don't like us pumping treated sewage out to sea as the plankton growth spikes in those areas, killing all other forms of life (the plankton don't directly cause the death, but rather the spike in oxygen creates an algeal bloom and the algae kills everything else).... but they want to purposefully create this same effect?
Wow.
