Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 That's the biggest bullshit copout I've ever heard. If Stephen Harper is powerless to do something about it, then not only am I a monkeys uncle, but Harper the uncle of all Canadian Monkeys, shouldn't be in power, since he is completely ineffective/incompetant and in charge of the 2nd biggest country in the world. "That's the biggest bullshit copout I've ever heard." You haven't lived. Are you one of those who believe that if we could just shut down the oil sands, all the effects of human development since the industrial revolution would instantly be negated? Say hi to your nephew for me. Quote
login Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) It appears you are someone who jumps on doomsday headlines and makes no effort to understand what is really happening. The Sahara is skrinking due to climate change: http://news.national...een-sahara.html aha http://www.guardian....n.climatechange Hmm it seems that this is due to the polar ice caps melting. It is fairly obvious to see what is happening. I live in an area with trees, this means the government should act to reduce the threat of forest fire to that community. This is the same military that drew up plans to invade Canada? http://en.wikipedia....ki/War_Plan_Red It is the job of the Pentagon to draw up all kinds of unlikely scenarios and plan for them. The idea of a 'war due to climate change' is one of those unlikely scenarios. oh reallly. I would say the conditions that need to occur are almost defaultive. We were talking about CO2. No, you are talking about CO2, this thread was about global warming. I see environmental devestation as a far greater point of discussion on the topic than CO2. You arn't going to reduce CO2 to a level to reverse the process, end of story move on in life. Now you are talking about water pollution. Sounds like more fuzzy logic. If you mainly care about real pollution then talk about real pollution. Don't post diatribes complaining about people who have a problem with anti-CO2 policies. No Global Warming does cause water pollution too. However human made water pollution is much easier to determine. Edited October 28, 2012 by login Quote
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 oh reallly. I would say the conditions that need to occur are almost defaultive.You are entitled to your opinion but you tried to invoke the authority of the 'pentagon' to support your opinion. I just pointed out that your attempt was based on a misunderstanding of what the pentagon does.No, you are talking about CO2, this thread was about global warming. I see environmental devestation as a far greater point of discussion on the topic than CO2. You arn't going to reduce CO2 to a level to reverse the process, end of story move on in life.I responded to this post: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21775entry845884No mention of "other pollution" there. Any talk of global warming is about CO2. Quote
login Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) You are entitled to your opinion but you tried to invoke the authority of the 'pentagon' to support your opinion. I just pointed out that your attempt was based on a misunderstanding of what the pentagon does. Not at all. I think you are misunderstanding what the pentagon does. No mention of "other pollution" there. Any talk of global warming is about CO2. No not at all, there are other factors to global warming not just CO2. example: Carbon dioxide Carbonic anhydride (CO2) 365 μmol/mol 87 μmol/mol 1.46 0.819 Carbon Monoxide Carbonic Oxide (CO) 11.1 μmol/mol 46 nmol/mol 0.89 1.013 Methane Marsh gas (CH4) 1,745 nmol/mol 1,045 nmol/mol 0.48 2.191 Nitrous oxide Laughing gas (N2O) 314 nmol/mol 44 nmol/mol 0.15 0.88 Tetrafluoromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80 pmol/mol 40 pmol/mol 0.003 1.33 Hexafluoroethane Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 3 pmol/mol 3 pmol/mol 0.001 0.067 Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur fluoride (SF6) 4.2 pmol/mol 4.2 pmol/mol 0.002 0.074 HFC-23* Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14 pmol/mol 14 pmol/mol 0.002 0.064 HFC-134a* 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane 0.001(C2H2F4) 7.5 pmol/mol 7.5 pmol/mol 0.001 0.007 HFC-152a* 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5 pmol/mol 0.5 pmol/mol 0.000 0.04 Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm−2) CFC-11§ Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) 268 pmol/mol 268 pmol/mol 0.07 CFC-12§ Dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2) 533 pmol/mol 533 pmol/mol 0.17 CFC-13§ Chlorotrifluoromethane (CClF3) 4 pmol/mol 4 pmol/mol 0.001 CFC-113 1,1,1-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (C2F3Cl3) 84 pmol/mol 84 pmol/mol 0.03 CFC-114 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Cl2) 15 pmol/mol 15 pmol/mol 0.005 CFC-115 Chloropentafluoroethane (C2F5Cl) 7 pmol/mol 7 pmol/mol 0.001 Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane (CCl4) 102 pmol/mol 102 pmol/mol 0.01 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) 69 pmol/mol 69 pmol/mol 0.004 HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-Fluoroethane (C2H3FCl2) 10 pmol/mol 10 pmol/mol 0.001 HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H3F2Cl) 11 pmol/mol 11 pmol/mol 0.002 Halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CClF2Br) 3.8 pmol/mol 3.8 pmol/mol 0.001 Halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) 2.5 pmol/mol 2.5 pmol/mol 0.001 As you can see N2O and CH4 have increased too. Methane raised a startling 1,045 nmol/mol and this in mind that the melting permafrost is releasing yet more. http://www.time.com/...1969767,00.html stopping forest fires does tie into the CO2 debate though if you can't geuss the connection I'll give you a hint PRESS >E>E>S> the S> gaurd the president LIGHT THE _R_E_ ARE YOU WATCHING H_U_E A DISCUSION ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING SHOULD INCLUDE DISCUSSION ON GREEN HOUSE _A_E_ AND FINALLY like CO2. If Stephen Harper can't stop forest fires, who can? Edited October 28, 2012 by login Quote
login Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Time for Freezy the Polar Bear Smokey's cousin...\Only you can prevent global warming! Edited October 28, 2012 by login Quote
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 Not at all. I think you are misunderstanding what the pentagon does.What basis do you have to believe that the current pentagon "plan" for Climate Wars is any more likely than the prior "plan" to invade Canada?No not at all, there are other factors to global warming not just CO2.So? CO2 is the primary GHG and the one that environmentalists spend the most time fussing about. Quote
login Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 What basis do you have to believe that the current pentagon "plan" for Climate Wars is any more likely than the prior "plan" to invade Canada? This is like saying proove the US didn't take over Canada. So? CO2 is the primary GHG and the one that environmentalists spend the most time fussing about. Oh so you are a wannabee environmentalist now huh?- Quote
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) This is like saying proove the US didn't take over Canada.Well that is my point. The US military obviously thought that the Canadian "threat" was serious enough to warrant a plan at the same time it would be absurd to claim the military thought such a war was likely. I am arguing that this example shows the US military does not make war plans based on what is likely - but rather based on what is plausible. Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG Quote
login Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 Well that is my point. The US military obviously thought that the Canadian "threat" was serious enough to warrant a plan at the same time it would be absurd to claim the military thought such a war was likely. I am arguing that this example shows the US military does not make war plans based on what is likely - but rather based on what is plausible. Ok, but this is likely and plausible. Quote
TimG Posted October 28, 2012 Report Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Ok, but this is likely and plausible.And I said provide something to back up your assertion. Edited October 28, 2012 by TimG Quote
login Posted October 29, 2012 Report Posted October 29, 2012 And I said provide something to back up your assertion. Read the article. Quote
TimG Posted October 29, 2012 Report Posted October 29, 2012 Read the article.You mean the op? Nothing in that article other than sensationalist drivel and outright lies. Do you have something specific that you think supports your claim that the US military thinks that "climate wars" are likely? Quote
PIK Posted October 29, 2012 Report Posted October 29, 2012 The article seems to be reporting pretty much exactly what I recall hearing decades ago when I first heard of AGW, that we could expect more of what we're used to. More heat in the atmosphere simply means more energy driving the weather systems it contains. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how that works. What's strange though is that I don't recall the predictions that we'd also see the denial that we're the cause would increase apace the reality. Decades ago ,they were screaming global cooling and the temp has not gone up in 10 years and went down this year. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
kairos Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 The temperature has been increasing. Did you read the article? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Decades ago ,they were screaming global cooling and the temp has not gone up in 10 years and went down this year. This is the oldest myth out there. It's not true, PIK. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.