What's unbelievable to me is the Republicans were the stronghold of conservatives and what they've become. They promised smaller government and tax cuts and that sort of thing. Those are agreeable to me, given my Libertarian bent. Gradually the actual conservatives have been displaced in the party, with guys like cpawfan talked about above - more interested in social issues than dealing with our bloated and corrupt government. With 6 years of Bush and mostly republican control of both houses, govt. grew from under $2T to over $3T. No thanks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Jul 7 2008, 02:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The way someone speaks should not dictate who you vote for, but it is clear it has been a huge factor this time around. I'm a Democrat and figured I'd always vote Democratic but Barack Obama is ridiculous. I don't agree with John McCain on policy but I do believe he knows what is right and what is wrong. Obama hasn't ever achieved anything so his promises don't mean anything. I don't think he can equate the plans on his websites to real action if he, God forbid, wins the presidency. This wouldn't be my opinion if the nominee was Clinton, Biden, or Edwards. All three have made promises and have delivered. From Obama I see the Manchurian candidate. If he does become president, I will support him because this country is long overdue for health care reform (interestingly enough, I do disagree with Obama on the importance of mandates). And people mentioned tax cuts earlier in the thread -- Obama's plan (and most of the Democrats who were running) called for tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. The top five percent are the ones who are benefitting from the Bush tax cuts. I agree on this matter. The top five percent should be paying more taxes, not less, while ordinary Americans are suffering.</div> ^^^Bitter Hillary voter for the record.
Huevonkiller, I don't think I'm bitter, but nice reference to Obama's comments. By no means will I vote for McCain. I don't think this country can stand any more Republicans. I may end up voting for Obama, but really depends on what he does from now until election day. I don't think that's bitter, I think that's what all Americans should do. I honestly can give you examples of when Clinton, Biden, Edwards (even McCain) have distinguished the difference between right and wrong. I can't do this for Obama, if you'd like to give me examples go ahead. He has promised action, but in his career I haven't seen any action on his part. He has called out other politicians for "refining" their positions, and now he's doing the same thing he spoke out against. This country needs a Democrat, but right now I don't know if Obama is that Democrat. Liberal and conservative ideals are an important basis of this country's foundation. People should vote for whoever represents their own ideals. That's why I may vote for Obama. But also, the presidency is a job. Every job needs a resume, and Obama does not qualify. McCain was probably the most qualified Republican (and the one with the ability to bring about the most change in the Republican field because of his ability to work with Democrats). I am not voting for McCain, but I may end up rooting for him. It doesn't really matter though, I live in New York. It's going to Obama no matter what. If it doesn't, he has bigger things to worry about instead of my vote.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Jul 7 2008, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huevonkiller, I don't think I'm bitter, but nice reference to Obama's comments. By no means will I vote for McCain. I don't think this country can stand any more Republicans. I may end up voting for Obama, but really depends on what he does from now until election day. I don't think that's bitter, I think that's what all Americans should do. I honestly can give you examples of when Clinton, Biden, Edwards (even McCain) have distinguished the difference between right and wrong. I can't do this for Obama, if you'd like to give me examples go ahead. He has promised action, but in his career I haven't seen any action on his part. He has called out other politicians for "refining" their positions, and now he's doing the same thing he spoke out against. This country needs a Democrat, but right now I don't know if Obama is that Democrat. Liberal and conservative ideals are an important basis of this country's foundation. People should vote for whoever represents their own ideals. That's why I may vote for Obama. But also, the presidency is a job. Every job needs a resume, and Obama does not qualify. McCain was probably the most qualified Republican (and the one with the ability to bring about the most change in the Republican field because of his ability to work with Democrats). I am not voting for McCain, but I may end up rooting for him. It doesn't really matter though, I live in New York. It's going to Obama no matter what. If it doesn't, he has bigger things to worry about instead of my vote.</div> Obama's doing the same kind of pandering that all politicians, like the Clintons, do. That's moving to the center after the primary process or trying to sway a certain type of voter. Which is why Hillary drank Alcohol with fans at a bar and talked about her love of hunting towards the end of her campaign. I don't blame her on these particular issues, that's just how the game is. If she was the VP, I wouldn't even be that upset either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>Do you realize that Co2 is used by trees to make oxygen? Also, cows produce far more Co2 than cars in this country and cows have been prevelent for a long time....don't be sucked in to the green lobby and all the theories they present as facts....for instance, the average tempeture of the earth is .5 degree celcius higher than 100 years ago....what they dont tell you is that theres no reliable data before that, so for all we know, its still colder than 200 years ago....the point is, the sample size is so small and theres nothing to compare it to, so how can it be considered a trend....its like noticing that a players scoring jumped from 10 points a game to 20 points a game and using that trend, he will score 40 points a game this season and 80 points a game next year....theres a very good chance that increases in tempature will turn out to be a statistical anomaly....</div> lol, sure trees need Co2 to make oxygen, but it`s not like the total tree population has been increasing over the last 50 years. Well we can look at CO2 concentrations over time. And the CO2 values would appear like a wave, they would top out around 290 ppm, and would drop to as low as 185 ppm. When it would go from 185 to 300 (change of 115 ppm) it wasnt changes that took place over a span of 100 years, it took 14000 years. From between 2000 BC to 1850 AD, from 273 to 286. (13 over approx 4000 years) Now from around 1850 to 2008, from 286 to 380 ppm. (94 over approx 160 years) Oh and all the livestock in the world (which is meat, milk, and eggs, and transportation for a lot of people - which communities rely on to live) contributes about 9% of the C02 emmissions. Transportation contributes 33%. C02 has a larger impact on global warming than Methane does. However if you were referring to Methane, Cows produce 37% of methane coming from human activities. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>First you have to prove that there is such a thing as global warming There is global warming, of that there is no doubt. The science is sound; there's a geological record in stone and in ice cores. What's not sound is the claim it's caused by man. Man wasn't burning fossil fuels when this latest instance of warming began 10,000 years ago, ending the last ice age, melting glaciers that covered the great lakes. Nor did the Dinosaurs burn fossil fuels during the previous ice age, or when they were at their peak and the world's temperature was much warmer than today.</div> Well it`s pretty clear that man has caused a substantial increase in C02 in the last 100 years, and that Carbon Dioxide does increase the amount of light rays trapped within the Earth`s atmosphere. There has been a 0.5 degree celsius increase in average Earth surface temperature over the last 100 years. While climate changes, looking at the fastest slope change. There is a 12 degree celsius difference over 10 000 years. So that would be 1.2 degrees over 1000 years, or 0.6 degrees over 500 years. So it seems that the temperature is increasing about 5 times faster than a natural climate change has in the past, ie. seems like global warming (appearing to be more than just a natural climate).
Heh... You seem to think that warming is a linear process, but it's not. You also seem to think that CO2 levels precede warming, but the CO2 measured in ice cores and by other means show the opposite - it warms first, then the CO2 levels increase. If you take two boards, one white and one black, and put them in the sun, you can measure the temperature above each after some time and you will find that the dark one absorbs heat that is quite measurable; the white one reflects heat. 10,000 years ago, much of the earth was covered in glaciers (they all melted away, before there was burning of fossil fuels!), so you had all that glacier covered earth reflecting heat and sunlight back into space. As the planet warmed, less of the planet was covered in white stuff, and the dark stuff absorbs heat from the sun. It's quite obvious that you have a feedback mechanism that causes the earth to warm faster and faster: less glaciers means more heat absorbed, melts glaciers even faster, means heat absorbed faster. The massive clear cutting of rain forests in south america has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels, yet has a lot to do with less photosynthesis converting CO2 into O2. Finally, here's a graph of CO2 over the last 400 years. We weren't burning fossil fuel ~325 years ago when CO2 spiked higher than it is now. Please explain that
Yeah Lavalamp, I have to admit Denny owns the subject of Global Warming. You should look at his blogs on the issue, they're very entertaining and informative as well.
Sorry, that's 100K years, not years. So it'd be 325,000 years ago. The most recent spike started 10,000 years ago, as expected.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 8 2008, 02:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Heh... You seem to think that warming is a linear process, but it's not. You also seem to think that CO2 levels precede warming, but the CO2 measured in ice cores and by other means show the opposite - it warms first, then the CO2 levels increase. If you take two boards, one white and one black, and put them in the sun, you can measure the temperature above each after some time and you will find that the dark one absorbs heat that is quite measurable; the white one reflects heat. 10,000 years ago, much of the earth was covered in glaciers (they all melted away, before there was burning of fossil fuels!), so you had all that glacier covered earth reflecting heat and sunlight back into space. As the planet warmed, less of the planet was covered in white stuff, and the dark stuff absorbs heat from the sun. It's quite obvious that you have a feedback mechanism that causes the earth to warm faster and faster: less glaciers means more heat absorbed, melts glaciers even faster, means heat absorbed faster. The massive clear cutting of rain forests in south america has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels, yet has a lot to do with less photosynthesis converting CO2 into O2. Finally, here's a graph of CO2 over the last 400 years. We weren't burning fossil fuel ~325 years ago when CO2 spiked higher than it is now. Please explain that </div> Well first off you said 325 years ago it was higher than today. The number indicated in the chart 325 years ago is 300 ppm. Well today`s number is 380 ppm so I dont know if your chart is out of date by 100 years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 387 ppm by volume in the Earth's atmosphere,</div> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The massive clear cutting of rain forests in south america has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels, yet has a lot to do with less photosynthesis converting CO2 into O2.</div> Sure it`s true that there are more than 1 factor. But burning fossil fuels is a big big one. Industries produces lots, Transportation produce about 33% of all C02. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You seem to think that warming is a linear process, but it's not. You also seem to think that CO2 levels precede warming, but the CO2 measured in ice cores and by other means show the opposite - it warms first, then the CO2 levels increase.</div> Well maybe that is how the natural Climate change model works. Our C02 has increased far faster than during any natural climate change, as well the fact is that our temperature is increasing faster than past natural climate changes have had.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 8 2008, 02:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Another interesting image: </div> I actually used the same graph data in my first post regarding this that you just responded to. lol The thing is though, those quote unquote, abrupt changes. Take place over 10s of thousands of years. I was using the same graphical information when I first posted. The sharpest change in climate occurs at approximately 150 000 years ago. It goes from 3 to -9 in a span of 10 000 years (my graph was a little more detailed) or 12 degrees celsius over 10 000 years. or 1.2 degrees over 1000 years. or .6 degrees over 500 years. Ours has changed .5 degrees in 100 years. So ours has changed approx 5 times faster than a fast natural climate change.
What is 380 ppm? .003% or .00003 of the makeup of the atmosphere. Compared to a much more influential greenhouse gas that nobody talks about, water vapor, which is 4% or .04 of the makeup of the atmosphere. Simply put, mountain out of a molehill. Or to mix metaphors, you can't convince me the sky is falling You say things that simply don't stand up to the data: Do you or do you not see that temperatures radically increased starting about 40,000 years go (first graph) while CO2 was falling? Or that CO2 didn't start rising until 10,000 years ago, or 30,000 years after temperatures increased by over 10 degrees C?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 8 2008, 02:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You say things that simply don't stand up to the data: Do you or do you not see that temperatures radically increased starting about 40,000 years go (first graph) while CO2 was falling? Or that CO2 didn't start rising until 10,000 years ago, or 30,000 years after temperatures increased by over 10 degrees C?</div> First off the issue you are pointing out is that temperature has other factors that can increase it, for example if glaciers melt and their is less glaciers to reflect light, and more ocean to absorb it. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Compared to a much more influential greenhouse gas that nobody talks about, water vapor, which is 4% or .04 of the makeup of the atmosphere.</div> No one talks about water vapour because it`s not something that we are increasing or decreasing. The atmosphere will hold a certain amount of water vapour in it on average which is based on temperature. However C02 is something that we clearly are contributing to. And although Water vapour is more influential, C02 is an influential factor nonetheless. However, although there is a lot more Water vapour than C02 molecules in the atmosphere: 4% water vs. 0.003.8% C02 Both produce noticeable amounts of greenhouse effect: 36%-70% for water vs. 9%-26% for C02 If I take mid numbers: 53 for water, 17.5 for C02, Despite there being 1000 times as many water molecules than Carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, Water only contributes approximately 3 times as much to the greenhouse effect as C02. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The most important greenhouse gases are: * water vapor, which causes about 36?€“70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.) * carbon dioxide, which causes 9?€“26% * methane, which causes 4?€“9% * ozone, which causes 3?€“7%</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 8 2008, 02:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Simply put, mountain out of a molehill. Or to mix metaphors, you can't convince me the sky is falling smile.gif</div> lol you can believe that the sky is falling or whatever you want, I don`t really care. I`m just pointing out what the data says. If you want to you could come to the conclusion from the data that Xenos the Scientologist overlord is increasing C02 emissions and cars are reducing them. lol
It's typical of the pro-man-made-global-warming crowd to use the extremes of guestimated figures because their argument falls down when realistic numbers are used. Take that for what it is worth (which is worth a lot ) This video says a lot in an entertaining way, particularly dumping on Gore and his silly movie. It's worth the 9 minutes to see the whole thing, but I was particularly interested in hearing your response to what it says about 5:30 into it and going forward. <div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Io-Tb7vTamY&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Io-Tb7vTamY&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's typical of the pro-man-made-global-warming crowd to use the extremes of guestimated figures because their argument falls down when realistic numbers are used. Take that for what it is worth (which is worth a lot smile.gif )</div> Well, that is a vague accusation, considering I've been using the same graphs you have and used wikipedia on determing the gases that compose the atmosphere. If it's relevant to my posts, then Point it out. If you feel other people have exaggerated things well go argue with them lol. I might watch the video tomorrow if I feel like it lol. Not in the mood right now to pay attention to a global-warming vid.
I think you are falling for one of the easiest mathematical tricks that can be pulled on someone. I explained it in one of my blog posts here: http://sportstwo.com/forums/blog-b1.html&st=10 - see the two graphs and how by fiddling with the time scale you eliminate data and make stuff in the noise look suspicious (or in your favor). And look at the two graphs I posted earlier. How do you explain 100 PPM less CO2 150M years ago when the temperature was the highest? Simply put, there is no correlation between increased CO2 and temperature. This also explains why you are misusing this data: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The most important greenhouse gases are: * water vapor, which causes about 36�€“70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.) * carbon dioxide, which causes 9�€“26% * methane, which causes 4�€“9% * ozone, which causes 3�€“7%</div> Or not factoring in your linear thinking that temperatures actually cooled for hundreds of years during the little ice age, so the aggregate amount of warming is even more than the 12 degrees (overstated) you claimed.
