you have no idea what debunking is. for a guy who still has not produced a shred of evidence showing that CO2 does not lag temperature change you sure are an aggressive fool. Every time we have gone over this I prove you to be an idiot... so here we go again... 1. true or false... antartic was at near record or record highs on or about sept... 12 2012. here is a hint... you lying ass troll. http://news.yahoo.com/record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-dont-disprove-221828186.html now for the next one.. che thinker challenged us to prove something about cooling with is jab... so fc... 2. true of false... temperatures have not reason in 15 years... let me help... Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures This means that the âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2B7h0nvpP Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook and note you troll.... scientists do not deny this fact... the alarmist simply try to dismiss it. Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Americaâs prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were âdeeply flawedâ. Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ânatural variabilityâ â factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2B7iV5R2S Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I'm willing to let them ban new vehicles getting less than 35mpg, special exceptions allowed. I'm willing to let them subsidize the building of nuclear power plants and forcing the waste on Nevada. I'm willing to let them tax carbon, and fund research into fusion power, encourage development of green energy and require buildings to be built with a certain energy efficiency. i don't think these things are particulary onerous, a loss of freedom or a scary life dictation by the guv. Don't forget, we ARE the government. Well us and the corporations and the fossil fuel industry.
yeah whatever. I'm done arguing with you. You are not rational. I will not be further drawn into your psychosis. Everyone here can see the charts I posted. It's really all a rational person needs to see.
1. try dealing with facts... before you come out and start calling out names. 2. your charts are consistent with this fact and this fact alone.... Temperarture leads CO2 accumulation follows then when temperature declines and CO2 dissipates.
Are you willing to let them raise ethanol to a level my older vehicle can't handle? I don't want to take on a new car payment currently. If EPA mandates 15% at some point, I will be forced. It's not that I'm not willing, but I'm a realist. Unlike the gov, I live within a strict budget. Post edit: I have decided if gas hits 5 bucks a gallon where I live, I will finally buy the 1200 Hog I've been hankering for! (To help keep fuel costs within budgetary reason!)
This is an incredibly important comment. I often think that the politicians forget who is the gov. They are representatives, not elected to tell us how to live. I think too many in power forget that. You have touched the very thing about gov I'm concerned about.
I'm not a huge fan of the ethanol thing. Maybe in the future when they can use alternate plants and algae it will make more sense, but right now the economics, ethics and the CO2 balance aren't so good. I don't think the EPA would mandate something that would make most cars obsolete nor do I think they should. Buy the bike. I just got a cheap old 87 Honda 450 Rebel and restored it. I used to ride a lot when I was younger. It feels great to be free of the "cage again. I had forgotten how enjoyable it is to be part of the scenery while cruising through it. I get 50 mpg, how much does that hog get?
If my info is correct, about 43-47. I live a ways from town (20 miles) so I'm getting killed on gas between me and my wife. I hope you're right on the ethanol. I've learned to rebuild all my yard tools, but some just won't run on even 10%. Here is my dilemma. I know my older stuff is not the most environmentally friendly stuff, but I HATE this Chinese made shit that breaks down after a few uses. Perhaps you understand why I have as much disdain for big business as big gov. I'm trying to keep my old shit running because it is still more cost effective. I looked at the Kawasaki Ninjas but I want something big enough to tour the country with my wife on the back, and make 40 to 50 mile daily commute without excessive strain on the machine. How is your Rebel in that respect?
Yup, and keeping old stuff going saves the carbon footprint of the new one. I haven't ridden much or far on it yet as I just got it going a few weeks ago but it feels a little small framed for my six foot, and it's not really a good highway bike but I don't do highways much. No fun. I may need to get a larger, mid displacement, standard type bike. They seem hard to find though. Everything is cruisers or sport bikes.