What IS applicable to the global warming issue? I thought it was an effect due in part at least to the depletion of the ozone layer, which is believed to be a result of pollution. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe global warming is a fine and dandy naturally occurring phenomenon. And then there was AAA's assertion that the ice in his water glass melts, it does not spill over (or something to that effect). Well the ice ON the polar ice pace is not IN the arctic ocean. It is fresh water....frozen for millenniums. It is ON the arctic ocean. Just as the south polar ice cap is not IN anything, but ON a land mass. AAA should take a look at the next ice cream cone he eats. Let it melt, and tell me there is no spill-over. Rogue's past was great indeed. And Resinate's post was the perfect exclamation point to the whole thing: Resinate added to Rogue's post with an unassailable point. Take politics out of the issue completely and just use common sense!!!Don't, and we would all have to be "delusional". Peace, RS
If you lib's are through congratulating each other on how morally superior you are, I wish you would explain to us advocates of dirty water and air how "common sense" mandates imposing enormous costs on the economy with no evidence whatsoever it will make one iota's difference? I know it is unpleasant to leave the land of make believe and enter the real world, but the facts are that the really major producers of so-called "greenhouse gasses", like China and India, are not about to sacrifice their economies to please a bunch of rich, western environmentalists. We can impose draconian restrictions on ourselves and the net global effect will be miniscule. That's why this issue is totally political. It's just a club for the Dem's to swing at the administration. When they were in power, they did nothing to adopt any of this agenda.
The "hole in the ozone" is separate from global warming. Whether the ozone layer is truly depleting due to certain chemical interactions or whether the "hole" has always been there because of geomagnetic interaction isn't known. Nor is it known whether overall ozone density naturally varies cyclically over long time periods. There is a lot of conjecture but key answers (especially those regarding natural variations over long periods) are so far unknown though. In addition, related concerns about fluctuations in surface radiation levels are not solely attributable to planetary ozone density. They involve cyclic variations in solar output and known shifts in the ionosphere due to geomagnetic flux denisity variation (including the potential for another global polarity reversal in the process of developing). Global warming concerns focus on a combination of "greenhouse gases" - the largest of which is water vapor. The components of "air pollution" are less a factor - most focus seems to be on the production of excess carbon dioxide (which is the next largest component of the so-called greenhouse gases). Related issues so far unresolved are how the slashing and burning of massive amounts of forested acerage around the world is altering planetary carbon dioxide levels due to the reduction in available plantlife that would normally scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Other key issues include whether global weather shifts and average temperature increase is more grossly impacted by natural planetary cycles than industrial gas emmissions. With a mere 120 years of instrumental data, scientists haven't a clue what's "normal" on a scale of tens or hundreds of millennia. There is evidence that thousands of years ago the centers of Mayan civilizations were completely abandoned due to climatic shifts that hit their lands with prolonged drought. Since there were no industrial emmissions involved 5-6,000 years ago - clearly there are natural atmospheric cycles that produce large scale impacts. Also, known changes in sub-oceanic currents play critical roles in changes to weather and average planetary temperature and these currents undergo natural changes over long periods of time. The most recent shift occured about 25 or so years ago in the El Nino Southern Oscillation which has helped contribute to increases in temperatures and changes in weather patterns since. Another issue so far unaddressed by hydrogen power proponents is the potentially huge increase in atmospheric water vapor it would produce - potentially contributing more seriously to greenhouse gas effects and/or alterations in local weather patterns. As far as the ice melting in a glass - I believe he was forgetting that ice density is less than liquid water and so floats partly above the water level. He also probably forgot that there are billions (maybe trillions) of cubic meters of ice on land at the poles (and thus not IN the water).
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011604/content/global_warming_update.guest.html It's All About Politics January 16, 2004 The amazing thing about those who believe in the theory (and that's what it is, a theory not a fact) that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise is their utter lack of respect for the truth. They find it a little hot or, paradoxically, a little chilly, and they make the leap that we're causing it! I had a great call on this from Chris in Connecticut which you can hear below. He cited the temperature rise at the equator getting hotter and suggested it sucks heat from the colder areas. There is a possibility that warm air rising can create cycles or vacuums to replace cold air at lower altitudes, but if that's the case, we need firm, unalterable data that temperatures at the equator are significantly higher this year. The idea that we are causing global warming based on this anomalous cold snap is typical of the way this whole movement (and it is a movement), has been politicized by people for the express purpose of combining and blaming the freedom, prosperity and technological advancement of the USA. Yes, rather than blame that giant ball of hydrogen fire in the sky called the Sun for the heat, they're blaming humans - but not all humans. Not China, not Third World countries. No, just the 280 million Americans and capitalism itself. All this global warming stuff is anecdotal, though. I'm suspicious of motives, especially when there's competing data from various scientists - and remember, scientific fact isn't based on a democratic vote of what "most scientists" say. Galileo alone was right about the world being round. If scientists could prove the source of this warming period differs from previous coolings and ice ages, there wouldn't be any argument about it, but no one can. Nobody. It's only a theory - and when you see that the solution dovetails with their anti-American agenda, you have to be suspicious. It was a typical Al Gore gaffe to go out on one of the coldest days in the last 25 years and talk about global warming. I wish Gore had addressed why these gasses only come from developed nations - specifically the United States - and why those gases only come from the US when a Republican is president. That has to be what Gore thinks, since his administration did nothing to push or pass or sign the very Kyoto Protocol he rips Bush for ignoring. If Algore were a scientist, he'd know that you don't come in with a conclusion and bang the facts until they fit it. But alas, he's just a politician - one who is, thankfully, out of office
"If you lib's are through congratulating each other on how morally superior you are.." Feeling morally inferior? I didn't think that was possible for right wing holier than thou conservatives. "I know it is unpleasant to leave the land of make believe and enter the real world." You mean the real world of corporate America? Initially the cigarette companies said that claims of cancer from cigarettes was make believe. Time and time again, like clockwork, corporate America claims that pollution is not dangerous, only to be proven wrong time and time again. "I know it is unpleasant to leave the land of make believe and enter the real world, but the facts are that the really major producers of so-called "greenhouse gasses", like China and India, are not about to sacrifice their economies to please a bunch of rich, western environmentalists. We can impose draconian restrictions on ourselves and the net global effect will be miniscule." Those countries on the verge of major industrialization try to copy America. If we are major polluters, but wealthy as a result, why wouldn't they follow that lead? We could easily force them to comply with pollution and environmental controls, but it would look might silly of us to do that when we are the biggest offender. "That's why this issue is totally political. It's just a club for the Dem's to swing at the administration. When they were in power, they did nothing to adopt any of this agenda." The issue is political in as much as corporate America spends money to influence Washington to ignore their pollution. So, if Washington is bought and paid for by corporate America, is the problem political or financial? Is the solution buying more politicians by the environmentalists than corporate America, or through the open political process? If Bush had not rolled back so many of the previous administrations efforts to control pollution and support the environment, the Democrats would have little or nothing to swing at. And, if GW did something positive toward the environment, how could they counter that? However, he hasn't, and he won't, as long as he is bought and paid for by corporate America.
Yes, Rush is the one to turn to when you want objective science. Hoohaa, you'd have to be crazy to trust anything that lying bag of wind has to say. m
In the words of the great Aroguetrader, you are using a Hannityism! You are attacking the person, and not the points he is making. Aroguetrader will be very disappointed in you.