Uh oh another one jumps ship

[trigfunctions]

He said that there was a good lesson in this: in science, there is a tendancy to find exactly what you're looking for, even if it isn't really there.

That's true - and that's why it is reasonable to suspect the research being done by and for the oil companies that have an enormous interested in preventing a reduction in petroleum usage.

 

[deeper thoughts]

Oil companies and research scientists all want the same thing. MONEY

 

[Warthaug]

Oil companies and research scientists all want the same thing. MONEY

LOL, had I wanted money the last thing I would have gone into is research. Its about the poorest paying job you can get with a PhD. Had I wanted money I'd have gone into management, biotech, or consulting. Those guys earn in a month what I make in a year.

Research for money, now I've heard everything

Bryan

 

[trigfunctions]

LOL, had I wanted money the last thing I would have gone into is research. Its about the poorest paying job you can get with a PhD. Had I wanted money I'd have gone into management, biotech, or consulting. Those guys earn in a month what I make in a year.

Research for money, now I've heard everything

Bryan

Oh come on - I remember sitting in the lab at 2:00 in the morning after taking pH readings of a coal-acid solution for 12 straight hours thinking "Oh Boy - extra cheese on my pizza tonight!"

 

[deeper thoughts]

LOL, had I wanted money the last thing I would have gone into is research. Its about the poorest paying job you can get with a PhD. Had I wanted money I'd have gone into management, biotech, or consulting. Those guys earn in a month what I make in a year.

Research for money, now I've heard everything

Bryan

Nah the funding is definitely a big part of the process(findings) and by no means am I implying that you are a making $ on this:no

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and industrial chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have all played a significant role in what is happening to our world. CO2 is not the only gas to be concerned with.


Doing nothing is not an option. Mankind has already done something to affect the earth so are you advocating we don't change a thing and continue to pollute the earth at the same rate? How does that make any sense??

Isn't the whole debate about whether humans HAVE actually done anything to affect global warming????

And, once again, don't equate GW with "pollution". Being skeptical of human greenhouse cases as a cause of catastrophic climate change does not equal being in favor of pollution. I don't want to see Lake Erie full of crud, but that doesn't mean that I am in favor of capping carbon dioxide emissions. No one has established that carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources is indeed pollution.

Doing nothing is an option if the "something" that is proposed causes more havoc than the problem if left alone. Why is that so hard to understand?

As for the "accuracy" of the models, they have not been tested, so how can we know. They make predictions decades into the future, even hundreds of years into the future, and they haven't been tested over such intervals. Their accuracy is unknown. For the reasons stated earlier, agreement with past data is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for future accuracy.

Let me ask you this: if the "fix" for pollution meant that you personally had to pay an extra 35% of your family's income to the UN, would you do it? Why not? Don't you want to save the earth?

Everyone wants to be green until it means losing THEIR job, or paying for it themselves. And trust me, if the GW policy wonks had their way, a lot of people will be out on their ears or paying global taxes out the wazoo. They want criminal penalties for carbon violations, for goodness sakes.

And, I ask again for the millionth time, WHO WILL GIVE UP RECREATIONAL DIVING to lower their carbon footprints? I mean, fuel to run air compressors, dive boats, jet travel to Fiji all for fun? How hypocritical is that? Some kid in Manhattan is going to drown in 2075 so you can go to Bonaire? How callous. I am criticized for driving an SUV, but a fuel-guzzling pickup truck to carry dive gear, or an extra thousand pounds of jet fuel to go to a coral reef, that's OK.

 

[Skull]

To all of the AGW cheerleaders out there ...I have one very simple question...why is it every single time I calibrate my gas meter and then analyze my scuba tanks the CO2 value is oddly 0.04%... by the rule of proportionality the composition of all the other gases must be increasing proportional to the increase in CO2 or the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is so infinitesimal to the point of being neglegible. Or so much so that the atmosphere is feeding the CO2 back into the system faster than it is accumulating in the overall composition of the atmosphere.

Point is the ppm of CO2 is increasing assuming the measurements are correct yet the total composition of our atmosphere is incredibly stable ...what gives? So how much of an increase in CO2 must happen before it begins to nudge out the other gases and actually displaces them in the composition of the atmosphere... cause I can't seem to get anyone to address this point.

 

[Wayward Son]

Change is great. You go first.

 

[Kim]

Let me ask you this: if the "fix" for pollution meant that you personally had to pay an extra 35% of your family's income to the UN, would you do it? Why not? Don't you want to save the earth?

Where in the world do you come up with stuff like that??????

You know - at the beginning of the thread you guys were all banging on about the GW 'scare tactics'. I haven't seen anything of that in this thread - just measured stuff that is easy to do and helps. You're the one trying to win an argument by fear tactics. 35%????? What a load of BS.

Sorry. It's really not worth listening to.

 

[Skull]

Kim ...I know you don't live here in pollution central command but if you did actually reside in the most evil country ever devised by the slave traders and native indian murderers ...you would know what the new congress is proposing and what is being tossed around by those who want us to submit to the exhaulted UN ... its not scare tactics it is just Shakey repeating the "ideas" from the left leaning noblemen and women of the AGW conscious enlightened exhaulted ones ...

BTW maybe you can answer my question concerning CO2 and the composition of the atmosphere? You seem to be very informed on AGW facts and figures.