I couldn't beleive he picked a person who was a mayer just a couple years ago. She has five children and I can hear the Dems. start screaming about the family thing.
IMHO he should have picked Romney.
">>McCain and Biden have been in congress 20+ years each and have accomplished nothing.<< "
Don't know who that was, another little x on my screen, but it is someone among the unfortunately vast majority who believes congress is different than its constituency. The reason congress doesn't get anything important done: the concept of moderation/compromise is no longer tolerated by the electorate, therefore cannot be practised within congress without congressmen fearing, rightly so, they will lose their jobs for having compromised. Extremism now rules the country.
Again, you provide not a single link to an authoritative article supporting your assertions. I'm not certain as to the source of your quotes. Why don't you provide the link underneath any materials you quote or reference?
You're either an inept poster or engaged in obfuscation.
BTW, anybody that excelled in general science knows that warmer air holds more moisture. You seem to relish a chicken-and-egg argument. Isn't it possible that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which nobody disputes, including Lindzen, have facilitated higher water vapor levels as the earth has warmed? The thought also crosses my mind that humidity levels have increased greatly in places such as Phoenix due to human activity.
Your rant against liberals proves only one thing -- some self-proclaimed conservatives such as yourself are condescending egomaniacs IMO. It's obvious that you and others hope to turn a scientific issue into a political issue, in which you can conveniently dismiss evidence. Clearly, even based on posts on this message board, politicizing environmental science has been a strategy that does influence many individuals to close their eyes to the warnings of the vast majority of scientists and to obvious physical evidence.
Nobody with a modicum of memory or historical knowledge can claim that human activity hasn't greatly imperiled the earth's environment and diminished the viability of other species. Global warming and ocean acidification IMO are merely two threads in the transformation of the planet into one devoid of much of its natural splendor.
Individuals such as yourself can't handle ocean acidification because its mechanics are much simpler, and its implications equally dire as global warming. Please do explain to us how you dismiss the threat of ocean acidification. This time, provide links.
What I don't understand is why you're so complacent about the destruction of the natural environment. You're not a dumb person? Do all of the great mammals have to be eliminated from wild environs and the oceans in their death thralls before you give a damn? Are you only motivated by short-sighted greed?
Unlike you, both McCain and Palin claim to be concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Yet both have signed onto the "drill, drill, drill" mantra. To me, it reminds me of Bush promising no nation-building, sound budget policies, and an end to illegal immigration eight years ago, only this time the priorities of the
Republican candidates are very clear.
Admittedly, I could trash Obama (windfall profit tax, unfunded spending priorities, an intent to tax the foreign earnings of multinationals at U.S. rates, restricting the availability of secret ballots in union certification contests), but I'm so much more disappointed in pseudo-conservatives, and "conservative" pseudo-scientists, as I consider myself a conservative on many issues.
Isn't conserving the natural beauty and robustness of the earth for future generations the ultimate conservative value???
BTW, you never answered my question. Do you agree with Palin that creationism should be taught in public schools?
I read these articles, and the only thing we know for sure is the level of variables
which we have to deal with has increased, and therefore pushed any conclusions even that much farther out in time.
The default for the "man is bad and must be behind this" bleeders is and still will remain the CO2 issue. Liberals and Dems are fearful types who respond to guilt, so they will always be the ones who support the "man did it " model.
The implications also direct us that instead of fighting head on, there are other approaches which could create great industries, which we could capitalize on.
That is the business men and women (Palin types) while the liberals are wringing their hands and punching the sky
Isn't it something how, when political parties make scientific postulates a political issue, their supporters completely abandon reason and use arguments which agree only with their own political stance. If things were the other way around and it was the right promoting attention to global warming and the left calling it bs i have no doubt you'd see the same arguments but coming from 180 changes of direction.
Co2 , a greenhouse gas is used by plants to produce Oxygen. However major logging in rainforests have removed the ability for trees to remove co2 from the air as rapidly as co2 is being produced. Removal of old growth forests and replacement of diverse biomes with generic crop forests is also not a solution for a ecosystems that might have taken millions of years of evolution to produce. Inadvertently much of the ravage to the planets natural path is directly or indirectly related to oil production and an inefficiency of process that has exceeded an ability to absorb, on many fronts. The global warming equation is deeper than merely producing a greenhouse gas .
"I've read virtually everything there is to read about global warming on the WHOI website. I think it's one of the most objective and informative sites available. here is an example of what you are missing:"
STOP !!! In the QA section of your "objective and informative" reference:
"any other greenhouse gasses than CO2" (half way down the page)
I see NO mention of water vapor NONE
They also don't quantify any concentration.
here are the numbers they did NOT list: from largest to smallest
1 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.)
2 carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
3 methane, which causes 4–9%
4 ozone, which causes 3–7%
Also read this ( from YOUR TRUTHFUL SOURCE)
How confident are you of the accuracy of the models?
PETER WINSOR: There are very large uncertainties in these model projections. They reproduce a lot of climate responses well, but they lack other important key processes. For example, they’re not very good with clouds and water vapor. They’re doing a so-so job with reproducing the present climate, so we—at least myself—have a hard time putting too much trust in what they show 100 years from now. But it does give you a hint of what the climate response might be in the future.
Does it not interest you that the models fail when water vapor in introduced???
Is it not interesting that water vapor is also the LARGEST contributor ??????
and was NOT mentioned as "any other" greenhouse gas?
and one more note" from IPCC
Physical modeling debate:
See also: global climate model
MIT professor Richard Lindzen, one of the scientists in IPCC Working Group I, has expressed disagreement with the IPCC reports. He expressed his unhappiness about those portions in the Executive Summary based on his contributions in May 2001 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
(The summary does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.')
did I hear water vapor again?
>> Who has more experience/knowledge in the oil exploration and drilling arena, Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin?<<
Is the president of the US the hands-on manager of the oil companies? Is that what you consider a presidential qualification? Tell me you're not that dumb.
>>McCain and Biden have been in congress 20+ years each and have accomplished nothing.<<
So your point is that we should elect a president who has spent 20 years accomplishing nothing on the chance that if he dies his vice president might be better??
Oh my god, you are that dumb.
Scientists have done a remarkable job of ascertaining the causes of many past ice ages, including mega-volcanoes (the last mega-volcano and resulting ice age, 75,000 years ago, almost wiped out the human species).
The problem is, regarding global warming, that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing exponentially as Chindia and others aspire to the American lifestyle. We'll need an extraordinary event soon to offset the impact of these carbon emissions, according to all of the reputable scientists that I've read, who unanimously seem to believe that we have years, not decades, to begin to address prudently the carbon emission issue.
It's interesting that they are all "wrong," according to you, who can't even produce a website supporting your IMO ignorant assertions. I suppose no other scientist could possibly understand your brilliant work (he wrote chuckling to himself). When your papers are published in a peer-reviewed journal, please let us know.
And, yes, I missed your post on acid rain. I suppose you're counting on an extraordinary meteor shower to neutralize all of the carbonic acid being formed in the oceans due to carbon absorption.