[quote]lucasa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I have to fuel up my SUV, and drive around looking for a place to dump a bunch of out-dated freon.
Save the gas, the freon’s a vapor at ambient temp. just bleed off the tank slowly in an open space to avoid freeze-burn and/or suffocation.
[/quote]
I just want to bury them in the cans, so that when the can rusts through, it will get into the soil.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lucasa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I have to fuel up my SUV, and drive around looking for a place to dump a bunch of out-dated freon.
Save the gas, the freon’s a vapor at ambient temp. just bleed off the tank slowly in an open space to avoid freeze-burn and/or suffocation.
I just want to bury them in the cans, so that when the can rusts through, it will get into the soil. [/quote]
The best thing to do is shoot it up a frogs ass.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And you should learn how to comprehend the topic being discussed by the title of the thread.
It has nothing to do with like or dislike - although that is a safe little floatie you try and carve out for yourself when in mid-retreat.
[/quote]
Sometimes you are just plain retarded Rainjack.
[quote]The truth is Global warming has not come about by man’s over production of CO2. That is a myth. Another myth is that anyone knows dick about mean global temperature changes. We have only been keeping such records for what - 150 years tops?
You and the rest of the doom and gloomers can sit around and bemoan the evils of man’s destruction of the earth’s sustainability if you want. I have to fuel up my SUV, and drive around looking for a place to dump a bunch of out-dated freon.
[/quote]
Zzzzz. Do you ever have anything better to do than pick fights and act like an asshole? Wait, I know the answer to that one…
Perhaps you would like to prove some of your own baseless assertions? You always tell others to, but you rarely have anything back up your own opinion.
If you’d bother read to the material I pointed to you’d see that most of it acknowledges the unknowns of the issue, particularly the EPA site.
I know you think it makes you a man to slam people around in the forums Rainjack, but really, you might want to rethink what it is doing for you…
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And you should learn how to comprehend the topic being discussed by the title of the thread.
It has nothing to do with like or dislike - although that is a safe little floatie you try and carve out for yourself when in mid-retreat.
Sometimes you are just plain retarded Rainjack.[/quote]
You can’t seem to grasp the topic being discussed, and I’m retarded? Oh…I forgot…that’s your SOP when you know you are wrong - call the other guy retarded.
Would you be the pot or the kettle, here?
Which basless assertions are you referring to? Name one and I will be glad to. I don’t think I have made baseless assertions. I have maintained my grip on common sense and not let a junk scientist with a hockey stick graph scare the shit out of me.
I don’t slam people. I slam you, vroom - mainly because that’s what we do. You take this way too personal when the attack is levelled on you. I slam stupidity, and lynch-mob mentality. I slam the inability to see past your hand. I slam junk science - and on a related note, I slam Anthony Roberts.
Make me feel like a man? Dude - I own two businesses, have 2 kids, a wife, and a 22 year-old girlfriend. Yeah - I have to get on the internet and insult you to be a man.
Okay - the 22 year-old girlfriend was a lie, but it sounded good.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lucasa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I have to fuel up my SUV, and drive around looking for a place to dump a bunch of out-dated freon.
Save the gas, the freon’s a vapor at ambient temp. just bleed off the tank slowly in an open space to avoid freeze-burn and/or suffocation.
I just want to bury them in the cans, so that when the can rusts through, it will get into the soil. [/quote]
OMG!, Do you know what effect that’s going to have on subterranean nutritive microbes and the resulting carbon fixation cycle!?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The truth is Global warming has not come about by man’s over production of CO2. That is a myth. Another myth is that anyone knows dick about mean global temperature changes. We have only been keeping such records for what - 150 years tops?
[/quote]
So what! Is the threat of destroying the earth the only motivation you need to reduce pollution? Doesn’t the idea of living in a shit-hole surrounded by trash, with air that you can’t breath and water you can’t drink motivation enough to reduce pollution?
So what if GW is bogus, that doesn’t mean pollution isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So what! Is the threat of destroying the earth the only motivation you need to reduce pollution? Doesn’t the idea of living in a shit-hole surrounded by trash, with air that you can’t breath and water you can’t drink motivation enough to reduce pollution?
So what if GW is bogus, that doesn’t mean pollution isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed.
[/quote]
That’s not the argument at hand. I don’t think anyone said that they were for pollution, or that ist was good for the envioronment, or local ecosystems.
The argument is whether or not man is to blame for global warming.
See the difference? Vroom can’t.
I thought this article was interesting, by a MIT climate scientist who has concerns about the state of global warming science:
I agree with others that said its not a question if warming is occurring, as temps having been rising since the end of the little ice age (~1850) Photos of glacier retreat:
The real question is if human influence is significant enough to cause these temperature changes. There is a real problem with scientists being quickly dismissed for having differing views on climate change. Sociologists study the phenomenon of theories that gain near universal support very quickly which have not been well established by hard data:
Many astronomers believe that total solar energy has a much greater effect on climate than greenhouse gases. Solar output is peaking apparently and some predict a slow decline in global temps within a decade.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So what! Is the threat of destroying the earth the only motivation you need to reduce pollution? Doesn’t the idea of living in a shit-hole surrounded by trash, with air that you can’t breath and water you can’t drink motivation enough to reduce pollution?
So what if GW is bogus, that doesn’t mean pollution isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed.
That’s not the argument at hand. I don’t think anyone said that they were for pollution, or that ist was good for the envioronment, or local ecosystems.
The argument is whether or not man is to blame for global warming.
See the difference? Vroom can’t.
[/quote]
You mean if there really is global warming to begin with, right?
Vroom’s issue is that he thinks without a big gloom and doom scenario no one will want to address the issue of pollution. I disagree, but I think that is the mind set behind those who are pushing global warming as fact. The other half pushing it are doing it purely for political gain.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Vroom’s issue is that he thinks without a big gloom and doom scenario no one will want to address the issue of pollution. I disagree, but I think that is the mind set behind those who are pushing global warming as fact. The other half pushing it are doing it purely for political gain.
[/quote]
Spot on.
Won’t be a problem after Y2K hits.
This is kind of cool – reminds me of Julian Simon…
I want to steal from another economist, Arnold Kling, on the state of global warming science:
Basically, I believe that the best evidence for global warming is global warming. That is, the rise in observed temperatures is the most important data.
That rise began around 1900, and amounted to about 0.3 degrees centigrade by 1940. Temperatures leveled off until 1980, and since then they are up 0.4 degrees centigrade.
Much, much more of the human activity that would cause global warming has occurred in the last 20 years than took place between 1900 and 1940. Also, much, much more of the greenhouse gas layer on earth consists of either water vapor or pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide.
Thus, the link between human activity and global warming depends not on simple, obvious relationships in the data. It depends entirely on climate models of how these tiny (relative to the overall volume of greenhouse gases) human activities produce “feedback loops” on the rest. They are models of how much less than one percent of a phenomenon affects the entire phenomenon. They are much more faith-based than empirical.
It is possible that the models underestimate human-caused global warming. However, I believe that this is far less likely than that they over-estimate the human causal factor.
I believe that average temperatures have been rising. I have no reason to believe that they will stop rising. However, the most sensible position an empiricist can take is that human activity is not going to make much difference to global warming, one way or the other.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I want to steal from another economist, Arnold Kling, on the state of global warming science:
Basically, I believe that the best evidence for global warming is global warming. That is, the rise in observed temperatures is the most important data.
That rise began around 1900, and amounted to about 0.3 degrees centigrade by 1940. Temperatures leveled off until 1980, and since then they are up 0.4 degrees centigrade.
Much, much more of the human activity that would cause global warming has occurred in the last 20 years than took place between 1900 and 1940. Also, much, much more of the greenhouse gas layer on earth consists of either water vapor or pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide.
Thus, the link between human activity and global warming depends not on simple, obvious relationships in the data. It depends entirely on climate models of how these tiny (relative to the overall volume of greenhouse gases) human activities produce “feedback loops” on the rest. They are models of how much less than one percent of a phenomenon affects the entire phenomenon. They are much more faith-based than empirical.
It is possible that the models underestimate human-caused global warming. However, I believe that this is far less likely than that they over-estimate the human causal factor.
I believe that average temperatures have been rising. I have no reason to believe that they will stop rising. However, the most sensible position an empiricist can take is that human activity is not going to make much difference to global warming, one way or the other. [/quote]
Did this egghead ever consider the fact that just perhaps the temperature reporting technology in 1900 was not quite as accurate as today? Duhhhh!
Could we pick a fucking thread and not revive the other ones?
Dipshit.