I'm all for keeping the environment safe, waters clean, etc., but when covering the issue of the cement factories near where I live, I've almost stepped into the extreme environmental movement.
First, the factories/industries were there way before people started moving there, so why are people complaining?
Second, the school district built two schools in close proximity to the plants, knowing good and well what they were doing obviously. So why are people complaining?
Third, government regulation only makes things worse; who's the biggest polluter of toxic and hazardous waste?
It's not the ABC Oil Company, TXI Cement, etc.
It's our own federal government and most notably, the EPA, Department of Defense, Energy...
More regulations on free enterprise will not solve our problems.
Our world is not going to succumb to massive destruction as a result of "global warming."
Hmm, I'm a staunch supporter of letting people be responsible - we cannot look to the government as a solution to every problem;
Alright, the Widget is back on the case. Thank god for
quote: *For the past 300 years, there is over a 70 per cent correlation when the length of solar sun spot activity is plotted over global temperature; ie variations of temperatures over the years are mainly a function of solar activity.
1: Where's the data coming from?
2: Assuming your information is correct, it does not prove that the only factor in global warming/cooling is sun spot activity.
3: "It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades."
quote: *The lower troposphere's mean temperature reached 0.7º C above average during 1998 due to the largest Solar Storm in recorded history — not from anthropogenic factors as some environmentalists assert.
1: See above, point #2.
2: 1998 has nothing to do with the overall global warming problem the world has experienced over the last three decades.
quote: *The Kyoto Treaty applies only to developed countries. The treaty did not apply any limits on the developing countries. Multinational companies simply move their operations to the third world while gaining the benefits of low cost labour. Meanwhile, Australians along with many other developed nations must endure the resulting high unemployment. Projected levels of carbon dioxide for the developing world indicate the Kyoto Treaty would be useless even if global warming were a problem.
1: The employment problem is not the point up for debate here, but I'll address it on a side note anyhow: This is exactly what is wrong (one of the things wrong, anyway) with multinational corporations being able to do whatever they want. They can abandon developed nations and pay third world laborers slave wages without accountability.
2: Again, I'll say that the Kyoto Protocol is not meant to be the end-all to carbon dioxide emissions. It's most ardent supporters realize, and will say to anyone who wants to hear it, that it is the first step on a long journey. That's one of the reasons why America is buggered up these days; people expect immediate results.
quote: *The IPCC report justifying the Kyoto Treaty was altered in absolute violation of IPCC rules. All statements indicating the uncertainty about the type and cause of global climate change were removed.
1: That is a VERY serious accusation, and requires a lot of evidence before it can even be considered.
quote: *Historical data identifies carbon dioxide concentration lagging global temperature; i.e., carbon dioxide concentration is the dependent variable — not temperature.
1: I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, could you provide the data?
2: Again, it's not really proof of anything.
quote: *Temperatures are lower today than during the "medieval optimum" that spanned the centuries 750 AD to about 1200, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels were lower in those times. This warm period enabled the Vikings to easily colonise Greenland —so named for its then green pastures on its southeastern coast — and grapevines grew in southern Britain. A colder period to follow precipitated the demise of grapevines in Britain. "
1: I don't see what that has to do with current global warming trends. (It is true though.) The absolute temperatures do, in fact, average 1 kelvin higher than current temperatures. However, the thing that alarms those of us who have "fallen victim to the Captain Planet syndrome," is not the global warming itself; it is how rapidly it has happened over the last few decades.
Alright, now that that's done with, who wants to bet that he'll either not post in this thread again, or completely ignore my arguments and flame me?
kg, there is DEFINITE scientific proof that mercury destroys the nueral tubing growth and stops progress it in its track. (even in the smallest dose, and ESPECIALLY in younger children).
mercury was in the vaccinations.
autism=limited brain activity
brain=nuerons
you do the math.
(p.s. the correltation between the two are being probed right now, and they're finding, "coincidentally", that there is a connection between the vaccine and rates of autism. i saw the evidence presented to a commitee on CSPAN).
quote:Here are some more sites about the trueth of Global Warming. I am still waiting for trickywidget and dante to provide any kind of proof that global warming exsists because it seems their arguement is a simple of case 'it exsists because I say so and i have no proof to back me up except the opinion of other teenagers on this site'.
Once again, I will say that you have not provided a link to first-hand data to support your claims; all you've given is a second-hand editorial. But nonetheless, I shall press forward. BTW soldier, you can just call me tricky. Everybody else does.
quote:And trickywidget, I challenge you to prove any the facts I have provided on my lats posts wrong. In case you are to lazy to scroll down and read them I will repost them. Prove them wrong, or shut up...
If you could avoid the insulting tone, it would greatly enhance your credibility in debates.
quote: Here are some facts about global warming...
"The mainstream media and global warming scaremongers rarely if ever admit the following points:
*The mean global temperature of the lower troposphere actually declined by 0.021º C when plotted from 1979 — 1997.
1: Again, where's this data coming from?
2: I don't know about the lower troposphere, but I do have the Global Surface Air Temp Anomaly from 1880, here, as well as the Global Temperature Index Change since 1950, here. Both are referenced from this site here.
GSATA average anomaly for the years tested is approximately 0.282 degrees Celsius. Average GTIC for those years is 0.196 degrees Celsius. There's a lot of data there, so I'd be willing to bet I miscrunched the numbers a little bit, but you get the idea: The temperature increased.
quote:*Carbon dioxide levels are on the rise but only make up about 0.03 per cent of the atmosphere. Yes that's right; not 3 per cent, not 0.3 per cent but 0.03 per cent.
1: Point is irrelevant; carbon dioxide is still the most common (that can easily be raised by humans) identified greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, at 370.3 parts per million. The next closest is methane, at 1785.5 parts per billion. Source
quote:Hey trickwidget, in 25 days people in LA should move away from the power plants they bought their houses so close to and stop complaining.
That is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
quote:I failed to see any valid statement, or even arguement for that matter in your last posts, it appears you have fallen victim to the Captain Planet syndrome.
You didn't back up your facts, what can I say? Sorry.
quote:(As for spelling and gramatics you moron, they are from a differnet country. Different countries different languages. And don't say 'they speak english' because so do the English they use differnt grammar.)
Please don't accuse me of being internationally unaware. I was talking about blatant errors that aren't acceptable no matter what part of the world you're in. For example, the use of the word "eminent" in place of "imminent." The one cannot be substituted for the other, period.
As for the rest of your arguments, I'll get to them later. I just did an hour of research on those two, so, uh, just mull over those for a while.
you cannot use the scientific method to prove that something doesn't exist. all you can do is search for a correlation, and if you don't see any, you conclude that no proof currently exists to support a correlation. thus, it is impossible to get "proof" that this vaccination was NOT responsible for autism. all of their studies showed that no proof currently existed to support the suspicion of autism.
i don't like the idea of putting mercury in vaccinations, but its track record hasn't been shown to be harmful so far, so let's not jump to the conclusion that this company is guilty of increasing the autistic population.
there's many cases on trial about the correlation of mercury in some company vaccines, and autism. the company didn't take it off the market cause they said that there was no definitive proof that mercury caused autism. no proof it didn't either.
there is scientific proof today suggesting that mercury in any dose seriously destroys neural growth (especially in children), and not up until now are they doing something about it.
they need proof for this?!?!?! mercury can't be good for human body!!! no debate.
"Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the "mainstream skeptic" point of view."
"WCR is often cited by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable read—which may account for its broad appeal."
"World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in the literature and popular press. As the nation’s leading publication in this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably referenced, and always timely."
Good enough for you? Of course, if you're blind I can certainly understand if you still have a problem...
I went to your link and failed to see where it stated that it is "hailed by both sides as the most factual , scientific, and objecive publication on the topic."
Sorry but you saying something is credible, Danet, does not make it credible.
I never said anything about global warming. However, if anyone wants the serious truth on it I suggest teh World Climate Report, hailed by both sides as the most factual , scientific, and objecive publication on the topic.
Here are some more sites about the trueth of Global Warming. I am still waiting for trickywidget and dante to provide any kind of proof that global warming exsists because it seems their arguement is a simple of case 'it exsists because I say so and i have no proof to back me up except the opinion of other teenagers on this site'.
And trickywidget, I challenge you to prove any the facts I have provided on my lats posts wrong. In case you are to lazy to scroll down and read them I will repost them. Prove them wrong, or shut up...
Here are some facts about global warming...
"The mainstream media and global warming scaremongers rarely if ever admit the following points:
*The mean global temperature of the lower troposphere actually declined by 0.021º C when plotted from 1979 — 1997.
*Carbon dioxide levels are on the rise but only make up about 0.03 per cent of the atmosphere. Yes that's right; not 3 per cent, not 0.3 per cent but 0.03 per cent.
*For the past 300 years, there is over a 70 per cent correlation when the length of solar sun spot activity is plotted over global temperature; ie variations of temperatures over the years are mainly a function of solar activity.
*The lower troposphere's mean temperature reached 0.7º C above average during 1998 due to the largest Solar Storm in recorded history — not from anthropogenic factors as some environmentalists assert.
*The Kyoto Treaty applies only to developed countries. The treaty did not apply any limits on the developing countries. Multinational companies simply move their operations to the third world while gaining the benefits of low cost labour. Meanwhile, Australians along with many other developed nations must endure the resulting high unemployment. Projected levels of carbon dioxide for the developing world indicate the Kyoto Treaty would be useless even if global warming were a problem.
*The IPCC report justifying the Kyoto Treaty was altered in absolute violation of IPCC rules. All statements indicating the uncertainty about the type and cause of global climate change were removed.
*Historical data identifies carbon dioxide concentration lagging global temperature; i.e., carbon dioxide concentration is the dependent variable — not temperature.
*Temperatures are lower today than during the "medieval optimum" that spanned the centuries 750 AD to about 1200, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels were lower in those times. This warm period enabled the Vikings to easily colonise Greenland —so named for its then green pastures on its southeastern coast — and grapevines grew in southern Britain. A colder period to follow precipitated the demise of grapevines in Britain. "
Hey trickwidget, in 25 days people in LA should move away from the power plants they bought their houses so close to and stop complaining.
I failed to see any valid statement, or even arguement for that matter in your last posts, it appears you have fallen victim to the Captain Planet syndrome.
(As for spelling and gramatics you moron, they are from a differnet country. Different countries different languages. And don't say 'they speak english' because so do the English they use differnt grammar.)
If MASSIVE Cement, Inc. plops a toxic waste-spewing factory right next door, we have a problem.
If 8,000+ residents move in after three factories have been there (for at least 12 years), then there shouldn't be anything done - people take the risk of driving a car knowing good and well they could crash and die.
People take a risk in sending their kids to school knowing good and well that maybe, just maybe someone might come in there and shoot them.
Same way with pollution.
You move near a highly-concentrated area of nasty gasses and what not, then well, what do you expect?
Finally learn to use citations did ye soldier? Too bad it's secondhand, with nothing backing the actual source up. And the report, as well as the site it's on is decidedly unprofessional (multiple spelling and grammatical inaccuracies)and blatantly biased. Not that that immediately disqualifies their arguments, but it is detrimental to their credibility.
Okay, let's see here: No one has ever said the Kyoto treaty was a cure-all to the CO2 problem: It's always been a first step. (Note how I use the present tense: Despite the US's dislike for it, it's still been ratified by the vast majority of the world.)
Hrm...all the other arguments require some sort of support before one can even take them seriously. Got any?
Hey Joey: In 25 days, an adult in LA breathes in more than the EPA recommends for a lifetime. And...the banning of lead in gas.
"The mainstream media and global warming scaremongers rarely if ever admit the following points:
*The mean global temperature of the lower troposphere actually declined by 0.021º C when plotted from 1979 — 1997.
*Carbon dioxide levels are on the rise but only make up about 0.03 per cent of the atmosphere. Yes that's right; not 3 per cent, not 0.3 per cent but 0.03 per cent.
*For the past 300 years, there is over a 70 per cent correlation when the length of solar sun spot activity is plotted over global temperature; ie variations of temperatures over the years are mainly a function of solar activity.
*The lower troposphere's mean temperature reached 0.7º C above average during 1998 due to the largest Solar Storm in recorded history — not from anthropogenic factors as some environmentalists assert.
*The Kyoto Treaty applies only to developed countries. The treaty did not apply any limits on the developing countries. Multinational companies simply move their operations to the third world while gaining the benefits of low cost labour. Meanwhile, Australians along with many other developed nations must endure the resulting high unemployment. Projected levels of carbon dioxide for the developing world indicate the Kyoto Treaty would be useless even if global warming were a problem.
*The IPCC report justifying the Kyoto Treaty was altered in absolute violation of IPCC rules. All statements indicating the uncertainty about the type and cause of global climate change were removed.
*Historical data identifies carbon dioxide concentration lagging global temperature; i.e., carbon dioxide concentration is the dependent variable — not temperature.
*Temperatures are lower today than during the "medieval optimum" that spanned the centuries 750 AD to about 1200, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels were lower in those times. This warm period enabled the Vikings to easily colonise Greenland —so named for its then green pastures on its southeastern coast — and grapevines grew in southern Britain. A colder period to follow precipitated the demise of grapevines in Britain. "
I was just using marine's own "statistics" if he wants to recant them he can. If not, there's evidence it worked against your subjective claims.
Your "logic" could be extended to any number of things: If the government has a military it will fail. If the has laws against gay marriage people will break them. If the government regulates crime at all, crime will increase.
Do you want to back these up? Do you want to accept the logical conclusion (screw government altogether)? How far are you willing to go? How much of what you say is just rhetoric? Where are the facts? Do you get to pick and choose? Bite the bullet or step up to the plate and try to fight it.
Yo soldier...you're contradicting your own points. If you say the sun is hotter, it would follow logically that the earth is getting hotter. But then you say that you can provide citations from scientists who claim global warming is false. Which is it? I'll tell you: The earth is getting warmer, the data is indisputable...now, are you trying to argue that the cause of global warming is NOT human-related?
Think Lomborg is a valid citation? He's not even a natural scientist; he's never published a single scientific paper on climate change, atmospheric pollution, or ecology. In fact, he's a political scientist; his background is in statistics and game theory, not global ecology.
Topics 
BTW soldier, you can just call me tricky. Everybody else does. 
