1. #1
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Thumbs up Global Warming. Some truths.

    Thursday July 27, 2006


    It is amusing for an old atmospheric physicist to recollect that in the late 1970s, as a result of a one-degree cooling trend, many of the same activists who are now advocating all sorts of measures to avoid the global warming catastrophe were at the forefront of saving us from the next ice age.

    We were told by Newsweek in 1975 that scientists "are almost unanimous in the view that the cooling trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century".

    And governments were vilified for not immediately adopting measures such as covering the Arctic with soot to produce ice melt.

    The predicted catastrophe has remained - just the direction of the temperature change has reversed. It must be wonderful to be so certain about such complex issues that you can tell the world's governments how to save their citizens from catastrophe.

    The fundamental laws of radiative transfer were discovered in the 1890s, and it was clear by the end of the century that what would come to be called the greenhouse effect (more than 95 per cent caused by clouds and water vapour) had elevated the earth's surface temperature by more than 25 degrees and continues that process.

    Rather than being a problem, it keeps us out of a permanent ice age.

    Worldwide attention was drawn to the catastrophic global warming hypothesis when the American Environmental Protection Agency claimed that as the atmosphere warmed, ocean levels would go up 8m. This caused great panic in low-lying countries, including Pacific atolls.

    The school-level error in physics in their analysis was that much of the ice predicted to melt - including nearly all the Arctic - was already floating and that, according to Archimedes (250 BC), when floating ice melts there is no change in ocean level. The result was the predicted increase in ocean depth was nearer 25cm than 25 feet (7.62m).

    A mantra of the 1980s was that the Amazon rainforest was the "lungs of the world", absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and that destruction of this forest would cause the promised catastrophe.

    I was involved in a Nasa-sponsored experiment in the 1980s to measure gas fluxes into and out of the Amazon rainforest. Walking through the forest, it was apparent that there was no accumulated vegetable debris on the ground which prompted the question as to where it had all gone - until you sat down on a log and got bitten by a huge variety of insects whose main occupation was eating fallen vegetation.

    The experiment went on to prove that the Amazon rainforest did, as expected, absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, but that it ejected an equalamount of carbon as carbon dioxide and methane.

    Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so the net effect of the forest is to add to the greenhouse effect (New Zealand's cow flatulence is not even close).

    The important unresolved problem is that as carbon dioxide produces a modest (maybe one degree) temperature rise, this will put more water vapour in the earth's atmosphere through increased evaporation.

    The difficulty is that low clouds have a cooling effect whereas high clouds cause extra warming, so the relative amounts of high and low clouds produced will determine whether we have a problem.

    The models are largely unhelpful in this regard since this ratio is often assumed or calculated crudely. What is needed is more modelling and field work, supported by careful analysis of the time evolution of cloud statistics and their heights, as observed by satellites. This painstaking work is under way, but results are preliminary.

    My concern about the present situation is not that we may or may not reasonably expect catastrophic global warming. It is that anyone who has the temerity to try to discuss the issue will be the recipient of ad hominem attacks designed to shut down the debate - essentially because, even if the disaster is not imminent, it ought to be because it forces governments to move on a green agenda, some parts of which, in my view, are legitimate and some less so.

    An example of a move to suppress debate was Greenpeace's attempt to prevent a visit to New Zealand by Professor Richard Lindzen, an eminent Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist and one of the first to point out and analyse the cloud problem, because it would "undermine efforts to protect the earth's climate by promoting sceptical views on global warming".

    This is nothing other than a modern version of medieval book-burning that in effect shuts down science.

    We are running out of fossil fuels. In addition, burning fossil fuels have elevated air pollution levels in many cities, causing the premature death of at least 100,000 people a year.

    These are excellent and entirely credible reasons for developing alternative renewable energy sources. It could also be sensible to divert the huge amount of money New Zealand is likely to have to pay under our Kyoto Protocol obligations to local development of renewable energy sources including biofuels, tide, wave and wind energy systems.

    This might even result in exportable technologies.

    * Geoff Austin is professor of geophysics at Auckland University.

    Give that man a Beer. Someone that talks some sense for a change.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Halleluiah.

    Was listening to NPR yesterday (Talk of the Nation? But it wasn't science friday...)

    The "latest" theory is Global Dimming.

    That we're not actually getting as warm as expected because all the pollution is reflecting more sunlight, so the amount reaching the surface has gone down by 1% -- affecting the evaporation rate for water, the primary greenhouse gas, since photons actually hitting the water are even more effective than warmth in knocking water into vapor.

    So one side theory says as we clean up the pollutants, *then* we'll really, really for sure see Global Warming kick in.



    Global climate remains something we don't understand well enough to reasonably predict.

    Hey, that doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce CO2 emissions, just for good practice. Well, at least move away from fossil fuels that are re-introducing CO2 that was removed millenia ago from the atmosphere.

    And certainly there is much more focused research on other things that has definitive relationships -- sulfur dioxide --> acid rain; release of mercury into the environment due to burning of coal, etc that sure, we should limit those emissions due to specific and known affects.

    Local TV station had a special on weather on last night...touched on GW briefly, mentioning it would raise sea levels around Boston by 2-3' over the next 100 years. (Corresponds to the mistake the author cited in water level increases)

    Big whoop...If we as a society can't figure out how to build a 3' high sea wall, we deserve to walk around with wet feet.

    Like the Aucklander points out..."Global Warming" is being pushed mostly as a convientent excuse for an environmental agenda.
    Last edited by Dalmatian190; 07-26-2006 at 06:49 PM.

  3. #3
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Big whoop...If we as a society can't figure out how to build a 3' high sea wall, we deserve to walk around with wet feet.
    I know a few people who would be better employed as stakes for said sea wall than what they are currently doing.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    PattyV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    What gets to me is that we only have data from the past hundred years or so that actually tells us anything. We just dont know much about the Earth's cycles. Rocks can only tell us so much about ice ages. For all we know there could be some kind super storm that regularly kulls off half of the world's population every 10,000 years or so.

    What gets to me the most is the way that certain topics you HAVE to believe what people think. Global warming is one good example but others are the creation of the universe and the theory of evolution.

    Why is it that people believe in the fickle theories so die-hardly? When it comes down to it; we really dont know. We dont know how the universe was created and we dont know how we got here. The bible is just as believable as the current accepted theories. Why cant people be content with saying 'We dont know yet'?

    I hate people.
    "There are only two things that i know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And im not so sure about the former."

    For all the life of me, i cant see a firefighter going to hell. At least not for very long. We would end up putting out all the fires and annoying the devil too much.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    A bit of Apples & Oranges on the evolution v. creation.

    One is a product of the scientific process, and generally holds up well over time and multiple tests -- from the Galapagos, to fossils, to DNA divergence testing.

    The other is a religous belief.

    No sense arguing one over the other, they are what they are and belong in their own domains.

    The Creation v. Evolution debate as it plays out in the U.S. currently however is very relevant -- because you have a bunch of people with environmental beliefs bordering on religion who are trying to wrap their world view in pseudo scientific language. Kind of a lot like the creationists.

  6. #6
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    So we should call them "Mentalists" then?
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalmatian190
    One is a product of the scientific process, and generally holds up well over time and multiple tests -- from the Galapagos, to fossils, to DNA divergence testing.

    The other is a religous belief.
    Holy ***** - You mean they found the missing link? Oh, they didn't? Then get back to me when you have proof to back up your science.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default

    I was just reading an article on this the other day, and now for the life of me cant remeber where.

    The jist was this :

    One explanation for "global warming" is that the earth is cooling from within, thus radiating heat outward. The reasoning if I remeber correctly was that erath was once a huge fire ball - and at some point the crust was formed trapping heat within the earths crust etc....

    If I find the article I will post the link.
    Warm Regards,
    Shawn Stoner
    EMT-B

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    What's the missing link?

    There is no missing link that I'm aware of.

    In the scientific method, I don't think there ever has been one.

    The onus is not on supporters of evolution to "defend" their position.

    If you believe in creation, fine.

    If you want creationism to be considered a scientifically explainable phenomena, make a hypothesis, predict an outcome from the hypothesis, and then conduct an experiment which performs as predicted and can be repeated. When you can do that, you can talk science.

    Natural Selection and Evolution work within that scientific framework...and have for 150 years even as knowledge has increased and tools improved.

    You don't have to explain how or even understand why something works to be scientifically valid -- for example, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We don't need to know the how...just that explain the phenomena, make a hypothesis what will happen, and experimentally demonstrate it.

    Unless God decides to help you, you're going to find it impossible to experimentally demonstrate creation. So it necessarily remains relegated to religous belief rather than scientific methods.

    Global Warming...is science that is still developing in a very complex situation. We've gotten pretty good at describing natural selection and have a variety of tools like fossils, DNA, and isolated populations or populations that have evolved during the last few generations to not only study but also have physical samples. The climate doesn't remain static -- it doesn't have DNA to study of differentiation over time, it doesn't leave things as discrete as bones (although it does leave some traces), and it doesn't act in isolation to watch how things react to different conditions. It also has had only a fraction of the scientific resources applied to it that biology has over the last century. Many individual phenomena do have good science, but that doesn't mean we're anywhere near being able to reliably predict the interaction of all of them.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    Holy ***** - You mean they found the missing link?

    I dont know if George is the missing link but hes old enough maybe know him!
    Warm Regards,
    Shawn Stoner
    EMT-B

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    The only question I have about all of this:

    What did we do to cause all the cycles of heating and cooling before any of this. I imagine it was our fault somehow that all the other Ice Ages happened. The earth seems to have a pretty bad track record when it comes to keeping the temperature regulated.

  12. #12
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Scientists want climate commission

    Thursday July 27, 2006
    By Errol Kiong


    A group of scientists is urging the Government to form a royal commission to investigate climate change.

    In an open letter to MPs, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition believed the public was being given "incomplete, inaccurate and biased information" about the effects of greenhouse gases.

    "This information is often tainted by the emotional arguments of the environmental movement and seldom stands up to objective scientific analysis," the group said.

    The coalition, which includes former MetService chief meteorologist Dr Augie Auer, wants an independent royal commission which would, among other things, examine the credibility of climate change models, and review the diplomatic implications of not aligning climate change policies with Australia and the US.

    Acting chairman, energy consultant Bryan Leyland, said it was important the Government's policies on climate change, which were being reviewed at the moment, be founded on valid scientific evidence, "rather than on the questionable projections of flawed computer models and discredited temperature assessments".

    "Costly mistakes have already been made. Our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol may cost the nation over $1 billion more than originally estimated. We cannot afford to make such mistakes again.

    "The present misinformation circulating about global warming resembles the recent hysteria surrounding genetic modification."

    He cited an example of the United States House Committee of Energy and Commerce's "discrediting" of the Mann hockey-stick graph, which projects a rise in global temperatures. The Mann report is widely cited as evidence of global warming.

    The coalition believed the Government relied too heavily on advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to develop its global warming policies. It quoted a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which said, "climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge".

    But Niwa scientist Dr David Wratt, who is also a bureau member of the IPCC, said the IPCC's advice comes with "amazing scientific input" from the world's top climate scientists.

    The IPCC report due next year would be a better way of getting an overall assessment of climate change science than a royal commission, he said.

    Climate Change Minister David Parker rejected the proposal for a Royal Commission, saying that "by far the majority" of climate scientists in the world agreed there was no longer any doubt the climate was changing due to human activity.

    "It is now a matter of how quickly it changes, not if or when."

    Even if climate change wasn't occurring, policies would still make sense.

    ----------------------------------------

    Well David parker would reject it wouldn't he. He would be out of work then wouldn't he.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  13. #13
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Amazon rainforest 'could become a desert'

    1.00pm Sunday July 23, 2006
    By Geoffrey Lean and Fred Pearce


    The vast Amazon rainforest is on the brink of being turned into desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate, alarming research suggests.

    And the process, which would be irreversible, could begin as early asnext year.

    Studies by the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Centre, carried out in Amazonia, have concluded that the forest cannot withstand more than two consecutive years of drought without breaking down.

    Scientists say that this would spread drought into the northern hemisphere, including Britain, and could massively accelerate global warming with incalculable consequences.

    The alarming news comes in the midst of a heatwave gripping Britain and much of Europe and the United States.

    Temperatures in the south of England reached a July record 36.3C on Tuesday.

    And it comes hard on the heels of a warning by an international group of experts, led by the Eastern Orthodox "pope" Bartholomew, last week that the forest is rapidly approaching a "tipping point".

    The research - carried out by the Massachusetts-based centre in Santarem on the Amazon river - has taken even the scientists conducting it by surprise.

    When Dr Dan Nepstead started the experiment in 2002 - by covering a chunk of rainforest the size of a football pitch with plastic panels to see how it would cope without rain - he surrounded it with sophisticated sensors, expecting to record only minor changes.

    The trees managed the first year of drought without difficulty.

    In the second year, they sunk their roots deeper to find moisture, but survived.

    But in year three, they started dying.

    Beginning with the tallest the trees started to come crashing down, exposing the forest floor to the drying sun.

    By the end of the year the trees had released more than two-thirds of the carbon dioxide they have stored during their lives, helping to act as a break on global warming.

    Instead they began accelerating the climate change.

    The Amazon now appears to be entering its second successive year of drought, raising the possibility that it could start dying next year.

    The immense forest contains 90 billion tons of carbon, enough in itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50 per cent.

    Dr Nepstead expects "mega-fires" rapidly to sweep across the drying jungle.

    With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the rainforest could become desert.

    Dr Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top forest ecologists, says the research shows that "the lock has broken" on the Amazon ecosystem.

    She adds: the Amazon is "headed in a terrible direction".

    - INDEPENDENT
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    1,012

    Talking

    What we have in the world is global uncertainty. We are either going to exist or not. We are ither going to have a world environment that is going to upchuck and quit or we will do ourselves in. Theories are educated opinions.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    When Dr Dan Nepstead started the experiment in 2002 - by covering a chunk of rainforest the size of a football pitch with plastic panels to see how it would cope without rain - he surrounded it with sophisticated sensors, expecting to record only minor changes.

    How do people earn doctoral degrees these days anyway?

    "Hey, let's take a rain forest, take away the rain, and let's hypothesize only minor changes will occur!"

    Has he not ever left something down on his lawn for more than a couple days in his life?

  16. #16
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Talking Yeah, Right...........

    I don't believe a word of it. None. Second, Who cares?? Why should I worry about what the world will be like in 2106, NOBODY that I care about will be here then. We need to focus on today's problems first. Such as CHEAP ENERGY. Gas at $1.50/Gal. or less and electricity at half of today's rates would be a good place to start. How about wholesale changes in our Transportation systems to save Hundreds of Millions of Gallons of Gas and Diesel each year.
    Lots of stuff out there that is far more important than ice melting.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming

    Today's NY TIMES

    July 27, 2006
    Op-Ed Contributor
    Cold, Hard Facts
    By PETER DORAN
    Chicago

    IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

    In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

    My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

    Newspaper and television reports focused on this part of the paper. And many news and opinion writers linked our study with another bit of polar research published that month, in Science, showing that part of Antarctica’s ice sheet had been thickening — and erroneously concluded that the earth was not warming at all. “Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming,” said a headline on an editorial in The San Diego Union-Tribune. One conservative commentator wrote, “It’s ironic that two studies suggesting that a new Ice Age may be under way may end the global warming debate.”

    In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown.

    Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

    Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

    Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.

    The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

    In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

    Peter Doran is an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
    Last edited by RoughRider; 07-27-2006 at 02:57 PM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    PattyV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    Temperatures in the south of England reached a July record 36.3C on Tuesday.
    Wait wait wait. Really?... Only 36 Friggin degrees? I thought it would be like 45C. We dont call it a heat wave here till it tops 40 or 45 for a week. I think we need to make great big tubes to transfer their cold air down here. Its 'winter' here now and im only wearing shorts and a t-shirt.
    "There are only two things that i know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And im not so sure about the former."

    For all the life of me, i cant see a firefighter going to hell. At least not for very long. We would end up putting out all the fires and annoying the devil too much.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    PattyV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    I was sitting at the bus stop the other day and i had just missed my bus so i had to wait half an hour to catch the next one. In that time i reckon that no more than 10% of the cars that went past me had more than one person in them. It would probably be even less than 10%.
    Now i know there are a lot of cases where people have to be the only person in the car but not 90% of the time. If people want lower petrol prices they are going to have to learn a few nice little phrases:
    -Carpooling
    -Public Transport
    -Cars that dont drink fuel like there is no tomorrow
    -Pick-up 'Trucks' are no substitute for a normal sized penis
    -Drive conservitavely (it saves heaps of fuel)

    I can understand people that have great big pick-ups for work purposes, but not people who drive them for the sake of it.
    "There are only two things that i know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And im not so sure about the former."

    For all the life of me, i cant see a firefighter going to hell. At least not for very long. We would end up putting out all the fires and annoying the devil too much.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalmatian190
    What's the missing link?

    There is no missing link that I'm aware of.
    Oh thank god. I guess I just made the term up. I'll phone around to the entire scientific and anthpological community and tell them to stop looking. They will be relieved that the hunt is over.
    The truth is that for the last 150 years, since Darwin, evolutionists have been searching for the first transitional fossil link out of potentially millions required to explain the entire chain and still have not found it.

    In a slightly different metaphor using the tree of life, the late Stephen J. Gould, America's most famous evolutionist, confirms this. He stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks."

    Lucy is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans. According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is "imagination made of Plaster of Paris." Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

    How can it be possible that many of our great scientists, our best media sources, and academia are so wrong about the truth of evolution and the facts that support it? The only possible answer is that biological evolution is a devout religious philosophy that must be supported at all costs looking for scientific evidence to support it while ignoring the mountain of evidence supporting the alternative conclusion, special creation.
    Don't assume I am a creationist just because I don't blindly follow a theory because you call it "science". The fact remains that there is no verifiable proof of mans evolution.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PattyV
    I was sitting at the bus stop the other day and i had just missed my bus so i had to wait half an hour to catch the next one. In that time i reckon that no more than 10% of the cars that went past me had more than one person in them. It would probably be even less than 10%.
    Now i know there are a lot of cases where people have to be the only person in the car but not 90% of the time. If people want lower petrol prices they are going to have to learn a few nice little phrases:
    -Carpooling
    -Public Transport
    -Cars that dont drink fuel like there is no tomorrow
    -Pick-up 'Trucks' are no substitute for a normal sized penis
    -Drive conservitavely (it saves heaps of fuel)

    I can understand people that have great big pick-ups for work purposes, but not people who drive them for the sake of it.
    I drive a "great big pick-up" as my daily driver. I am not ashamed either.

    In fact I was recently rear ended by a Chevy Aveo. I got out and found the driver to ok, however he is now waiting 6-8 weeks to get his car fixed and I am still driving with only neededing a new bumper.

    On the flip side hes riding the bus now also..maybe you and him can be penpals.

    PS: My penis size is fine - thanks for your concern.
    Warm Regards,
    Shawn Stoner
    EMT-B

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Questionable experts on global warming.


    Even if you dismiss the whole notion of global warming how about considering the dependence upon fossil fuels as a national security issue.

    The sooner we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels the sooner we can extricate ourselves from having to be invested in the middle east. Being able to walk away (like Brazil) would give the US a whole different kind of leverage in terms of foreign policy.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Have to go with SC on this one.

    Sooner or later people are going to have to rise up for this and force the twit politicians to do what is in the best interest for the United States, and not for themselves.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    Even if you dismiss the whole notion of global warming how about considering the dependence upon fossil fuels as a national security issue.

    The sooner we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels the sooner we can extricate ourselves from having to be invested in the middle east. Being able to walk away (like Brazil) would give the US a whole different kind of leverage in terms of foreign policy.
    Absoultely 100% dead-on.

    I don't find the arguments that global warming is real, much less a threat now or at any time in the future very compelling. Our reliance on oil is a threat to our way of life every single day.
    Last edited by EFD840; 07-28-2006 at 09:10 AM.

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default 100%

    "The sooner we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels the sooner we can extricate ourselves from having to be invested in the middle east. Being able to walk away (like Brazil) would give the US a whole different kind of leverage in terms of foreign policy."

    I agree !!
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Emergency Vechicles
    By Battalion9 in forum Illinois
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2005, 09:55 PM
  2. Reason #37 not to worry about Global Warming...
    By Dalmatian90 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2004, 07:45 PM
  3. New Study - Global Warming
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Wildland Firefighting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 10:59 AM
  4. This One Has Been Warming Up The Airways A Bit
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-02-2003, 02:32 PM
  5. Electric Warming Gloves under Fire Gloves??
    By TheFireDude1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-03-2001, 10:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register