1 It is interesting that you would believe in Christianity. But global warming, despite its overwhelming evidence, is only a theory.

You suck as usual.

R-

2 What a frigging joke, it sure was not the democrats that pushed for the end of the fairness doctrine. Could you possibly be more disingenuous??

3 I'm sorry, but I have faith in God. Science has been unable to shake that faith.

Science, did, however, destroy my faith in global warming.

And as for sucking, Ridor, seems to me that you would be an expert.

4 Trying to talk about sex now, RWR? Don't change the subject.

R-

5 Evidences, such as? Of course, this might be too much of an exercise for you. And that your words "R" is gold.

We'll see....

Heck, we should be more concerned about Earth's magnetic poles flipping than "global warming".

Might want to visit the desert south pole for evidences of "global warming."

6 Actually, Ridor, the only reference to sex that i intended was to your pathetic little porn site, not to your sexual practices.

7 OK - here's the gig:

The scientific community cannot agree as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Even the supporters of it that follow the scientific method have not called it proven. It's a theory.

The Christian community agrees on the existance of God. The supporters of His rule agree that He is supreme.

Both of the relevant reference groups are on our side.

Sub

8 Oh yeah - I forgot something:

Once again, the liberals want to silence dissenting voices. "If they disagree with me, they should be taken off the air."

Sorry, but they are NOT the party of intellectual diversity.

9 RWR, my little porn site? What do you mean by that? Stop pretending the stories. It makes you look stupid.

McConnell, who asked you to talk?

R-

10 Uh -- i asked McConnell to talk, just like I asked you to talk.

And my comment on your site has something to do with a recent picture of a man masturbating that you posted. That qualifies as porn in my book.

11 :-)

Where's the evidences you're citing from "R"?
I'm still waiting or is the "Who asked you to talk" your standard Liberal boilerplate response?

Yes, it's a challenge "R". If you can't meet it, I'll understand.

12 Just to make it clear, the "evidence" I'm talking about is about the so-called global warming issue. But RWR is pretty much correct about the porn thing. Might blame that as a reason for "global warming," too.

13 My blog is not political one. It is merely based on what I do and see in life. If I saw someone masturbating across the apartment, you bet I will mention it.

If you want to call it a porn, then be my guest.

R-

14 I dont have to address anything to you, McCock.

R-

15 Ah, can't meet the challenge? As usual, Liberal boilerplate response when cornered.

16 I don't think there are many libs who claim global warming is a fact.

I think libs and cons can agree that it's a theory. It's what action to take that we disagree on. Most conservatives say that since it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt yet we should't modify our behavior at all and if it doesn't turn out to be a problem, then that's great, and if it DOES then I guess the next generation will just have to deal with it and hope it's not too late.

Liberals on the otherhand say, the evidence indicates that there MIGHT be a danger there, so let's modify our behavior to minimize the potential danger and if future research shows it's not an issue, then no big deal, and if future research shows it IS a problem, then we've done what we can to control it and hopefully, thanks to our efforts, the problem will not be too serious to overcome.

17 Thanks, dolphin. You just nailed this. It is better to be SAFE than to regret this.

R-

18 Dolphin, you've given a pretty fair description of the Democrat/Liberal side of the argument, but the Republican/Conservative side of the argument is a bit different.

The requirement for us (I'm still a liberal, but in this case I agree with the conservatives) is that it be mostly proven. In the 70's, the thought was that we were cooling. Now it's that we're warming.

I was discussing this yesterday with my physician, who pointed out that sunspots have been occurring at a much higher rate for several years and that during the mini ice-age that occurred sometime around 1600 or so, sunspot activity was all but nonexistant. The point of this is that it could be sunspots and not human activity that is causing the increase in temperature. We know that volcanoes generate huge amounts of greehouse gasses, in some cases more than humans have ever generated, and yet we see no permanent effect from them. Add in that most harmful gasses dissipate in a few weeks at most and most beneficial gasses dissipate in many years, and we're looking at vast differences in lifespans.

As far as the hole in the ozone goes, it's been there since we've had the technology to detect it and it hasn't had any permanent growth since we've been able to detect it.

So do we have proof? No. Do we have even strong evidence that this results from human activity? No. Right now what we have is a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc logical fallacy.

Sub

19 subjugator...exactly. The MSM do not report contrary data. And ignoring also when more than 50 of the outstanding and leading atmospheric scientists in the United States signed a statement saying that the global warming theory is "highly uncertain" and that it is "... based upon unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action." They ended their statement with this simple sentence: "We do not agree."

The prime mover of climatic change has been volcanoes and, even infrequently so, large asteroid hits.


The amount of SO2 released by volcanoes is much less compared to man-made sources but the impact of some eruptions might be disproportionately large. The gases emitted by most eruptions and by man-made sources never leave the troposphere, the layer in the atmosphere from the surface to about 10 km. Volcanic gases reach the stratosphere, a layer in the atmosphere from about 10 km to about 50 km in altitude, during large eruptions. This relationship is complicated by the fact that the elevation between the volcano summit and the distance to the troposphere/stratosphere decreases with latitude. So, some smaller eruptions at higher latitudes can eject as much SO2 gas into the stratosphere as larger eruptions closer to the equator.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/climate.html



Hey, "R", gonna provide some links or "facts" about "global warming?"

figures.....

20 Actually you're leaving out some important information when you discuss thehole in the ozone layer. You are corect that it's been there so long as we've been able to detected it. You are also correct that it hasn't grown since we've been able to detect it. What you are leaving out is that since we've significantl cut back our output of CFCs, it has shrunk (and split) and is expected to close, thanks to humans modifying our behavior.

The volcanoe/global-warming GOP talking point (made popular by none other than Rush "the druggie" Limbaugh) has several holes that the GOP forgets to mention.

Unlike those we produce, the natural aerosols (the result of the SO2 in your article) volcanoes produce are soluable and in the vast majority of eruptions none reach beyond the troposphere and are "rained out" long before they can have an effect on the climate. As noted in your article, larger eruptions can send aerosols into the stratosphere, where it can have an effect on global climate. Nature (as it usually does) however has found a way to balance this. Aerosols larger than 2 microns allow solar radiation to pass through but block outgoing heat radiation. This causes a global warming effect. Aerosols smaller than 2 microns on the otherhand block solar radiation but allow outgoing heat to pass through resulting in global cooling. An example of this would be the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo (which Rush used as an example of a volcanoes causing global warming). Despite Rush's claim, this eruption actually cooled the earth about a 1/2 degree for a year before the aerosols settled back into the troposphere (something our artifical aerosols also don't do) to be rained out.

Like I said, nobody cleaims the effects have been proven, but to say that there's no evidence just because it doesn't fit your political agenda is a bit dishonest to say the least. There IS evidence and I'd prefer to (like the hole in the ozone layer, which we're currently closing despite the GOP saying that it hasn't been PROVEN to be caused by us) err on the side of caution.

21 The facts about ozone are these:


1) Solar radiation strikes the stratosphere -- that is the area above the atmosphere -- with its ultraviolet (UV) component it splits oxygen molecules, which then combine to form ozone. The UV energy is absorbed in this process, and consequently does not, therefore, penetrate to the surface of the earth.

2) Ozone molecules are relatively unstable and under conditions of extremely low temperature, the formation of ice crystals, or the presence of chloride or nitrogen ions, the ozone will undergo chemical reaction, that is to say, the ozone will be destroyed. The formation and the breakdown of ozone occurs continuously, in amounts of about a billion tons or so every second. The amount of ozone present at any one time is the result of the balance between its formation by absorbing UV light and its destruction due to natural forces. Natural fluctuations in the amount of ozone are as much as 40 percent from day to day and, occasionally, very much more.

3) Any reduction of ozone in the stratosphere of 50 percent or more is, by convention, called a "hole." There never is an opening, or a place where ozone isn't -- it's just if that much is removed then it is called a hole. The unique conditions that occur at the south pole at the end of the antarctic winter result in the fact of 50 percent depletion or more almost every season. This situation lasts for from 3 to 5 weeks and then it is reconstituted. There is no such thing as a permanent loss of ozone. This phenomenon was discovered by Dr. Reginald Dobson in 1956 and 1957, long before chlorofluourocarbons (CFCs) were in common use. But the widely accepted theory today holds that the CFCs are responsible for this event, which, may I emphasize again, preceded their use. The extent of the so-called antarctic ozone "hole" varies from year to year and is related to the length of the solar sunspot cycle.

4) In 1961 there was a dramatic decrease in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere (nobody knows why that happened) and until 1970 it was on the increase, with the greatest amount of ozone ever measured occurring in 1979, and then it started decreasing again, until about 1986 when it reached a low point, and now is increasing once more.

None of these data -- none of these actual measurements -- supports the theory that CFCs destroy ozone. Nonetheless, the theory that CFCs are responsible for serious and, it is implied, permanent, destruction of the ozone layer in the stratosphere is perpetuated by the media. Not reported is the fact that actual measurements, taken since 1974, show that the amount of UV radiation reaching the surface of the earth is and continues to be decreasing slightly -- not increasing as it would be if there were less ozone present in the stratosphere.



And now Gore is screeching about Global Warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600393_pf.html

Yet "Gore said nearly all scientists agree that climate change is happening."

That news just came out. If you want intellectual dishonesty you've just seen it about Gore's comment on climate change and the implicit comment he tried to make. Rush Limbaugh will surely make a comment on that today.


As for Rush Limbaugh claim, he didn't make such a claim that volcanos spewing forth causes global warming, just that it does more to the ozone depletion factor. There is confusion between the separate concepts of ozone depletion and global warming. He was making fun of those chicken littles:

"Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?" - The Way Things Ought to Be (paperback edition pp. 155-157):


Also, a syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell from the New York Post, 1/14/94 article, used the volcano theory as Exhibit A to illustrate Limbaugh's "very well-informed and savvy understanding of the political issues of our time." "While far more pretentious people have been joining the chorus of hysteria over 'global warming,'" Sowell wrote, "Limbaugh pointed out in his [first] book that one of the high readings of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came right after a volcanic eruption--and volcanoes can put more gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race."

In one study of ozone amounts before and after the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo show that there were significant decreases in lower stratospheric ozone.

Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. The source was from a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).

But note this, CFC is man-made (and insoluble) and not produced by volcanos, but volcanos do produce prodigious amount of HCl. The ozone continues to fluctuate, regardless.


The point is, how can one make the distinction of whether the "hole" opening or closing is attributed solely to CFC when natural history of volcanos was a part of the ozone dynamics (i.e "opening" and "closing")?

I listen to Rush regularly on the radio. He never made claims that volcanos cause global warming...just the opposite. He was making fun of those chicken little "environmental wackos" on global warming.

22 mcconnel, you really should offer a source when you lift entire passages word-for-word.

Since I'd not heard the name I did a google search for Dr. Reginold Dobson. Interestingly enough, the only reference to him I could find to him was on a non-scientific message board which appears to be where you lifted the vast majority (everything above the link to the Post) of your comment from word-for-word.

Doing a little more indepth research on the topic I found that the Dr. Dobson did in fact exist but the phenomenon he discovered was the "seasonal" ozone hole(s) and not the more permanent phenomenon that has many modern scientists concerned. That was discovered in the 70s and not confirmed until the mid 80s.

23 whoops...I thought I did. Drats....oh well.

24 Wow, are you guys ever idiots!

God reigns supreme! Give me a break. Have any of you knobs ever spoken to god? Have any of you ever seen him? I didn't think so. And yet you believe that he exists 100% with zero evidence of hist existence besides some books written thousnads of years ago by people you never knew, your family never knew, and you don't know whether or not they were high on peyote when they wrote it, or whether they were just the best snakeoil salesman at the time, trying to make a buck by claiming that they were gods, or at least able to speak with gods. Religion is, after all, still the biggest business on the planet. Of course, you all probably look the other way when someone mentions that.

Global warming, on the other hand, has lots of evidence, and yet you believe it's all a crock. I wonder if you'd change your tune if you'd lived in New Orleans? Actually, you probably wouldn't because you'd probably say it was an act of god.

The only god on this planet is the collective stupidity of mankind, because that is what is dictating the future around here folks. You probably think God thinks you should burn fossil fuels. I can't stand these hypocritical bible thumpers who think they're so high and mighty because they believe in God, and then they go outside, hop in their SUV's, eat hormone ridden meat from animals that lived and died in horrible conditions, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, support companies that pollute our air and our rivers, and spend their waking hours watching football and Wheel of Fortune re-runs on TV. If that's the kind of life your 'God' wants me to live, no thanks.

I'd prefer to have respect for the planet that provides me with air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat, by nurturing it instead of harming it, honouring it instead of isolating myself from it, and promoting it instead of ignoring it and pretending that the problems aren't there by blaming the fact that a few scientists can't quite come to an agreement on it, so you might as well just err on the side of laziness. You are all pathetic if that is your stance and it's people like you that are causing the lion's share of the problems and you're too GOD damn stupid to look past the tip of your bible to see it.

Of course, you'll probably respond to this by calling me an 'environmentalist wacko'. Well, excuse me for being thankful for the oxygen I breathe and the water I drink so that I can stay alive. Excuse me for wanting to ensure that those resources stay plentiful and healthy for my children and grandchildren to enjoy while you suck down big mac's and throw away the styrofoam container.

25 nfuqtc aixkl

26 sgrvm pwmyoz pzogrbx iprw

27 qhdcwrm qvzas

28 uslr ebxujl bpiq udgwp

29 eznus

30 mkthgd irnubt gokau mqyzvcx

31 omjuys zvpl

32 dbhtsj ajbvhus

33 kvhfs

34 xbvku ithn khsiget adomlk

35 ymqh cbofg

36 hjsmlvk

37 tdlq

38 ohjfas arhxgnu hlvn yijlxw

39 hjvxbnr gvnwem adlynk uwqh

40 rxjpf dyjgqmk veqals

41 zuaskg zlrmi

42 plct

43 xpgnqz

44 qyghvi dipcx lbajd sihkzat

45 sdkezqb afkmnz

46 zupkvg

47 qejfai mpjnqdl bkao dbuqzc

48 gxybw

49 kmvf afyeb ewqkad

50 zxvhj ncbh ljex qdosja

51 devumbo vwcynx

52 meiwkq zltk gtxvud

53 aqwhpvg jqeznc

54 arsc fdzpv dkun

55 hveunb ahjvnxi eyuw jnzgk

56 aufjvsb mxecs vokf

57 xjkcqb

58 feknw azcqfyo

59 lkwcb

60 fkoew

61 jewh

62 unsqdc todfgn bratkif fhyq

63 uinoy fxui

64 osezj vhlcz qtipb kewovcm

65 bwjf ltquh xpyoulc zewkg

66 noyvjk lbcp etfl

67 objv

68 evtcfy ogpq