PEABODY's LAW states that when someone examines the following trend lines in the graph below, they should ignore the repurcussions and allow the trend line to continue its path upwards unabated SO THAT the worlds largest CORPORATION EXXON-Mobil can continue breaking world records in coporate profit margins.

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

The earth struggles to absorb the massive emmissions of CO2 due to human activities.

The massive southern oceans are nearing CO2 saturation levels as revealed by the recent research coming out of the USA and the Soviet Union.

And what does PEABODY continue to advocate? DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. CONTINUE TO DE-FOREST, CONTINUE TO BURN FOSSIL FUELS.

A position that is directly fueled by the FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY and its greed for profit and refusal to change.

INSANITY in its highest form.

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

That is a blatant flaw in logic that is relatively inherent when it comes to debating from your side of the argument. Yes, we have graphs demonstrating the levels of CO2 and can see how they have been increasing. We also have graphs demonstrating that temperature is increasing.

However, as I've stated, we have no way of separating out natural warming from man-made warming. Pragmatically, that's all there is to debate. It's obvious that CO2 increases temperature, you could prove that in a High School Chemistry lab. What we don't know is how much of an effect our contributions are going to have on warming. If that isn't a blatant enough stab in the dark for you, the next phase would be deciding if any problems caused by the warming are worth spending trillions of dollars on. All of the relevant science is guess-work. You guys love citing the basics of this debate, and then saying the matter is settled and the "debate is over" or "the illusion of a debate has been purchased by well-funded oil corporations".

The basics are just that, however, basic, we know Co2 absorbs radiated heat (all greenhouses do, duh). The basics, however, don't constitute an argument for the only pragmatic issue.

Just because Co2 causes some warming, and we are releasing Co2, doesn't mean that we need to spend trillions of dollars preventing the release of Co2 to be better off.


Fool did. Well he hasn't exactly used those words, but anything contributed to this debate, or any differing point of view he has said is funded by Oil Companies.

But I didn't make the initial claim. Maybe you didn't either, but their has been complaint after complaint that all research we post is from oil corporations. I retaliated by saying Gore funds research too. But I'll take the high road and pretend you are taking the high road.

ololololololololololol

Woah.... You are serious?!



You posted "research" done by greenpeace, and expect me to consider that as proof? Are you kidding?!

I never did, and I never said that the recent warming has stopped. However, I have pointed out that it is amusing that 1998 is proof when it's convenient for your side of the argument, but a fluke when the tables are turned.

Though tentative research has actually indicated that for the past couple of years the oceans haven't warmed at all. It's interesting information, and while doesn't mean much now, is far from the doom everyone has been preaching recently.

Wow, Peabody sounds like a villian in Captain Planet. He just wants to loot and pollute for no reason. I'm sure the fact that most "measures" that AGW proponents want us to take will be completely ineffective, or cause a collapse of our economy and plunge us into poverty...

It's not that lucrative of a venture, and I am yet to see any real research that suggests the Fossil Fuel Industry is funding and influencing science.

Yeah, you teach that cretin who cares more about people than the enviroment to NEVER stand in the way of letting anyone waste trillions of our dollars on Global Warming instead of things like education, health care, infastructure, ect. A degree or two of projected climate change with only guesswork to support it should have us all drop everything and spend every last cent of our money to bring down buisness and halt our economies!

My solutions would fall into 3 phases: immediate actions, short term actions and long lerm actions.
Immediate actions would include education of the public on what they can do to cut back on their carbon footprint. Better insulation for buildings, turning down the thermostat in the winter and up in the summer, less driving by better planning of errands, etc. At this stage all actions are voluntary unless the consequences of AGW become disastrous.
Short term would be investing in alternative energies such as tide and wave power and hydrogen / electric cars.
Long term would be CO2 absorbing or storing technology.

What we cannot do is ignore the problem.

I have mixed feelings on Kyoto. I've never read about the consequences for the US on signing the agreement. (Yes, I have read the blogs but if they're as reliable as they are on the science, I don't consider the blogs credible.)I can understand the reasoning of "we created it so now we have to pay for it", but when it comes to fixing the problem of AGW, it will be the developed countries that will more than likely spend the money in the technology to fix it.

Now a question for you. With climate change we can be fairly certain that we will experience extreme weather like the floods and tornadoes in the Midwest this year.( I better make myself clear here. I am not attributing these to AGW. I'm only trying to point out that extreme weather is expensive) The consequences of extreme weather is also expensive. To me it seems that if we do nothing we will have to spend money and if we do something it will cost us. I haven't come across any studies that compare the two options. Have you read anything that says the "do nothing" option is less expensive than the "carbon trading" option?

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You wrote:
You did not specify what sources you would not accept. I played your "game". I posted two articles. I kept up my part of the "game" Now it is your turn. Instead of using ridicule, try backing up your claims. Please provide a pro-AGW organization funded by Gore and pro-AGW research funded by Gore.

So far I have posted 2 links and you have posted none.

If you don't any post any links to articles with the information I've requested, I'll assume your admitting that you were wrong.

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

GreenPeace isn't a source. If I gave you something from a source of that noteriety you wouldn't accept it either, don't kid yourself and pretend you would.

There is nothing assertive that links more storms as a result of warming.

In my opinion, how could we be ignorant enough to think that today's climate is perfect for every micro-managed detail of human life? How have we stumbled upon the perfect temperature for crops, storms, animals, ect? In any climate change, there will be gains and losses. For crops that spoil due to heat, there will be crops that don't freeze over. Of course, the latter is never mentioned, pause and think, why wouldn't beacons of hope be mentioned in the mass media? Because the goal isn't to inform, its to manipulate and scare.

Anyway, my understanding of the situation in regards to storms is that since they are caused when warm systems meet cold systems, warming everything won't have any dramtic effect on their intensity or frequency.

Furthermore, the EPA estimates it will take the US 3.5 trillion dollars to maybe prevent AGW, are the few extra storms going to inflict that kind of damage? Not if we prepare correctly.

You have no way of knowing which sources I would and would not accept.
One more time:
You did not specify what sources you would not accept. I played your "game". I posted two articles. I kept up my part of the "game" Now it is your turn. Instead of using ridicule, try backing up your claims.

We can discuss sources once you've posted sources that show that Gore provided funding to pro-AGW organizations and and pro-AGW research.

So far I have posted 2 links and you have posted none.

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In this thread I've posted peer-reviewed primary literature that was rejected. So its safe to say that if I posted something from an organization as Notorious as GreenPeace, you would actually have grounds to ignore my source.

I guess that quote of mine I wrote back at you wasn't subtle enough?

Let's see you post a real source then. The claim that research has been influenced by oil corporations was what got my retort that Gore finances research as well. Therefore you guys should back yourselves up first, if you can't my response is irrelevant.

Congrats, tell your GreenPeace buddies that they did an excellent job making bizzare claims and that I'm sure Capitalism as we know it will be gone soon enough.

Tentative research hey? Care to cite the sources? (if you read my post though you would have understood that I was referring to the saturation levels of the southern oceans with respect to CO2 absorption - not their mean temperature. Read it next time rather than hypertexting your own delusional propaganda over the top of them)

You seem to continue to pick and choose individual studies and specifically extracted data points in order to project wrong and biased conclusions.

You have already been caught out with the "1998" fraudulant global cooling claim.

Are you still trying to find a reputable scientific journal that has a peer reviewed article supporting your little fossil fuel funded "1998" global cooling claim?

Still waiting for you to apologise to everyone in here for trying to confuse and lie to them about the earth cooling claim -

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F