Some interesting points that may rain on Mr. Gores expertise :D
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it
I'm reading it, but I cannot see anything that "debunks global warming". I see an alternative hypothesis regarding the current recession of Arctic sea ice which is certainly very interesting.
In the NASA piece, the author of the study still seems to be concerned about climate change though:
QuoteMorison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.
It always amuses me how the right wing jumps on the first piece of research to come along that fits in with their political agenda, while spending the vast bulk of their time howling about conspiracies and agendas in the world of science, whether it is to do with evolution or climate change or whatever.
I didn't title the article J70 but it is the result of long term studies taken by NASA that
in my estimation certainly do question the validity of Gores Hypothesis
I think the main fundamental difference here is that Gore's scaremongering whilst seeking
to get back into the spotlight again is just that, His Hypothesis ::)
NASA's findings on the other hand may lean slightly more towards being Factual in nature.
The interesting part and probably the reason i started the topic is to merely bring attention
to the media's lack of coverage of such an important finding, i suppose you could almost say
that that's your answer right there.
Do i believe the planet is getting warmer, do i believe that something should be done about
our reckless use of the planets resources, absolutely, but to have a hypocrite like Gore flying
around the world in one of his two planes running his mouth then having his bile quoted as gospel
is laughable, isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 04:33:08 PM
isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!
Is it? I honestly don't know. It might be an idea for you to find out though.
While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.
And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.
And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.
The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject Finding lads? .......anyone?
Remember that was the topic here ;)
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 05:01:18 PM
The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
Remember that was the topic here ;)
Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!
There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 05:01:18 PM
The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
Remember that was the topic here ;)
I thought the topic was NASA's supposed "debunking of global warming"?
The media were also pretty silent on the Bush administration's instructing government biologists that they weren't allowed to comment on the effects of receding ice on polar bear populations when they attended an international conference last year. I guess some stories are more "sexy" than others.
Quote from: deiseach on December 02, 2007, 05:05:31 PM
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 05:01:18 PM
The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
Remember that was the topic here ;)
Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!
There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.
Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 05:16:29 PM
Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.
So the name 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' doesn't imply, uh, skepticism?
I know what you are saying about Lomberg. I'm noting that there is plenty of robust debate in the meeja about climate change, Lomberg being the most prominent example.
Quote from: deiseach on December 02, 2007, 05:20:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 05:16:29 PM
Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.
So the name 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' doesn't imply, uh, skepticism?
I know what you are saying about Lomberg. I'm noting that there is plenty of robust debate in the meeja about climate change, Lomberg being the most prominent example.
You can be skeptical about plenty of stuff regarding environmentalism without denying that the underlying issues are real.
And yes, I understand your bringing up Lomborg. However, their use of him is just another example of right-wing hypocrisy to me - they (the Bush administration included) denied for years that global warming was even occurring. Now that they're reluctantly forced to accept that it is, they make heroes out of people like Lomborg, because he suits their current agenda i.e. "it may be warming (although we don't think its anthropogenic in origin!), but
many scientists believe that the costs of combatting it outweigh the possible benefits".
They do the same shit with the so-called controversy over intelligent design - a group of people, a couple of whom have PhDs in biology, form a body called The Discovery Institute, who, instead of doing any actual research on the subject, conduct their "science" by press releases and attempts to get ID taught in schools. Their very existence gives the right wing a supposedly credible alternative to the alleged conspiracy abroad in all of biology to protect evolution and repress any alternative debate. Whenever evolution comes up, these clowns are wheeled out in the media or quoted as skeptical "authorities" on the subject. The vile, repugnant Ann Coulter (you may not have heard of her in Ireland) devoted a significant part of one of her screeds on the evils of Democrats to "debunking" evolution using The Discovery Institute's proclamations. It was one of the most inane, nonsensical pieces I've ever read on the subject (she has no scientific training whatsoever), but because it was Coulter feeding the prejudices of her considerable (and mostly ignorant) audience, it was lauded by the right wing and received huge media coverage.
BTW, it would not surprise me at all if this Dr. Morison comes out a few months down the line and says that the right wing has overstated or exaggerated the overall significance of his study. There have been quite a few government scientists who have quit in disgust during the Bush administrations term, mainly due to interference and massaging of conclusions by administration officials.
Quote from: deiseach on December 02, 2007, 05:05:31 PM
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 05:01:18 PM
The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject finding lads? .......anyone?
Remember that was the topic here ;)
Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!
There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.
Maybe i should have been more specific so i made a change to it, I'm very aware of the wack jobs on
both sides out there and no, this is not at all a Democrat/Republican thing.
So let me see if i understand you point above Deiseach, just because Gore was a nearly man, it's Ok
with you that he should be given more creedance regardless of facts?
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 04:46:52 PM
While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.
And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.
And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.
J70, how come the scientist views and findings that Gore hired to suit his agenda count
but yet the scientist facts from NASA dont seem to count and so doesn't warrant a mention in the media ???
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 04:46:52 PM
While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.
And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.
And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.
J70, how come the scientist views and findings that Gore hired to suit his agenda count
but yet the scientist facts from NASA dont seem to count and so doesn't warrant a mention in the media ???
Where did I say that some count and some don't?
Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 06:10:40 PM
Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic.
Ah you don't expect honest folk to read the Jew York Times, do you?
Quote from: deiseach on December 02, 2007, 06:20:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 02, 2007, 06:10:40 PM
Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic.
Ah you don't expect honest folk to read the Jew York Times, do you?
Tut Tut...
[/quote]
Where did I say that some count and some don't?
Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.
[/quote]
As deiseach would say, Did they get a mention? I honestly don't know but it might be an idea for you to find out :P
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 06:28:41 PM
Where did I say that some count and some don't?
Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.
As deiseach would say, Did they get a mention? I honestly don't know but it might be an idea for you to find out :P
nytimes.com is the place to look.
Its actually from October 2nd.
Quote... Complicating the picture, the striking Arctic change was as much a result of ice moving as melting, many say. A new study, led by Son Nghiem at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and appearing this week in Geophysical Research Letters, used satellites and buoys to show that winds since 2000 had pushed huge amounts of thick old ice out of the Arctic basin past Greenland. The thin floes that formed on the resulting open water melted quicker or could be shuffled together by winds and similarly expelled, the authors said.
The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming?
... Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
I don't suppose your media-conspiracy-alleging blogger saw this article? :P
Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 06:54:10 PM
Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!
Well he does this year because he had a major film out on the subject and so was in the news quite a bit. Throw in the speculation regarding a possible presidential run several months before the start of the primaries, and there you have it.
I hear you, doesn't make any of it right though
He's trying to get a leg up anyway he can, he'll need it!
J70 - if you don't mind me asking, what do you work at ?
You seem to more up to date about evolutionary biology than i ever was even when it was 1 of my 4 final year subjects.
Quote from: blast05 on December 02, 2007, 11:40:05 PM
J70 - if you don't mind me asking, what do you work at ?
You seem to more up to date about evolutionary biology than i ever was even when it was 1 of my 4 final year subjects.
PM'ed you.
Global Warming won't be an issue in a few years time. This is because the impending oil crisis is going to emerge as a much more immediate threat to the survival of the human species. And we're still doing little or nothing about reducing our dependence on it.
Quotevile, repugnant Ann Coulter
Yes, we are familiar, she 'appears' on Matt Cooper on Today FM now and again.
Quote from: Billys Boots on December 03, 2007, 10:18:50 AM
Quotevile, repugnant Ann Coulter
Yes, we are familiar, she 'appears' on Matt Cooper on Today FM now and again.
What kind of reception does she get? She is about the most divisive political "pundit" (using that word very loosely!) in the US, although I think she is progressively losing more and more credibility, even among conservatives, with each obnoxious outburst.
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 06:54:10 PM
Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!
Just another thought Tyrone's Own. I'd give it a bit of time to see what kind of reception this piece of work gets among the scientists. If it passes the credibility test among Morison's peers, and the media still doesn't report it, I'd say you'll have a very legitimate complaint. However, the media hyping or ignoring a particular scientific finding doesn't mean much in the long run in terms of where science goes. And for every study that is ignored, you get another, like the MMR-autism situation or "toxic black mold" or high-voltage power lines, which is hyped up beyond all reason, pointlessly scaring the shit out of everyone. Most journalists (and bloggers, especially the political kind!) don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to science, so I wouldn't pay much mind to what they say. The science will go where the data leads, so Morison's and other alternative hypotheses will be upheld or discarded depending on the data, not on whether Katie Couric or the NY Times reports a particular study.
Quote from: J70 on December 03, 2007, 10:21:31 PM
Most journalists (and bloggers, especially the political kind!) don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to science, so I wouldn't pay much mind to what they say.
Ben Goldacre does a stand-up job of sorting the wheat from the chaff over at Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/)
Tyrone's Own wrote: Quoteisn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!
According to
this (http://www.nosuv.org/suvspecs.html) the absolute best SUV burns 10 litres per 100km. If you assume an average family car does 10,000 miles (16,000km) a year then the best SUV will burn on average 1,600 litres a year. The specific gravity of Petrol is roughly .75 meaning the best SUV burns (1,600 X .75)= 1,200kg of fuel a year.
A Boeing 737 is a type of plane. If you dig deep
here (http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm) you will find the amount of fuel in kilos that a 737 burns. Put simply 1,200 kilos of fuel will not only manage a takeoff but would probably get you (and nearly 200 others) from Dublin to Birmingham. Not quite what you said though is it?
Quote from: muppet on December 04, 2007, 01:08:03 AM
Tyrone's Own wrote: Quoteisn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!
According to this (http://www.nosuv.org/suvspecs.html) the absolute best SUV burns 10 litres per 100km. If you assume an average family car does 10,000 miles (16,000km) a year then the best SUV will burn on average 1,600 litres a year. The specific gravity of Petrol is roughly .75 meaning the best SUV burns (1,600 X .75)= 1,200kg of fuel a year.
A Boeing 737 is a type of plane. If you dig deep here (http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm) you will find the amount of fuel in kilos that a 737 burns. Put simply 1,200 kilos of fuel will not only manage a takeoff but would probably get you (and nearly 200 others) from Dublin to Birmingham. Not quite what you said though is it?
Interesting reading there alright muppet however you kept your research relatively simple in terms of
measuring and comparing only what each of them burn, I think you'll agree that my post was
specific to pollutants values and not at all a measure of what each of them burn, secondly comparing Petrol
to Type A Jet fuel is in and of it's self like comparing apples to oranges, thirdly, It's my belief that aircraft engine
manufacturers are not held to the same strict guidelines and laws that car manufacturers are in terms of fuel burning efficiency
and the recirculation of harmful particles through various components such as Catalytic converters, EGR valves and the list goes on........
I will of course stand corrected ;)
QuoteWhat kind of reception does she get?
She comes across as a bit daft, to be honest. She hasn't been on in a while, so I imagine that the station/programme view is that she's kind of irrelevant. She's been 'replaced' more recently by some (less idiotic, but idiotic nonetheless) creature from Fox News whose name escapes me presently.
I kept it simple as you are so far off the mark it is hilarious. You said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!"
I demonstrated that one 1 SUV would burn in terms of fuel would get an average passenger jet from Dublin to Birmingham.
On average, the complete combustion of 1 kg of jet A1 aviation fuel has been estimated to generate about 3.16 kg of CO2 (Google the last sentence to see where it came from). "Currently a typical SUV produces 18 metric tons of CO2 per year." (source here (http://www.wilshirecenter.com/earthday/solutions.htm). It would take over 5,500 tonnes of Jet A1 to do the same and that would get you to Amsterdam from Dublin (and that would be landing with over 2,500 tonnes).
One of the big differences is of course that aircraft deposit some of the pollutants directly into the atmosphere above the tropopause and which is estimated to double the impact of the pollution. However you said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year". Aircraft on takeoff deposit their pollutants in exactly the same pace as SUVs, i.e. on the ground.
Its the same with all these carbon calculations Tomatoes from Spain produce less carbon than tomatoes from Cavan if their produced under lights . Trains are only produce less carbon pre person when car when their is a certain number of people on board
I'm setting up one of those carbon trading company yokes - make a fecking fortune. I know f**k all about it but neither does anyone else apparently.
Anyone with a science degree around here that can add a bit of legitimacy to my suave selling fraudualent lying techniques
QuoteI know f**k all about it but neither does anyone else apparently.
Carbon-offsetting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset)) is part of the Kyoto agreement, and in theory, it's a good idea to develop 'clean' (more energy efficient or green energy) projects in the developing world. As with any trading scheme, however, it's rife with blackguards, and it gives 1st world industry an excuse to avoid direct action at home.
QuoteTomatoes from Spain produce less carbon than tomatoes from Cavan if their produced under lights .
Where's the issue with this? Depending on the energy applied (in Cavan), don't you think it's possible that the transport costs (environmentally) might be less from Spain. It all harks back to the theory that folk should eat local produce that grows (naturally) in their climate. I'd miss me tomatoes meself.
QuoteTrains are only produce less carbon pre person when car when their is a certain number of people on board
If twenty people travel on a train, as opposed to taking twenty cars to a destination, don't you see that even if the emissions from the train are equivalent to that of fifteen cars, then there's a carbon-saving in train travel?
Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 01:38:44 PM
QuoteI know f**k all about it but neither does anyone else apparently.
Carbon-offsetting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset)) is part of the Kyoto agreement, and in theory, it's a good idea to develop 'clean' (more energy efficient or green energy) projects in the developing world. As with any trading scheme, however, it's rife with blackguards, and it gives 1st world industry an excuse to avoid direct action at home.
QuoteTomatoes from Spain produce less carbon than tomatoes from Cavan if their produced under lights .
Where's the issue with this? Depending on the energy applied (in Cavan), don't you think it's possible that the transport costs (environmentally) might be less from Spain. It all harks back to the theory that folk should eat local produce that grows (naturally) in their climate. I'd miss me tomatoes meself.
QuoteTrains are only produce less carbon pre person when car when their is a certain number of people on board
If twenty people travel on a train, as opposed to taking twenty cars to a destination, don't you see that even if the emissions from the train are equivalent to that of fifteen cars, then there's a carbon-saving in train travel?
The point is people say things like its more environmentally friendly to take the train or to eat home grown foods , but it's not always true and that was my point . That it can be very confusing when you start factoring in lots of little things .
I get you now.
Quote from: muppet on December 04, 2007, 11:33:39 AM
I kept it simple as you are so far off the mark it is hilarious. You said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!"
I demonstrated that one 1 SUV would burn in terms of fuel would get an average passenger jet from Dublin to Birmingham.
On average, the complete combustion of 1 kg of jet A1 aviation fuel has been estimated to generate about 3.16 kg of CO2 (Google the last sentence to see where it came from). "Currently a typical SUV produces 18 metric tons of CO2 per year." (source here (http://www.wilshirecenter.com/earthday/solutions.htm). It would take over 5,500 tonnes of Jet A1 to do the same and that would get you to Amsterdam from Dublin (and that would be landing with over 2,500 tonnes).
One of the big differences is of course that aircraft deposit some of the pollutants directly into the atmosphere above the tropopause and which is estimated to double the impact of the pollution. However you said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year". Aircraft on takeoff deposit their pollutants in exactly the same pace as SUVs, i.e. on the ground.
Funny how you get to the very last line of my post before finding an opening in which you get to
Dazzle us all here with your incredible ability to research figures and scientific findings on any subject that i post,
I'm actually impressed that i have that kind of effect on you not to mention the amount of time you seem
to have on your hands.
I was merely quoting an article i read in a magazine that made that claim so please forgive me for quoting an alternative
information source, lord knows you'd never be guilty of such acts ::) I wasn't aware i was Making a
statement when i began with
"Isn't"
I notice CO2 is the only pollutant that you mention here, is that all Wikipedia had on the subject or did it just suit your argument,
Nice choice of plane by the way, Gore wouldn't be seen dead in such a toy much less fit through the door of one
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 04, 2007, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on December 04, 2007, 11:33:39 AM
I kept it simple as you are so far off the mark it is hilarious. You said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!"
I demonstrated that one 1 SUV would burn in terms of fuel would get an average passenger jet from Dublin to Birmingham.
On average, the complete combustion of 1 kg of jet A1 aviation fuel has been estimated to generate about 3.16 kg of CO2 (Google the last sentence to see where it came from). "Currently a typical SUV produces 18 metric tons of CO2 per year." (source here (http://www.wilshirecenter.com/earthday/solutions.htm). It would take over 5,500 tonnes of Jet A1 to do the same and that would get you to Amsterdam from Dublin (and that would be landing with over 2,500 tonnes).
One of the big differences is of course that aircraft deposit some of the pollutants directly into the atmosphere above the tropopause and which is estimated to double the impact of the pollution. However you said "that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year". Aircraft on takeoff deposit their pollutants in exactly the same pace as SUVs, i.e. on the ground.
Funny how you get to the very last line of my post before finding an opening in which you get to
Dazzle us all here with your incredible ability to research figures and scientific findings on any subject that i post,
I'm actually impressed that i have that kind of effect on you not to mention the amount of time you seem
to have on your hands.
I was merely quoting an article i read in a magazine that made that claim so please forgive me for quoting an alternative
information source, lord knows you'd never be guilty of such acts ::) I wasn't aware i was Making a statement when i began with
"Isn't"
I notice CO2 is the only pollutant that you mention here, is that all Wikipedia had on the subject or did it just suit your argument,
Nice choice of plane by the way, Gore wouldn't be seen dead in such a toy much less fit through the door of one
Funny how you can't accept that your statement was complete and utter bollix. If you bothered to check the link mentioned or Google what I suggested you would discover that Wikipedia doesn't feature. (Is it that you are too lazy to check?) Admit it, you are a spoofer.
Since i don't have the time on my hands that you seem to have muppet, i will address only the posts that are
focused on the point being made and not your skipping over the issue presented, nit picking words to try to show
us how bright you are rather than debate the actual point of the thread, sure you're not a politician?
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 06, 2007, 03:39:58 AM
Since i don't have the time on my hands that you seem to have muppet, i will address only the posts that are
focused on the point being made and not your skipping over the issue presented, nit picking words to try to show
us how bright you are rather than debate the actual point of the thread, sure you're not a politician?
In one sentence you make two false assumptions about me, yet again you fail to admit your claim was complete bollix and as asual try to hide behind claims of nit picking/it was only one line of my post/you must have found it on Wikipedia.
What are ye arguing about, exactly, Kermit?
Billy this appeared on the first page of this thread from Tyrone's own:
Quotebut to have a hypocrite like Gore flying
around the world in one of his two planes running his mouth then having his bile quoted as gospel
is laughable, isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!
I have pointed out that the CO2 (there are other pollutants but nothing close to the amount of CO2) emited by the amount of fuel used by a single model of the best SUV in a year would roughly equal what a Boeing 737 would emit on a flight from Dublin to Birmingham. This would appear to contradict the claim that 'a plane' (he didn't specify but if he was referring to Gore's private jet it would emit less than a 737) on takeoff pollutes equivalent to 100 SUVs annual output.
He either made it up or has grossly exaggerated some one else's figures. I'm just introducing some facts.
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 02, 2007, 04:33:08 PM
I didn't title the article J70 but it is the result of long term studies taken by NASA that
in my estimation certainly do question the validity of Gores Hypothesis
I think the main fundamental difference here is that Gore's scaremongering whilst seeking
to get back into the spotlight again is just that, His Hypothesis ::)
NASA's findings on the other hand may lean slightly more towards being Factual in nature.
The interesting part and probably the reason i started the topic is to merely bring attention
to the media's lack of coverage of such an important finding, i suppose you could almost say
that that's your answer right there.
Do i believe the planet is getting warmer, do i believe that something should be done about
our reckless use of the planets resources, absolutely, but to have a hypocrite like Gore flying
around the world in one of his two planes running his mouth then having his bile quoted as gospel
is laughable, isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!
Why didn't you quote the full post muppet ::) really, is this the best you have, holding on to
and trying to press home a point that i quoted from an article which anyone who has been reading the thread realizes
by now was just that, a quote be it right or wrong.
Yet again you show yourself in a poor light by diverting or nit picking words to try to score points instead of
debating the real issue, the media coverage or lack there of.
I await the results of your next fact finding endeavours :D
QuoteWhy didn't you quote the full post muppet
because I was only interested in your false claim Quotereally, is this the best you have, holding on to
and trying to press home a point that i quoted from an article which anyone who has been reading the thread realizes
by now was just that, a quote be it right or wrong.
Anyone still reading this will see on one side facts and on the other a spurious attempt to dodge a claim that has been shown to be bollix. What do you mean by the best I have? That sounds like a schoolyard taunt, please tell me you are an adult. ::)
QuoteYet again you show yourself in a poor light by diverting or nit picking words to try to score points instead of
debating the real issue, the media coverage or lack there of.
The only diverting here is your dodging of the clear evidence showing you either lied or grossly exaggerated to sensationalise your argument. The issue here is and always has been about the facts about global warming, their misinterpretation and blatent malicious invention of new ones by certain parties for propaganda purposes.
QuoteI await the results of your next fact finding endeavours
You ignored the results of this one so why would you await the next one?
Jaysus you just don't stop do you, you must have tortured your poor mother.
I'm actually beginning to think you have some kind of obsession with me, I could give you my
home Ph # if you like that way you don't have to bore the other poor souls on this board with
your show of affection :-* besides have you nothing better to be at like petitioning Lecale2 to change
His Christmas gathering thread to Holiday gathering or the likes as it could be deemed offensive to some ;)
Quote from: Tyrones own on December 07, 2007, 03:13:39 AM
Jaysus you just don't stop do you, you must have tortured your poor mother.
I'm actually beginning to think you have some kind of obsession with me, I could give you my
home Ph # if you like that way you don't have to bore the other poor souls on this board with
your show of affection :-* besides have you nothing better to be at like petitioning Lecale2 to change
His Christmas gathering thread to Holiday gathering or the likes as it could be deemed offensive to some ;)
You finish a post with :
QuoteI await the results of your next fact finding endeavours
And when you get the inevitable reply you start the next with:
QuoteJaysus you just don't stop
It takes a special type of hypocrisy to be able to post a statement like that on a thread where you have posted twice as much as I have and already over a quarter of the total.
Quotebesides have you nothing better to be at like petitioning Lecale2 to change
His Christmas gathering thread to Holiday gathering or the likes as it could be deemed offensive to some ;)
I have no idea what you are on about but I'm sure a little research (soemthing you seem to have a serious aversion to) would show I didn't post on his gathering thread.