Nasa Debunks Global Warming

[Billys Boots]

What 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.

[muppet]

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. 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.

[Gnevin]

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

[stephenite]

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

[Billys Boots]

I know f**k all about it but neither does anyone else apparently.

Carbon-offsetting (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.

Tomatoes 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.

Trains 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?

[Gnevin]

I know f**k all about it but neither does anyone else apparently.

Carbon-offsetting (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.

Tomatoes 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.

Trains 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 .

[Billys Boots]

I get you now.

[Tyrones own]

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. 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

[muppet]

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. 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.

[Tyrones own]

  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?

[muppet]

  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.

[Billys Boots]

What are ye arguing about, exactly, Kermit?

[muppet]

Billy this appeared on the first page of this thread from Tyrone's own:

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!

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. 

[Tyrones own]

 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

[muppet]

Why didn't you quote the full post muppet

because I was only interested in your false claim

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.

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. 

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.

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.

I await the results of your next fact finding endeavours

You ignored the results of this one so why would you await the next one?