See other National News Articles
Title: Local lawmakers diverge on climate change
Source:
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
URL Source: http://www.statesman.com/news/conte ... s/local/12/17/1217climate.html
Published: Dec 17, 2007
Author: Jason Embry
Post Date: 2007-12-17 10:32:21 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1213
Comments: 74
Partisan split in congressional delegation reflects national division. Monday, December 17, 2007 WASHINGTON — A split among Austin-area members of Congress about the need for sweeping legislation to combat global warming reflects a national divide between Democrats and Republicans. And the passage last week of an energy bill in the Senate — stripped of key Democrat-backed provisions that had threatened to trigger a White House veto — served to underscore that disagreement. Among Texas' two senators and four members of the U.S. House who represent Travis, Williamson and Hays counties, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the only Democrat, is also the only one who speaks forcefully about the need for swift congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and other forms of climate change. "We need action yesterday," Doggett said. "It's long-overdue on all fronts." Republicans who represent the area in the House and Senate discuss global warming in less urgent terms. They objected to the earlier version of the energy package, which aimed to reduce global warming and paid for some of those efforts with higher taxes on oil and gas companies.The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate until the taxes were removed. "We all know those taxes are not going to be absorbed by oil companies but ultimately passed along to consumers," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn's fellow senator from Texas, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, also voiced concerns about a provision requiring electric companies to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Southern electric companies in particular said they could not get enough affordable power to meet that mandate. That's not a problem in Austin, which plans to generate 30 percent of its power from renewable sources, primarily from wind farms in West Texas, by that date. "We're in great shape," said Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark. Once Senate leaders removed the taxes on oil companies and the renewable electricity requirements, the energy bill passed the Senate 86-8 late last week. Cornyn and Hutchison voted for it. The key provision remains the requirement to increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent for cars and light trucks, including sport-utility vehicles, from an industry average of 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It would be the first such increase since 1975. The legislation is headed for the floor of the House this week, where it's likely to get a better reception. Republican Reps. Lamar Smith of San Antonio, John Carter of Round Rock and Michael McCaul of Austin all voted against the earlier version of the bill. Their staffs would not say Friday how they would vote on the stripped-down version, which the White House has signaled that President Bush would sign. Doggett hailed the earlier version of the energy package, which, unlike the current one, included a tax credit for plug-in hybrid cars and tightened the requirements that businesses must meet to receive biodiesel tax credits. "Raising vehicle fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years means this remains a worthy bill," Doggett said after the Senate vote last week. "But I am already seeking other legislative ways of getting approval for the plug-in hybrid and biodiesel provisions that Republican Senate opposition has obstructed." The divide within Austin's congressional delegation looks much like one that has surfaced in numerous national polls over the last year. A CBS News-New York Times poll in April found that Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to describe global warming as a "very serious problem" that should be one of the government's highest priorities. Global warming is caused at least in part by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases — primarily carbon dioxide — come largely from human-made sources, including industry, electric power production and automobiles. Though Doggett speaks emphatically about the need for higher fuel economy standards and mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, his Republican colleagues are far more muted. Smith and McCaul co-sponsored Doggett's legislation to provide tax credits for the purchase of plug-in hybrid cars and speak of the need to develop alternative forms of energy, such as solar power. Yet the House bill they voted against included a plug-in credit and $9 billion in tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources. "We still get 95 percent of our energy from oil and gas, and it completely ignored doing anything for the oil and gas industry, which is going to hurt Texas and hurt the country," Smith said. Added McCaul: "I voted for most of the alternative energy legislation that's in this bill at the committee level. My constituents in Austin support alternative energy, as do I. The concern I had with this bill is that it really didn't do enough to bring down the price of gas at the pump." McCaul said the legislation would not lower gas prices because it would not increase the domestic energy supply. Democrats say the higher fuel standards will save money for consumers at the gas pump. Though Congress worked and reworked the details of the energy package in 2007, legislation that has not reached the floor of the Senate takes more direct aim at global warming. A bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., would create a so-called cap-and-trade system, in which emissions from the electric power, transportation and manufacturing sectors would be cut to 2005 levels by 2012. Then they would have to keep falling, down to 70 percent below 2005 emission levels, by 2050. Businesses would receive a certain number of allowances for a certain level of emissions and could sell them to other businesses if they did not need them all. "Environmentally, the cap is the key piece," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "What the cap does is limit the total amount of global warming pollution that could be put into the atmosphere. That's really the fundamental driver of investment in new technology that's needed to get us on the path of steadily reducing emissions." Of lawmakers who represent the Austin area in Congress, Doggett is the only one who has called for mandatory emissions caps. He called a cap-and-trade program the "next major step that we need to take." Though many environmental groups have praised the Lieberman-Warner proposal as a good first step, some have said it does not reduce emissions aggressively enough. But Frank Maisano, a spokesman for utilities, refineries and wind developers, said the cost of complying with the reductions called for in cap-and-trade proposals could hit Texas particularly hard. "Texas is in a unique position in that they provide energy for the rest of the country," he said. "So any burdens that are added to energy and the cost of energy will be felt especially hard in Texas because Texas does the energy bidding for much of the rest of the country." jembry@statesman.com; (202) 887-8329 IF INTERESTED IN TEXAS; SEE THIS; www.statesman.com/news/co...12/17/1217climatebox.html Climate change: what they say, how they vote
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
No, they don't.
Exactly. But no one would ever know it by listening to the little messages slipped into every major media message, would they. Nothing proves the lie of global warming more than that.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
No actually the greatest source of co2 is the ocean.
And there is the key. Those pushing the concept of AGW want a return on their investment. It's all about making a buck.
BTW, how do you KNOW this to be true?
You apparently have never looked up factual information before making your absurd unscientific proclamations. Actually, the oceans ABSORB half of ALL of the world's man-made carbon dioxide, they DO NOT emit it... Because I am in direct contact with researchers doing studies and writing papers. I see the science, not the politics. The biggest clue is that CO2 follows temperature.
Yes I have. Sigh. Fine I'll dig up some proof for you.
Provide the links.
Working on links. Have only one so far but here is what I got from Tim Ball. He was such a sweetheart to respond to my request. CO2 EMISSIONS : The human number of 7.5 Gt C/year is a gross estimate. You can reduce it by half if the amount we remove mainly through agriculture is deducted. Why aren't we paying the farmers for this 50% sequestering? Also note the gross human production is less than the error of the estimate for three sources; Respiration etc, Oceans, and soil. Here is the one link I have so far, from a "warmer" site no less. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels. So are you going to admit that you are wrong? Your very own "evidence" contradicts your claim, where it states that "sea water" is a natural sink, whereas you stated the oceans were the biggest SOURCE of CO2..
Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year BTW, I don't know what your friend is smoking, but oceans don't "outgas" CO2, they "outgas" O2, eg. OXYGEN.
Seems like your friend Tim Ball is a fraud and a liar. No wonder he doesn't know that the oceans are huge CO2 sinks and that they emit oxygen, not carbon dioxide. Wonder where he pulled his carbon dioxide table from, his ass perhaps? From Timothy F. Ball Sigh, will you believe NASA then? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle3.html How about the NOAA? Will you believe them? http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/oct03/noaa03- 131.html A recent study conducted by oceanographers Taro Takahashi and Stewart Sutherland from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) and Richard Feely and Cathy Cosca from the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) indicates the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) measured in surface waters dramatically changed after the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) phase shift in the Pacific Ocean that occurred around 1990. The atmosphere and the oceans carry on an exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas. This is particularly significant in the equatorial Pacific Ocean because it is one of the most important yet highly variable natural source areas for the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere. “The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle. “This is on top of the CO2 emission and absorption fluctuations seen between El Niño and La Niña years, which occur on shorter timescales.” Ok, so I wasn't ENTIRELY correct. I'll concede that there is some emission of CO2 at tropical latitudes, as per your own links, due to the fact that the water temperature there is higher than the rest of the planet's ocean temperatures. Yet, the rest of the world's colder ocean water DOES act as a huge CO2 sink, ABSORBING massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Thus, if the overall temperature of the planet continues to increase, then we can see an even bigger rise in CO2 emissions as the northern and southern latitudes will no longer absorb CO2, but will EMIT it instead. This would be an even BIGGER reason to eliminate as much man-made CO2 as possible. Besides, we shouldn't continue to allow ourselves to be dependent on petroleum fuel ANYWAYS, as it WILL run out eventually, and it DOES pollute the environment, regardless of global warming. It is also a national security issue, since we currently depend on countries such as Saudi Arabia for our very existance, as without their oil, our society would quickly collapse. There is obviously a problem here, and I can't understand why there are those that would claim that there's nothing wrong, and let's just continue business as usual..
And I must also note that Tim is a paid advocate (aka "shill") for the oil and gas companies. Really sad that you would be one of them too.
Well you have to really delve into the science to understand it. I can't help you there. All I can do is help you with the politics of it. I can tell you that AGW is one of the biggest frauds foisted on people. It's all about money for the Rockefellers et al. It's their charitable funds that are pushing AGW. It's a tried and true environmental racketeering system. Here are a couple of quotes from a friend who did a bunch of research on it. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67
Sorry dear, that dog won't hunt. I'm too well known for that. I was a paid shill at one time but not for oil or anything close to that. I'm sure there are half a dozen people on this forum that could tell you who I worked for. My farmfriend handle is your first clue. I've actually lobbied for biofuels with the American Corn Growers Association though I wasn't employed by them.
So why do you shill for big oil? Are they paying you well?
The simple fact is that the earth is getting hotter. There are various reasons for it, but we don't need to add to the problem unnecessarily, and certainly not at the suggestion of oil and gas companies, who try to bamboozle people with junk science hoping to convince them that they're really our friends and are working with our best interests in mind, and that those "bad scientists" are plotting against us....
But by the same token I don't think we should go along with UN socialists who want us to buy clean air credits from Third World African cesspools and re- distribute our wealth to African thugocracies while India and China - the biggest polluters and Global Warmists by far - are exempt from UN rules. Corruption does not only exist with big oil companies, you know.
I totally agree, and buying "clean air credits" certainly does nothing to allieviate the problem. A determined effort to find alternative energy, perhaps something along the lines of Tesla type research, would be what we need.
Excellent. Another point about this is a post I did some time ago about how sustainable agriculture (no chemicals) would put tens of thousands of TONS of co2 back into the ground IF WE FARMED AS WAS DONE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. (Of course, I am not talking about using horses, as some will suggest; I am talking about farming 'practices.') In addition, this would greatly increase food production, which is sorely needed.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. Symptoms of Groupthink Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink: Whatever. Continue to post the oil companies' "science" along with their propaganda and see how much I believe whatever you say..
One thing your pretty little picture from Germany neglects to mention is the NET amount of CO2 the oceans emit, where the MAJORITY of the world's oceans ABSORB carbon dioxide rather than emit it. Have you ever tried to find what the world's oceans NET uptake of carbon dioxide is, are do you just rely on oil company propaganda for your data?
BTW, rather than posting unsourced pictures, why don't you try posting a REAL scientific reference to what you claim to be the oceanic net uptake. In fact, I'd like to see verifiable data for ALL of the figures you claim, as they are just numbers out of the air at this point.
Doggett is such a pos puke, I cannot tell you.
Now we know why the elites and those that shill for them claim there is no such thing as global warming.
What do you have against him? From what I've found about him on Wikipedia, he does appear to be a major puke in regards to gun control and abortion, but he voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot Act at least.
Thanks, I did not know that. He's just another careerist who's been on the ballot here in CenTex for the last thirty years.
The source for the figures used in the picture was NASA and INQUA. Sorry you think those are not scientific enough. I never made any such claims. I said the oceans were the largest source of CO2. They are. I have given scientific references for that. Now you want me to give a source for the NET? Moving the goal post doesn't make you right. This argument is pointless. I validated the claims I made in response to the article. Nothing more is needed.
Since when is NASA and the NOAA an oil company?
Neither one of them states what you do. I already admitted that I was wrong and that TROPICAL areas of the ocean do emit CO2. When are YOU going to admit that YOU were wrong and that oceans MOSTLY absorb CO2? When are YOU going to provide the data on oceanic NET uptake? Do you even know what the term means? Are you going to post reputable data from verifiable sources to backup the figures that you posted concerning emissions?
Wrong, you posted numbers that your "friend" Tim supplied you, and you posted an image from Germany that has no source data. Neither the NASA data nor the NOAA data confirms your assertions concering the numerical value of CO2 emissions, so try again. BTW, I see nothing from INQUA.
Incidently, you already HAVE, and you know so little about the topic you pretend to know a lot about, you didn't know (or didn't want to admit) what it means. Oceanic net CO2 uptake is the NET amount of CO2 that the oceans of the world ABSORB. That is, the TOTAL amount of CO2 ABSORBED MINUS any amount the oceans emit. Your own post refering to a NOAA press release states the following; And you are WRONG. Only the equatorial oceans EMIT CO2. The REST of the world's oceans ABSORB it, so the NET effect is that the world's oceans ABSORB CO2. So overall, the oceans aren't a SOURCE, they are a SINK.
Wrong! The picture is clearly sourced. I stated that the oceans are the largest source for CO2. I posted a NASA & NOAA source that backs that up. The nice little graphic lists NASA and INQUA figures as it's source. So far I have done nothing but back up my statements while you throw out ad hominem attacks and unsourced statements. You want me to reply in kind? I can do that. You are nothing but a UN supporting, carbon tax promoting globalist! That's who you are siding with. That's whose propaganda you are believing in and pushing. How can you vote for Ron Paul then turn around and support this crap?
So overall, the oceans aren't a SOURCE, they are a SINK. I'm not wrong. I never, NEVER said they didn't act as a sink. Nor did I EVER claim you were wrong on that point. The article made the claim that: I countered that stating that the oceans were the largest source of CO2: You challenged that saying: and again here: and again here: I was right, the oceans are the largest source of CO2. For the record, man's contribution to over all CO2 is 3%. There is still raging debate about whether all of the measured increase is anthropogenic or natural. The data is unclear. Now you can move the goal post all you want, claim anything you want but you can not change the fact that my simple statement was correct. The oceans are the largest source of CO2.
Comments (41 - 74) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestGreenhouse gases contribute to global warming and other forms of climate change.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#2. To: farmfriend (#1)
No, they don't.
#3. To: richard9151 (#0)
Global warming is caused at least in part by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases — primarily carbon dioxide — come largely from human-made sources, including industry, electric power production and automobiles.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#4. To: richard9151 (#2)
"Environmentally, the cap is the key piece," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "What the cap does is limit the total amount of global warming pollution that could be put into the atmosphere. That's really the fundamental driver of investment in new technology that's needed to get us on the path of steadily reducing emissions."
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#5. To: farmfriend (#1)
No, they don't.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#6. To: farmfriend, richard9151 (#3)
No actually the greatest source of co2 is the ocean.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#7. To: FormerLurker (#5)
BTW, how do you KNOW this to be true?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#8. To: FormerLurker (#6)
You apparently have never looked up factual information before making your absurd unscientific proclamations.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#9. To: farmfriend (#7)
Because I am in direct contact with researchers doing studies and writing papers
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#10. To: FormerLurker (#9)
Provide the links.
You are correct. More important, the estimates of human production are from the UN based on data individual countries give them and in my opinion very questionable. For example, we know what Germany did with numbers for the carbon trading market. Here is a table showing the range of estimates of CO2 emissions;
Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 - 52 Gt C/ year
Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year
Volcanos, Soil degassing 0.5 - 2 Gt C/ year
Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 - 60 Gt C/ year
Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 - 2.6 Gt C/year
Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 - 7.5 Gt C/year
TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#11. To: farmfriend (#10)
But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
CO2 EMISSIONS :
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#13. To: farmfriend (#10)
(Edited)
Working on links. Have only one so far but here is what I got from Tim Ball. He was such a sweetheart to respond to my request.
Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[14]
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#14. To: FormerLurker (#11)
So are you going to admit that you are wrong? Your very own "evidence" contradicts your claim, where it states that "sea water" is a natural sink, whereas you stated the oceans were the biggest SOURCE of CO2..
In the oceans, carbon dioxide exchange is largely controlled by sea surface temperatures, circulating currents, and by the biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration. carbon dioxide can dissolve easily into the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can hold depends on ocean temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide already present. Cold ocean temperatures favor the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere whereas warm temperatures can cause the ocean surface to release carbon dioxide. Cold, downward moving currents such as those that occur over the North Atlantic absorb carbon dioxide and transfer it to the deep ocean. Upward moving currents such as those in the tropics bring carbon dioxide up from depth and release it to the atmosphere.
RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN INTENSIFIED DURING THE 1990S
And I must note that you have not refuted my facts at all but resorted to personal attacks on me and Tim. Sad.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#15. To: farmfriend (#14)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#16. To: farmfriend (#14)
And I must note that you have not refuted my facts at all but resorted to personal attacks on me and Tim. Sad.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#17. To: FormerLurker (#15)
There is obviously a problem here, and I can't understand why there are those that would claim that there's nothing wrong, and let's just continue business as usual..
It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades.
~snip~
It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#18. To: FormerLurker (#16)
(Edited)
And I must also note that Tim is a paid advocate (aka "shill") for the oil and gas companies. Really sad that you would be one of them too.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#19. To: farmfriend (#17)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#20. To: farmfriend (#17)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#21. To: FormerLurker (#20)
There are various reasons for it, but we don't need to add to the problem unnecessarily, and certainly not at the suggestion of oil and gas companies,
#22. To: scrapper2 (#21)
Corruption does not only exist with big oil companies, you know.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#23. To: richard9151 (#0)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#24. To: farmfriend (#23)
#25. To: FormerLurker (#19)
So why do you shill for big oil? Are they paying you well?
When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#26. To: farmfriend (#25)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#27. To: farmfriend (#23)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#28. To: farmfriend (#23)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#29. To: richard9151 (#0)
#30. To: richard9151 (#0)
Republicans who represent the area in the House and Senate discuss global warming in less urgent terms. They objected to the earlier version of the energy package, which aimed to reduce global warming and paid for some of those efforts with higher taxes on oil and gas companies. The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate until the taxes were removed.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#31. To: lodwick (#29)
(Edited)
Doggett is such a pos puke, I cannot tell you.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#32. To: FormerLurker (#31)
... but he voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot Act at least.
#33. To: FormerLurker (#28)
BTW, rather than posting unsourced pictures, ... I'd like to see verifiable data for ALL of the figures you claim, as they are just numbers out of the air at this point.
why don't you try posting a REAL scientific reference to what you claim to be the oceanic net uptake.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#34. To: FormerLurker (#27)
are do you just rely on oil company propaganda for your data?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
Since when is NASA and the NOAA an oil company?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#36. To: farmfriend (#33)
The source for the figures used in the picture was NASA and INQUA. Sorry you think those are not scientific enough.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: farmfriend (#34)
FL: When are YOU going to provide the data on oceanic NET uptake? Do you even know what the term means?
"The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle.
I believe the terms "global ocean uptake" and "net ocean uptake" mean the same thing. In any case, uptake refers to absorbtion, so this article is saying that the increase in emissions in the western equatorial Pacific has reduced the net amount ABSORBED by the world's oceans by 2.5%. So are you getting ready to admit you were wrong?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: farmfriend (#33)
I said the oceans were the largest source of CO2.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)
and you posted an image from Germany that has no source data.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#40. To: FormerLurker (#38)
And you are WRONG. Only the equatorial oceans EMIT CO2. The REST of the world's oceans ABSORB it, so the NET effect is that the world's oceans ABSORB CO2.
Those gases — primarily carbon dioxide — come largely from human- made sources, including industry, electric power production and automobiles.
No actually the greatest source of co2 is the ocean.
Actually, the oceans ABSORB half of ALL of the world's man-made carbon dioxide, they DO NOT emit it...
So are you going to admit that you are wrong? Your very own "evidence" contradicts your claim, where it states that "sea water" is a natural sink, whereas you stated the oceans were the biggest SOURCE of CO2..
BTW, I don't know what your friend is smoking, but oceans don't "outgas" CO2, they "outgas" O2, eg. OXYGEN.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
.
.
.