TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Al Gore Cancels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Al Gore Cancels - Page 2

post #31 of 36
12/9/09 at 12:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I don't know why that's surprising. Many scientists are denied publication because they either try to manipulate their data or they simply don't produce enough research. There is a good system of making sure research is legimitimate, it isn't simply that the scientists submit their data to the journal and they take their word for it. Nowhere in the articles I've read does it say that the data has been published so as far as I can see, no major facts about global warming have gone down the drain..
All I see is their private communication amongst each other, which makes them look mean spirited and sneaky, but their bad taste and their tendency to lie doesn't prove anything about their research ..


I don't know about you but when a scientist manipulates data, doesn't produce enough research, their research is faulty, they are sneaky, fire anyone with dissenting opinions, get rid of material that does not agree with theirs, that proves to me their research is NOT to be trusted.

As far as evolution is concerned you may want to ask yourself one question, where IS that missing link?
Human evolution has never been proved, it is still a theory.

Scientists are not God, they are just mere mortals that make mistakes every day just like you and I.

As far as Global Warming goes, those Scientists have what, 100 years, IF THAT, of data to go by. So they think, with their inflated ego's, they can say with any certainty at all that the Earth is warming and it is because of man. From what I have read, temperatures have been going DOWN since 1998, that is why they have changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Greenland used to be green, did it ice up because of man also?
The entire thing is stupid IMO. It is all about money, money, money, that is all it is.
Reply
post #32 of 36
12/9/09 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Just WHO do you think the pathetic United Nations is listening to regarding Global Warming?

So, what we agree on is the United Nations is stupid to listen to the IPCC.
The UN would look pretty silly if they didn't listen to the IPCC. After all, the IPCC was established by an organ of the UN.
Reply
post #33 of 36
12/9/09 at 1:53pm
Thread Starter 
Oh goodie, it just keeps getting worse and worse.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../12/025113.php

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...way_99474.html

Quote:
Every now and then, apparently, history challenges us with a crisis far too important to be left to the democratic process or the vagaries of public opinion. In these instances, the enlightened, the powerful, the moral must act swiftly.

So sayeth the Obama administration this week, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to police greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and welfare, thus giving the agency discretion to regulate ... well, anything it pleases -- or, I should say, whatever is left.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ion-emissions/

Quote:
The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.
But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won't be pretty.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
Nothing like blackmail if you don't get your own way Barack.

And we thought the Recession would be over next year. I hope you all realize that as utilities are FORCED to retool all their facilities to reduce CO2 levels, that means our utilities will "skyrocket" just like Barack Obama promised us.

All those who voted for Barack, this is on YOUR head.
Reply
post #34 of 36
12/9/09 at 1:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
The UN would look pretty silly if they didn't listen to the IPCC. After all, the IPCC was established by an organ of the UN.
Yes, and we all know how honest and above board the United Nations is.

It doesn't really matter anymore, anyway since Barack gave the EPA the authority to do whatever they want. Hang on and get ready for long, bumpy ride.

My heart goes out to the elderly living on a strict, fixed income when their utilities double or more. They will find them frozen to death in the winter in their homes and in summer they will die of heat stroke in their homes, just like in France. If the skyrocketing utilities doesn't get them, the cuts in Medicare will. Ah well, they are old, they don't matter.
Reply
post #35 of 36
12/9/09 at 2:34pm
Don't look now, but we already have very high utility rates up where I am (New England). PLUS it gets pretty darn cold here.
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/115.htm
The sooner we come to our senses and realize that nuclear energy should be one of the mainstays of our utilities, the sooner we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our emissions as well.

What really makes me angry is that the IRS gve out incentive tax credits for installing windows that will WASTE energy.
Take a look at this, in order to qualify for the credit, the SHGC (solar heat gain coefficient) has to be less than 0.3.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...edits.tx_index

This makes perfect sense if the major energy expenditure is for staying cool (ie you're running your air conditioner a lot) but it's moronic if your main problem is staying warm. Here are the climate zones for the US:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...r_crit_windows

Most homes in New England do not even HAVE air conditioners, or if they do, there might be one or two window units. Look at what the window SHGC recommendation is for Vermont:
Quote:
To reduce heating, select the highest SHGC you can find (usually 0.30-0.60 for the U-factor ranges required in colder climates) so that winter solar gains can offset a portion of the heating energy need. If cooling is a significant concern, select windows with a SHGC less than 0.55.
http://www.efficientwindows.org/factsheets/vermont.pdf

In other words, all those people who ran out to get the $1500 tax credit for so-called "energy efficient" windows that would be great for the south but are inappropriate for northern New England are going to get a nasty surprise when they see their fuel oil consumption go up.
Reply
post #36 of 36
12/9/09 at 3:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Don't look now, but we already have very high utility rates up where I am (New England). PLUS it gets pretty darn cold here.
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/115.htm
The sooner we come to our senses and realize that nuclear energy should be one of the mainstays of our utilities, the sooner we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our emissions as well.

What really makes me angry is that the IRS gve out incentive tax credits for installing windows that will WASTE energy.
Take a look at this, in order to qualify for the credit, the SHGC (solar heat gain coefficient) has to be less than 0.3.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...edits.tx_index

This makes perfect sense if the major energy expenditure is for staying cool (ie you're running your air conditioner a lot) but it's moronic if your main problem is staying warm. Here are the climate zones for the US:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...r_crit_windows

Most homes in New England do not even HAVE air conditioners, or if they do, there might be one or two window units. Look at what the window SHGC recommendation is for Vermont:

http://www.efficientwindows.org/factsheets/vermont.pdf

In other words, all those people who ran out to get the $1500 tax credit for so-called "energy efficient" windows that would be great for the south but are inappropriate for northern New England are going to get a nasty surprise when they see their fuel oil consumption go up.
Well, your utilities will "skyrocket" (Barack's words) when the utility companies start retooling to lower their emissions. People just cannot affor this.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Al Gore Cancels