America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 days ago by tailgater. 336 replies replies.
7 Pages<1234567>
Climate Change & The Paris Agreement
DrafterX Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
tailgater wrote:
For the record, I find it extremely naive to think that tax dollars are not a driving force in this.





yep... always has been.... and more regulations equal even more tax dollars... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
tailgater wrote:
95%?
That's higher than I expect you to say but it's a discussion point.

How much of this 95% is from fossil fuels?

And as for ice levels, there are many articles and photos and facts (including from NASA) that show the antarctic has held steady for the past 100 years (algore's hockey stick be damned).

The NASA articles say that there is an increased hight of the ice packs due to high snow fall - from the warmer air to the north. It also says that the amount of "ice" is deminishing - read bad news as there are rising sea levels. So I would call it cherry picking the facts, if in fact it were not a fact pointing in the opposite direction.

As to the 95% - what is your assessment?

Does burning bio fuel get a special break, even though it produces CO2?
Brewha Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
gummy jones wrote:
can we all just agree that if it wasnt for fred flnstone inventing the first stone wheeled suv we would still be trapped in an ice age

No doubt.

We as a race have all benefited greatly - to the point of near over population from the cheap energy.
But his is a new day, and reckoning with our past is what's on the table.

There comes a day when you just can't all live off the buffalo anymore.....
tailgater Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
Brewha wrote:
The NASA articles say that there is an increased hight of the ice packs due to high snow fall - from the warmer air to the north. It also says that the amount of "ice" is deminishing - read bad news as there are rising sea levels. So I would call it cherry picking the facts, if in fact it were not a fact pointing in the opposite direction.

As to the 95% - what is your assessment?

Does burning bio fuel get a special break, even though it produces CO2?


I thought you'd be closer to 10%. And even then, it's a fair discussion.
Which just shows the different viewpoint from the "other side". Folks who question the government funded status quo are willing to discuss. The same cannot be said for the "settled consensus" masses.

And good question about bio fuels. I guess if CO2 was the end-all then it would be equally bad.

tailgater Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
My honest thought on the issue:
1. man contributes a fair percentage. Between 10% and 60% is my estimation gathered from a bountiful of sites.
2. Of man's contributions, fossil fuels is a minority contributor. 25% or less.
3. So if man is 10% and FF are 25%, that's only 2.5% on the low side. 15% on the high.
4. Anything over 10% is significant.

Mother Nature is a far greater contributor. Man's direct impact on CO2 is less than 5%. Other influences are equally small, but may be exponential in their impact. A good discussion to have, if only the masses would STFU long enough to do so.

Man's impact is more influence by sheer numbers. No other large species is growing so rapidly. No other species has the huge impact on land.
Crops, reservoirs, concrete radiance, clear cut forests.

I live in a seaside community. I see our impact on the fishes.
Fertilizers get blamed, but it's waste products more than anything. Nitrogen, to be specific.
Again, a microcosm.

The earth is a wonderful thing.
It responds and reacts to influences, without caring if it's man or nature or taxable or extraterrestrial.

We make the world warmer and the oceans refuse to hold CO2. So the ice caps will melt. Resulting in a colder ocean. One that will absorb MORE CO2.
Then what?

Bottom line is we don't know.
So instead of treating the issue in a LOGICAL manner, we let politicians get involved.

That's what I'm saying.
And it would be wonderful to smoke a cigar and share a drink or two while we discuss it.
Assuming I'm allowed to bring the subject up without being labeled a denier.



DrafterX Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
President-elect Donald Trump is planning to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt – an outspoken critic of the EPA – to lead the environmental agency.

Word of Trump’s choice for the Environmental Protection Agency came as the president-elect also named Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad as his pick for ambassador to China and asked retired Gen. John Kelly to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

Pruitt may be the most controversial pick of the three.

Pruitt, 48, has been a reliable booster of the fossil fuel industry and a critic of what he derides as the EPA's "activist agenda."

Representing his state as attorney general since 2011, Pruitt has repeatedly sued the EPA to roll back environmental regulations and other health protections. He joined with other Republican attorneys general in opposing the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit planet-warming carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. Pruitt has argued that curbing carbon emissions would trample the sovereignty of state governments, drive up electricity rates, threaten the reliability of the nation's power grid and "create economic havoc."

His installment, if confirmed, would mark a significant break with the current EPA approach toward global warming.

In an opinion article published earlier this year by National Review, Pruitt suggested the debate over global warming "is far from settled" and claimed "scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind."

Film at 11.... Think
gummy jones Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,658
DrafterX wrote:

In an opinion article published earlier this year by National Review, Pruitt suggested the debate over global warming "is far from settled" and claimed "scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind."


he sounds just as dumb and bigoted as the rest of us
Herfing
DrafterX Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Laugh
DrafterX Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
I'm feeling better and better about this new administration everyday... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
in the name of fair play, aren't those in support of this side also attracted by the flow of money, just as they accuse the science crowd?
I'm not arguing one side vs the other right now, just asking if that would not be a fair portrayal as well.
DrafterX Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Not sure if this is what you mean but to me less regulation is more money in my pocket. .. al gore doubled the price of everything. .. Mellow
Brewha Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
tailgater wrote:
My honest thought on the issue:
1. man contributes a fair percentage. Between 10% and 60% is my estimation gathered from a bountiful of sites.
2. Of man's contributions, fossil fuels is a minority contributor. 25% or less.
3. So if man is 10% and FF are 25%, that's only 2.5% on the low side. 15% on the high.
4. Anything over 10% is significant.

Mother Nature is a far greater contributor. Man's direct impact on CO2 is less than 5%. Other influences are equally small, but may be exponential in their impact. A good discussion to have, if only the masses would STFU long enough to do so.

Man's impact is more influence by sheer numbers. No other large species is growing so rapidly. No other species has the huge impact on land.
Crops, reservoirs, concrete radiance, clear cut forests.

I live in a seaside community. I see our impact on the fishes.
Fertilizers get blamed, but it's waste products more than anything. Nitrogen, to be specific.
Again, a microcosm.

The earth is a wonderful thing.
It responds and reacts to influences, without caring if it's man or nature or taxable or extraterrestrial.

We make the world warmer and the oceans refuse to hold CO2. So the ice caps will melt. Resulting in a colder ocean. One that will absorb MORE CO2.
Then what?

Bottom line is we don't know.
So instead of treating the issue in a LOGICAL manner, we let politicians get involved.

That's what I'm saying.
And it would be wonderful to smoke a cigar and share a drink or two while we discuss it.
Assuming I'm allowed to bring the subject up without being labeled a denier.




Fair enough.

In the past years we have gone from the modern wisdom of "it ain't happening", to "we are prolly some - maybe most of the cause".

The way I slice it, no matter the numbers, we have too many people mucking things up and we need to pull together have to - muck things up less.

That's the ax I have to grind.

Tail - your ever in the Dallas area, I 'll buy the smokes.
mikey1597 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
Brewha wrote:
Fair enough.

In the past years we have gone from the modern wisdom of "it ain't happening", to "we are prolly some - maybe most of the cause".

The way I slice it, no matter the numbers, we have too many people mucking things up and we need to pull together have to - muck things up less.

That's the ax I have to grind.

Tail - your ever in the Dallas area, I 'll buy the smokes.



I'll meet you guys up there
frankj1 Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
mikey1597 wrote:
I'll meet you guys up there

take my word for it, you won't regret it. Joe is great company.


But don't quote me!
frankj1 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
DrafterX wrote:
Not sure if this is what you mean but to me less regulation is more money in my pocket. .. al gore doubled the price of everything. .. Mellow

I'm trying to say, in a neutral way, that pro or con regarding this issue people work hard to find proof of their position based on how the money flow works in their interests.

For some, proof is due to science being bought, for others that might benefit by improved local economy denial is beneficial monetarily.
mikey1597 Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
frankj1 wrote:
take my word for it, you won't regret it. Joe is great company.


But don't quote me!



So is Brewha!
frankj1 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
mikey1597 wrote:
So is Brewha!

let's get 'em in a tavern together!
DrafterX Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
I've had the pleasure of smoking with Brewha a couple times... Good guy... ThumpUp
tailgater Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
frankj1 wrote:
in the name of fair play, aren't those in support of this side also attracted by the flow of money, just as they accuse the science crowd?
I'm not arguing one side vs the other right now, just asking if that would not be a fair portrayal as well.


Yes, money is driving both sides.
But only one side is determined to shut down all discussions on the matter.
tailgater Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
Brewha wrote:
Fair enough.

In the past years we have gone from the modern wisdom of "it ain't happening", to "we are prolly some - maybe most of the cause".

The way I slice it, no matter the numbers, we have too many people mucking things up and we need to pull together have to - muck things up less.

That's the ax I have to grind.

Tail - your ever in the Dallas area, I 'll buy the smokes.


And I'll smoke them.
Herfing
DrafterX Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Sounds like Global Warming is hitting Hawaii pretty hard.... Think
tailgater Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
DrafterX wrote:
Sounds like Global Warming is hitting Hawaii pretty hard.... Think


Harder than a Giants Kicker hits his wife.



Too soon?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 46,266
Maybe...

What about hit harder than a Giants WR by a practice net?
Brewha Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
Drafter and Mikey are good guys to herf with too -

This spring we should have a Dallas Herf-o-golf. And then a few hours are the nineteenth hole.....
Just so happens I live next to the cheapest 18 hole cource in the state.
mikey1597 Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
Brewha wrote:
Drafter and Mikey are good guys to herf with too -

This spring we should have a Dallas Herf-o-golf. And then a few hours are the nineteenth hole.....
Just so happens I live next to the cheapest 18 hole cource in the state.



Count me in. I dont shoot golf but I like to drive the fancy gocarts.
DrafterX Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
shooting the golf balls sounds like fun... Think
frankj1 Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
things seem to be thawing out around here.

I blame Global Warming
tonygraz Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,254
Prolly just the heat from the big fire.
Mr. Jones Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,262
Deer Camp is NOT WARMING UP....

I CAN BARELY KEEP THIS CABIN AT 50-55
With one wood stove and two small electric
Baseboards....28 degrees outside during the Day
Night time much colder....

That football game last night was 15 degrees in
Kansas city?
DrafterX Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
it was 15 deg here in OK this morning... Mellow
mikey1597 Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
Mr Jones that wood stove should keep the cabin nice and toasty!
mikey1597 Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
I think you need a bigger fire!
mikey1597 Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 13,959
BURN MORE COAL!!!!!!!!
Brewha Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
Don't forget to litter......

It creates jobs!
DrafterX Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.


Film at 11... Not talking
Stinkdyr Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,729
Brewha wrote:
No doubt.

We as a race have all benefited greatly - to the point of near over population from the cheap energy.
But his is a new day, and reckoning with our past is what's on the table.

There comes a day when you just can't all live off the buffalo anymore.....



Agreed. So we must end welfare breeding of more and more useless mouths to feed and pollute the earth.

fog
gummy jones Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,658
tailgater wrote:
Yes, money is driving both sides.
But only one side is determined to shut down all discussions on the matter.


and one side is undoubtedly worst for the middle and lower classes as well as developing nations, etc

leo decarpio is going to fly around on his private plane regardless
Brewha Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
DrafterX wrote:
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.


Film at 11... Not talking

Don't toy with us Drafter - tell us what to think of this.

Tell, us that this means we should drill for more oil and get rid of windmills.

Because without X gossip, where would the forum be?
DrafterX Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
True... true... Mellow
qmech Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 06-17-2016
Posts: 704
I take it we are not talking about Paris Hilton?
☢☢☢☢☢
DrafterX Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Seen her boobs once... Mellow
qmech Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 06-17-2016
Posts: 704
In person?
🙊🙉🙈
qmech Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 06-17-2016
Posts: 704
In person?
🙊🙉🙈
DrafterX Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Ya.. we used to hang out... Mellow
qmech Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 06-17-2016
Posts: 704
I remember those days that never were and have yet to come... 😁😁
tailgater Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
DrafterX wrote:
Ya.. we used to hang out... Mellow


That explains the boobage.

tailgater Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
Brewha wrote:
Don't toy with us Drafter - tell us what to think of this.

Tell, us that this means we should drill for more oil and get rid of windmills.

Because without X gossip, where would the forum be?


First, I don't know how much (if any) of Drafter's post is true.
But your response is indicative of why climate change has become so polarized.

Brewha Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 7,836
tailgater wrote:
First, I don't know how much (if any) of Drafter's post is true.
But your response is indicative of why climate change has become so polarized.


Not to be argumentative Tail, but I believe that climate change is affecting both poles.
tailgater Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 19,159
Brewha wrote:
Not to be argumentative Tail, but I believe that climate change is affecting both poles.


I like the play on words.
But in this instance you seem to be incorrect, since the south isn't melting like the north.
frankj1 Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
turn her over
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages<1234567>