Printable View
I don't know if there was any computer magic done on that picture, but I say she's gotten better with age. That's what I call a stocking stuffer. :)
The holidays are coming up and my b-day just passed, so, if you want to get me a couple of those then that would be fine.
:D
<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" http:="" www.straightrazorplace.com="" forums="" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
It's all horse hockey. The earth's atmosphere's 2 primary gases are nitrogen (roughly 78%) and oxygen (roughly 21%) and they make up roughly 99% of it. Carbon dioxide makes up roughly .4% and I'm rounding UP there to give those who believe this nonsense about man-made global warming an edge......it's almost Christmas, the time for giving.....MERRY CHRISTMAS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS! Roughly 96% of all carbon dioxide emissions come directly from the earth's crust...oceans, volcanoes, living things, etc....man's behavior contributes roughly the other 3.3% (I rounded up there, too...and that's IF you ignore water vapor which is greater than 70% of the greenhouse effect! The United States Federal Government doesn't recognize water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas. How convenient!). How nice that the EPA lists both man-made and natural sources of carbon dioxide WITHOUT giving us a percentage of what occurs naturally?
Natural sources and sinks here: Carbon Dioxide - Natural Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA (you won't find the total percentage of naturally occurring sources there as I said before. Surprised?)
Human sources listed by percentage and concentration in 2006 here: Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA
We can trust the United States Federal Government, right? They've never lied to us before, have they? Why does the EPA ignore water vapor? Perhaps because now that the Supreme Court has recognized carbon dioxide as a pollutant the EPA can regulate it.....and then the government can get......TAX REVENUE BASED ON MAN-MADE CO2!
The year 2008 average of CO2 concentration is 385 ppm. Source: Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations The information on this page was updated just this month.
The year 1750 pre-industrial revolution baseline is 280 ppm. Same source.
So, we've gone up 105 ppm in.......hang on, gotta drag out the calculator, I don't have one of those shiny science or math degrees that proves I'm not full of bunk......258 years.
The world population in 1750: 790 million. Source: http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...ixbilpart1.pdf
The world population in July 2008: 6,706,993,152. Just google "the world population in 2008" and you'll see the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/xx.htmlThe CIA gave us that number.......but the CIA lies, according to Nancy Pelosi (google that one yourself!).
6,706,993,152 - 790,000,000 = 5,916,993,152 more people today than 1750. So, 105 ppm more CO2 today spread out over 5.9 billion MORE people today = DROP IN THE PROVERBIAL BUCKET. Why? That's a huge increase, right? But:
A) The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>United States</st1></st1:country-region> Government is only giving us a CO2 value of 385 ppm with no account as to why temperatures currently fluctuate both UP AND DOWN but CO2 increases every year.
B) There is zero proof that man alone has caused a 105 ppm increase in CO2 levels.
C) Doesn't take into account what the earth spews in CO2 on a daily basis and that changes daily.
D) There is zero proof that atmospheric CO2 concentration causes temperatures to swing upward.
If you ignore water vapor, CO2 comprises over 99% of greenhouse gases. If you allow for water vapor, CO2 comprises 3.3%. Big difference, huh? Why does the government do this? Because convincing people that we need to reduce carbon emissions is a lot easier if we think that warming is caused by the 99% number and not the 3.3% number.
If you ask the scientific community about it you'll get differing opinions. A 1750 accounting of 280 ppm of CO2 doesn't take into account that levels have been historically both lower and higher than that. That number fluctuates and so does the earth's climate.
Climate is going to change regardless of what man does. Prove me wrong. Man's contribution is negligible AT BEST.
All that we are handed are a bunch of numbers.....some of them are accurate, some are collected by means which raise reasonable doubt.
Here's some good reading: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
I know, I know.......I'm a pretty conservative guy. I don't cling to God and guns like some conservatives do, but fried bologna with cheddar cheese on toasted sour dough bread with mustard tastes great!
Oh, and since I don't have a degree yet and can't read and understand proper research methods, what I said up there doesn't count. So that means all the information that the climate Chicken Littles of the world hand to us is right and that the models and research methods for climate change don't need to be reviewed and changed.
QUOTE:
by the way, make sure you watch jessie "the body" <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>ventura</st1></st1:city>'s new show this week. he gonna talk about the global warming conspiracy..should be interesting to say the least<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:26.25pt;height:15pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\BIGJOH~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image002.gif" o:href="http://straightrazorpalace.com/images/smilies/whistling1.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> END QUOTE
I have no doubt that he's already been discredited by someone with a climate change background. I'm going to watch it, though!
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL SRP MEMBERS! <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:33.75pt;height:15pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\BIGJOH~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image003.gif" o:href="http://straightrazorpalace.com/images/smilies/beer2.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> (I gotta lay off the fried bologna <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1028" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:12pt;height:12pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\BIGJOH~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_image004.gif" o:href="http://straightrazorpalace.com/images/smilies/frown.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->).
You should do your research perhaps before you drink the Kool-Aid of the right wing agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by CableDawg
Your sources are all government sources. They can't be trusted. In fact, here's the latest... the EPA is attempting to ban environmental monitoring devices at ground zero... according to the NYC Occupational Safety and Health organization (NYCOSH).
I would certainly trust the myriad of renowned scientists throughout the world before I would trust an EPA press release and a rogue group of archaeologists from West Virginia.
EPA also told thousands of first responders at ground zero that the air was safe to breathe. Many of those heroes are now dead or dying of lung diseases proliferated by toxins including mercury from light ballasts and thousands of pounds of asbestos.
Your government has an agenda, and it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting you.
But believe what you want. The signs are all pointing in a very clear direction, but as has been said, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
One would think that we, as a nation, would be protecting the heroes who sacrificed themselves to save so many from harm, but alas, that is not the case.
Even after the EPA assured the public that the air was safe to breathe, many first responders are dying from exposure to the toxic environment.
So, believe what you want about global warming and the effects of carbon dioxide on the global environment. But let me encourage you to consider the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZMKA
I'm drinking Kool Aid? I'm asking for PROOF of my behavior before the government of the United States commits untold BILLIONS of dollars to an unproven THEORY to reduce a harmless gas that man contributes to .28% of the total contribution of "greenhouse gases". Can someone tell me how much the Copenhagen conference, if what they are going to approve is signed into law, will impact the entire world? Are those "tricks" too? The answer is a big fat "NO!" that's based on a "hope and change" theory, not hard solid science.
When it comes to the point of the entire thread, I don't want numbers that are "tricked", I WANT FACT. The jury is still out and there are doubts raised every time an event like Climategate happens........but that's my opinion. I respect your opinion as well, I just disagree, that's all.
As far as Dick Cheney's video is concerned, I can also post an unrelated video to this thread that shows Barack Obama telling us that the unemployment rate is never going to go above 8%. It doesn't advance my argument because I don't trust my government as I now suspect you don't, either. I want PROOF that what they are going to do is going to change things for the better.
I thank you for your post, sir.
Don't start thinking that I have allegiances to Barack Obama. I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by CableDawg
Personally, I don't think he's any less corrupt than Cheney, but thats my personal opinion.
As far as global warming goes, I won't try to convince anyone that we have irrefutable evidence that we will all die in 20 years if you don't stop driving your car. The problem is that we are the beta test for global warming. We don't get a second chance if we get it wrong. DDT, lead, asbestos, biocumulative toxins, kudzu... we have to live with the consequences of those mistakes. We can't undo them now - its too late.
Granted, we are managing those errors in judgement, but the stakes are higher when we're talking about the cumulative effect of pollutants on our climate. We need to get it right, even if it means erring on the side of caution.
Our contribution to global warming is not fake. It is unfortunately true. Just because most of us do not see or feel the actual occurance does not mean it is not happening. There is plenty of evidence showing that man made pollutants are affecting the environment in a global way.:)
where is the evidence?...none has been proven, NONEQuote:
Originally Posted by razorgal
Well *that's* a convincing argument!Quote:
Originally Posted by razorgal
Sounds like dogmatic religious fanaticism, Gore and the other con-men I mean High Priests would be pleased. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by razorgal
There is proof with the environmental changes are occuring daily. There are those people who do not accept the evidence for various reasons. This does not invalidate the facts though. They want proof, but when proof is handed to them they shoot it down. I am not going to go round and round in circles and attempt to offer facts and evidence (personally) that can be found in easily accessible scienctific resources.
It seems to me that there must be some validation, truth, if over 30 national science academies have come together in agreement and with declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming. :)
Rosie