http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288.
.
Sweet
Whatever stats you quote about Carbon Monoxide are irrelevant, wiki states most CO is natural and not from man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide
Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5 x 10 12 kilograms per year. [3] Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion.
I guess i was right after all.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288.
.
Sweet:
Your biggest problem is you cant prove to me that its not a business about taxing citizens. Nowhere is there simple chart or article that shows the gov is spending all received incomes on programs to counter this percieved problem.
As with all things follow the money. Its always about money or power, honesty is almost never a factor.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288.
.
Sweet:
MP: Strange wiki says 30B and your scientist says 35B tonnes of CO..... your quotes are off by almost 15% from my source in wiki."My scientist" says... haha... The information I shared: Friedlingstein et al. projected that humans would be responsible for producing 35B tonnes of CO2 (FTR, CO is carbon monoxide) in 2010. The actual estimate of C02 produced in 2010, according to the same Wiki entry, is shown to be 33.5B tonnes worldwide. [EDIT: I've pasted a screenshot a couple of posts below.]
MP
I assumed that your post had an error and actually meant CO2 and CO1. Im sure we both agree that burning fossil fuels produces a lot more Co2 by weight than CO1 by a significant factor.
I did a quick search of
> Friedlingstein <
andmost articles seem to have him mentioning CO2 measurements.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288.
.
@Sweet
Governments are not exactly bastians of honesty, they have been known to lie on many occassions, particularly with regards to money. There are many programs that ultimately are all about grabbing money, and climate change is the new invention. In the past governments would scare the locals into complying with taxes by force, today they have invented a new bogey man, and hes not called Jehovah but is called Climate Change.
The governments themselves dont believe the hype, they receive a lot more money than they spend. Some countries are introducing or have already implemented taxes that will amount to very large numbers. At the same time they make no attempt to actually change or rectify the problem.
For example why doesnt the US gov simply ban 4wd, pickup trucks and other large vehicles. Most poeple simple dont need them and they extra burn petrol unncessarily. Europe and other parts of thee world get by just fine with small hatch back style vehicles and are actually sserious about public transport.
If there really was a problem, then gov would really get serious about the problem, so far they have done practically nothing.
We have already established that your primary support for this sort of policy is particularly biased because you have a business interest. If you have anything new to add besides repeating yourself or introducing sly insults then reply.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288.
.
SWEET
Shallow... nice. First of all, to address the CO2 specifically is relevant to the topic at hand, which is anthropogenic global warming. C02 is a greenhouse gas. Sulfur is not. So CO2 typically comprises more of the volcanic gases than all the other gases combined, not counting water vapor. We are addressing the potentially long-term effects that man's actions are having on the planet. The greenhouse effect is tied to CO2 not sulfur.
MP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Venus is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid , preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light . Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets in the Solar System , consisting mostly of carbon dioxide
The CO 2 -rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide , generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F) . [38] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury 's which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, [39] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance . The surface of Venus is often said to resemble traditional accounts of Hell . [40]
Im not denying CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas, but to say it is the only important factor is overly simplistic. Venus has lots of CO2, but sulfur and its compounds are very much part of the cycle that creates the greenhouse effect there.
I mentioned the reduced summers and harsh winters of Europe and NA, these facts seem to contradict the green house effect. Are we to believe the earth is heating up and that causes winters to be colder, does that make sense ?
At no stage have you attempted to show that my assertions that the earth was warming up before the Industrial revolution to be wrong, the graphs are tehre in b&w.
Im not sure why you posted the stats about CO2 emissions, nor does your witty remark about Santa, ducks and Barcelona and the champions league really add to your overall argument.
this is a question for those who still hold a supernatural view of the bible.. it would seem to be certain that the gospel of mark was the first to be written, and that matthew and luke copied large parts of mark when compiling their gospels.. from a theological perspective the most important event in the story - the heart of the gospel or "good news" is the resurrection of jesus.
it was this event and its implications that the disciples proclaimed.. the way that mark reports the resurrection is puzzling.
when the sabbath was over, mary magdalene, mary the mother of james, and salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint jesus body.
Transhuman68
The theory I like is that Mark was written on a scroll, and both ends of the scroll were damaged somehow, as there are two versions of the first verse as well, and the beginning is grammatically 'awkward' as if it was written by someone else. I read a theory that most of Mark chapter 13, although it is written as Jesus words, is actually a Jewish apocalyptic tract that was circulating at the time and was just copied word for word into Mark.
MP
Whie that appears to be an elegant solution, it doesnt explain how nobody noticed. Are we to believe there was one copy and it got its edges burnt ? If Peter really went to Rome and there were thousands of followers, shouldnt there have been literally many many thousands of copies befor ethe disciples died ? How does one explain they didnt keep a definitive copy or the original just like the Americans did with the declaration of indy etc. Are we to believe the mere founding fathers were smarter than the god assisted apostles ?
Berengaria
I see Jesus as a Ghandi, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr. figure. I'm sure there are many many more through every age, that I have forgotten.
Good men all who tried to make people think about what really matters.
MP
Jesus was not good, he was a racist, sexist jewish man of the times. He was a pawn who told the jews not to fight but to be happy with their destiny as slaves of the romans.
this is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
TEC
You should read some of the gnostic writings and you will find jesus sayings also being told by the teacher of righteousness many years before Jesus was born. Wisdom was a god, her name was Sophia in Greece. Jesus was not the first tell us those caring fuzzy warm stories.
when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?.
a critique of the two-part article published in the public editions of.
the watchtower of october 1, 2011, pages 26-31 and.
@oppostate
Carl has been quoted somewhere as a JW in this very forum if i recall.
afternoon all,.
a bit on my background.
i studied with the jw's a while ago in my teens, was acitve in meetings, and all the other things good witnesses do.
But David was screwing Jonathan and we also have the scripture of Samuel fooling around naked all night with King Saul. We also have the case where Abraham asks his man servant to grab his dick while making an oath to get a wife from thehomeland for Isaac. I always wondered why brothers didnt make promises this way, it sounds so efficient.
this is a question for those who still hold a supernatural view of the bible.. it would seem to be certain that the gospel of mark was the first to be written, and that matthew and luke copied large parts of mark when compiling their gospels.. from a theological perspective the most important event in the story - the heart of the gospel or "good news" is the resurrection of jesus.
it was this event and its implications that the disciples proclaimed.. the way that mark reports the resurrection is puzzling.
when the sabbath was over, mary magdalene, mary the mother of james, and salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint jesus body.
Cofty:
The divinity of Jesus was an after thought invented many years after the original story of a man who told the Jews to stop fighting and be obedient slaves of the Romans came along. I find it particularly interesting that Matthew a supposed apostle ends up copying Mark word for word for about two thirds of his own gospel ? How does one explain one witness copying someone who wasnt there to give his own eye witness account ?
