Grist for the mill--Climate Change Shenanigans

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek I'm not playing the pity/insulted card at all. Merely pointing out the inconsistency between your claim and your actual words. As you said before, it is what it is.

Good because that would be ironic if you were. Hehe.

And I just explained what was not personal. Here we are again, pretending I did not.
Anyways, I will link the previous page to you. http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/...101184&page=18

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by robertthebard The ice that is above sea level, that isn't on dry land, is still contributing mass to the water levels. Am I to believe that ice that isn't in water has less weight than ice that is in water, just because it may be resting on top of other ice? In my ice water experiment, you can see that the ice may not necessarily be below the surface of the water, and if ice is resting on top of ice, the water level will remain the same when the ice melts. However, you do not have to take my word for it, this is an environmentally safe experiment that you can do at home. Only ice cubes will be harmed in testing it out.

The wikipedia article on Antarctica bears this out, stating that were the ice to melt much of the landmass would be submerged due to the increased water level, however, without the weight of the ice which is sinking the continent, much, if not all of it would eventually rise up above it again.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by John D Harris WELL HALE OF COURSE NOT!!!!! Damnation and Hale FIRE we got Emails between the two head idots what are incharge talking about how to keep any desenting opinions out of the revant publications..... and you want to bring up there aren't any published papers in the revant publications?????? DID I read you Right???? Well spank my rear end and paint it purple if that ain't a strawman argument I sure as feces don't know what one is..... How in the hale can you sit there with a straight face and call yourself objective or wish to be viewed as objective and honest, (which is what bringing the truth, facts is) while claiming that since no papers have been published in "a proper journal", but the Guys incharge of the "proper journals" won't let anyone with an opposing view publish in their " proper Journal".... That's the pssition you really want to take???

Don't forget the emails discussing changing the meaning of "peer review" to further exclude dissenting conclusions and data.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I take it you finally saw the movie then? Otherwise, you wouldn't be qualified to speak on his work.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...nvenient-truth

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by machinehead What it means is that the regulations that were fought against tooth and nail by the power generating industry and their conservative lackeys on coal fired generating plants are actually working. Imagine that!

Funny thing about that, in 81, when the Gov't studies began, Reagan was in office, in 90, when the law was enacted, GHW Bush was in office, two Republicans, imagine that...

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Obama re-opened the dialogue of national diplomacy that the other guy closed.

In the twelve days between being sworn in and the end of the nomination period for the Prize?

[ElfBane]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat In the twelve days between being sworn in and the end of the nomination period for the Prize?

Now guys,,,I don't think we should ding BO about the PP. It's not like he solicited the damn thing...so ragging him about it is, IMO, unfair.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by ElfBane Now guys,,,I don't think we should ding BO about the PP. It's not like he solicited the damn thing...so ragging him about it is, IMO, unfair.

It does illustrate a number of his character traits however, especially his sense of entitlement and massive personal ego. At the end of the day however, he's simply a Chicago political machine politician, and uses the thugocracy tactics of said fiefdom.

[machinehead]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat Funny thing about that, in 81, when the Gov't studies began, Reagan was in office, in 90, when the law was enacted, GHW Bush was in office, two Republicans, imagine that...

2002: NSR Rollback Initiative
On Dec. 31, exactly 32 years after President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into law, the Bush administration announces significant rollbacks to New Source Review pollution control provisions. Highlights:
1. New rules will allow virtually all pollution increases from old, high-polluting sources to go unregulated. EPA will allow companies to avoid updating emission controls if their plant’s equipment has been reviewed at any time within the past decade, and the measures used to calculate emissions levels will be reconfigured.
2. The review process built into NSR will be drastically scaled back. Until now, when facilities wanted to expand their production, thereby increasing their emissions, they would have to apply for permission and undergo EPA scrutiny and public comment. The rollback will do away with this requirement. Communities will now not know when a nearby power plant is increasing the amount of pollutants pumped into their backyards. The new regulations are slated to go into effect in March 2003.
http://www.edf.org/documents/2695_cleanairact.htm

Republican pres. & congress. Imagine that.

[machinehead]

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter's Council of Environmental Quality was asked to develop a national acid rain research program. Several scientists drafted a report that eventually became the basis for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). Carter's initiative eventually translated into legislative action with the passage of the Energy Security Act (PL 96–264) in June 1980. Title VII of the Act (the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980) created the NAPAP and authorized federally financed support.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/26...ACID-RAIN.html