Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Been off for a couple of weeks due to drug interactions and stage 2 hypertension - and the factual basis of off-topic goes to Hades in a hand basket.

It has always been this way. It's just that the situation is worse than usual sometimes. I hope you are better now.

Congrats on pulling an MtG.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

heres what crichton say. can anyone refute this?

1. glaciers are melting now, but have been melting for the last 300 years, and the speed of melting has increased in the last 300 years

2. From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled 0.7 C per decade

3. West antarctic ice is increaseing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting tred of the last 6,000 years

4. temperatures around the world (large cities are adjusted for urban heat island' effect. underadjustment is what is given)
a. Punta Arenas 1888-2004: a decrease of 0.6 C
b. Pasadena 1930-2000: an increase of 3.5 C
c. Berkeley 1930 - 2000: an increase of 0.6 C
d. Death Valley 1933 - 2000: an increase of 0.3 C
e. McGill (NV) 1930-2000: a decrease of 1 C
f. Guthrie, OK 1930-2000: decrease of 0.5 C
g. Boulder 1930-1997: decrease of 0.4 C
h. Truman (MO) 1931-2000: decrease of 2.1 C
i. Greenvile (SC) 1930-2000: decrease of 2.3 C
j. Ann Arbor 1930-2000: decrease of 1C
k. Charleston (SC) 1930-2000: increase of 0.2 C
l. New York City 1930-2000: increase of 0.8 C
m. Syracuse (NY) 1930-2000:decrease of 0.9 C
n. Albany (NY) 1930-2000: decrease of 1 C
o. Oswego (NY) 1930-2000: decrease of 0.7 C
p. West Point (NY) 1931-2000: decrease of 0.5 C
q. West Point (NY) 1900-2000: increase of 0.5 C
r. West Point (NY) 1826-2000: increase of < 0.1C
s. New York City 1822-2000: increase of 5 C
t. Albany (NY) 1820-2000: decrease of 0.5 C

5. CO2 levels
1957: 315 ppm
2002: 372 ppm

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I would say many in power are being hypocrites when they are claiming the sky would falling by actually doing something astonishing as eliminating dependence on foreign oil.

You really have very little clue, do you? Do you consider Alberta and Venezuala to be 'domestic'?

Originally posted by germanos
While I certainly cannot prove Global Warming, the theories on a sustainable CO2 cyclus makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we should put a lot of effort in it to make it work. Also the notion that we should conserve energy wherever we can makes a lot of sense. I simply hate it for anything to go to waste, and there is certainly no reason to waste for the hell of it.

Than I would imagine you would be in favour of a program of global cuts, and not simply moving industries to non-restricted jurisdictions.

Kyoto is a joke. A very bad one. It's a shame it had to be Yanks to have the cahones to say the Emperor has no clothes.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You really have very little clue, do you? Do you consider Alberta and Venezuala to be 'domestic'?

Yes, the US gets most of its foreign oil from Mexico and Venezuala. The US is also the largest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. Yet we still depend heavily on foreign imports.

DUH

So do you actually have a point are you just here to pat yourself on the back for throwing out common knowledge?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Say WHAT?

[notyoueither]

You're funny, Ted. In a retarded sort of way. Mexico, heh, them too I guess.

Now, can you really defend your 'no foreign oil' nonsense? I didn't think you could.

[Ted Striker]

If you actually ask a question that has an answer, yeah maybe.


You can't make a point without name calling. What are you, in third grade?

[notyoueither]

I'm waiting to hear your solution to the foreign oil problem, oh wise one. Please don't try to side track things.

[The Mad Monk]

Can you back up that China statement, Ted?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm waiting to hear your solution to the foreign oil problem, oh wise one. Please don't try to side track things.

Look at you guys trying to be all macho. Sad. But amusing.

Maybe you missed that whole recession thing that occured during the 70s because of energy shocks or the last one that was influenced by high energy costs.


But anyway, here is the answer for you amateurs. You are trying to point out a bunch of aggregate states put together that aren't problem states. We have Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, and Saudi Arabia as our largest sources of foreign oil. Those places are our buddies, right? Riiight...

You probably think I am thinking that all the oil must come from those crazy towelheads who are all bent on killing whitey and blackmailing him with overpriced black gold!!!!


But, hey, don't look to me for why dependence on foreign oil is a problem, you can read the testimony from the President's own cabinet:

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-gl0389.html

In which he sums up the obvious. Key points:

A number of hard facts must be factored into the formulation of an energy security policy. These hard facts include:

-- Two-thirds of proven world oil reserves are in the Middle East. In contrast, the United States has 2 percent of proven world oil reserves;

-- The United States, as well as Europe and Japan, rely on imports to meet a large and growing portion of our oil needs;

-- Because markets are global, energy market disturbances that initially affect others will transmit aftershocks to us through prices and other economic linkages;


Significant amounts of oil are controlled by problem States

Man, you really are clueless old wise retarded one!!!



OWN3D

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Can you back up that China statement, Ted?

I don't have the RECENT figures, but here is part of the trend.

China's overall carbon dioxide emissions fell by 7.3 percent between 1996 and 2000, and its methane emissions declined by 2.2 percent between 1997 and 2000, it said.

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Articles/ChinaCuts.asp

China's emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main contributor to global warming --have declined 17 percent since 1997, despite economic growth of 36 percent over the same time period. China has achieved these impressive results principally by restructuring its economy, switching to cleaner energy sources, and improving energy efficiency. By 2020, China's CO2 emissions are projected to be lower than U.S. emission levels in 1990.

http://www.global-warming.net/china.htm

Unlike other developing countries such as India, South Korea and Brazil, both the amount of energy and carbon consumed per dollar of GDP have decreased dramatically in China over the past two decades. With average annual GDP growth rates around 7-8% over the last decade and energy consumption growth rates somewhat lower, China has been reducing its energy intensity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

DOUBLE OWNAGE


Man, you should at least Google it first dumbass before trying to do macho posturing.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm waiting to hear your solution to the foreign oil problem, oh wise one. Please don't try to side track things.

And by the way the solution is obvious.

Alternative energy sources and conservation.

DUH

That wasn't so hard was it?

[The Mad Monk]

I asked for substantiation and you provided it -- how does that amount to "ownage"?

[Ted Striker]

"I asked for substantiation"



If you say so.

[The Mad Monk]

You appear to be agitated about something, Ted.