Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I read that thing about Titan moon. From what I read, it is most likely was traped deep in the Moon crust when it was first fromed, and it is just releasing it into the atmosphere. Titan is not producing methane.

The critical point is that it was created by abiotic processes in the first place (when is irrelevant). This demonstrates that hydrocarbons can be produced by geological means and not just by the decay of organic material.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Jack,

How much water do you think flows out of the world's major rivers into the oceans? The volume of ice that melts per year is miniscule in comparison.

Yes but most of that water came from the ocean in the first place in the form of rain or snow. So the flowing of rivers into the oceans of the world dont have much of an effect as you would expect. But what about the Ice in Antarctica and Greenland?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ned
Yes, there are other reasons, such as health, to reduce some polutants. But, if GW is as dangerous as they say, shouldn't we be very cautious about the degree of reduction of "good" polution?

Ok, first of all you've been harping on how GW isn't dangerous, potentially beneficial, and not even happening at all. Then you argued against "playing it safe" as well. Now you are playing the "play it safe" card. That is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

I personally do think we should "play it safe". But not by producing unnecessary CO2, and then producing more pollution to counter it in regards to GW. See, I don't want to play it safe just in regards to GW, but in regards to GW, Health, and any other effects that we haven't realized our emissions are having.

Your "playing it safe" is to continue to create an unnecessary "need" to produce pollution which contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer, kills people, makes us ill, and may very well have other effects we don't even know about yet. That is not "playing it safe"...

[Ned]

Aeson, all I suggest is that we fully understand the consequences of any action before we take that action. That is not hypocrisy.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Jack,

How much water do you think flows out of the world's major rivers into the oceans? The volume of ice that melts per year is miniscule in comparison.

While that may be true, you ignore the fact about the amount of trapped water in the ice.

While the fresh water may not stop the flow, it may have an impact on the speed of the current and in that way make an influence.

[Jack_www]

"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biological origin, so it must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed," said Dr. Hasso Niemann of Goddard, principal investigator for the GCMS and lead author of a paper on this research to appear in Nature on Dec. 8. [

That is a quote from the article. Notice how it says that the moon is most likely releasing the methane that was traped when it was formed. No where in there does it says it is producing it.

[Solly]

Originally posted by BlackCat


While that may be true, you ignore the fact about the amount of trapped water in the ice.

While the fresh water may not stop the flow, it may have an impact on the speed of the current and in that way make an influence.

Please see my earlier posts.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
Aeson, all I suggest is that we fully understand the consequences of any action before we take that action. That is not hypocrisy.

I just saw that post of yours where you trying to say that there is good pollution. How can you say that pollution is good? The earth was been doing just fine for millions of years with out the pollution of humans, and we dont need to pollute it to save the earth.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I must disagree about the awareness of dangers of different pollutions. Most people has the knowledge that CO2 is a GH gas and that other emissions is locally dangerous (SOx making acid rain, particle emissions causing cancer etc). Well, that is here - may be otherwise at other places.

SO2 was the one that came to my mind. It's a bad example for that very reason. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of other air pollutants that don't come to mind. And that's my point. Most of us can only name a very small percentage of the compounds that comprise "pollution", yet it is very common to address "pollution" with a negative connotation still.

The ones that do come to mind tend to be associated with the media darlings... GW, acid rain, and the ozone layer. And this is why I say those types of issues, even if they end up technically incorrect on some points, are good to have in the public eye. It increases our overall awareness of the potential damage we are causing to ourselves and our environment with "pollution" in general.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Please see my earlier posts.

Checked them, but didn't found anything - be more precise.

[Solly]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Checked them, but didn't found anything - be more precise.

I'm not your teacher.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


I'm not your teacher.

If you were, I certainly would demand that you were fired.

Please answer my question.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ned
Aeson, all I suggest is that we fully understand the consequences of any action before we take that action. That is not hypocrisy.

No, that is not all you are saying. Along with the other points I included in my last post... You said nothing humans have done has affected the climate. Now you are saying we shouldn't do anything until we're sure what effects we are having. I don't call this hypocrisy. I call it self-refuting.

Even if it were all you were saying though... The actions we are taking are producing the pollutants in the first place. We did not fully understand the consequences of those actions, and still don't. Yet you are supporting to that we continue to take those actions even when we know for sure that there are detrimental effects in doing so, just because we don't absolutely know what all the effects are.

It's outrageously ignorant to suggest we continue to knowingly produce pollution that is known to cause illness and death of millions just because we don't know for sure what the effects of GW will be. Especially given the fact that we can maintain your precious aerosol:CO2 that you seem to think is critical if we want to... by reducing both equally.

[Solly]

"It's outrageously ignorant to suggest we continue to knowingly continue to kill people just because we don't know for sure what the effects of GW will be. "

GW has not caused one death.

[Jack_www]

I just want to make one point, are not CFC ban almost all over the world now? I thought that no one is using those chemicals anymore.