Hurricane Rita

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:44 am

Levees breached in New Orleans again:

Water seeps through the levee along the Industrial Canal in the Lower Ninth Ward recently repaired by the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans September 22, 2005. (Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)

Also, on a side note, a great article by Naomi Klein, Purging The Poor, where she details the new "flat tax" and "drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" proposed RELIEF measures in the disaster striken areas. These measures were brought forth by the House Republican Study Committee.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-23 10:26 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:36 am

Now that everyone has had a free shot at the US and feels better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:35 pm

I've heard about a recently elaborated theory.
It's based on the principle that H2O vapour could condenses mainly around atmospheric dust particles.
It has been observed that, during the temporary airplane arrest after the twin towers attack, the absence of airplane wakes in the California sky caused appreciable temperature alterations with higher maximum and lower minimum.
So there's people asserting that thiny dusts generated by unfiltered pollution increment clouds forming, contributing to keep low the temperature by refraction of sunbeam.

Unluckly the number of people death every year because of thiny dusts emissions is unbelivable high and is rapidly increasing.

Sometimes I feel like sitting on an armed bomb.

(altough my car is just 100CV/75KW)

[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2005-09-25 17:27 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:11 am

On 2005-09-25 02:36, Spirit wrote:
Now that everyone has had a free shot at the US and feels better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm

Is this how you make up your views by picking articles that choose to ingore the facts?
Here are some links you can consider.
A link from EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) since you claim that we, I am, against US by voicing my concern about the environment:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... idual.html

Read this too (conclusion of the US Global Change Research Program, note that this one is from US also):
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/na ... ummary.htm

Now watch here how much the polar Arctic ice sheet has shrunk since 1979:

or see the shit we breathe here in Chicago:

More details here:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
and here:
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Now, after you inform yourself properly, come back here and present articles with facts not someone elses opinions.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-26 08:14 ]

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:38 am

Many countries and people in the world have American life style as reference model.

So responsability of US government is very high, in my opinion.

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:17 pm

On 2005-09-26 08:38, Cochise wrote:
Many countries and people in the world have American life style as reference model.

I honestly don't belive that there's enought resources to guarantee the American Life Style to everyone in the planet. So the things must change in the future, because this way is unsustainable.

Returning to te global warming, I think that it's very difficult to say today if the effects of industrialization are the cause of the global warming or if the cause is "natural", anyway there are some examples which can demostrate that the impact of the human working CAN change the enviroment:
for example I've just watched a documentary on the atom bombs. In the '60s-'70s there was the biggest concentration of experiments and testings of the A-bomb. And this fact is noticeable in the wine for example:
a study (made by one of the most important university of Italy) has demostrated that italian wine of that years have an higher (ten times and more) concentration of radioactive elements like cesium.

As far as I know, Italy in that years didn't make atom experiments, so that cesium arrived from far away.

[ This Message was edited by: lima on 2005-09-27 02:03 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:28 pm

On 2005-09-26 08:11, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Is this how you make up your views by picking articles that choose to ingore the facts?

It was one article. It is full of facts - they just happen to be ones you don't like Clown

Post by **garyb** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:59 am

a big volcano puts out 10X as much CO2 as all the cars in the USA put out in a year. Spirit is probably right in this case, CO2 emmissions are a red herring. my grandfather was involved in some interesting studies of Los Angeles air pollution in the 70's(he was the head chemist for a major military contractor). autos were found to be insignificant compared to industry when it came to real permanent air damage.

this WILL cause global warming, in fact it is one of the purposes...
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

there have been many hurricanes throughout history. it IS hard to say that these storms are really as special as they seem. global warming may be more about global tax stuctures and government than actual concern about the environment. one clue, BP is behind much of the legislation/education...

global warming or not, there are a lot of reasons to stop using all this oil. assuming global warming to be real, the use of concrete and the destruction of phytoplankton might be more dangerous. killing off the life that uses CO2 and balances the gases in the atmosphere and cools the planet and feeds the ocean might be sillier than fossil fuel...

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-27 04:09 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:18 am

On 2005-09-27 00:17, Lima wrote:

Returning to te global warming, I think that it's very difficult to say today if the effects of industrialization are the cause of the global warming or if the cause is "natural",...

Are you saying that the US Global Change Research Program's conclusion is irrelevant? Are you trying to say that they wasted all this research money for nothing?

Gary, any example of a recent volcano that put out 10X dioxide carbon?
Come on, bring out proven facts not oppinions.

Post by **garyb** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:05 pm

go ahead and check it out. see what kind of output mt saint helens spit out or even some of the recent hawaiian eruptions, the output is staggering.

i'm not saying that greenhouse gasses are to be ignored or that heavy fossil fuel use is a good idea, i'm just saying that as it's put forward, global warming is not exactly as they say, rather it's another push towards global government and the forces which are responsible for spending the money to make you very alarmed are the very orginizations which would benefit most from globalization and control.

remember simon bar-sinister and how he was always messing up the environment to control "all the _____ (fill in the blank) in the world!"?

the death of the ocean and the devaluation of human life are much more pressing issues. the HAARP system is much more capable of heating the atmosphere than automobiles and the USA is not the only country with such technologies(the russians invented it using tesla's theories, so they say...).

i'm not nessessarily trying to convince you though. the evidence is in plain sight. you can find it if you want, just like you found the other info you have.... imho, the kyoto protocols are kinda bizzare and a distraction and a sham(including gwb's refusal to sign them). countries trading around CO2 credits? and rich countries buying the credits of poor countries? kind of silly global government that trumps local laws, yeah great, just like global trade agreements that nullify local laws and remove people's right to protect themselves from legal exploitation....

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-27 13:06 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:00 pm

On 2005-09-27 13:05, garyb wrote:
go ahead and check it out. see what kind of output mt saint helens spit out or even some of the recent hawaiian eruptions, the output is staggering.

Those eruptions are cyclic and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact the largest volcanic eruption recorded in modern times, of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883, that caused the light around the world to be darkened for days, still did not produce the global warming that you claim volcanoes do.

See this trend from Warming Earth:

see it here too.

During the years 1880-1890, there was actually a cooling period after that massive eruption.

If what you say is true, then we should have seen this (warming) trend much earlier.

In the United States, approximately 6.6 tons (almost 15,000 pounds carbon equivalent) of greenhouse gases are emitted per person every year. And emissions per person have increased about 3.4% between 1990 and 1997

I hope you won't start arguing that humans body heat contributes to global warming too (which I've read here).

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-27 14:21 ]

Post by **garyb** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:09 pm

i never said volcanoes cause global warming..

i said global warming as described is non existant. the data you gave is from too short a space to say anything except we are on a warming trend. the exact cause is not known. it is postulated that CO2 emmissions may exacerbate the problem. greenhouse gases are not the exclusive cause and they may not even be the major cause. i'm NOT suggesting that grenhouse gases are harmless and it doesn't matter, just that it's a nice, blamable issue that obscures the real truth. since the truth is obscured, i can't tell you exactly what it is, but THIS has more to do with the CURRENT phenomena imho(again):
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html
i don't dare to think that the whole truth is what some webpage sez, but i still know how to investigate and think for myself......

with newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrimes and the destruction of the past it's difficult not to get confused at some point, however, some things just don't change. as mulder said, "the truth is out there".

see? conditioned to accept it. we all want to belong to one of the accepted paradigns, the "withs" or the "againsts". unfortunately , both side's leaders get drunk together and stage this sh*t.

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:31 am

On 2005-09-27 07:18, BingoTheClowno wrote:
On 2005-09-27 00:17, Lima wrote:

Returning to te global warming, I think that it's very difficult to say today if the effects of industrialization are the cause of the global warming or if the cause is "natural",...
Are you saying that the US Global Change Research Program's conclusion is irrelevant? Are you trying to say that they wasted all this research money for nothing?

No, I'm not saying this. I'm just saying that "maybe" the global warming could be a natural event. You must admit that the "US Global Change Research Program" only watch the last earth period, and for this reason it IS prominent if you study THAT period. Earth history is a lot longer.

Keep also in mind that USGCRP shows a fact: the global warming, wich is real, but AFAIK It never tells something like: "we are absolutely shure that the global warming was caused by the human activities". It tells something like "MAYBE the impact of the human activities is relevant" wich is totally different in my opinion.

Now I have in mind the glacial eras: they were natural. After each event there was a "global warming era". It's a bit semplistic in my opinion to give an absolute conclusion watching only 150 years. Just to give you an example:
Since the 1300 and until the 1850 (just a case?) whe have seen a small glacial era. It takes about 400 years and in this period the temperature was a lot lower than the mean before and after.
This event is well documented in europe and north america. Here in europe the switzerland glaciers becamed so big to englobe farms and destroy villages.

The causes are still unknown but maybe of a great importance was the slowering of the ocean streams (like the gulf stream).
Maybe also the solar activity had its importance because it was changed in that time (there was less sunspots documented) etc...

Read this: (sorry I can't have found the englis translation)
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piccola_era_glaciale

After that, I want to say that I totally agree with who complains the U.S. decision of avoid the Kioto treaty. (a very ignorant and arrogant force exibiton in my opinion)
I totally agree on putting some tight limits to the impact of the human activity on the enviroment,
I totally agree on making more inspections on enviromental impact worldwide and I totally agree with who says that the problem is internal to our life stlyle, and to live in a better world we have to learn the respect of it.

_________________
Welcome to the dawning of a new empire

[ This Message was edited by: lima on 2005-09-28 03:42 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Lima on 2005-09-28 03:43 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Lima on 2005-09-28 03:46 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:36 am

You must admit that the "US Global Change Research Program" only watch the last earth period, and for this reason it IS prominent if you study THAT period. Earth history is a lot longer.

Keep also in mind that USGCRP shows a fact: the global warming, wich is real, but AFAIK It never tells something like: "we are absolutely shure that the global warming was caused by the human activities". It tells something like "MAYBE the impact of the human activities is relevant" wich is totally different in my opinion.

Regarding your statement that the period considered for the warming trend is too short, think about this: in 1999 heat index reached 119 °F (48.3 °C) in Chicago killing 250 people. If these temperatures occured in the past, don't you think we, humans, would have adapted to them by now? (humans appeared about 100,000 years ago).

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-28 09:40 ]

Post by **garyb** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:39 am

no. not nessessarily.

but sure, humans need to find some better ways of doing things. everyone driving cars and extreme luxury are two stupid ideas.....

Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:38 am

what I really like is watching these Hummers stuck in traffic during rush hours.