PETA roars over U.K. army?s bearskin hats

[slipknottin]

There are 6+ billion of us, there is no period of time in which there has been 6 billion people on the planet, the CO2 production by respiration alone should be enough to convince.

Er, no, not really. Im not so sure that the earth has a larger mass of animals on it now than it has in the past.

 

[Mako]

Not arguing anything related to the PETA article, but you say that deer are for eating cause they taste good. Well...people taste like chicken. When's the last time you ate a person?

Not a vegan, just showing you the major hole in your logic

Just a little humor, my friend, not logic. Oddly I've never killed a deer in my life, via bumper or shotgun. I've butchered dozens (folks "contracting" me to "help" clean they're catch for a portion of the bounty).

And who says humans taste like chicken? Somebody been gnawing on some mideastern terrorists? :cool2:

You want something really funny? I married a vegetarian. For real. Me, the quintessential redneck (other than I have all my teeth....I keep them in a mason jar) marrying a vegetarian from Ohio. That's my girl! I do eat vegetarian when we eat together at home, simply b/c it's a pain to fix "some for me and some for her". I'll just eat some catfish when it's just dinner for one.

 

[Beeker]

From - http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068916?OpenDocument
"The differences between the surface and upper-air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that the Earth's temperature is rising," said John M. Wallace, chair of the panel that wrote the report and professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. "But the rapid increase in the Earth's surface temperature over the past 20 years is not necessarily representative of how the atmosphere is responding to long-term, human-induced changes, such as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases. The nations of the world should develop an improved climate monitoring system to resolve uncertainties in the data and provide policy-makers with the best available information."

While a combination of human activities and natural causes has contributed to rising surface temperatures, other human and natural forces may actually have cooled the upper atmosphere. For example, natural events such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 tended to decrease atmospheric temperature for several years. And burning coal and oil for energy produces tiny aerosol particles in the atmosphere that can have a cooling effect. Upper-air temperatures also can be reduced by depletion of ozone in the stratosphere caused by chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals being emitted into the atmosphere. When these variables are accounted for in atmospheric models, satellite and balloon data more closely align with surface-temperature observations."

And the evidence for these theories? I see a lot of "hot air" being spoken but no evidence to back up their theories.

You are absolutely right about their arguing against Kyoto. Those "scientists" who are pushing this global warming theory are using it as a power grab. The scientists who are providing ample evidence to the contrary are trying to prevent a concentration of power which would be harmful to national sovereignty. Are you at all familiar with Kyoto? Maybe you should look into it as well as who is promoting it and their connections.

BTW, it is true that the "scientists" who are claiming this nonsense problem of global warming were in fact complaing about global cooling not too long ago.

Slipknottin, You complain about my sources and yet, you use some college kid's idea of a global warming graph as a source.
I know you don't like when I use respected scientists as sources, but for the benefit of those silent readers here is an actual scientist's set of graphs:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_141.shtml

If you have a problem with the source I use, than come up with a better one. And please, don't use some college kid's term paper.
Reading all of the articles should also be done before trying to rebut the evidence supplied in one article because most of your rebuttals are shot down in another article. First of all, CO2 is considered only a trace gas in the atmosphere, second, if there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, logic would state that plants would be growing faster, and they produce OXYGEN!

 

[slipknottin]

You are absolutely right about their arguing against Kyoto. Those "scientists" who are pushing this global warming theory are using it as a power grab.

Once again, you misunderstand. These people who signed that petition are in fact accepting global warming. They are just not convinced that it is human activity causing it. That petition in no way shape or form concludes that global warming is not true.

Slipknottin, You complain about my sources and yet, you use some college kid's idea of a global warming graph as a source.
I know you don't like when I use respected scientists as sources, but for the benefit of those silent readers here is an actual scientist's set of graphs:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_141.shtml

Maybe youll need to point it out directly, because I dont see any such graph there.

If you have a problem with the source I use, than come up with a better one. And please, don't use some college kid's term paper.

Excuse me? Was it not you who just presented the argument that the source is not important, only the information it contains? Would you like to point out where I criticized your sources?

I do find it ironic that you call the national academies, and the naval research labrotary 'college term papers', yet your link is a propaganda machine for the neo-conservatives. Either one cam publish accurate and non-accurate articles, though I imagine articles written for the scientific community are going to be slightly more advanced than those written for the layman who is reading up on what his party believes in.

First of all, CO2 is considered only a trace gas in the atmosphere, second, if there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, logic would state that plants would be growing faster, and they produce OXYGEN!

Where did I state otherwise?

If I need to read all these articles, then you need to reread them. Because you are coming away with a totally different opinion and concept than any of these authors you are linking too. If I may ask, what do you think of earth surface temp measurments? That these are make believe? That they dont show any temperature change? You seem to be skirting around the real issue and just keep repeating the same thing, "science has concluded that global warming is false'. I personally would like to see your actual evidence that this is true. Not links to opinions of people. But factual evidence that shows that earth surface temp has not been increasing.

 

[Beeker]

I will refer back to the various articles I linked to. I'm surprised that you are assuming that I don't agree with the articles, and stating that I need to reread them when you haven't even read them yet.
Those are not just some people's opinions. Those are various scientists who make their living studying the earth's atmosphere and temperatures. They base their "opinions" on facts, not somebody else's opinions. Read what the scientists say in those interviews. Please stop making me repeat myself. Just do the research.

You also accuse The New American of being a "neo-conservative propaganda machine" when, at the same time you cop out by stating it's not your job to prove them wrong. The point of proving them wrong is to try to prove yourself to be correct. You don't simply choose not to, you can't. Their information is correct. They have proven it thoroughly. They have also proven to be anything but a "neoconservative propaganda machine" numerous times too. One example among MANY is found here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_221.shtml

Thank you anyway for the fun.

 

[slipknottin]

They base their "opinions" on facts, not somebody else's opinions. Read what the scientists say in those interviews. Please stop making me repeat myself. Just do the research.

Why dont you try reading them? The authors in these articles certainly wouldnt agree with your position on the issue.


BTW- do realize that your sources, Singer, Michaels, Bailing, Sherwood, etc are all funded by ExxonMobile.
http://www.kwikpower.com/AREAS/GC/gc04.htm

So, let me see, you chose to believe a political newsletter, whose main contributors are funded by oil companies; over scientific journals, whose contributors are funded by universities and the federal govt?

 

[musky48in]

I really don’t mean to break into the current conversation by any means, but didn’t this post have to do with PETA? I have just spent 20 minutes reading each reply and have only come up with a couple of PETA related posts.

Personally I find PETA and their methods shameful. The way that they push their warped view of the animal kingdom and the way they target children with their propaganda. Some parents get upset with the video games that are in the market place or the programs they see on television, but this is tame compared to what PETA puts out. I won’t even delve into the bombings and arson that they lay claim to. Very sad….

One more thing; PETA would just love to take my aquarium away and that just pisses me off. Okay, I’m done venting. Please go back to your global warming debate.

 

[TKOS]

Not to diminish the PETA thing but back to Global Warming!!

http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html

So Beeker what do these graphs say. Is this source that I just produced bad? It does explaint he roll of plants and it also explains what people have been neglecting, CO2 is but one greenhouse gas. There is also Methane, another massive by-product of industry that while in a very low concentration is 20% more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.

 

[Matak]

These posts all cumulate into something called a 'thread', which is just what is happening, thoughts and ideas that progress along a path or thread. If we stayed on the same topic all the time, our discussions would be short & boring indeed. Better to get to the root of the matter.

The scientists who are providing ample evidence to the contrary are trying to prevent a concentration of power which would be harmful to national sovereignty. Are you at all familiar with Kyoto? Maybe you should look into it as well as who is promoting it and their connections.

Completely agreed! The Kyoto accord is more of a soveriegnty issue than an environmental issue. The US is one of the last holdouts on this accord and for good reason. The US jealously protects its soveriegnty and always has. These global accords make the subscribing nations accountable to an appointed global body, thereby weakening their sovereign control over there own nation. Even as a Canadian, I would trust the government of the US over a global government. I do not trust globalization period. Too much power. It starts insidiously with murky pacts like the Kyoto accord.

 

[125gJoe]

I really don’t mean to break into the current conversation by any means, but didn’t this post have to do with PETA? I have just spent 20 minutes reading each reply and have only come up with a couple of PETA related posts..... ....
One more thing; PETA would just love to take my aquarium away and that just pisses me off. Okay, I’m done venting. Please go back to your global warming debate.

musky48in -- I agree, PETA is an extremist group. It's amazing how they target kids too!! That needs to stop now!

(..thank you for saving me 20 minutes.. )

Global warming is also happening on Mars. So, now everyone can blame most of it on the Sun. It's true and has been proven. Check out SOHO.

Not to say pollution doesn't contribute, but the Sun is the also a big factor.