Who do you support for Governor in Pe...

Since: Feb 13

Norwood, PA

#47785 Mar 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Solar activity isn't at fault. Human pollution is.
hey dan the man. i have been trying to catch up on the debate you are having. What is the underlying topic? I would like to chime in on it, if you don't mind. i do HVAC/R for a living and have some concerns on the whole new EPA laws and changes put into my field by the government all in regards to saving the climate, but also at the same time of doing my homework have come to learn it not all for the environment, but for profit and that makes me sick.
Quoth the Raven

Greencastle, PA

#47786 Mar 3, 2013
Is TaxNoMore nevermore?

Since: Feb 13

Norwood, PA

#47788 Mar 3, 2013
Quoth the Raven wrote:
Is TaxNoMore nevermore?
Taxes are good if done with honesty, but there no honesty in government, only selfish needs to be fulfilled. It like the circus, the greatest show on earth.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47791 Mar 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really don't have any idea what you're talking about AT ALL. You just jump right into a debate know knowing ANYTHING about the basic facts.
When the globe warmed in the past due to natural causes, those causes were identified. It didn't just happen without explanation. People understand why it happened and what was behind it. And those factors aren't at work today.
The globe is warming today because of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The source of that CO2 is human activity. There is no debate about this. It is proven fact.
When you know as little as you do about the basic facts, you really ought to do yourself a favor and not embarrass yourself by trying to debate something you know nothing about.
Humans should stop breathing and exhaling CO2.

Eliminate 500 million or so Chinese and make a huge dent in global warming.

Or turn off the heat and freeze to death.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47792 Mar 3, 2013
jmdammit wrote:
<quoted text>No,Fact is the highest form.The earth is round and rotates around the sun.A proven FACT.Manmade global warming is a theory.And it's still not Jack Wagner's fault.Of course,this is just a theoy.If enough people research it and form a consensus,it just might be Jack's fault.
Who is Jack Wagner?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47793 Mar 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sad that you choose ignorance over education. I guess that's what you have to do when education threatens your political ideology.
There is no doubt that man-made global warming is happening. The facts prove the theory. In science, a theory is the highest form of proof you can get.
Assuming that you are correct, a ridiculous assumption, how does man reverse global warming?
Farnsworth

Baltimore, MD

#47796 Mar 3, 2013
jmdammit wrote:
<quoted text>If the facts prove the theory,it is no longer a theory.Edu cation does not threaten my political ideaology.Jack Wagner doesn't cause global warming.Not a "THEORY",but a "FACT".Have you read the title of this thread? Or does your political idealogy threaten your education?
Now this makes a lot of sense...good grammer to....
I understand it all now...you've made it very clear....hahahahahaaha
Farnsworth

Baltimore, MD

#47797 Mar 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is Jack Wagner?
He's you're long lost brother...you guys were seperated at birth....

Mom had better things to do.....

Have fun with the spell checking too. You guys should get along just peachy...
D Cheney

West Mifflin, PA

#47798 Mar 3, 2013
Mitt Romney says it "kills" him that he's not president. But he doesn't blame Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or anything else on his loss to President Barack Obama--except his campaign's failure to connect with minority voters.

“I lost my election because of my campaign," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday" in his first television interview since his November defeat. "Not because of what anyone else did."

The former Massachusetts governor refused place blame on Christie, who some Republicans say gave Obama a last-minute lift in his embrace of the president in the wake of the storm.

Romney said his inability to win over black and Hispanic voters--and the damage done by those disastrous "47 percent" comments--ultimately derailed his White House bid.

Ann Romney, though, pointed the finger at the fourth estate.“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”

Her husband, she said, "has an enormous skill set in dealing with difficult issues and I totally believe at this moment, if Mitt were there in the office, that we would not be facing sequestration right now."
Paul

Clearfield, PA

#47799 Mar 3, 2013
Farnsworth wrote:
<quoted text>
He's you're long lost brother...you guys were seperated at birth....
Mom had better things to do.....
Have fun with the spell checking too. You guys should get along just peachy...
Speaking of good grammar and spelling. LOL
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47800 Mar 3, 2013
Farnsworth wrote:
<quoted text>
He's you're long lost brother...you guys were seperated at birth....
Mom had better things to do.....
Have fun with the spell checking too. You guys should get along just peachy...
"your", not "you're"

"separated", not "seperated"

You should have finished high school.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47801 Mar 3, 2013
D Cheney wrote:
Mitt Romney says it "kills" him that he's not president. But he doesn't blame Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or anything else on his loss to President Barack Obama--except his campaign's failure to connect with minority voters.
“I lost my election because of my campaign," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday" in his first television interview since his November defeat. "Not because of what anyone else did."
The former Massachusetts governor refused place blame on Christie, who some Republicans say gave Obama a last-minute lift in his embrace of the president in the wake of the storm.
Romney said his inability to win over black and Hispanic voters--and the damage done by those disastrous "47 percent" comments--ultimately derailed his White House bid.
Ann Romney, though, pointed the finger at the fourth estate.“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”
Her husband, she said, "has an enormous skill set in dealing with difficult issues and I totally believe at this moment, if Mitt were there in the office, that we would not be facing sequestration right now."
Unlike Obama, who always blames others for his failures, Romney is a man.
Farnsworth

Baltimore, MD

#47802 Mar 4, 2013
Quoth the Raven wrote:
Is TaxNoMore nevermore?
Eitherr he morphd into Galt or they finally came and got him.....
Paul

Clearfield, PA

#47803 Mar 4, 2013
Farnsworth wrote:
<quoted text>
Eitherr he morphd into Galt or they finally came and got him.....
Huh?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#47804 Mar 4, 2013
Quoth the Raven wrote:
Is TaxNoMore nevermore?
LOL! Yep he is.

After a particularly racist posting binge a couple of weeks ago, he and all his posts disappeared. No evidence here that he ever existed.

I'm surprised that Topix actually did that, so good on Topix!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#47805 Mar 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans should stop breathing and exhaling CO2.
Eliminate 500 million or so Chinese and make a huge dent in global warming.
Or turn off the heat and freeze to death.
Seriously - go educate yourself...

----------

How does respiration by humans and animals affect carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

Answer:

Humans exhale about 1 kg of carbon dioxide per day. The exact amount depends on age, sex, size, and most importantly activity level. Multiply that by a world population of six billion and you get a very large number.

However, human exhalation of carbon dioxide is part of a closed system. There can be no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because the amount of carbon dioxide we exhale can’t be greater than the carbon we put into our bodies by eating plants, or eating animals that eat plants. The plants got the carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.

This closed system is true for any animal, not just humans. It is also true for a growing population. You simply can’t have more animals than there are plants to support those animals.

The reason why burning fossil fuels is a concern is because it is not a closed loop over human time scales. Extracting coal and oil and burning them puts carbon back into the atmosphere that plants removed millions of years ago.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#47806 Mar 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that you are correct, a ridiculous assumption, how does man reverse global warming?
At this point, it's not about reversing global warming. It's about mitigation.

mit·i·ga·tion
noun
- the act of lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant

Again - go educate yourself...

----------

Climate change mitigation is action to decrease the intensity of radiative forcing in order to reduce the effects of global warming. Most often, climate change mitigation scenarios involve reductions in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing their sources or by increasing their sinks.

The United Nations (UN) defines mitigation in the context of climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.

Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable energy (solar energy or wind power), improving the insulation of buildings, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_m...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#47809 Mar 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point, it's not about reversing global warming. It's about mitigation.
mit·i·ga·tion
noun
- the act of lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant
Again - go educate yourself...
----------
Climate change mitigation is action to decrease the intensity of radiative forcing in order to reduce the effects of global warming. Most often, climate change mitigation scenarios involve reductions in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing their sources or by increasing their sinks.
The United Nations (UN) defines mitigation in the context of climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.
Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable energy (solar energy or wind power), improving the insulation of buildings, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_m...
All at the cost of destroying our economy in reaction to an unproven theory.

Increased or decreased solar activity will dwarf any efforts by man to control global temperatures.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#47810 Mar 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
All at the cost of destroying our economy in reaction to an unproven theory.
Increased or decreased solar activity will dwarf any efforts by man to control global temperatures.
How many Superstorm Sandy's will it take to destroy our economy?

How many Hurricane Isaac's will it take to destroy our economy?

How many mid-western droughts will it take to destroy our economy?

How many thousands of square miles destroyed by wildfires will it take to destroy our economy?

How many record tornado seasons will it take to destroy our economy?

When you can only think short-term and cannot comprehend the long-term damage of inaction, you will inevitably reach conclusions like you do. It's a function of narrow self-interest and complete disregard for the interests of others. IOW - typical conservative ideological thinking.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#47811 Mar 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Increased or decreased solar activity will dwarf any efforts by man to control global temperatures.
You're really hung up on solar activity, aren't you?

Increased solar activity is not responsible for our current warming trend. That has been conclusively proven.

If you would gain even a basic education of the science behind global warming you wouldn't have to go around saying embarrassing things like this.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Loretto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Appeals court nixes suit May '15 unknown 1
Jesus, Son of God (Mar '14) Apr '15 Jesus 4
To the REALIST, (Mar '14) Apr '15 The devil 2
grace mcguire (Feb '13) Mar '15 Gary Pelphrey 5
Apartment Hunting (Sep '14) Sep '14 Jima 1
News Nellie Lou Esworthy (Aug '14) Aug '14 MARIANNE DUBOIS-Z... 1
News Woman accused of having sex with boy (Aug '14) Aug '14 no sex 1
More from around the web

Loretto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]