Canton

Clairton, PA

#28498 May 17, 2014
noone don't like me and i'm gonna cry boo boo boo
Canton

Clairton, PA

#28499 May 17, 2014
has aids heard hes in the hospital getting his peckerrr taken off
Canton

Clairton, PA

#28500 May 17, 2014
blowme
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28501 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
So because the guy is religious, he's incorrect or lying? Now you're stretching it, aren't you?
HAHAHAHA You really are pathetic. Bend over and pick your a** off up of the floor. It just got reamed. And that's the best you got?
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28502 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Which would be fine if these computer models were accurate, but they are not:
Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
3:30 PM 02/11/2014
Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-p...
Daily Caller? HAHAHAHA
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28503 May 17, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>HAHAHAHA You really are pathetic. Bend over and pick your a** off up of the floor. It just got reamed. And that's the best you got?
Hey troll, can you tell me what month is was when you ever offered anything of substance to our discussions? See, that's why you're a troll.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28505 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
So because the guy is religious, he's incorrect or lying? Now you're stretching it, aren't you?
This is about as tough a question as there is. But I'm going to give you a straight answer. It's not that this fellow is religious, but that his religion trumps his science.(And he is a serious scientist, too.) Because of his religious beliefs, he assumes our world must be self-correcting. A real scientist must confront the horrible truth that we could screw it up.

I think most folks would accept that if we got into a sustained nuclear war, we could trash this planet. But if you subscribe to the idea that God can fix anything we throw at this pebble, why sweat it?

I do think that this planet is resilient, and can bounce back from very serious insults. However, that recovery may not include fragile humanity.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28506 May 18, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is about as tough a question as there is. But I'm going to give you a straight answer. It's not that this fellow is religious, but that his religion trumps his science.(And he is a serious scientist, too.) Because of his religious beliefs, he assumes our world must be self-correcting. A real scientist must confront the horrible truth that we could screw it up.
I think most folks would accept that if we got into a sustained nuclear war, we could trash this planet. But if you subscribe to the idea that God can fix anything we throw at this pebble, why sweat it?
I do think that this planet is resilient, and can bounce back from very serious insults. However, that recovery may not include fragile humanity.
I don't consider my self very religious because I have no religion I subscribe to. But I do believe in God. I agree with this scientist 100%; not because of my belief in God, but because without a cleanup mechanism that we don't understand yet, our existence on this planet would have ended long ago.

Remember that our earth is encapsulated and nothing leaves the planet unless we fly it into outer space and release it. All the water on this earth is the exact same amount of water that was here ten thousand years ago. It may have taken different shapes such as ice or vapor, but it's the same amount of water. Same holds true of all the pollution created by fires and volcano eruptions. It doesn't leave and pollute the moon. It stays here and yet by some magical process, it gets cleaned up.

If we set off every nuke on earth, all we could do is kill every living thing on it, but we cannot destroy the planet. It's just not possible. And in a few hundred years or so and God's will, some sort of life would start all over again.

But whatever reason this scientist believes the earth can take care of itself, it doesn't discount the fact that thus far, nobody has challenged his findings of these computer models that I know of.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28507 May 18, 2014
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28508 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey troll, can you tell me what month is was when you ever offered anything of substance to our discussions? See, that's why you're a troll.
Don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't like the stupid you constantly prove. Why didn't you join the other millions of the compatriots just like you in D.C Friday to arrest Obama? Looks like a whole lot of them wore some really good camo. You couldn't even see them.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28509 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with this scientist 100%; not because of my belief in God, but because without a cleanup mechanism that we don't understand yet, our existence on this planet would have ended long ago.
You agree with this scientist "100%" because you share share the same faith that God won't let this planet become inhospitable to his creations. Of course, this ignores the fact that there have been 5 major extinction events on this planet. The most recent, 65 million years ago, destroyed all larger land animals. Weren't these God's creations, too?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If we set off every nuke on earth, all we could do is kill every living thing on it, but we cannot destroy the planet. It's just not possible.
So, you admit that we could change the planet in a way that would make mankind extinct? That would suggest that we can't count on God to protect us from our bad choices.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If we set off every nuke on earth, all we could do is kill every living thing on it, but we cannot destroy the planet. It's just not possible. And in a few hundred years or so and God's will, some sort of life would start all over again.
"A few hundred years or so"? This is just magical thinking on your part. It took a billion years for the simplest life forms to emerge on our planet. It took more than 4 billion years for those primitive forms to evolve into human beings.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28510 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
But whatever reason this scientist believes the earth can take care of itself, it doesn't discount the fact that thus far, nobody has challenged his findings of these computer models that I know of.
If you would take the time to read what Dr. Spencer is actually saying, he does not deny that the planet is getting warmer, as the models predicted. He is saying that 95% of the models over-estimated the amount of warming that has occurred since 1979 by about .2 degrees Celsius.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-cli...

The research of James Hasen does challenge Spencer's implied notion that mathematical models are ineffective tools for studying climate change:

"In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show good agreement with subsequent observations (Hansen 2006).

Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007)."

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/mod...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28511 May 18, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
You agree with this scientist "100%" because you share share the same faith that God won't let this planet become inhospitable to his creations. Of course, this ignores the fact that there have been 5 major extinction events on this planet. The most recent, 65 million years ago, destroyed all larger land animals. Weren't these God's creations, too?
<quoted text>
So, you admit that we could change the planet in a way that would make mankind extinct? That would suggest that we can't count on God to protect us from our bad choices.
<quoted text>
"A few hundred years or so"? This is just magical thinking on your part. It took a billion years for the simplest life forms to emerge on our planet. It took more than 4 billion years for those primitive forms to evolve into human beings.
If you are going to use the God thing as some sort of reason that a scientist would tilt the scale a little, is it not fair then to assume that atheist scientists might do the same only in reverse?

Extinction is nothing new. It goes on today. Species of animals die off and new ones are discovered. It's as natural as the climate of the earth changing. It is God's plan just as you and I will not be here in fifty years. Or as the atheists might call it, mother nature.

I don't think I've ever said there is absolutely no change in climate because of man. There is, just as animals contribute the so-called greenhouse gasses to the earth. So they say, the most dangerous gas of all is water vapor. How much more natural can you get than water vapor?

The real question is if our so-called carbon footprint is any danger to us or our planet. Would God make a planet that was not capable of withstanding activities from the main animal he planned to occupy it? But then again, you wouldn't take that question seriously unless you did believe in God.

As for predictions, I can give you a list of massive destructions of global warming predicted 20 years ago or so that never came true. It's like buying stock. You have a 50/50 shot right from the beginning.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#28512 May 18, 2014
Whether one believes in global warming or not, most should agree that humans shouldn't be needlessly contributing to it.
Another point that should be agreed on is that pressure should be put on China to curb it's growth in air borne pollutants that travel around the globe ! It is so very bad that they even shuttered factories around Beijing for miles & miles for WEEKS to still have crappy air for the Olympics.
That is an obvious admission of a very serious problem. Citizens wear dust mask just to walk the streets.
They cannot kill a Spook

Toledo, OH

#28513 May 18, 2014
Pops wrote:
Whether one believes in global warming or not, most should agree that humans shouldn't be needlessly contributing to it.
Another point that should be agreed on is that pressure should be put on China to curb it's growth in air borne pollutants that travel around the globe ! It is so very bad that they even shuttered factories around Beijing for miles & miles for WEEKS to still have crappy air for the Olympics.
That is an obvious admission of a very serious problem. Citizens wear dust mask just to walk the streets.
So it might thin out the chink population
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28514 May 18, 2014
Pops wrote:
Whether one believes in global warming or not, most should agree that humans shouldn't be needlessly contributing to it.
Another point that should be agreed on is that pressure should be put on China to curb it's growth in air borne pollutants that travel around the globe ! It is so very bad that they even shuttered factories around Beijing for miles & miles for WEEKS to still have crappy air for the Olympics.
That is an obvious admission of a very serious problem. Citizens wear dust mask just to walk the streets.
That's the other point Pops.

We create all these massive environmental regulations on businesses to the point they're pressured to move to places like China. Then they pollute all they desire. All we really accomplished is the loss of jobs. We still (globally) have the same amount of pollution if not more.

Nobody is against cleaner air, cleaner water, alternative energy. Our concern is the cost. That's where the problem is. Our second concern is the inconvenience.

You show Republicans or conservatives a cleaner and just as reliable energy source that's in line with what we pay for our current energy, I'll show you Republicans and conservatives that are right behind the idea if not part of it.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28515 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to use the God thing as some sort of reason that a scientist would tilt the scale a little, is it not fair then to assume that atheist scientists might do the same only in reverse?
If you assume a God, you can always use that to justify your opinions, even in the absence of objective evidence . The "atheist scientist must rely upon objective evidence.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Extinction is nothing new. It goes on today. Species of animals die off and new ones are discovered.
Animal species take a long time to develop, but extinction can happen very quickly and is permanent. The discovery of a new species doesn't mean that it is a replacement for what was lost.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So they say, the most dangerous gas of all is water vapor.
Who is "they"?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Would God make a planet that was not capable of withstanding activities from the main animal he planned to occupy it? But then again, you wouldn't take that question seriously unless you did believe in God.
For a guy who says he believes in God, but not any particular religion, you certainly have a lot of very specific beliefs. Why do you believe that human beings are "the main animal"? Where did you get the idea that God created a planet that can withstand whatever we throw at it? You've already admitted that we could eliminate human life on this world by using nuclear weapons. How did God let that one slip by?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>

As for predictions, I can give you a list of massive destructions of global warming predicted 20 years ago or so that never came true. It's like buying stock. You have a 50/50 shot right from the beginning.
Sure, I'd like to see that list. You say that any person would have a 50/50 shot at being right in their predictions. That might be true if you made a single prediction about a binary event (such as "the Yankees will win this game.") But, what if you made many predictions, and they came to pass?

"A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.

"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."

Remarkably, between the years 1850 and 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did increase by very close to 25 percent, and global average surface temperatures also increased by just about 0.6°C during that time."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28516 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>

You show Republicans or conservatives a cleaner and just as reliable energy source that's in line with what we pay for our current energy, I'll show you Republicans and conservatives that are right behind the idea if not part of it.
"In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans."

"Many of the most influential members of the energy lobby are among the top polluters in the United States, with Conoco, Exxon, and General Electric ranking in the top six. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency,“Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.” The energy lobby is criticized for using its influence to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lob...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28517 May 18, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans."
"Many of the most influential members of the energy lobby are among the top polluters in the United States, with Conoco, Exxon, and General Electric ranking in the top six. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency,“Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.” The energy lobby is criticized for using its influence to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lob...
Why is it so surprising that the energy industry would support Republican and conservative causes? What party do the unions mostly give to? How about any organization related to the environment? Who do the trial lawyers support?

The Democrat party is the enemy of the energy industry. Look at what DumBams's EPA has done to the electric companies. He closed down some of the coal burning electric plants. The ones he left open had to make multi-million dollar improvements. Do you think any political contributor associated with the coal industry will support the Democrats?

As for our refineries, the US hasn't built one in over 30 years because of all the EPA nonsense. It's too damned expensive to build any new ones and certainly not worth the investment of any gasoline company.

Here is a long list of contributors to both parties. Let me know what you think:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontr...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28518 May 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>

As for our refineries, the US hasn't built one in over 30 years because of all the EPA nonsense. It's too damned expensive to build any new ones and certainly not worth the investment of any gasoline company.
"Refineries sprout in North Dakota, bucking the trend"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/us-...

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.

Xenia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
anyone know of any local women who posed naked ... 2 hr Fan of Leon The Man 7
Angelica Campos (Jun '10) 4 hr cats 252
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 5 hr speakthetruth 31,796
Net Nut 18 hr The New Cool Warrior 1
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 22 hr Homeboi 19,642
Alabama firm wins $153M Wright-Patt contract, e... Wed Leland Schuler 1
Campus-area stabbing victim was trying to prote... Wed Lush Dave Drunk 8
Xenia Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Xenia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report12:15 PM
Hawkins Wrote Fake Recommendation to Land an NFL Agent
Bleacher Report 2:00 PM
Should Browns Spend Big on Maclin or Draft WR?
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Did the Browns Make the Right Choice Signing Josh McCown over Brian Hoyer?
NFL 8:28 AM
Joe Haden on Browns CB Justin Gilbert: He's growing up