|
|
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
Headline of the Week Weak
Filed under: Headline of the Week http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-conten...oo044__oPt.jpg "Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming" Are they serious???? CLICK HERE to read the article accompanying this headline. Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming. Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs. But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost. The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997. Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement. Professor Michael Prather from the University of California has highlighted the issue in an article for the magazine New Scientist. He has told ABC's The World Today program that output of the gas needs to be measured. "One of my titles for this paper was Going Below Kyoto's Radar. It's the kind of gas that's made in huge amounts," he said. "Not only is it not in the Kyoto Treaty but you don't even have to report it. That's the part that worries me." He estimates 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced in 2008 and that number is likely to double next year. "We don't know what's emitted, but what they're producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world," he said. "And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don't know is how much is escaping and getting out." Dr Paul Fraser is the chief research scientist at the CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research centre, and an IPCC author. He says without measuring the quantity of NF3 in the atmosphere it is unclear what impact it will have on the climate. "We haven't observed it in the atmosphere. It's probably there in very low concentrations," he said. "The key to whether it's a problem or not is how much is released to the atmosphere." Posted: July 4, 2008 at 2:48 pm www.superheropornsquad.com |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
|
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
On Jul 4, 8:58*pm, "V for Vendicar"
m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. Nah. This is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5LJt8iGrg |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Taylor" wrote in message
... On Jul 4, 8:58 pm, "V for Vendicar" m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. Nah. This is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5LJt8iGrg ============================= I agree! |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
On Jul 4, 3:35*pm, Taylor wrote:
Headline of the Week Weak Filed under: Headline of the Week http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-conten...host_goo044__o... "Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming" Are they serious???? CLICK HERE to read the article accompanying this headline. Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming. Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs. But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost. The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997. Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement. They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
On Jul 4, 5:58*pm, "V for Vendicar"
m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. I know this is not a political discussion.... but http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674 http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ You... I mean We are not the cause, nor the cure. Research and study all sides before making an intelligent decision. my 2¢ YB |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
Yellowbeard wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:58 pm, "V for Vendicar" m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. I know this is not a political discussion.... but http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674 http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ You... I mean We are not the cause, nor the cure. Research and study all sides before making an intelligent decision. my 2¢ YB Your 2 cents isn't worth much. Try: www.ipcc.ch The only site not paid for by the energy industry. If you believe the bull**** on those the lame ass sites you listed above, you deserve to find yourself under a few feet of water. The simple question remains: WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG??? I'd rather we be wrong and end up with alternate energies, less pollution and fewer wars over oil than be right and watch all life slowly slip away. Your choice. .. -- We must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. www.ipcc.ch/ |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Your 2 cents isn't worth much. Try: www.ipcc.ch The person below is quite possibly a seriously unbalanced individual. Now see what you did? See what happens when you taunt the tards? It's straight to bed with you, no dinner, and no allowance. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA:::::..:.. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA........ .. YMMD!!!!!!111111oneeleven |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
kT wrote:
Peter Muehlbauer wrote: Your 2 cents isn't worth much. Try: www.ipcc.ch The person below is quite possibly a seriously unbalanced individual. Now see what you did? See what happens when you taunt the tards? It's straight to bed with you, no dinner, and no allowance. Maybe you can explain why the "links" page there references information on government sites of the US, Canada, Brazil, a couple of others, and Iran, but NO European government sites? That is odd, and maybe a reflection of something important. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Taylor" Nah. This is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHbhr...eature=related You are right. Much better. But not as good as this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHbhr...eature=related |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHbhr...eature=related Richard C." wrote I agree! Great babe in this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHbhr...eature=related |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"RichA" wrote They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. Why? Corporatists built those CRT's and mindless apes like yourself purchased them. You do realize don't you that the front glass of those CRT's contain substantial amounts of lead don't you? Enviro's have been for decades calling for the recycling of those tubes so that the lead doesn't get into your drinking water, and make you stupid. Too late I guess. It appears that you area already stupid. "RichA" wrote BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? Lets check shall we? ere are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line. Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP. And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century. View with mono spaced font. 1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o****** ******* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o**** * 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*** ****** 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o** ***** 2004 14.49 ************************************************o* * 2005 14.62 *************************************************o ********** 2006 14.54 ************************************************** o**** 2007 14.57 ************************************************** *o***** ------------------------------------------- Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs NOPE. NO Cooling is evident. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Yellowbeard" wrote We are not the cause, nor the cure. Says the uneducated and uneducatable. About ReutersWhite House in climate change "cover up" Tue Jul 8, 2008 by SphereBy Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a "cover-up" aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions. "This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. At issue is a preliminary finding by the EPA last December that "greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare," according to Jason Burnett, the agency's former associate deputy administrator who appeared at a news conference with Boxer. Such a finding would be an early step toward government regulation aimed at protecting public health. Boxer said that unless EPA documents were released, it was likely that within the next two weeks her committee would try to subpoena the material. She did not know whether Republicans on the panel would block the effort. Burnett, who resigned on June 9, told Boxer's committee the White House tried pressuring him to retract an e-mail in which he detailed the finding. Burnett said he refused. Democrats say that since then, the EPA finding has been left "in limbo." White House spokesman Tony Fratto said many federal agencies, departments and offices normally review any initiatives being developed to check for "factual inaccuracies" or "discordant" policies. ..... |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA:::::..:.. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA........ .. For RepubliKKKans, death is their only release from a life of self imposed ignorance. About ReutersWhite House in climate change "cover up" Tue Jul 8, 2008 by SphereBy Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a "cover-up" aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions. "This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. At issue is a preliminary finding by the EPA last December that "greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare," according to Jason Burnett, the agency's former associate deputy administrator who appeared at a news conference with Boxer. Such a finding would be an early step toward government regulation aimed at protecting public health. Boxer said that unless EPA documents were released, it was likely that within the next two weeks her committee would try to subpoena the material. She did not know whether Republicans on the panel would block the effort. Burnett, who resigned on June 9, told Boxer's committee the White House tried pressuring him to retract an e-mail in which he detailed the finding. Burnett said he refused. Democrats say that since then, the EPA finding has been left "in limbo." White House spokesman Tony Fratto said many federal agencies, departments and offices normally review any initiatives being developed to check for "factual inaccuracies" or "discordant" policies. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
"Whata Fool" wrote Maybe you can explain why the "links" page there references information on government sites of the US, Canada, Brazil, a couple of others, and Iran, but NO European government sites? Oh, that's because it's all part of the global KKKonspiracy to keep you stupid. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
V for Vendicar wrote:
"RichA" wrote They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. Why? Corporatists built those CRT's and mindless apes like yourself purchased them. You do realize don't you that the front glass of those CRT's contain substantial amounts of lead don't you? Enviro's have been for decades calling for the recycling of those tubes so that the lead doesn't get into your drinking water, and make you stupid. Too late I guess. It appears that you area already stupid. "RichA" wrote BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? Lets check shall we? ere are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line. Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP. And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century. View with mono spaced font. 1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o****** ******* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o**** * 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*** ****** 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o** ***** 2004 14.49 ************************************************o* * 2005 14.62 *************************************************o ********** 2006 14.54 ************************************************** o**** 2007 14.57 ************************************************** *o***** ------------------------------------------- Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs NOPE. NO Cooling is evident. Lead is present in all soils in 10 ppm to 50 ppm concentrations. Not to worry, it's always been there.. Eric |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
V for Vendicar wrote:
"RichA" wrote They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. Why? Corporatists built those CRT's and mindless apes like yourself purchased them. You do realize don't you that the front glass of those CRT's contain substantial amounts of lead don't you? Enviro's have been for decades calling for the recycling of those tubes so that the lead doesn't get into your drinking water, and make you stupid. Too late I guess. It appears that you area already stupid. "RichA" wrote BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? Lets check shall we? ere are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line. Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP. And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century. View with mono spaced font. 1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o****** ******* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o**** * 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*** ****** 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o** ***** 2004 14.49 ************************************************o* * 2005 14.62 *************************************************o ********** 2006 14.54 ************************************************** o**** 2007 14.57 ************************************************** *o***** ------------------------------------------- Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs NOPE. NO Cooling is evident. Nice post. Very visual. Good for people like RichA who has reading comprehension difficulties. They all mistake what a few scientists said in the 70s as PROOF that GW is a hoax without even taking a closer look at what they said. In the 70s, we approached CO2 concentrations of 300 ppm. For the past million years (and likely for millions of years before that) the CO2 concentrations varied between 180 ppm (ice age) and 300 ppm (peak of warming cycle). As we approached 300 ppm in the 70s, scientists figured nature would take its usual course and flip to the cooling cycle which would see an ice age in about 50,000 years. Problem is...the CO2 concentration continued to rise and they were forced to accept the fact that spilling 30 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year was indeed affecting atmospheric CO2 levels. (By comparison, volcanoes spew up to only 200 MILLION tons of CO2). Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 500 years, the effect is cumulative. Nature takes 1000 years to increase CO2 by 30 ppm (from volcanoes and lightning sourced forest fires). Mankind has done it in less than 20 years!!! And the rate of increase of almost 3 ppm PER YEAR is accelerating. All are indisputable facts. I still shake my head at those that think we can't affect the global environment...they seem to have forgotten how a much less used chemical (CFCs) managed to cause significant damage the ozone layer. Of course, stopping the use of CFCs wasn't a big deal with ready made replacements. Stopping the use of Carbon source fuel is another thing altogether, and of course, it has a huge industry behind it that doesn't want to stop...and is willing to spend billions to serve Kool-aid to the uneducated masses. Think you can put together another graph for RichA so that he can understand them? ;] -- We must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
clouddreamer wrote:
V for Vendicar wrote: "RichA" wrote They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. Why? Corporatists built those CRT's and mindless apes like yourself purchased them. You do realize don't you that the front glass of those CRT's contain substantial amounts of lead don't you? Enviro's have been for decades calling for the recycling of those tubes so that the lead doesn't get into your drinking water, and make you stupid. Too late I guess. It appears that you area already stupid. "RichA" wrote BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? Lets check shall we? ere are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line. Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP. And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century. View with mono spaced font. 1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o****** ******* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o**** * 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*** ****** 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o** ***** 2004 14.49 ************************************************o* * 2005 14.62 *************************************************o ********** 2006 14.54 ************************************************** o**** 2007 14.57 ************************************************** *o***** ------------------------------------------- Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs NOPE. NO Cooling is evident. Nice post. Very visual. Good for people like RichA who has reading comprehension difficulties. They all mistake what a few scientists said in the 70s as PROOF that GW is a hoax without even taking a closer look at what they said. In the 70s, we approached CO2 concentrations of 300 ppm. For the past million years (and likely for millions of years before that) the CO2 concentrations varied between 180 ppm (ice age) and 300 ppm (peak of warming cycle). As we approached 300 ppm in the 70s, scientists figured nature would take its usual course and flip to the cooling cycle which would see an ice age in about 50,000 years. Problem is...the CO2 concentration continued to rise and they were forced to accept the fact that spilling 30 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year was indeed affecting atmospheric CO2 levels. (By comparison, volcanoes spew up to only 200 MILLION tons of CO2). Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 500 years, the effect is cumulative. Nature takes 1000 years to increase CO2 by 30 ppm (from volcanoes and lightning sourced forest fires). Mankind has done it in less than 20 years!!! And the rate of increase of almost 3 ppm PER YEAR is accelerating. All are indisputable facts. I still shake my head at those that think we can't affect the global environment...they seem to have forgotten how a much less used chemical (CFCs) managed to cause significant damage the ozone layer. Of course, stopping the use of CFCs wasn't a big deal with ready made replacements. Stopping the use of Carbon source fuel is another thing altogether, and of course, it has a huge industry behind it that doesn't want to stop...and is willing to spend billions to serve Kool-aid to the uneducated masses. crickets from the naysayers. As expected. .. -- We must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
clouddreamer wrote:
clouddreamer wrote: V for Vendicar wrote: "RichA" wrote They should take all the old CRTs in the dumps and break them over the heads of all clueless envirofaggots. Why? Corporatists built those CRT's and mindless apes like yourself purchased them. You do realize don't you that the front glass of those CRT's contain substantial amounts of lead don't you? Enviro's have been for decades calling for the recycling of those tubes so that the lead doesn't get into your drinking water, and make you stupid. Too late I guess. It appears that you area already stupid. "RichA" wrote BTW, is the Earth still cooling, like they claimed in 1975?? Lets check shall we? ere are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line. Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP. And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century. View with mono spaced font. 1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o****** ******* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o**** * 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*** ****** 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o** ***** 2004 14.49 ************************************************o* * 2005 14.62 *************************************************o ********** 2006 14.54 ************************************************** o**** 2007 14.57 ************************************************** *o***** ------------------------------------------- Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs NOPE. NO Cooling is evident. Nice post. Very visual. Good for people like RichA who has reading comprehension difficulties. They all mistake what a few scientists said in the 70s as PROOF that GW is a hoax without even taking a closer look at what they said. In the 70s, we approached CO2 concentrations of 300 ppm. For the past million years (and likely for millions of years before that) the CO2 concentrations varied between 180 ppm (ice age) and 300 ppm (peak of warming cycle). As we approached 300 ppm in the 70s, scientists figured nature would take its usual course and flip to the cooling cycle which would see an ice age in about 50,000 years. Problem is...the CO2 concentration continued to rise and they were forced to accept the fact that spilling 30 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year was indeed affecting atmospheric CO2 levels. (By comparison, volcanoes spew up to only 200 MILLION tons of CO2). Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 500 years, the effect is cumulative. Nature takes 1000 years to increase CO2 by 30 ppm (from volcanoes and lightning sourced forest fires). Mankind has done it in less than 20 years!!! And the rate of increase of almost 3 ppm PER YEAR is accelerating. All are indisputable facts. I still shake my head at those that think we can't affect the global environment...they seem to have forgotten how a much less used chemical (CFCs) managed to cause significant damage the ozone layer. Of course, stopping the use of CFCs wasn't a big deal with ready made replacements. Stopping the use of Carbon source fuel is another thing altogether, and of course, it has a huge industry behind it that doesn't want to stop...and is willing to spend billions to serve Kool-aid to the uneducated masses. crickets from the naysayers. As expected. .. Maybe that's the problem. http://tinyurl.com/6kyr7l |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379801,00.html
"Taylor" wrote in message ... On Jul 4, 8:58 pm, "V for Vendicar" m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. Nah. This is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5LJt8iGrg |
Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming
Blah Blah Blah....what doesn't hurt the environment? What about the PC the
person that wrote the story on? Keith http://www.eBuyHD.com http://www.HDPl.us "Richard C." wrote in message . .. "Taylor" wrote in message ... On Jul 4, 8:58 pm, "V for Vendicar" m wrote: "Chambers" wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=related An excellent link that I recommend everyone watch. Thanx Chambers. Nah. This is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5LJt8iGrg ============================= I agree! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com