Either that, or the poll was FReeped.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 11/13/2010 7:55:35 AM PST by Bullpine
I hosted Teller at a talk he gave on "brilliant pebbles". The notion was to orbit a large number of smart rocks. When the missles start flying the rocks are odered to deorbit and kinetically kill the missle.
Some in the audience treated Teller quite shabbily during the Q&A. I reminded them that this was a technical, not a political talk. It was quite embarrasing.
Teller was a tough old rock who took a lot of that nonsense in his day. He knew the peaceniks hated him with a passion reserved for the inventor of the Hydrogen Bomb.
He didn’t give a rat’s patootie what they thought, he slept soundly at night and died at peace with himself, I am sure.
80% of Leftists would not pay for *ANY* left-wingbat cause themselves.
100% of Leftists want to make government to force conservatives who actually work for a living to pay for them!
It would not served the world well for the Soviets to be the only ones with the knowledge to build a hydrogen bomb. Teller was a good man who saved our freedom.
Uncharacteristically for me, I didn't like that moniker. I was very familiar with it, deciding not to pursue employment on a somewhat similar project as I left graduate school. I would have liked to have heard Dr. Teller's views.
Some in the audience treated Teller quite shabbily during the Q&A. I reminded them that this was a technical, not a political talk. It was quite embarrasing.
I've seen similar from the rabble at speaking events of other greats. It turns my stomach to think how low society has become.
It does. Looking year over year, the amount outputted by fossil fuel burning and cement making (a well measured quantity) is about double the increase measured in the atmosphere (also a well measured quantity). There is simply no other explanation than nature absorbs about 1/2 of what man generates. The main caveat is that nature fluctuatesl; during NH summer nature absorbs more than man generates and NH winter where nature absorbs a lot less.
There are some things that the catastrophic AGW people don't have right, such as how long it will take for CO2 to return to "normal" (280 ppm which is probably too low anyway) if man stopped producing CO2. The best estimate is about 40 years to get 1/2 way back to 280ppm from whatever level we are at. So even if our increase in CO2 were a big deal (IMO it is not), it would not be a lasting effect.
We did this back in 2001 in my astronomy classes. Normal solar variation can easily account for the temperature changes.
These bozos should understand that temps here would be -230 degrees without the greenhouse effect.
I met the great Dr. Teller on a happier occasion, campaigning for Goldwater in 1964.
...84% ... described the IPCC as "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda." "What should we do about climate change?" 69% say "nothing, we are powerless to stop it." ... 7% support cap-and-trade... "What is causing climate change?" ...26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% "natural processes." ... "How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?" 80% of the respondents said "nothing." ... Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center.
Explain what you mean when you say man made CO2 contributes in a meaningful way to overall CO2.
Either that, or the poll was FReeped.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Was this referring to their sacred, hard begged personal money; or to free federal money?
Maybe The Bent One could benefit; anyone know his FReepertroll ID, so we can ping him?
Well, see, that’s where SciAm screwed up, they neglected to specify.
At the current (~$15/94# sack) price of a sack of cement, I'm about ready to buy some coal (or coke some of my beetle-killed timber into charcoal) and burn some of our limestone.
If the Romans could do it, I should be able to.
:’) worth a shot.
If so, that would explain the article in some engineering trade rag that had me griping on here one time. This guy (and he claimed to be an engineer!!) was lamenting that gearheads would no longer have the freedom to rotate their own tires (don't they do that automatically) because it would goof with the automatic tire air pressure monitoring system, but that of course it was unavoidable because otherwise we'd all be driving around without constant, second by second knowledge of the air pressure in each of our tires! ONOZ! What does this nimrod think we've been doing for a century?? Are there piles of cars every 20 yards or something from improper inflation accidents? Yet he thinks it's just a given that I'll give up a freedom, to avoid messing with a system I never asked for but had to pay for anyway, which may or may not solve a problem that doesn't even appear to exist!
Maybe to demonstrate what rubes the public are, and the necessity of letting the "elite" make these kind of large decisions for us. Or to demonstrate how much "education" remains to be done.
(weird, didn't post the whole thing the first time)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.