jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Quite a bold claim with NO evidence. Care to oblige?
AHHHHahahaha!!!
- Thread starter kappainf
- Start date
No. I think it would be obvious that other countries don't have the same standards as the US for polution, waste, and environmental issues.
K
Keenly
Guest
Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World
E. Huff
Natural News
December 26, 2009
Large shipping vessels owned by globalist corporations are used to deliver slave labor goodies from China.
Large shipping vessels have become commonplace in todays global marketplace as goods are imported and exported across the world. While the high levels of pollution they create are something that most people dont think too much about, some scientists are beginning to evaluate their environmental effect.
One of the most disturbing facts discovered about these giant ships is that a mere 16 of them emit as much sulfur as do all the cars in the world combined.
Fred Pearce, a science writer and environmental consultant for New Scientist, has been studying the shipping industry for quite some time. He has focused particularly on their use of filthy, toxic fuel that is polluting the air at a staggering pace.
According to his assessment, thousands of people die every year from the toxic fumes that are emitted from their smokestacks, lingering in the air as a brown haze for many days. If current practices continue, he estimates that upwards of a million people will die in the next decade due to ship pollution.
The type of fuel typically used in large ocean craft is composed of the dirty leftovers from the refined fuel that is used in cars, trucks, and other land vehicles. It is thicker than land fuel and high in sulfur.
It is essentially a cheap, filthy form of fuel that would never be permitted for use on the mainland but that are tolerated on international waters. The chemicals found in the smoke trails of this bunker fuel are known to cause severe inflammation, cancer, breathing problems and heart disease.The sheer size of these ships is astounding, measuring a quarter of a mile long on average.
Each one holds approximately 14,000 full-size shipping containers, typically carrying goods from Asia to Europe and North America. There are over 100,000 ships and counting on the seas today.
The reason why reckless ship pollution is allowed to continue is due to the International Maritime Organizations (IMO) policy that permits bunker fuel containing up to 4.5 percent sulfur to be used in international waters. This number is 4,500 times higher than the sulfur amount permitted in vehicle fuel in the European Union.
The IMO has reluctantly agreed to reduce the sulfur limit to 3.5 percent by 2012 and, eventually, to 0.5 percent. The biggest barrier to enacting stricter pollution guidelines is the increased cost of cleaner fuel. Bunker fuel is inexpensive and plentiful, allowing shippers to make use of the leftover byproducts of clean fuel production.
CrackerJax
New Member
Still living in a cave I see.
how bout you throw up the chart showing carbon synching with global temp variances .. hmmm?
talk about no evidence.
They are now suggesting we could cool for another 5 decades. At least 2-5.
yes, that isn't exact, and that's why it can be trusted, because weather predictions are inaccurate at best.
still freezing here.
hey, maybe they can send all the hot polar bears out to the midwest. i heard they got a little snow this month.
dare ya to click this link, .... http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=record+snowfall&cf=all&as_qdr=w&as_drrb=q
hey, maybe they can send all the hot polar bears out to the midwest. i heard they got a little snow this month.
dare ya to click this link, .... http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=record+snowfall&cf=all&as_qdr=w&as_drrb=q
Don Gin and Ton
Well-Known Member
id be pissed if i had to swim 200 miles to the fridge
jeff f
New Member
obvious you dont understand global warming. it is supposed to make the world freeze to death....cant believe you didnt know that...
currently 8 degrees F here. aint no polar bears swimmin anywhere near here anytime soon.
CrackerJax
New Member
well if Huffington says so... 
I think Disney could come up with some real looking PB robots. Then everyone would be happy.
I think Disney could come up with some real looking PB robots. Then everyone would be happy.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
CO2 is a greenhouse effect gas. The most prolific as shown on the chart. It is mainly man produced.
Greenhouse gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these gases in the atmosphere. This is called the �Greenhouse Effect�. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about .5 degrees Celsius and many scientists believe this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons. People are now calling this climate change over the past century the beginning of �Global Warming.� Fears are that if people keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, such as more severe floods and droughts, increasing prevalence of insects, sea levels rising, and Earth's precipitation may be redistributed. These changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as lower health and decreasing economic development. However, some scientists argue that the global warming we are experiencing now is a natural phenomenon, and is part of Earth's natural cycle. Presently, nobody can prove if either theory is correct, but one thing is certain; the world has been emitting greenhouse gases at extremely high rates and has shown only small signs of reducing emissions until the last few years. After the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the world has finally taken the first step in reducing emissions.
No-one can precisely predict what will happen in the future, but caution in gas emissions may be a smart move. If the tipping point is passed, there is probably no way to go back except a huge reduction in human occupation of the planet, can you say nuclear war?
Why is water vapor not listed as a greenhouse gas on your chart?
It is a greenhouse gas.
So I guess what you wrote in bold should place emphasis only on the word this.
Only on that chart does CO2 make up 76% of the greenhouse gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
jeff f
New Member
so basically what you are saying is that the earths temperature is controlled by water (2/3 earth surface) and the sun (which evaporates the water). hmmm and here i thought it was cuz i drive a truck.
really funny too that in the "scientific" models, they dont even consider the suns effect on global temp.
global warming is for dummies, puppets and money launderers.
Spitzered
Well-Known Member
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Climate Change sure is a money maker for some.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Climate Change sure is a money maker for some.
CrackerJax
New Member
We are cooling and will continue to cool for at least another 2 decades, maybe more.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
water vapour has a much different cycle than co2. the water cycle is a self limiting short cycle. the air can only hold too much water before we get what?? rain!!!
in about 1979 they sent up a satellite to measure the suns output as from space you get accurate recordings...
the results they got from i have been looked at by the climate scientists
here you look see if you can see an increase in the solar ouptut??
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
CrackerJax
New Member
Water vapor is the BIG BOY greenhouse gas. It's also NOT included in all of the "crackpot global warming data".
Now you know why.
It's about $$$$ folks, not affecting the atmosphere (because carbon WON'T & CAN'T)
Now you know why.
It's about $$$$ folks, not affecting the atmosphere (because carbon WON'T & CAN'T)
robert 14617
Well-Known Member
i think there is a place for all gods creatures and its right here on my plate next to the mashed potatoes
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
again water vapour is a large contributor to greenhouse effect there has never been anyone saying otherwise but it is self regulating if you put too much water vapour into the sky then it rains out if too much vapor leaves the sky then more evaporates to take its place simple science that one.....
carbon is a green house gas too and we're are increasing its levels.. your comment that carbon "wont & can't" is pretty bold there
i posted this before and called out anyone with decent co2 monitoring gear to replicate this experiment but to actually measure the ppm's of the co2 say up to 450 ppm's...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
CrackerJax
New Member
Not one scientist has been able to correlate carbon with global temp swings ... in either direction. It's not a bold statement at all. It a true statement.
Water vapor, the sun, and ocean currents are the true engine of global temps, but the pol's cannot figure out how to TAX ppl for those, so they are DISMISSED.
This is why the CURRENT global warming data is NOT scientific, it's political.
Water vapor, the sun, and ocean currents are the true engine of global temps, but the pol's cannot figure out how to TAX ppl for those, so they are DISMISSED.
This is why the CURRENT global warming data is NOT scientific, it's political.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i think you'l find that its much much more complex than just those 3 elements. if it wasnt for co2 methane and the other greenhouse gasses then the earth would be an iceball and all that water vapour would locked up as ice...
the satellites show that there hasnt been any significant increase in sun intensity.
water vapour is largely our of our hand although i do think in the future most of our farming will be done with much greater water preservation/ less vapour from agri
ocean currants is another driving force in our climate along with jet stream position it is known to have hot and cold periods its just one of the reasons why we dont have a completely straight line of temp increase...
co2 is of of the thing's in our atmosphere that we put there and it shouldnt be there. now it does increase the temperature (however negligible you may argue) and you can prove that with a very simple experiment.
prehaps you should look at investing in the green energies too as you seem to have insider info on such a well orchestrated "scam" that you couldnt lose eh?? or is it because everyones a bit jealous they didnt jump on the band wagon a bit earlier?