Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 111 through 115 (of 115 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Fri, Apr 15, 2011 - 08:42pm

      #5
      tictac1

      tictac1

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2009

      Posts: 124

      count placeholder0

      Anatolian Sheep Dogs

    While I have not worked with any Anatolians, I have seen some in action (guarding goats used for brush control).  They give me the impression that individuals from working backgrounds would probably be suitable, at the very least for a Level 2 (alarm & deter) protection dog.  I have seen pictures of this breed being used for serious bite work (that would be Level 3).

    They certainly have the size and build for the work, and all current working herders are solid dogs, physically.  The best thing to do would be get a temperament evaluation for the dog you want to train from a trainer near you.  Many trainers will evaluate the dog for free, since they want your business! 

    • Fri, Apr 01, 2011 - 11:00pm

      #850
      tictac1

      tictac1

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2009

      Posts: 124

      count placeholder0

      There was a couple of German

    There was a couple of German physicists that produced a study showing CO2 was NOT a greenhouse gas, but I cannot find it right now, so I won’t try to lean on it.

    The debate is not centered on the definition of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but on whether a) it is significant and b) that significance is humanly influenced.  That is the center of the debate, it seems.  From the reading I’ve done (yes, I’ve read most of the data referenced in this thread), there does not seem to be much evidence in favor of anthropomorphic causation.

    I am not the only one coming to this conclusion-

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

    From a common sense perspective, the scientific method is clearly not being honored by those endorsing man-made warming.  A REAL scientist invites his critics to examine his methods and evidence for reproof.  He does not hide them in the hopes of proving a point.  That’s a strike against the credibility of those promoting this theory.

    Also, it should be blantantly obvious that many of the loudest voices endorsing the theory stand to make large sums of money, and gain large amounts of control, including the CEOs of major power companies.  That’s strike two.

    I have no vested interest in the matter one way or the other, I simply have a strong distaste for disinformation, especially when done for the purpose of controlling others lives.  I am open to either conclusion, but as I said, so far the evidence is weak.

    • Fri, Apr 01, 2011 - 10:38pm

      #13
      tictac1

      tictac1

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2009

      Posts: 124

      count placeholder0

      My apologies

    I did not know it was so hotly debated, will discontinue…

    • Fri, Apr 01, 2011 - 06:52pm

      #9
      tictac1

      tictac1

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2009

      Posts: 124

      count placeholder0

      Actually, the poster is

    Actually, the poster is correct, bad source notwithstanding.  Man-made CO2 is not capable of effecting climate, there is plenty of research out there to show this.  Water vapor accounts for over 96% of “greenhouse effect”, and man-made CO2 accounts for only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas for life on this planet, like O2.

    CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, and commercial greenhouse operations regularly supplement to 1000 ppm for better growth (350-400 ppm is normal for outside air).

    Again, tons of hard data out there to support this, but just read this report-

    http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

    I’ve done a lot of reading in this area, and come to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is purple Kool-Aid.  Come to your own conclusions, but do your own research.

    • Thu, Feb 24, 2011 - 12:12am

      #848
      tictac1

      tictac1

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2009

      Posts: 124

      count placeholder0

      I read the post by

    I read the post by stocks321, and thought finally someone has come out and said it, “CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming.”

    I haven’t read all the posts, but here’s some tidbits for when you talk to your Kool-Aid friends.  Come on, we all have them!

    1.  far and away the most significant “greenhouse gas” is water vapor, accounting for about 96%.

    2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas to all life on this planet.  Without it, plant life would die, and then so would we.

    3. Average CO2 concentration is about 350-390 ppm.  Inside your home, it rises to about 600-700 ppm.  Commercial greenhouses regularly up their CO2 concentration to 1000 ppm and higher to improve plant growth.  There is geochemical evidence that shows CO2 levels have been as high as 6,000 ppm in the distant past!

    Hope you enjoyed,

Viewing 5 posts - 111 through 115 (of 115 total)