 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft’s Annual Revenue Reaches $60 Billion | |
|
||
| Time: 16:11 EST/21:11 GMT | News Source: Press Release | Posted By: Michael Dragone | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $15.84 billion for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30, 2008, an 18% increase over the same period of the prior year. Operating income and diluted earnings per share for the quarter were $5.68 billion and $0.46, representing growth of 42% and 48%, respectively, over the same period of the prior year. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 49 of 49 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:17:27 PM |
|
Obviously a company on its last good leg.
[snicker] |
| #2 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:27:20 PM |
| #1: I wasn't quite sure how to mock the naysayers that believe MS is doomed. You did a fine job. Someday MS will reach their zenith. That day isn't today nor is it likely to be in the near future. |
| #3 By 82766 (122.107.48.75) at Friday, July 18, 2008 03:48:09 AM |
|
#2: No it won't be any time soon alright. I've read that IBM could just exist from it's patent income, supposedly some US$10 billion per year.
Just as someday we all will reach our zenith and we are quickly moving towards that point by our greenhouse gas emissions... I'm guessing the human race will damage the atmosphere beyond repair (within 20 years we're told) before Microsoft will reach its zenith. |
| #4 By 415 (167.6.245.98) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:14:25 AM |
|
That growth is awesome. I remember when they were lauded for just 20% growth in a quarter.
#3: Maybe we'll just do ourselves a favor and run out of crude oil first. Happy Friday! |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:59:27 AM |
| They failed to make their earnings expectations, and their stock fell 6% in late trading. Their growth compared to last year seems impressive until you remember last year they took a 1 billion charge for the XBox fiasco. They can't feel too good about their online division losing $488 million for the quarter, either. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Friday, July 18, 2008 09:01:01 AM |
|
not to side-track too much...but do you really believe, I mean truly, that climate change is induced by man-made gasses? Increased solar activity has no role? and the ice caps on Mars that are receeding as well aren't similarly influenced, or that the historical record reflects increases in Co2 as the Earth cools and increases in water vapor as it warms?
I mean really...is the popularist media that effective? and there is no correlation between that media and manufactured goods (bonds) that developed countries are to be forced to buy from less well developed nations - based upon relative carbon indexes (ignoring of course efficiencies within developed nations that result in far greater output relative to fossil fuel use)? None at all? You know... when I was a boy... people never used the word cancer. It was popularly thought that if one had any form of cancer, that they had done something horrible and were being punished. No one did any cancer research because of it. You got it, you died. Antibiotics didn't exist and crazy/nutty beliefs of every sort were common. I'm old enough to know that what I do know does not amount to much at all and old enough to know that collectively, none of us do. I think the Earth, if it cares at all, laughs its poles off at how ridiculous we are. Do not buy into this nonsense or those who seek to re-distribute wealth based upon policies derived from it. The Earth allows us to exist, because it wanted plastic... |
| #7 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Friday, July 18, 2008 09:07:39 AM |
|
#5, Hey Latch... they performed at the lower end of an upwardly adjusted guidance report - and hit well within the range of that upwardly adjusted range.
Drop the spin on the numbers. They are punished because as you say, they are not "cool" - fair enough... that is a faith based economy (e.g., no speci backing the currency) - that is how the market works. The diversification in devices and entertainment is staggering - Xbox, as part of that, does not reflect its own growth (20 million units and the best attach rate in the history of gaming). |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, July 18, 2008 09:12:03 AM |
| #7: The spin is from MS, sir. Their earnings were (barely) below expectations, their growth would not be anywhere near as good if not the the billion charge last year, and their stock dropped after the announcement while various divisions post massive losses that are only offset by the Windows/Office revenue juggernaut. Who's spinning again? |
| #9 By 7390 (24.191.94.122) at Friday, July 18, 2008 10:54:22 AM |
|
once could make the argument that their revenue reflects past accomplishments (windows and office). And not items that will lead to future growth (mobile, search, media devices).
Google literally owns the web Apple owns the portable device world Vista was not well received What can a new version of office do that google docs and open office can't can't? Surface is about 5 years out and I am sure that they will botch the execution of it. |
| #10 By 7390 (24.191.94.122) at Friday, July 18, 2008 10:56:00 AM |
|
on a side note, does anyone have anything on what MS has done so far with the purchase of Danger and their side kick?
Will the sidekick run winmobile? be combined with the Zune |
| #11 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Friday, July 18, 2008 12:15:52 PM |
|
"Vista was not well received "
Vista was not well recieved by the type of people who detested XP until Vista came out. Suddenly Vista was the worst OS ever and XP was the best OS ever. 180 million licenses sold is pretty good. |
| #12 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Friday, July 18, 2008 02:52:29 PM |
|
#6: How anyone can say that man-made gases have not influenced climate amazes me (I fully expect to be bombarded by 10 or 11 links from parker and the same number of paragraphs from ketchum disputing this ).
Let me ask you something Lloyd - Do you smoke? if not, Look at a smokers lungs compared to a non-smokers. The same thing is happening to the planet. You guys will say - "oh these man-made gases are a small portion of the overall amount in the atmosphere". To that I say that this atmosphere is a delicate balance of many factors and to suggest that pouring tons and tons of MMG into the atmosphere every day would have no impact is just being foolish (or republican, take your pick). If you doubt this, I suggest you swallow a milligram of Polonium 210 daily and see what effect that has on your body. Besides Lloyd, I probably have 90% of the scientific community on my side; you have Parker! |
| #14 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at Friday, July 18, 2008 03:33:05 PM |
|
#12: And the Poles are melting... but wait: this is happening because of some secret weapons that Saddam Hussein triggered before Iraq was invaded.
What can you expected from and Administration whose energy planned was drafted with the help of Enron geniuses? |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, July 18, 2008 03:56:57 PM |
|
#12: I've always found it interesting that right-wing Republican, Bush-loving MS apologists are also always global warming deniers. The same people that advocated swift action against Iraq because there's inconclusive evidence of a threat to the US are the same ones who advocate doing nothing about global warming despite inconclusive evidence of a threat to the entire planet. In other words, "We have evidence but don't know for sure so we need to invade Iraq now!" vs "We have evidence but don't know for sure so we should do absolutely nothing!".
#13: You have a history of cherry-picking stats to suit your argument, so your comparison of just one month 20 years apart is suspicious. The chart showing 20 years of temp shows an obvious increase over time. That looks like global warming to me, even if you can find one month in particular that is cooler than 20 years ago. For your first link, you claim it's getting cooler. In your second, you claim it's getting warmer. Which is it? |
| #16 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Friday, July 18, 2008 04:36:57 PM |
|
#15, Climates change. The climate is changing now. What is not certain is what is behind that change, or even how to predict in what ways the climate will change over any given period of time. My position is a lot more balanced and a-political. A lot more information will have to be studied to begin to understand climate change well enough to formulate global policies around that understanding.
You don't live in a Republic (neither do I any longer), so I can't expect you to understand what a Federal Republic is. It isn't a socialist democracy. As a retired soldier and a man who fought to preserve our former Republic, I would not have invaded any country post 9/11. In fact, I wrote the President via the Vice President, whom I knew professionally and strongly recommended against any large scale war, and instead I offered that we immediately pursue a national policy of 100% energy independence within the decade - drawing a comparison to the national effort expended to put men on the moon. I offered a comprehensive effort mxing all immediate actions, like conservation, local exploration, and tax incentives be implemented parallel to hundreds of billions in spending - not for bombs, but research into alternative fuels and incentives to universities, and private business for those who made meaningful advances and made new discoveries. I also proposed that as a nation, we share our discoveries with the world openly while we simultaneously opened our schools to young people at risk of becoming terrorists in foreign countries. Your labels for people are not always appropriate. Any person who has seen war, hates it and understands how wasteful it is. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Friday, July 18, 2008 04:52:45 PM |
|
All, if you really wish to understand what role man "may" have in climate change, it isn't Co2, it's water vapor! e.g., we may have made the planet more humid through man-made lakes, irrigation and the preservation of wetlands - yes, that is a biggest one. Also, and most especially across Europe, where they started using lead free fuels and catalytic converters in the late 80's and early 90's - not being required for many more years! (the United States made them mandatory in 1975). These produce a great deal of water vapor and the skies cleared a great deal over cities - allowing much more solar energy to reach the planet.
Still, these make rather small contributions. The biggest reason? A much more active sun. The polar ice cap on Mars is melting proportionately to our own. The moons of Jupiter display melting as well. Each of these has little human activity on, or near them. Co2 concentrations in our atmosphere cool the planet and the same scientists that asserted that man-made Co2 was behind AGW, are now saying that it's water vapor. Radicals among them blame human activity - wetland preservation being the leading cause they record. |
| #18 By 11888 (70.48.239.239) at Friday, July 18, 2008 06:18:43 PM |
| http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ |
| #19 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Friday, July 18, 2008 07:04:45 PM |
|
#14 "While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. "
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent Its easy to deny global warming when the warming actually stopped in 1998. Why amazes me is that cooling is ignored. "so your comparison of just one month 20 years apart is suspicious" Ok. I'll pick 1998. Temperatures are down .9C from 10 years ago. However, 1998 was an anomaly. But its been good for for the CO2 is poison business. CO2 is plant food. It is cooling now. CO2 is still rising. "In your second, you claim it's getting warmer" The NH is still slightly warmer ... most of the rest of the earth is colder. The reason is of course that cleaner air allows more sunshine. The UK (which has its data online) regularly gets 30% more sunshine than it used to. #18 Dimming ended in the early 1990s. NASA says so. "The NASA study also sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface, which had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline, Mishchenko said." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/aerosol_dimming.html Get some facts that are supportable for a change. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 19:05. |
| #20 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Friday, July 18, 2008 07:10:47 PM |
|
By the way, if you live on the west coast get ready for 20-30 years of cooling.
The PDO has shifted. http://junkscience.com/apr08/La_Nina_and_Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation_Cool_the_Pacific.pdf http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/?hp ENSO is looking bad too .... Get a clue Gorebots. |
| #21 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Friday, July 18, 2008 07:26:13 PM |
|
#19, 20, Yep and another zinger...
Gore et al used awful events like Katrina and Ivan as an illustration of the effects of AGW - passionately and effectively playing on fear and politics - linking these events to AGW. Here's the problem... when the upper atmosphere is warmer, it produces fewer and less powerful major storm systems as it stabilizes the upper mass. Gore and his hacks presented exactly the opposite and played on a lot of emotion and very bad politics. And guys, I can tell you what it was like when nearly everyone was hungry pretty much all the time. If we keep mucking around and applying BS to a faith (non-speci) based economy, we're going to create a disaster - which ends in wars that most of you reading this cannot begin to imagine. Abandon socialist ideals and if you see poverty and want to change it - then jump in and change it right around you - you can do that and you don't need a government to do it for you. Also, business owners need to teach their people about more than their jobs - teach them to build wealth and share what they help you build. |
| #22 By 32810 (99.252.203.192) at Friday, July 18, 2008 08:37:13 PM |
|
Okay... So Microsoft made 60 billion. In other news, global warming....
How about the fact that you can now burn within 10 mins during the month of April in Canada? When I was a kid (in the 60's-70's) you could play outside all day during summer, temperatures in the 90's and rarely suffering from sunburn. What about allergies? They seem to be much more common, as does asthma these days. Besides. What's wrong with breathing cleaner air or paying less to drive your vehicle, heat and/or cool your house? Fine, you don't believe in global warming, but what harm does it do when there are clearly benefits to be gained? Have you seen populated cites in China? Look at the smog, how could that be healthy? So your willing to spend your time debating statistics from who knows where, but ignore what's right in front of your nose? Do you enjoy paying $100+ to fill up your SUV? How do you explain record temperatures in North America?-- or is there another cigarette company statistic to prove otherwise? Horse Hockey! This post was edited by midfingr on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 20:38. |
| #23 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Friday, July 18, 2008 09:02:26 PM |
|
#22 They got snow in April on the west coast I hear. Kind of unusually cold too in June.
"Some of the world's top athletes had to seek medical attention after competing in what may have been the coldest swim in World Championship Triathlon history in downtown Vancouver." http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2008/06/06/bc-vancouver-triathalon-hypothermic.html Not much chance of sunburn in June in Vancouver this year ... let alone April. "What's wrong with breathing cleaner air" Nothing. But CO2 isn't air pollution. Its plant food. Greenhouse operators are now bumping CO2 up to 1000ppm to up plant yield. Smog is mostly cause SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide). Don't mix it up with CO2. Different gases. Of course volcanoes produce both CO2 and SO2. Did you know there were as many as 3,000,000 underwater volcanoes dumping vast quantities of CO2 into the ocean? "How do you explain record temperatures in North America?-" Do you mean record lows? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/feb08.html "The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001" "It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895" That means 59 Winters were warmer than the 2007/2008 winter. |
| #24 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at Friday, July 18, 2008 09:06:49 PM |
| Sunspots have been "gone" for two years. The result is fewer solar flares and a slight cooling of the atmosphere on earth. There is strong eveidence that all warming, and climatic cooling, on the earth is really controlled by the sun's energy output. Go figure. |
| #25 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:37:23 AM |
|
#22: Bingo
#6 Martian icecaps are melting because of orbital change, not increased solar radiation. #23: "But CO2 isn't air pollution. Its plant food." Yes, but have you checked the plant count lately? Tropical Rain forests, the main consumers of CO2 are disappearing. What is going to eat all of this excess C02? and by the way, Latch is right, you are a cherry picker!!! I respect Ketchum a great deal! He has time and again proved his technical prowess, but he too is cherry-picking stats here. Every article or link Ketchum and Parker point out has associated links that refute their points. Bottom line, I still have 90% of all scientists on my side. Take the blinders off guys; this problem goes beyond political parties. |
| #26 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:22:37 PM |
|
"I still have 90% of all scientists on my side."
Which 90% ... the stupid ones who haven't noticed the earth is cooling? "Martian icecaps are melting because of orbital change, not increased solar radiation. " Thats hilarious!!! Is that what Gorebots are trying to claim now? What orbital changes? N one mentions them anywhere "From National Geographic: “Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“ From MIT on Pluto “the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.” Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories. From Space.com on Jupiter: “The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.” From MIT on Triton: “At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.” So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?" As for "cherry picking" ... which seems to be some sort of euphimism for actually staying current on the science of climate instead of spewing out Gorebottalking points based on 10 year old data. The science "isn't settled". It wasn't settled when 99.9999% of all scientists thought the sun rotated around the earth. It isn't settled now. Try and stay current. It might make you look less like a fool (and a bigger fool than Latch if thats even possible). |
| #27 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:53:45 AM |
|
Gee... who would have guess my little passing comment about the world would have created such a fire storm!!
I'm definitely not knowledgeable in this area but I do feel, if the human race keeps pumping crap into the atmosphere, keeps burning fossil fuels and keeps dumping crap into the oceans "its a bad thing". You guys keep quoting American-locale stats... thats great for you but what about the rest of the world??? The stats you link to might show the US and/or UK getting cooler... but what about the WORLD AVERAGES?? As much as many American's like to think, ONE country does not count for the rest of the world and what's happening to the rest of us. Down here in the Southern Hemisphere, we are seeing record temperatures with each and every passing year. Fiji, Samoa, Pacific Isands, etc have all seen sea level rises. The Great Barrier reef off Australia is almost disappearing to the naked eye due to the increasing sea temperature, red grapes can now be grown in the southern parts of New Zealand because the temperature increases (completely unheard of only 5 years ago!) and so on and on... Here in Sydney, we are already 2 degree's C higher over last year... which is 4 degree's higher than the 50 year average... we are in the middle of Winter and its 20+ degrees C !! These temperatures would have unheard of only 5-10 years ago. Snow has only just fallen for the first time this year in the mountain ranges inland - and this is July! and consistent pattern of the "falling snow" has been occurring later and later during the winter season and for a shorter duration. IMHO... along with limited knowledge just common sense of what I see happening around me... "something" is definitely happening to the world. It is not cooling but definitely warming up. |
| #28 By 118479 (68.209.64.185) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:56:28 AM |
|
That's no chump change!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com |
| #30 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:06:01 PM |
|
As for Sydney, the BOM site shows max temp hasn't changed much.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av I compared it against several 30 year periods. Almost no change. 2008 was a tiny bit cooler than some periods like 1931-1960. |
| #31 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:15:54 PM |
| #29 Your own chart from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17.htm clearly demonstrates your cherry-picking ability. 1940 was an anomaly! Look at the chart as a whole and you can see the trend. |
| #32 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 01:03:09 PM |
|
Actually, 1939-1944 were not an anomaly. They were all very close together.
1939 -0.119 1940 0.009 1941 0.055 1942 -0.047 1943 -0.106 1944 0.050 If Al Gore and Jame Hansen were alive then they would have proclaimed the end of the world in 10 years and blamed it on CO2. And then it cooled for 30 years finally getting back the 1939-1944 range about 1982. Those non Gorebots who actually read the literature are now aware of longer term 20 and 30 years cycles of warming and cooling that have NOTHING to do with CO2. Has it warmed since the last little ice age in the 1800's. Yes. Was it cause by man or CO2? Not likely. Its been warming since the last full ice age. And it will warm a little and cool a little until some mechanism we dont get yet plunges us back into another full-blown ice age. As it has every 10-20,000 years for 100,000 years. Maybe you could read about the Milankovitch cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles We are at the peak (hot) stage of a cycle right now. If we weren't, it would be ice age time. |
| #33 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 01:41:47 PM |
|
Yep. As I said, we simply do not know enough about AGW/C to base national and global policies on what little we do understand. It's as insane as any of man's policies over the centuries that were based upon ignorance.
That said, pollution free, fossil fuels free energy simply makes sense and developing it is a terrific goal for all of us and creating new energy sources needs to be a priority for all of us. Until we are there, we need to drill like sons of guns, use what we have more efficiently, conserve all we can, and above all... stop buying into BS. We have to understand that the same hacks that got us here are the same idiots that will make billions tricking us into buying new products that they have conditioned us to believe are "green" New fluorescent bulbs for example.... good right? Nope. The amount of energy they take to produce is huge and the mercury in them is outrageous. They do produce more light for less energy, BUT, BUT, BUT... THEY ARE NOT/NOT GREEN....and not all are created equal. Some are greener, but none are as "green" as the bulbs you've been using for over a hundred years. |
| #34 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 01:59:35 PM |
|
10-20,000! I wish I could be as vague! That's like saying it will be cooler perhaps, sometime in the near future.
You seem to totally dismiss man's influence on the planet. We have driven countless species to extinction, eradicated much or the world's C02 consuming rain forests, and destroyed parts the OZONE layer, which is partially recovering due to the realization that a problem existed and the willingness to take action. |
| #35 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 02:16:17 PM |
|
In religion it it is necessary to have certainties. The Goracle and his followers prefer the certain knowledge that it is the evil human being who has caused warming and if we only flagellate ourselves by destroying our economies, all will be well.
Climate isn't certain. Never has been, never will be - until the Sun expands and consumes the Earth. Then it will be hot all the time. Species went extinct before man -- remember the dinosaurs. New species are evolving. Mature forest rot and give off more CO2 than they consume. But only those truly blinded by the Goracle ignore the cooling that has occurred. And ignore history. And think the climate has been exactly the same for millenia until 1988 when Hansen gave his speech. It was warming during the Medievil Warm Period. It got really cold during the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Climate is never the same from year to year let alone decade to decade or century to century. Open your mind to the new scientific discoveries. Quit being a luddite. Stop being afraid of finding out man is so insignificant he can't warm or cool the planet. Bigger forces are at work. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 14:21. |
| #36 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 02:19:55 PM |
|
"Cutting trees does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. In fact, it helps to LESSEN the greenhouse effect.
This is, in many ways, an oversimplification, but: Trees capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, split the carbon from the oxygen, release the oxygen back into the atmosphere, and store the carbon in the form of plant tissues like cellulose. Though water vapor accounts for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, it is the carbon dioxide (according to the global warming alarmists) that is the culprit behind what they believe to be the current "run-away" greenhouse effect that has caused the global warming that we are experiencing today. So, trees are a good thing, because they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But here's the catch. Trees die. And when they die, they rot. And when they rot, all of that carbon that was stored inside of them over their long lives is released into the atmosphere and combines with oxygen to form... you guessed, carbon dioxide. So, if we allow a tree to go all the way through its natural life cycle, all the way through death to decomposition, then the carbon-dioxide-reducing capability of that tree will have been completely wasted. Now, to be honest, that's not entirely true. In temperate forests, some of that carbon gets stored in the soil. But the point is, if we just let that tree die and rot, the vast majority of the carbon stored in it will be returned to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, and most of the anti-global warming potential of that tree will be completely wasted. On the other hand, if we CUT that tree, before it dies, and then convert it to lumber, the carbon stored in that lumber will be permanently sequestered for as long as we can prevent that lumber from rotting. To prevent rotting, it can be treated with any of numerous chemicals, or simply kept away from water. Moreover, young, fast-growing trees capture and consume much more carbon dioxide than older, mature trees. Therefore, we shouldn't wait until the tree is nearing the end of its life. We need to harvest this tree when it is still young. And as soon as the tree is harvested, another tree needs to be planted in its place, to capture more CO2. On a continuous cycle of harvesting and planting, a well-manage pine forest can permanently store over 100 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. " http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_cutting_of_trees_or_deforestation_contribute_to_the_greenhouse_effect This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 14:20. |
| #37 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 04:26:21 PM |
|
"We need to harvest this tree"
Is that what you call it? You sir, are now bordering on the moronic! The torching of the Brazilian rain forests is not "harvesting". The North American lumber industry at least tries to "harvests" trees through replanting efforts. The rain forests are not being "harvested" they are being obliterated! |
| #38 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 05:10:40 PM |
|
Are there still any rainforests? Those were almost gone, when I was still in grade school... you know back when the rainforest erasure and acid rain (remember that one?) were gonna be the cause of our mass extinction.
Every decade, the wackos find another "reason" to redistribute wealth. "I probably have 90% of the scientific community on my side" And all 90% get their grants from the same folks. Think for yourself. I'm relatively young (34), but even I remember the following extinction-level claims: - acid rain - global cooling (Late 1970s) - nuclear power plants - global warming (currently) - smog in big cities - deforestation (is that the same as 'no more rainforests'? - ozone hole (havent heard this one as much in a couple of years. I wonder why) - genetically modified food - CFCs - DDT Each one was GONNA KILL US ALL. Yet there are more people today than ever before. Which reminds me... lets add another one to the list... - Overpopulation ...EDIT... Thought of a couple more... - Y2K - Giant asteroid hitting earth. Don't you remember? Right after a couple of asteroid movies were released, there were LEGITIMATE calls for a planetary asteroid defence. LMFAO. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 17:20. |
| #39 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 05:50:44 PM |
|
We already addressed the CFCs which is why the Ozone has somewhat stabilized.
- Smog in Big Cities: As far as I know we've done very little as a nation about this, but who wants to breath clean air right? - DDT: We stopped using it which is why species like the Bald Eagle and the Lightning bug are making comebacks (and unfortunately the mosquito as well) - deforestation: Still going on steadily in South America. -Overpopulation: I'm not sure how many people this planet can sustain but who cares as long as the western world has its 3 and 4 car families. --Nuclear power Plants: I think this is a viable option provided it is done correctly and safely (How about re enriching spent fuel rods instead of burying them in the desert?) This post was edited by rxcall on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 17:51. |
| #40 By 92283 (24.64.223.204) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 06:24:55 PM |
|
Smog? Do you know what the London killer fog was? As I showed earlier, the air is much cleaner in the Northern Hemisophere than it used to be causing a large increase in received sunshine. That may have masked the cooling trend until now. The Southern Hemisphere has cooled quicker because the air was less dirty to begin with.
What you call deforestation, they call land use changes for agricultural reasons. As for DDT ... its ban has killed 10's of millions in Africa. etc etc Still, your whining has nothing to do with the current state of global cooling and the myth that CO2 has caused warming. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 18:25. |
| #41 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Sunday, July 20, 2008 07:01:18 PM |
|
about CFC's... this one is another example of Gore’s lunacy .... the idiot savaged our automotive manufacturers over CFC's and air conditioning units in the early 90's. Highly efficient R-12 was replaced by R-134a and costs went right through the backsides of consumers and the automotive industry - despite the fact that they were closed systems and actually released few CFC's... here's the kicker...
The amount of CFC's released in the developed world was tiny... the main source was and remains the millions of tons of CFC's and R-12 in particular used in the open atmosphere by developing nations as a cleanser for circuit boards. No telling Gore that. The self-important asshat thought that by breaking it off in our butts that he'd saved the world. Pure nonsense. Better manufacturing techniques transferred from the developed countries to less developed nations introduced closed cleansing systems, but the amount didn't go down at all - it went up, yet the ozone hole closed on its own. It re-opens, closes, moves, changes shape and opens/closes again and again... due to changes in the magnetic poles as near as anyone can tell. And all those plants and jobs? Gone. All the people? Out of work. Gore? He’s still slobbering all over himself. |
| #42 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, July 21, 2008 09:40:51 AM |
| Based purely on past AW history, if parkkker has his usual mittfull of links of cherry-picked "facts" to support his position, he's almost always wrong. |
| #43 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at Monday, July 21, 2008 01:18:34 PM |
|
#42 That was a very bitter concession.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html |
| #44 By 8556 (12.206.195.4) at Monday, July 21, 2008 02:09:21 PM |
|
#38: The incredibly low temperatures that are the incubator for ozone depletion have abated somewhat. This has allowed the so called "ozone hole" to heal quite a bit as upper atmosphere 02 is, and always has been, broken down by solar UV radiation and then reacts to form ozone. O3 then blocks much of the UV radiation from striking the earth. Free radical reaction, with clorine radicals, in upper atmospheric low temperatures that occur mainly over the antarctic, break down 03 in a chain reaction that quckly turns millions of O3 molecules into O2 for each clorine radical present. The ozone layer is "self healing" as long as the very specific, very cold, environment that exists only over the poles is not present elsewhere.
Check some science articles for a more lucid explanation of atmosoheric ozone formation and why it will aways be present as long as there is O2 in the atmosphere. |
| #45 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Monday, July 21, 2008 02:26:06 PM |
|
When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Don't you think it's time we discussed this rationally? Like before we destroy our economies? There are great reasons to go green. Carbon isn't one of them in this context. |
| #46 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at Monday, July 21, 2008 02:31:29 PM |
| When the world discovers just how badly Gore has misled people and how many hundreds of billions he has cost them, what then? Do we get to send him an invoice, or try him for gross negligence? I mean, as a world leader, I think he does have some larger responsibilty. |
| #47 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Monday, July 21, 2008 02:50:06 PM |
|
I learn something everyday.
Here I was still sitting in ashes over the ozone hole... and now I'm to understand that its been CORRECTED? What a relief. |
| #48 By 8556 (12.206.195.4) at Monday, July 21, 2008 03:06:50 PM |
| #47: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071003100537.htm |
| #49 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:41:29 AM |
|
The words change, but the intent is the same...
REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH |
