|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 11, 2007 18:13:54 GMT -5
This pessimistic prediction must be from the recent United Nations climate change report, right?
Nope.
Ahh....then it must be from Al Gore- that's 'Pope Algore I' folks- masterpiece documentary (crockumentary?) "An Inconvenient Truth".
Uh-uh. Wrong again.
Then it must be the result of the US Department of Energy, NASA and other prestigeous scientific bodies.
Strike three!
Try NEWSWEEK in a 1975 article entitled "The Cooling World"!
So if scientific "consensus" was so wrong thirty years ago, what makes the eco-chondriacs so convinced that scientific "consensus" is right now?
And no, wishing something be true does not make it true. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 17, 2007 20:18:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 17, 2007 21:14:11 GMT -5
If science was so wrong then- and even blondie would have to admit that they were- then why on earth are the eco-hysterics so completely convinced that science- at least the science they 'have faith' in- is right now?
Yes absolutely, science has improved greatly since 1975.
But that proves my point....
What if the improved science of 2037 shows that the ruinous economic and social changes the eco-hysterics forced us to make in 2007 were either unnecessary or wrongheaded?
Assuming that happens and we're both around at that point, I'll magnanimously accept blondie's apology.....
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 18, 2007 11:11:42 GMT -5
If science was so wrong then- and even blondie would have to admit that they were- then why on earth are the eco-hysterics so completely convinced that science- at least the science they 'have faith' in- is right now? Yes absolutely, science has improved greatly since 1975. But that proves my point.... What if the improved science of 2037 shows that the ruinous economic and social changes the eco-hysterics forced us to make in 2007 were either unnecessary or wrongheaded? Assuming that happens and we're both around at that point, I'll magnanimously accept blondie's apology..... Does this mean you're going to apologize now?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 18, 2007 19:14:38 GMT -5
For pointing out the extraordinarily shaky 'science' behind the global warming hysteria?
For pointing out the numerous instances of blatant hypocrisy on the part of the global warming hysterics?
For pointing out the fact that there is a debate on the issue of anthropogenic global warming?
For pointing out that, just as is the case with many issues near and dear to Leftists, it is they who seek to shut down debate and muzzle dissent, all the while accusing their opponents of doing so?
Sorry...I've nothing to apologize for.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on Mar 18, 2007 21:36:25 GMT -5
My feeling is this is just another fear tacktic to make the people fall in line. If I am wrong, so be it. Alabama just went through one of the coldest winters I can remember ( just because we did not have snow means nothing). I can remember winters (Thanksgiving) in the past when we were in shorts and playing touch football! Wake up! Numbers and events can be manipulated especially when those that count on those that were around to remember are dying out!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 18, 2007 21:50:09 GMT -5
For pointing out the extraordinarily shaky 'science' behind the global warming hysteria? For pointing out the numerous instances of blatant hypocrisy on the part of the global warming hysterics? For pointing out the fact that there is a debate on the issue of anthropogenic global warming? For pointing out that, just as is the case with many issues near and dear to Leftists, it is they who seek to shut down debate and muzzle dissent, all the while accusing their opponents of doing so? Sorry...I've nothing to apologize for. You're free to educate yourself on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 18, 2007 21:50:58 GMT -5
My feeling is this is just another fear tacktic to make the people fall in line. If I am wrong, so be it. Alabama just went through one of the coldest winters I can remember ( just because we did not have snow means nothing). I can remember winters (Thanksgiving) in the past when we were in shorts and playing touch football! Wake up! Numbers and events can be manipulated especially when those that count on those that were around to remember are dying out! www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/17/world-sees-warmest-winter-ever/
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 19, 2007 15:12:25 GMT -5
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
I have no problem with reading the opinions of the eco-hysterics, secure as I am that they are almost certainly wrong in both their methadology and their conclusions.
OTOH, the eco-hysterics are the ones who, under no circumstances, will permit themselves into being trapped into a reasoned and intelligent debate on the issue, certainly because such a debate would expose them as frauds with a political agenda driving their pabulum.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Mar 19, 2007 15:26:22 GMT -5
WOMI,
Since human beings have no impact on the climate or the global temperature one way or another, why is so much effort being made to argue against those who say otherwise? Seriously. You're right, there's nothing unnatural occuring, so does it bother you so much that others think humans do contribute to what ails the plant? It just seems like so much wasted energy (hehe) when there are other "real" issues that could be focused upon if this is so much hog wash.
I realize I'm directing these questions to you, but I guess I'd ask the same of the other members here who feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 19, 2007 15:36:14 GMT -5
frag-
Valid question.
I'd say that most on my side of the debate would say that, first off, we simply are not sure to what degree man is affecting the climate, if at all, and to what degree man can 'clean up the mess he's made', if the mess is his.
We aren't necessarily saying that man has >NO< effect; our issue is with the other side saying that man and ONLY man is affecting climate change.
That dovetails with the reason why we're making the effort to coutner the unscientific and absurd claims made by Gore and others who believe as he does (i.e. the extreme eco-hysterics).
If no one had ever stood up and said that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, would not the terracentric theory have continued to be accepted as 'fact' for hundreds more years? What effects might such a misconceptions have had on science?
If all you ever hear is one side of the debate- and yes there is a debate- then isn't it logical to conclude, just as they want you to, that there is no longer any debate at all, that man and man alone are well on the way to destroying the planet unless we all dial the technological clcok back 100 years? Well, all of us save the 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese, that is.
Hey...if you want to replace your incandesent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs- and I have in many instances- go for it! if you want to fold youself up into a econobox car to get better mileage- go for it! If you want to buy bogus "carbon credits" to make yourself feel better- go for it! But I'm not for the government forcing me to do so and that's ultimately what Gore and the anti-capitalists intend to push for.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Mar 19, 2007 16:17:49 GMT -5
... our issue is with the other side saying that man and ONLY man is affecting climate change.... Ahem....you excluded flatulent cows...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 19, 2007 16:25:16 GMT -5
The point being is if Global Warming will mess up the equilibrium of the earth's systems to the point were there will be extinction, great loss of life or a much harder existence, then it needs to be determined if it can be stopped. If it can be stopped due to any man made causes, then depending on the scenarios above, different and more extreme measures need to be taken.
If Global Warming will not mess up the equilibrium of the earth's systems to the point were there will be extinction, great loss of life or a much harder existence, then actions taken are unnecessary and will make everyone's lives harder by taxation in order to implement these actions.
We really don't need another reason for our government to spend any more of our money or put more regulations on business.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 19, 2007 16:27:50 GMT -5
"Ahem....you excluded flatulent cows... "
That's man's fault too because we "farm" cows for their meat.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 19, 2007 16:31:58 GMT -5
We aren't necessarily saying that man has >NO< effect; our issue is with the other side saying that man and ONLY man is affecting climate change. I don't know anyone who thinks man is the only cause of global warming. Except maybe that straw man over there. Your argument seems to boil down to a huge international conspiracy involving virtually everyone in a position to know what they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 19, 2007 17:21:32 GMT -5
blondie, please state what exactly is YOUR position on this issue.
what are the other "causes" and what proportion does each account for please?
how come the IPCC makes the idiotic claim that they are 95% sure that human co2 is the driving force behind recent warming?
driving force would make it the main cause.
properly stated, co2 is ONE of countless factors involved in the climate, co2 is less than 1% of our atmosphere, the impact of co2 on global temperature is NOT KNOWN yet because we dont have the ability to assign all the factors their proper weight, because the climate is far too complex for us to understand yet.
ALL the science involved indicates that at MOST humans are a very TINY factor, and certainly NOT a controlling factor in any way!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 19, 2007 19:00:44 GMT -5
blondie, please state what exactly is YOUR position on this issue. what are the other "causes" and what proportion does each account for please? how come the IPCC makes the idiotic claim that they are 95% sure that human co2 is the driving force behind recent warming? driving force would make it the main cause. properly stated, co2 is ONE of countless factors involved in the climate, co2 is less than 1% of our atmosphere, the impact of co2 on global temperature is NOT KNOWN yet because we dont have the ability to assign all the factors their proper weight, because the climate is far too complex for us to understand yet. ALL the science involved indicates that at MOST humans are a very TINY factor, and certainly NOT a controlling factor in any way! www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 19, 2007 19:19:04 GMT -5
of course you have provided NOTHING but from the link.
"Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities."
there it is in black and white, the UTTERLY FALSE proven by science claim.
another little gem
"These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse."
the glass panels block CONVECTION, greenhouse gases DONT do that.
it is pointless to continue discussion with you blondie, you offer nothing but nonsense links and insults.
when asked for YOUR position on the issue giving a link to the epa website is INSULTING the concept of debate/discussion.
the epa is a government agency NOT science on any level, and my opinion, allowing ANY government do your thinking for you could be a definition of stupid.
notice just like before i NEVER called blondie any names and those making that claim have had ample time to show just one quote....still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 19, 2007 19:31:37 GMT -5
of course you have provided NOTHING but from the link. "Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities." there it is in black and white, the UTTERLY FALSE proven by science claim. it is pointless to continus discussion with you blondie, you offer nothing but nonsense links and insults. when asked for YOUR position on the issue giving a link to the epa website is INSULTING the concept of debate/discussion. billt, I've seen your fake science. I'm an American. I pay taxes. Part of my tax dollars go to hiring scientists in various specialized fields. I don't design rockets, but my tax dollars go to hiring experts in the field of rocket design. This system works just fine. You just pretend you're some kind of super science genius who's figured out all this amazing stuff that contradicts all the experts that have been studying it all their lives and have contributed to the real science. People that have written papers and submitted them to peer-reviewed journals. Incredibly intelligent people who have created computer simulations of climate patterns. Your position is absolutely ridiculous. The little "science" you've provided is designed to fool little kids. You'll never learn anything until you admit you don't know.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 20, 2007 15:47:09 GMT -5
... our issue is with the other side saying that man and ONLY man is affecting climate change.... Ahem....you excluded flatulent cows... You know you're right? PETA pointed this out. In the spirit of bipartisanship and reaching out to the other side, I'm going to do my part to 'solve' global warming by eating more prime rib!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 21, 2007 17:10:47 GMT -5
gore has gone off the deep end...today in front of congress he said, paraphrasing, we are burning a hole in the arctic, it is the main way our planet "cools itself".
mr. gore, the natural state of this planet is VERY COLD,, the natural movement of heat energy is FROM the heat source towards COLDER bodies....when you put an ice cube in a warm room does the room cool down to meet the temperature of the ice cube or does the ice cube MELT?
mr. gore, the artic does NOT cool the planet, the sun WARMS the planet, and the natural continuing process of heat movement ALWAYS has heat moving away from the surface towards the colder body(outer space).
the warmest places are near the equator and the coldest are the poles, again basic science, the heat moves towards to cold, NOT the other way around or the cold moving from the poles towards the equator(i am aware of ocean currents and understand some of that heat indeed melts ice and the oceans have a very cold water system moving all around the planet at great depths).
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 21:53:04 GMT -5
gore has gone off the deep end...today in front of congress he said, paraphrasing, we are burning a hole in the arctic, it is the main way our planet "cools itself". mr. gore, the natural state of this planet is VERY COLD,, the natural movement of heat energy is FROM the heat source towards COLDER bodies....when you put an ice cube in a warm room does the room cool down to meet the temperature of the ice cube or does the ice cube MELT? mr. gore, the artic does NOT cool the planet, the sun WARMS the planet, and the natural continuing process of heat movement ALWAYS has heat moving away from the surface towards the colder body(outer space). the warmest places are near the equator and the coldest are the poles, again basic science, the heat moves towards to cold, NOT the other way around or the cold moving from the poles towards the equator(i am aware of ocean currents and understand some of that heat indeed melts ice and the oceans have a very cold water system moving all around the planet at great depths). The depth of your misunderstanding of what's happening in the world is mind-boggling. Are you even interested in educating yourself about these matters?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 22, 2007 4:32:06 GMT -5
The depth of your misunderstanding of what's happening in the world is mind-boggling. Are you even interested in educating yourself about these matters? Translation: It boggles my mind that you could even consider continuing to live without MY understanding of what's happening in the world. "Educating yourself" is defined as getting into lockstep with me and my mainstream buddies.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 8:31:26 GMT -5
The depth of your misunderstanding of what's happening in the world is mind-boggling. Are you even interested in educating yourself about these matters? Translation: It boggles my mind that you could even consider continuing to live without MY understanding of what's happening in the world. "Educating yourself" is defined as getting into lockstep with me and my mainstream buddies. Translation: I think billt's a genius the way he tells that straw man blondie that heat rises and the equator is hotter than the poles. Those dumb straw liberals don't realize that makin' stuff up is just as good as all that book learnin' Look, heres's a crackpot on the other side of the planet that agrees with me. See that proves that everyone else is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 22, 2007 8:59:57 GMT -5
Look, heres's a crackpot on the other side of the planet that agrees with me. See that proves that everyone else is wrong. ah, yes....we are "chipper" again this morning, aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 22, 2007 10:03:51 GMT -5
Translation: It boggles my mind that you could even consider continuing to live without MY understanding of what's happening in the world. "Educating yourself" is defined as getting into lockstep with me and my mainstream buddies. Translation: I think billt's a genius the way he tells that straw man blondie that heat rises and the equator is hotter than the poles. Are you REALLY going to make yourself look like more of a dumb ass than you already do by insinuating that it's NOT hotter at the equator than at the poles and that heat DOESN'T rise? Come on, even YOU must understand that the poles are ice (cold) and the equator is closer to the sun (hot) and that heat rises because the colder the water vapors, the heavier they are, thus the RISE of hot air.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 22, 2007 10:34:29 GMT -5
I just read blondies comments on how heat travels.......LMAO
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 10:55:18 GMT -5
Translation: I think billt's a genius the way he tells that straw man blondie that heat rises and the equator is hotter than the poles. Are you REALLY going to make yourself look like more of a dumb ass than you already do by insinuating that it's NOT hotter at the equator than at the poles and that heat DOESN'T rise? Come on, even YOU must understand that the poles are ice (cold) and the equator is closer to the sun (hot) and that heat rises because the colder the water vapors, the heavier they are, thus the RISE of hot air. OK, I point out that billt thinks that people like me and Al Gore don't know that heat rises and the equator is hotter than the pole. Now, of course everyone above the age of 2 knows this. My point was that this is not only a straw man argument, but it's a bad one. Then DixiePixie calls me a "dumb ass" for being this straw man that billt imagines. Welcome my friend...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 11:04:33 GMT -5
I just read blondies comments on how heat travels.......LMAO Those weren't my comments. That was wise old owl billt.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 22, 2007 11:12:14 GMT -5
oh...sorry...I didnt read that
|
|