Global Warming - Page 4

GovernmentCheese · #31 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by GovernmentCheese";p=&quot

It is not very libertarian of you to advocate that any state can or can't control what products people must buy. by the way, I think I am smart enough to turn things off or on when I'm not using them. I don't need the government to regulate me on that but thanks for being so concerned.

heck i'll go back to using candles and no computer. good times

I advocate self regulation not Governmental Regulation.

The processes for renewable energy are high tech not low tech back to the cave solutions.

thats why you advocate it being put into law

good gosh

DuH2 · #32 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 05:04 PM

you have to be intentionally blinding yourself not to see the poltical gain and financial gain to be had in this for "liberals/Democrats"

raytri · #33 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Defender";p=&quot

Link? BTW, this discussion is about global w-a-r-m-i-n-g, not global logging.

Hey, you brought it up. The link:
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/article...sid=26&sid=ENV

An area the size of England is deforested each year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Defender";p=&quot

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

Your link is a.... blog by Orson Scott Card. With the two standard "I'm making stuff up" claims that a) I'm not providing proof, but the reader can verify this story himself and b) it was going to be published in a respected science journal but then the powers that be decided it was a Secret Man Was Not Meant To Know.

It finally references a chapter in a book by global-warming skeptics.

Oh, and I see you used the same source for your "global temperatures have been falling" assertion. Fabulous. I notice you flat out ignore the NASA graph I linked to.

Quote:

"Consensus" is nothing more than popular vote.........never an accepted scientific method of determining anything, except maybe the original flat-earth theory.

It is, however, a valid way to describe the state of the science in a given field. Which is a good way to convey scientific opinion to laymen.

gmb92 · #34 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

80% of all know scientists agree. If it's good enough for cats it's good enough for me.

Actually, the consensus on anthropogenic warming is much higher than 80%. 99.9% is more accurate. The tiny minority of actual scientists (Lindzen, Ball, Singer, etc.) is just recycled many times by various media sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

gmb92 · #35 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Defender";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

Global warming is a Liberal conspiracy.

The gains that liberals/Democrats make from pushing this theory is

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

No sorry, I couldn't think of any ........

I can:

1. Use of the scam to demonize Conservatives.

2. Gives Algore yet another "cause" to run for President on, that will impress those he knows are gullible enough to believe thousands of years of Earth's and Mars's climate changes suddenly don't matter.

3. Another foothold Socialists have to try forcing free societies to give up their freedom and wealth in impowering the Socialist/Liberal elitist manipulators.

4. Another in a long list of excuses to keep taxing defenseless wage-earners in order to continue and increase the flow of funding to the Liberal hoaxers.

5. To prevent poor nations like Africa from developing usable and industrial strength power to pull themselves out of the clutches of starvation, proving capitalism the economic savior. Starving people are good for Liberal/Socialist PR as they can continue to blame it on Conservatives and productive societies.

The main "gain" for liberals is the global warming scam gives them another way of demonizing the U.S., the country Liberals always want to punish for being productive and successful in proving European socialism and oppressive dictatorships to be causing the economic and moral atrophy they have always produced.

If you really care about this (and I'm quite sure you don't), check out this BBC TV production that will never see daylite through the Democrat Campaign media in the US. It has testimony from many scholars (whose names are listed by the scammers in their "consensus") that clearly state their scientific opposition and evidence proving the scam. They are such right-wing extremists as the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Video "The Great Global Warming Swindle:"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+swindle

Then take a look at the actual scientific challenges to the un-supported scam by the UN's IPCC:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printe...rwatch/2007-03
-04-1.html

The Global Warming Scam is referred to as a "religion" because it's followers believe it by faith alone.................there's ZERO evidence.

Does this post help fill your "thinking" void?

There is a "Conspiracy Theories" section for this nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me what some are so willing to believe.

The Durkin film was covered in another thread. Interviewed in the film were some of the known handful of skeptics (recycled repeatedly in various media sources) along with selected journalists and politicians. In at least one case, the view of a scientist interviewed (Carl Wunsch) was deliberatley misrepresented.

Carl Wunsch:

Quote:

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...o_channel4.htm

DuH2 · #36 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 09:33 PM

Wow 80% of scientist agree..no no 99.9%.

Wonderul...so if anyone including them ever finds anything that discredits what they agree with they will ignore it.

Oh look its already occuring......

IOW if your to be believed we have entered an age where instead of the church we have the scientists that you are not to question.

I don't trust any "scientist" with an issue like this who says something is x and that is that....as I don't trust any polticians or obvious poltically motivated individuals who do the same.

The primary motivation of the Kyoto agreement nonsense is to hinder developed economies while not hindeirng developing economies. Its clear as day and obvious that most of the developing nations including China and India liek it for that reason and that reason alone.

ashleykennedy · #37 (**permalink**) 03-20-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmb92";p=&quot

Quote:

80% of all know scientists agree. If it's good enough for cats it's good enough for me.

Actually, the consensus on anthropogenic warming is much higher than 80%. 99.9% is more accurate. The tiny minority of actual scientists (Lindzen, Ball, Singer, etc.) is just recycled many times by various media sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Actually I was taking the mickey. The sentence was based on an advert about a cat food.

I take it that you don't get wiskas in the US.

MannieD · #38 (**permalink**) 03-21-2007, 02:27 AM

Now let me get this straight. BB and TD link to a discredited video, blogs and a small minority of scientists as "proof" against AGW and the people who who accept AGW link to a report where over 99% of the scientists, who've gone through the peer review process and the ones that accept AGW are members of a religion? Yup, sounds just about right for Neocons. Spin the truth and the evidence, personal attacks and keep repeating the lies over and over and hope someone believes them.