Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: Don't Forget, Climate Change is not Real

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4436338]for years we heard that global warming was not real.

    Then when the pictures kept circulating showing all the melting ice caps and rising sea levels it became "yes it is getting warmer....but man has nothing to do with it".

    Of course man has nothing to do with it. But the corporations that make billions producing coal, oil and natural gas have something to do with it. But since many of these companies make ridiculous profit they will not take kindly to pesky environmentalists trying to rain on their parade. One thing that these companies can do is buy influence (see lobbyists and politicians like James Inhofe (click on Inhofe's name);

    [url]http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=in&zip=&can=&com=&search=1&type=search[/url]

    And that money has been spent well.[/QUOTE]

    The earth over time has had periods of colder and hotter climates. It is unclear why. There was an Ice Age that ended around 11K years ago. There was a mini Ice age in the middle ages that lasted a few hundred years. Do carbon emissions cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere? The answer is not known at the moment.

    Here is an answer I know for sure. Will cap and balance/enviromentalist wacky solutions help the situation? Absolutely not. The world will continue to use cheaper carbon fuels until they run out. Any country that enacts these types of changes/reforms will simply not be competitive with their neighbors that don't and thus will lose power and eventually fail.

    This is the difference between your academic ideals and real world realities. China and India will never stop using these fuels. We have hundreds of years worth of natural gas here in the USA. I saw a segment on CNBC last week where cars can be converted to natural gas and get as much as 80 miles per gallon. You can fill them up at your house using the existing gas lines. Why would anyone buy an electric car when the electricity to fuel it costs the equivalent of $9 per gallon? The electric that the environmental wackos push as the future causes just as much pollution when it is produced as well.

    If you are so intelligent I ask you where is your common sense?

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mankind's activities have an impact on the content of the atmosphere and the environment contained therein. Pumping trillions of cubic feet of noxious smoke into the atmosphere every day can and will have a lasting effect.

    Just use common sense.

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4436380]Mankind's activities have an impact on the content of the atmosphere and the environment contained therein. Pumping trillions of cubic feet of noxious smoke into the atmosphere every day can and will have a lasting effect.

    Just use common sense.[/QUOTE]

    Don't forget all those trees we are cutting down. Trees and plants create oxygen and eat carbon dioxide. Therefore we should outlaw chopping trees. And in the USA because someone has a theory that carbon emissions are causing global warming we should pass more and more laws to stifle the use of carbon in America. Economy be damned. Let those other countries take all the business and jobs. At least we will have the moral high ground.

    Side note. This is sort of an odd thing to debate in that everyone knows pollution in general is a bad thing. As a people and world we should do everything possible to reduce pollution and recycle. There is no debate in that regard. Where things skew off is when we get to what needs to be done. You have people that think the world is in imminent risk of overheating and we should enact drastic measures to stop it. I love a good apocalypse scenario but IMO those types should be ridiculed with the truthers/conspiracy theorists/2012 apocalypsers/doomsday prepper types. The reason being that the idea of a man made global warming apocalypse is just an implausible as any other wacky apocalypse theory. Most are possible but extremely unlikely. The man made global warming apocalypse is no more likely to happen then say a meteor strike that ends the world as we know it. Same odds. The idea that we should completely overhaul the way the world powers itself based on some apocalyptic theory is absurd. The world as a whole would never follow. It will never work. The idea is absurd to anyone that understands economics.

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mianus CT
    Posts
    7,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    watched a really good documentary on this last week called the age of stupid.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4436338]for years we heard that global warming was not real.
    [/QUOTE]

    LOL.

    No. What happened and what continues to happen is that some people have their minds so made up about something that they don't even bother to listen to the stance the opposition is making. So much so that they are arguing against a phantom position that the opposition is not taking in the first place. God forbid you should consider someone else's viewpoint and maybe learn something.

    Goes something like this.

    "I have new evidence that global warming is real"

    "No, you don't. The science you're using is flawed/biased/politically motivated. Nothing in your study proves that man is to blame for the current warming trend"

    "You're wrong! The planet is warming! It was 75 degrees last Wednesday in Peoria, Illinois. How can you not see it is warmer?"

    "Small sample size and anectodes don't tell me anything. Especially in the grand scheme of a multi-billion year old planet that has heated and cooled for its entire history"

    "You dumb hick! You don't know anything! You probably don't believe in evolution!"

    "I do believe in evolution. Because there is a strong scientific basis for the theory. This does not exist for man-caused climate change"

    "How can you not believe it! The polar ice caps are melting"

    "I do believe they are melting. They'll probably grow again at som point too. But there isn't any reason to believe that they're melting now for a different reason than they've melted for before"

    "But the ice caps are melting you inbred religious windbag! Put down your Jesus and realize that corporations are killing our planet! We must institute governmental policy, even if it stifles the economy, or the Antartic jellyfish will be threatened with a 5% population drop!"

    "Wouldn't it make more sense to implement policy based on proven (or even reasonable) science, instead of lies?"

    "It's the truth! The planet is getting warmer!"

    "That's not what we're discussing"

    "Yes it is! You said it was a lie that climate change exists"

    "No, that's not what I said"

    "Yes it is! We're going to all die! And you don't even care!"

    Yawn. Same old story. The opening post of this thread drives the point home.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4436496]LOL.

    No. What happened and what continues to happen is that some people have their minds so made up about something that they don't even bother to listen to the stance the opposition is making. So much so that they are arguing against a phantom position that the opposition is not taking in the first place. God forbid you should consider someone else's viewpoint and maybe learn something.

    Goes something like this.

    "I have new evidence that global warming is real"

    "No, you don't. The science you're using is flawed/biased/politically motivated. Nothing in your study proves that man is to blame for the current warming trend"

    "You're wrong! The planet is warming! It was 75 degrees last Wednesday in Peoria, Illinois. How can you not see it is warmer?"

    "Small sample size and anectodes don't tell me anything. Especially in the grand scheme of a multi-billion year old planet that has heated and cooled for its entire history"

    "You dumb hick! You don't know anything! You probably don't believe in evolution!"

    "I do believe in evolution. Because there is a strong scientific basis for the theory. This does not exist for man-caused climate change"

    "How can you not believe it! The polar ice caps are melting"

    "I do believe they are melting. They'll probably grow again at som point too. But there isn't any reason to believe that they're melting now for a different reason than they've melted for before"

    "But the ice caps are melting you inbred religious windbag! Put down your Jesus and realize that corporations are killing our planet! We must institute governmental policy, even if it stifles the economy, or the Antartic jellyfish will be threatened with a 5% population drop!"

    "Wouldn't it make more sense to implement policy based on proven (or even reasonable) science, instead of lies?"

    "It's the truth! The planet is getting warmer!"

    "That's not what we're discussing"

    "Yes it is! You said it was a lie that climate change exists"

    "No, that's not what I said"

    "Yes it is! We're going to all die! And you don't even care!"

    Yawn. Same old story. The opening post of this thread drives the point home.[/QUOTE]

    Homerun.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4436496]LOL.

    No. What happened and what continues to happen is that some people have their minds so made up about something that they don't even bother to listen to the stance the opposition is making. So much so that they are arguing against a phantom position that the opposition is not taking in the first place. God forbid you should consider someone else's viewpoint and maybe learn something.

    Goes something like this.

    "I have new evidence that global warming is real"

    "No, you don't. The science you're using is flawed/biased/politically motivated. Nothing in your study proves that man is to blame for the current warming trend"

    "You're wrong! The planet is warming! It was 75 degrees last Wednesday in Peoria, Illinois. How can you not see it is warmer?"

    "Small sample size and anectodes don't tell me anything. Especially in the grand scheme of a multi-billion year old planet that has heated and cooled for its entire history"

    "You dumb hick! You don't know anything! You probably don't believe in evolution!"

    "I do believe in evolution. Because there is a strong scientific basis for the theory. This does not exist for man-caused climate change"

    "How can you not believe it! The polar ice caps are melting"

    "I do believe they are melting. They'll probably grow again at som point too. But there isn't any reason to believe that they're melting now for a different reason than they've melted for before"

    "But the ice caps are melting you inbred religious windbag! Put down your Jesus and realize that corporations are killing our planet! We must institute governmental policy, even if it stifles the economy, or the Antartic jellyfish will be threatened with a 5% population drop!"

    "Wouldn't it make more sense to implement policy based on proven (or even reasonable) science, instead of lies?"

    "It's the truth! The planet is getting warmer!"

    "That's not what we're discussing"

    "Yes it is! You said it was a lie that climate change exists"

    "No, that's not what I said"

    "Yes it is! We're going to all die! And you don't even care!"

    Yawn. Same old story. The opening post of this thread drives the point home.[/QUOTE]

    Nailed it

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4436496]LOL.

    No. What happened and what continues to happen is that some people have their minds so made up about something that they don't even bother to listen to the stance the opposition is making. So much so that they are arguing against a phantom position that the opposition is not taking in the first place. God forbid you should consider someone else's viewpoint and maybe learn something.

    Goes something like this.

    "I have new evidence that global warming is real"

    "No, you don't. The science you're using is flawed/biased/politically motivated. Nothing in your study proves that man is to blame for the current warming trend"

    "You're wrong! The planet is warming! It was 75 degrees last Wednesday in Peoria, Illinois. How can you not see it is warmer?"

    "Small sample size and anectodes don't tell me anything. Especially in the grand scheme of a multi-billion year old planet that has heated and cooled for its entire history"

    "You dumb hick! You don't know anything! You probably don't believe in evolution!"

    "I do believe in evolution. Because there is a strong scientific basis for the theory. This does not exist for man-caused climate change"

    "How can you not believe it! The polar ice caps are melting"

    "I do believe they are melting. They'll probably grow again at som point too. But there isn't any reason to believe that they're melting now for a different reason than they've melted for before"

    "But the ice caps are melting you inbred religious windbag! Put down your Jesus and realize that corporations are killing our planet! We must institute governmental policy, even if it stifles the economy, or the Antartic jellyfish will be threatened with a 5% population drop!"

    "Wouldn't it make more sense to implement policy based on proven (or even reasonable) science, instead of lies?"

    "It's the truth! The planet is getting warmer!"

    "That's not what we're discussing"

    "Yes it is! You said it was a lie that climate change exists"

    "No, that's not what I said"

    "Yes it is! We're going to all die! And you don't even care!"

    Yawn. Same old story. The opening post of this thread drives the point home.[/QUOTE]

    This should be stickied. :yes:

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is so much garbage in the media from the misinformation campaigns that its no wonder some posters here are regurgitating information that is simply [B]false[/B]. The point I made is that coal, gas and oil have [B]contributed[/B], at least in part, to the climate change. I find it fascinating that some posters can sniff out all these conspiracy theories about environmentalists and climate change yet fail to see the influence of big oil companies on crafting public opinion.

    And despite all the back slapping and congratulating among our conservative posters ("nailed it", "This should be stickied", "homerun" etc, etc) you have given zero evidence to back up your beliefs. But here is some actual data, with links, to prove my point. The following is a link from Politifact, a site that won the Pulitzer Prize. It is a response to Tim Pawlenty's claim that evidence points toward climate change being a natural, rather than man-made, phenomenon

    [I]To check the first claim, we turned to the most recent report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body considered the leading international organization on climate science. "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," the 2007 report states. "The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone." (External forcing refers to anything that changes the climate that is outside of the normal climate system.)

    In the United States, the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates federal research on climate. Its 2009 report mirrored the IPCC’s conclusions: "Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

    The IPCC report states that the period from 1995 to 2006 contains 11 of the 12 warmest years on record since instrumental measurement began in 1850. It concluded that global surface temperature rose 0.76 degrees Celsius from the end of the 19th century (1850-1899) to the beginning of the 21st (2001-2005). The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s report similarly found that the average global temperature increase by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

    While these temperature changes may sound small, keep in mind that these are averages. The rise in temperature, and its visible effects, are more pronounced in certain parts of the world than in others. The polar ice sheets are particularly vulnerable to temperature increases. Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice from 2002 to 2006 while Antarctica lost 36 cubic miles of ice during roughly the same time period.

    Brian Soden, a professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami, was one of the many scientific contributors to the 2007 IPCC report.

    "The rise in global mean temperature since the 19th century may seem small, and projections of global mean warming over the next century range from 2 to 5 degrees Celsius," Soden said. "One way to put these numbers into perspective is to realize that the current climate is now only about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it was during the last ‘glacial maximum’ (approximately 20,000 years ago) when ice covered much of North America extending all the way down to St Louis."

    If you’ve been following the debate recently, you may remember that climate research on temperature was called into question in 2009 when stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research United at the University of East Anglia were released on the Internet. Global warming skeptics said the e-mails showed climate researchers were manipulating data.

    But several inquiries debunked those allegations, including those conducted by the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania State University, and the InterAcademy Council. The inquiries found that while the scientists had made rude remarks about people who questioned climate change, they were not falsifying data. A few reports recommended greater transparency and sharing of climatic data, but the independent investigations exonerated the researchers of falsifying data.

    We looked into the work of the most prominent and best credentialed people who have questioned the IPCC’s conclusions on global warming. Generally speaking, even these scientists do not claim that humans are making no contribution at all to rising temperatures. Rather, they tend to make more nuanced points. They question whether carbon emissions alone are driving up temperatures, or whether other human activities contribute as well. They question whether extreme weather events such as storms or floods can be conclusively linked to rising temperatures. And, they question whether significant changes to public policy are necessary as a means of coping with rising temperatures.[/I]

    [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-16-2012 at 09:42 PM.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oil and its production are a necessary evil. Alternative energies are not to the point where they are practical. My brother installed solar a year ago. His out of pocket expense was $15k after the rebates. The average person does not have that kind of money to invest in something that is only a partial solution. Battery operated cars are considerably more expensive and much uglier than their gas counterparts.

    But anyone who denies the role of fossil fuels in the deterioration of the environment is just ignorant.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4436560]This should be stickied. :yes:[/QUOTE]

    Know what else I love about this thread? The attempt at recovery from disaster.

    Guy comes back after being told he's arguing nothing with no one, and the response is "well, that's what we [I]used to hear[/I] all the time". I guess our side, we've since changed our story. It can't be that this is what we've always been saying and this is just the first time he bothered to hear it. Probably we just came up with this new man-made part of it, because at some point, he's proven us wrong and that oil corporations are indeed melting the planet because a study paid for by an ethanol conglomerate told him so and used big words like "science" in doing so.

    So, despite that, he wants to revisit the [I]old[/I] argument. He wants to win that one that again. I guess. Forget about the current conversation. He hasn't yet gotten to that episode of MSNBC's MotherEarth (brought to you by Vagasil and happy penguins everywhere) that tells the good, caring people how to respond to the dumb, gun-toting conservatives' new thing. So in the mean time, let's go back to what they [I]used to[/I] say and fight that. I'll show you! I'm intelligent!

    :rolleyes:

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url]http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/[/url]

    [QUOTE][B]The role of human activity[/B]

    In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

    The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

    They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at [url]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf[/url].

    [/QUOTE]

    NASA says "we don't know for sure, but 90% of scientists agree that human activity does have an impact on global warming".

    Now perhaps these scientists are wrong. And if they are, we would have wasted a lot of time, energy and regulation during a recession to address a problem we didn't have to. If they're right though, then the downside is far worse than wasted money or seemingly stifling business regulation.

    It seems like many Conservatives refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that humanity has an effect on climate change, even though the risk/downside to ignoring it is far greater than the risk/downside to responding to a false panic motivated by politics.

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    The biggest tragedy regarding the Climate Change debate is the complete politicization of a mostly straightforward topic. If the facts are viewed objectively, the conclusion of man-made climate change is logically sound and in all likelihood correct.

    The facts are humans have raised carbon dioxide levels by 40% in the past 150 years, and these current levels are unprecedented for at least the past 800,000 years.

    Is it possible that these factors have a negligible effect on a coinciding, naturally occurring warming trend over the past two centuries? Yes, but our basic scientific understanding of greenhouse gases points to a logical relation between the two phenomenon.

    Instead of focusing on realistic modeling, comprehensive analysis, and sound long term strategies, one side turns to overblown hysteria and propositions of radical change while the other side turns to denial and protection of the status quo.

    In the end, we are left with unproductive bickering and an unresolved stalemate. Reason turns a blind eye.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    The mna made climate change people are basing their predictions on computer models that have never been proven to be right, flawed and fudged data and outright lies have been proven to exist because the cause was more important that the reality.

    If you look at the data CO2 rise has actually followed not preceded the temperature increases. Temperatures are actually lower than the average over the past 10000 years. Warming has stalled. We were emerging from a mini ice age.

    [INDENT] [QUOTE]Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.[/QUOTE][/INDENT]This is Easterbrook’s Fig 4:
    [IMG]http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig41.jpg[/IMG]


    I have yet to hear how a slight increase in global temperature is necessarily a bad thing. Alarmists predict more hurricanes but evidence is to the contrary. What is known is that people are starving around the world and as was seen in the medieval warming period (due to over flatulent horses) is that the warmer temperatures created longer growing periods and thus less starvation.

    It is a cycle. No suggested "solution" has been proven to make a bit of difference even in the models but they all come at a ridiculous price. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,264
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NOAA has declared this past March the coolest worldwide since 1999.

    Just sayin..... :rolleyes:

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    IGF, one question yes or no answer. Do the sources you list above have a vested (financial) interest in this? remember, yes or no. I remind you again that Big al netted a cool 1/2 bil. and bought a [B]seafront[/B] home on this "issue" and that's chicken feed compared to the $$$$ being throw at this "problem" by the U.S. taxpayer.
    Last edited by acepepe; 04-17-2012 at 11:27 AM.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;4436980]The biggest tragedy regarding the Climate Change debate is the complete politicization of a mostly straightforward topic. If the facts are viewed objectively, the conclusion of man-made climate change is logically sound and in all likelihood correct.[/QUOTE]

    Nope. You're mistaken. The biggest tragedy, agreed by the bipartisan scientific community, is the misrepresentation, the lies and misdirection labeled with the term "science". We're disgusted by it. On both sides of the aisle. When looked at objectively, any and all scientific minds come to the same conclusion: there isn't any compelling scientific evidence that exists that shows that man has had or is having a significant impact on the current warming cycle.

    We're not offended by the theory as conservatives. We're offended as scientists. We're offended that certain members of the science community have decided to put politics and money ahead of sound scientific data collection and presentation.

    The onus is on proponents of that idea to prove that it is happening. It isn't on anyone else to prove that it isn't. This planet has undergone the same type of temperature cycles for billions of years. And this isn't even the hottest one. It happened before human history and it will continue to after we die off. When you come with wild proposals based in bad science, it's your job to come with real evidence of your idea. Before you have a temper tantrum and try to inflict governmental policy based on it.

    Earth. It's much bigger than us. More powerful. Equilibrium will always be its goal. We're powerless to stop that. It's amazing how much we think of ourselves when we're so, so, so insignificant. Insects alone put more CO2 in the air than our corporations ever could. But at the end of it all, we'll all be gone, and it will still be here.

    That's not to say we shouldn't strive to minimize our impact, but primarily because the damage we do is mostly to ourselves. When it comes to polluting the environment, we're harming ourselves on local levels. We'll get lung cancer, skin cancer, etc. etc. and die. The planet will recover. But none of this changes the core of this debate: this is a classic case of bad science being rammed down the throats of people who are willing and able to believe it for political purposes.

    Enough with the nonsense.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 04-17-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4437186]When looked at objectively, any and all scientific minds come to the same conclusion: there isn't any compelling scientific evidence that exists that shows that man has had or is having a significant impact on the current warming cycle.[/QUOTE]

    Disagreed, this is simply not true.

    [QUOTE]We're not offended by the theory as conservatives. We're offended as scientists. We're offended that certain members of the science community have decided to put politics and money ahead of sound scientific data collection and presentation.

    The onus is on proponents of that idea to prove that it is happening. It isn't on anyone else to prove that it isn't. This planet has undergone the same type of temperature cycles for billions of years. And this isn't even the hottest one. It happened before human history and it will continue to after we die off. When you come with wild proposals based in bad science, it's your job to come with real evidence of your idea. Before you have a temper tantrum and try to inflict governmental policy based on it.[/QUOTE]

    In general, I think we agree more than we disagree.

    There is a plethora of sound scientific data collection and presentation dealing with the causes of global warming. Unfortunately, it is drowned out far too often by the vocal doom and gloom crowd.

    In my opinion, the misrepresentation and disingenuity lies within the hysterical hypotheticals, predictions of devastation, and severity of the issue, not within the theorized causation.

    [QUOTE]Earth. It's much bigger than us. More powerful. Equilibrium will always be its goal. We're powerless to stop that. It's amazing how much we think of ourselves when we're so, so, so insignificant. Insects alone put more CO2 in the air than our corporations ever could. But at the end of it all, we'll all be gone, and it will still be here.

    That's not to say we shouldn't strive to minimize our impact, but primarily because the damage we do is mostly to ourselves. When it comes to polluting the environment, we're harming ourselves on local levels. We'll get lung cancer, skin cancer, etc. etc. and die. The planet will recover. But none of this changes the core of this debate: this is a classic case of bad science being rammed down the throats of people who are willing and able to believe it for political purposes.

    Enough with the nonsense.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4436953][url]http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/[/url]



    NASA says "we don't know for sure, but 90% of scientists agree that human activity does have an impact on global warming".

    Now perhaps these scientists are wrong. And if they are, we would have wasted a lot of time, energy and regulation during a recession to address a problem we didn't have to. If they're right though, then the downside is far worse than wasted money or seemingly stifling business regulation.

    It seems like many Conservatives refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that humanity has an effect on climate change, even though the risk/downside to ignoring it is far greater than the risk/downside to responding to a false panic motivated by politics.[/QUOTE]

    You make a perfect case here for why the looney man made global warming people should be ignored. You are saying here that even just a possibility that man somehow is effecting global temperatures is a call to action.

    Then you say that the risk of ignoring the threat is greater than the risk of responding to a false panic.

    You have no clue what the risks and consequences are. Your looney environmentalist politicians would have us put heavy taxes and penalties on carbon based fuels. They would purposefully drive the prices up in order to make alternatives more viable. They are already working and succeeding at stifling the exploitation of American carbon based fuels by shutting down coal fired power plants and blocking attempts as new drilling in Anwar, offshore and Fracking locations. They would crush USofAmerica's ability to compete globally in manufacturing and other energy heavy industries. They would drive the cost of energy up for the middle class that already is burdened in this country by massive health care expenses. You would drive our economy in to the crapper based on the possibility that maybe man is contributing to a warming of the earth and the even less likely possibility that this will lead to some sort of apocalyptic scenario. Even worse is the FACT that no matter what a single country does many others won't follow suit. So all of the penalties and taxes your ilk wants to inflict on our country wont amount to a hill of beans. It wont stop whatever imaginary or not effect you are attempting to slow. It is a complete waste of time and money.

    As i said before there are plenty of unlikely but plausible scenarios that we could be preparing for. Alien invasion, an EMP that takes out our power grid, an apocalyptic meteorite strike, a reversal of the magnetic poles, a catastrophic volcano explosion, or any of the other plausible but extremely unlikely scenarios. You don't kill the economy based on unproven theories. It is absurd and self indulgent for uber libs and their kool aid drinking followers.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 04-17-2012 at 02:06 PM.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4437381]You make a perfect case here for why the looney man made global warming people should be ignored. You are saying here that even just a possibility that man somehow is effecting global temperatures is a call to action.

    Then you say that the risk of ignoring the threat is greater than the risk of responding to a false panic.

    You have no clue what the risks and consequences are. Your looney environmentalist politicians would have us put heavy taxes and penalties on carbon based fuels. They would purposefully drive the prices up in order to make alternatives more viable. They are already working and succeeding at stifling the exploitation of American carbon based fuels by shutting down coal fired power plants and blocking attempts as new drilling in Anwar, offshore and Fracking locations. They would crush USofAmerica's ability to compete globally in manufacturing and other energy heavy industries. They would drive the cost of energy up for the middle class that already is burdened in this country by massive health care expenses. You would drive our economy in to the crapper based on the possibility that maybe man is contributing to a warming of the earth and the even less likely possibility that this will lead to some sort of apocalyptic scenario. Even worse is the FACT that no matter what a single country does many others won't follow suit. So all of the penalties and taxes your ilk wants to inflict on our country wont amount to a hill of beans. It wont stop whatever imaginary or not effect you are attempting to slow. It is a complete waste of time and money.

    As i said before there are plenty of unlikely but plausible scenarios that we could be preparing for. Alien invasion, an EMP that takes out our power grid, an apocalyptic meteorite strike, a reversal of the magnetic poles, a catastrophic volcano explosion, or any of the other plausible but extremely unlikely scenarios. You don't kill the economy based on unproven theories. It is absurd and self indulgent for uber libs and their kool aid drinking followers.[/QUOTE]

    I have also heard it proposed that if global warming is man made then perhaps it brought us out of the little ice age much sooner than would have happened naturally and we have been reaping the benefits of that for a couple of centuries now.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us