Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: if Global Warming is junk science

  1. #21
    5ever

    by the time this empirical evidence is available... the damage will be too large to stop

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 02:49 PM
    [b] 5ever

    by the time this empirical evidence is available... the damage will be too large to stop [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti -


    So, you are advocating an aggressively pro-active stance based on incomplete and unverified information and evidence? Shouldn't we wait until the threat is "imminent?

    Why, you aren't advocating a policy of pre-emption as a method of solving serious problems facing our country, are you? ;)

  3. #23
    funny stuff

    5ever global cooling is only one of many compelling reasons for this country to cut down on greenhouse gas emmissions

    billions of dollars for asthma
    hundreds of millions manhours lost in traffic jams
    terrorism

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 03:17 PM
    [b] Weeb please lets link it out

    your one link was from 1997 and affiliated with no major scientific institution

    my links are from NASA and other reputable sources and they are from 2003.

    you agree to disagree that's fine

    but make no mistake

    the Pentegon "believes" in the idea of Global Warming/Cooling enough to start planning for it..

    and that means nothing to you??? :blink:

    its not about controling the way people live their life - its about averting a sudden global tragedy that will affect everyone.

    [b]the most telling proof that global warming is real:

    junkscience.com (which was founded basically to refute global warming)

    has removed any and all content related to the phenomenon!

    go ahead check it out... search Global Warming... see what comes up

    the bottom line is its not junk science ... its REAL science.[/b] [/b][/quote]
    [url=http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]Junkscience.com (Wrong again, bit)[/url]

    [i]Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.[/i]

    [url=http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/27mar2002.html]Accuracy in Media[/url]

    [i]"Environmentalists predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." -Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry in 1993. [/i]

    [url=http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm]Oregon Institute of [b]Science[/b][/url]

    [i]... over 17,000 [b]scientists [/b]declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.[/i]

    [url=http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030706-104800-1073r.htm]Washington Times[/url]

    [i]As science journalist Ron Bailey points out: "Evidently, the strategy being used by Santer et al. is that if their models don't agree with the data, then change the data." Our hope is that Congress does not buy into this shell game. [/i]

    [url=http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html]Science & Environmental Policy Project[/url]

    [i]More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition urges the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with the Senate Resolution, approved by a 95-to-0 vote last July, which turns down any international agreement that damages the economy of the United States [b]while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India, and Brazil[/b]. [/i]

    [url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html]National Policy Org[/url]

    [i]But perhaps even more important than whether or not scientists have reached a consensus, however, is whether or not the scientific data backs up the theory. Data collected from NASA's TIROs series of weather satellites show a slight cooling trend of .04 degrees Celsius over the past 18 years. These findings have been confirmed by weather balloons.[/i]

  5. #25
    hey weeb no problem you believe junkscience.com from 1997 ill believe NASA and the pentegon in 2003 <_<

    whatever floats yer boat buddy

  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,255
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 31 2004, 04:49 PM
    [b] ill believe...the pentegon in 2003 [/b][/quote]
    Umm...bit? I can&#39;t quite put my finger on what stands out to me as, uh, "inconsistent" about this quote from you. Maybe you can help...

  7. #27
    shakin i respect the pentegon and always have... didn&#39;t we have this convo about how rumsfeld was an awful senator but a fantastic DoD - Cheney, Wolfy, Jorge Arbusto... they aren&#39;t affilitated with the pentegon, they just tell it what to do.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 31 2004, 04:49 PM
    [b] hey weeb no problem you believe junkscience.com from 1997 ill believe NASA and the pentegon in 2003 <_<

    whatever floats yer boat buddy [/b][/quote]
    You said (inaccurately) that junkscience.com dropped reporting on global warming implying that the theory is true and therefore not junk science. I took your challenge and you lost&#33;

    The Pentagon and NASA reports DO NOT SAY that any warming trend they observe is caused by man made greenhouse gases/pollution.

    This is the problem with liberals: take a theory/rumor that justifies your bias, manipulate the data, repeat it a million times, get the media to report on it and you have an instant million true believers.

    You believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike - if it agrees with your bias. The Pentagon also believes in the reason[b]s[/b] to go to war in Iraq. So if you trust the Pentagon&#39;s conclusions about everything, you must also believe in their stance on the threat of Saddam.

    Whatever melts your iceberg, buddy.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti -

    You&#39;ll find this interesting:

    [url=http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1276]http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1276[/url]

  10. #30
    good link - if you read the link within a link there is alot in there that doesn&#39;t get reposted in the new republic article... the article basically says

    "clean air act working... but MORE needs to be done"

    i&#39;ve never said differently... its gonna be all about buying and selling of pollution allotments and the corporate world knows this and has begun to prepare its infrastructure for this inevitability.

    what really needs to occur is the stuff that the article states that doesn&#39;t make it into the NR link - doubling of the EPA budget, increased restrictions on Motor vehicle emmissions... im not exactly holding my breath on that...

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