I was checking a few things out and found this. Very interesting video. long but worth watching. (1hr 14min.)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+Swindle
Printable View
I was checking a few things out and found this. Very interesting video. long but worth watching. (1hr 14min.)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+Swindle
Perhaps you could sum it up? I didn't even give Al Gore and 1hr 15min.
However, I believe logic dictates 200 hundred years of unlimited building and exhaustive use of natural resources coupled with mind-boggling pollution and over population, easily indicate mankind has to either become responsible for his environment, or risk losing it. I don't need Al Gore or whoever the heck that is in your link to give me an all warm and fuzzy.
You can turn it on and just listen to what they say in the background while posting/posing ect. :jawdrop:
And no, Al Gore is only included as an example of what is wrong. As usual he is just another political dimwit following the money trail. The only thing Green about Gore is it's what he likes to line his pockets with.
Perhaps you could sum it up? I didn't even give Al Gore and 1hr 15min.
However, I believe logic dictates 200 hundred years of.....
Always with the history from you.:rolleyes: What gives??
I fail to see how industrial production and resultant Co2 is changing global weather patterns.
It's an endless circle jerk. The local brain trust can find plenty of umbrella wearing pundits and pseudo scientists to tell them global warming is a plot by the left to somehow swindle them out of their rights to rip apart Lake Tahoe and the Yosemite National Park for a years worth of diesel oil. And I can find plenty of pseudo scientists and pundits that say just the opposite. That y'all want to live for the day. To hell with what you leave in your wake.
I guess it's back to instinct?
It's an endless circle jerk. The local brain trust can find plenty of umbrella wearing pundits and pseudo scientists to tell them global warming is a plot by the left to somehow swindle them out of their rights to rip apart Lake Tahoe and the Yosemite National Park for a years worth of diesel oil. And I can find plenty of pseudo scientists and pundits that say just the opposite. That y'all want to live for the day. To hell with what you leave in your wake.
I guess it's back to instinct?
So what's your personal contribution to saving the environment, "Paper or Plastic"?
You wouldn't believe it if I told you. So I won't. ;)
So now well-reputed, highly experienced METEOROLOGICAL scientists are "pseudo-scientists" and, as usual, poser has nothing of value to add.
Kinda like the people who take the word of a philosophy and astro-physics professor about why a 110 story building on fire fell instead of a man with 30 years of practical experience making large buildings fall down.
I can guarantee that film will NOT be seeing any Oscar nominations any time soon, yet Algore and Mikey Moore get nominated, and the liberal thinkers and socialists think that is somehow not unusual.:idea:
You wanna see global warming? come to this effin frozen tundra of a state I live in, if buring tires and shit would warm it up, I am going to burn all I can.:mad:
So now well-reputed, highly experienced METEOROLOGICAL scientists are "pseudo-scientists" and, as usual, poser has nothing of value to add.
Kinda like the people who take the word of a philosophy and astro-physics professor about why a 110 story building on fire fell instead of a man with 30 years of practical experience making large buildings fall down.
I can guarantee that film will NOT be seeing any Oscar nominations any time soon, yet Algore and Mikey Moore get nominated, and the liberal thinkers and socialists think that is somehow not unusual.:idea:
Aren't you afraid you'll hurt my feelings?
Between googling "Republicans on parole" and "being conservative for dummies", take some time out and see how many legitimate scientists believe global warming is a concern compared to those who don't. Political aspirations aside. Global warming isn't your real concern anyway. What you're worried about is potential lost profits from exploitating natural resources. You don't give a shit what kind of world you leave behind. That's basically it. Something you'll never admit. But something we know anyway. So, that being said, I'll not waste time getting you to care about something you think was put here for your personal use and no one else's. What's unbelievable is most of you have kids. Screw all the politician assholes. Walk out in the world and make a decision on your own based on your own observations. Quit googling for some asshole with a financial agenda to agree with you.
Aren't you afraid you'll hurt my feelings?
Not in the slightest, no.
Walk out in the world and make a decision on your own based on your own observations.
This wonderfully scientific method led to the "comon knowledge" of the earth being flat, the sun revolving arround the earth, the "fact" that there were only 4 elememts that made up everything (Earth, Fire, Water, Air), Sorcery and Witchcraft, the "Martian Canals", the body containing 4 "humors" (Melancholy or Black Bile, Blood, Choler or Yellow Bile, and Phlegm) and "medicinal bloodletting" would restore balance to the "humors" and thus cure disease/mental and emotional illness/imbalance, etc, etc, etc.
the issue is not whether or not the earth is warming. Without the aid and benefit of internal combustion engines, coal fired power plants, etc. Mars is warming as well. This issue is whether or not mankind's contribution to global warming is significant. Keep in mind, global warming and cooling have taken place long before man spewed his first hydrocarbon into the air. If one actually studies the science of global warming, rather than the emotion of global warming one can't help but conclude man does contribute to global warming, but on an insignificant level. Completely eliminating man from the face of the earth would not eliminate future climate change.
First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
Rory Coker, PhD.
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesisusually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausibleand then looks only for items which appear to support it
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
Walk out in the world and make a decision on your own based on your own observations.
Umm.....That's the problem.
Subjective observations and interpretations aren't what is needed. Rather, objective, factual evidence.
What you're suggesting is everyone should just go out their front door and ON THEIR OWN, ignorant or otherwise, come to some conclusion about c02 emissions and it's effect.
I don't see that Algore's predictions, suggestions, interpretations and presentation are any different from yours. Other than he has money to present it in a more sophisticated way.
First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
Rory Coker, PhD.
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
Smokin,
This is exactly what I referred to in a previous post.
"First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science".
Pseudo: being apparently rather than actually as stated(Webster)
Wouldn't this simple explanation have sufficed?
Smokin,
This is exactly what I referred to in a previous post.
"First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science".
Pseudo: being apparently rather than actually as stated(Webster)
Wouldn't this simple explanation have sufficed?
No.
Simple enough for ya? :D
First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
Rory Coker, PhD.
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesisusually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausibleand then looks only for items which appear to support it
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
Oh, and the bold ones, seem to apply VERY CLOSELY to the global warming issue, that was half of the point. :idea:
I could have left out the others, but didn't wish to be accused of "picking" my data. :)
No.
Simple enough for ya? :D
Matter of opinion I guess
And yes
Matter of opinion I guess
For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe.
Now, which direction it will take, is a matter of opinion.
To clear up one more thing, I think your personal movements at conservation are fine, wonderful, great, there is nothing wrong with the idea, or the activity. The home mods you have done, the vehicles you have denied yourself, admirable and honorable.
My issue is the force-feeding to you and I and others of an idea, pushed by simple fear-mongering of "save the planet for your children", which is nowhere near proven, which is entirely likely to be false, and, the steps some want to take will be both destructive to the economy in the short term and (depending on which fear-monger you listen to) pointless because "global warming" cannot be stopped, regardless of what we do.
If you are conserving for the sake of conservation, great, more power to you.
If you are conserving to stop "global warming", I believe time will prove you to have been mis-guided in your purpose.
We shall both see.
With the exception of the last line, the above is unsourceable, as it is purely Smokin's opinion, locatable from time to time on ***boat's and other message boards internet wide. :D
For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe.
Now, which direction it will take, is a matter of opinion.
To clear up one more thing, I think your personal movements at conservation are fine, wonderful, great, there is nothing wrong with the idea, or the activity. The home mods you have done, the vehicles you have denied yourself, admirable and honorable.
My issue is the force-feeding to you and I and others of an idea, pushed by simple fear-mongering of "save the planet for your children", which is nowhere near proven, which is entirely likely to be false, and, the steps some want to take will be both destructive to the economy in the short term and (depending on which fear-monger you listen to) pointless because "global warming" cannot be stopped, regardless of what we do.
If you are conserving for the sake of conservation, great, more power to you.
If you are conserving to stop "global warming", I believe time will prove you to have been mis-guided in your purpose.
We shall both see.
With the exception of the last line, the above is unsourceable, as it is purely Smokin's opinion, locatable from time to time on ***boat's and other message boards internet wide. :D
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view. I don't believe that the movement to slow negative atmospheric changes, is a selfish ploy or corporate scheme. Many believe that this issue is so big, that only something as powerful as the Govt can begin to create a fix. Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars. An oxymoron isn't it?
I see nothing but positive resulting from burring less fuel which is where reducing negative atmospheric changes begins. So why don't we all just get started? Because people like you characterize this issue as political, and call it left verses right and anything viewed as left must be contradicted at all costs.
Isn't time to come down from our political soap boxin and start viewing things as right and wrong instead of right and left. Burning less fuel is the right thing to do and you are aware of this.
Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view. I don't believe that the movement to slow negative atmospheric changes, is a selfish ploy or corporate scheme. Many believe that this issue is so big, that only something as powerful as the Govt can begin to create a fix. Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars. An oxymoron isn't it?
I see nothing but positive resulting from burring less fuel which is where reducing negative atmospheric changes begins. So why don't we all just get started? Because people like you characterize this issue as political, and call it left verses right and anything viewed as left must be contradicted at all costs.
Isn't time to come down from our political soap boxin and start viewing things as right and wrong instead of right and left. Burning less fuel is the right thing to do and you are aware of this.
This is so much Bullshit I shouldn't even respond.....The absolute total man caused greenhouse gasses are LESS than 5% of the gasses created here on earth...LESS than 5%......So take your "the sky is falling" retoric to your next algore book signing.........If you want to conserve natural resourses, that is a good thing. But do it for the sake of conservation, not because of some fairy tale about the sky is falling. The earth has gone through these heating/cooling cycles for billions of years. How pompus of modern man to think he could actually change anything...........Remember 10 or 15 years ago? These same morons were screaming about a coming ICE AGE!!! Try, as everyone who believes this shit will, you will not find a SINGLE qualified SCIENTIST to agree with you..........Ray
This is so much Bullshit I shouldn't even respond.....The absolute total man caused greenhouse gasses are LESS than 5% of the gasses created here on earth...LESS than 5%......So take your "the sky is falling" retoric to your next algore book signing.........If you want to conserve natural resourses, that is a good thing. But do it for the sake of conservation, not because of some fairy tale about the sky is falling. The earth has gone through these heating/cooling cycles for billions of years. How pompus of modern man to think he could actually change anything...........Remember 10 or 15 years ago? These same morons were screaming about a coming ICE AGE!!! Try, as everyone who believes this shit will, you will not find a SINGLE qualified SCIENTIST to agree with you..........Ray
Like I said, when something is viewed as coming from the left, you folks will do anything to contradict it, even make fools out of yourselves. Your right you shouldn't have even responded.
"you will not find a SINGLE qualified SCIENTIST to agree with you" This comment is as inane as your entire response.
So what's your personal contribution to saving the environment, "Paper or Plastic"?
I take the paper...my family are loggers.....
Bridge for sale! I've got a bridge for sale!
Any libs here wanna buy a bridge?:D
Bridge for sale! I've got a bridge for sale!
Any libs here wanna buy a bridge?:D
More 2 year old dribble. Schiada76, I have to give you credit for being consistant. Do you actually believe that your lib this or lib that BS makes you look any smarter than the stupid libs you so ofter describe? You are an embarrassment to the right.
I would expect no other answer from a fool.:D
Get it? That's why I post like that. You don't get it do you?
Dealing with liberals is just dealing with fools. You try to say global warming hysteria isn't political but that's all that is.
You ignore history, you ignore facts and run around like your hair's on fire in a panic over nothing but a sack of bullshit that you've bought into and are pissed that people that aren't brainwashed don't agree with you.
The earth is going to warm and cool with or without us, nothing we can do about. You know it and still repeat the Algores mantra.:rolleyes:
Now try to stay on topic, either deabte global warming or debate pollution. This is a global warming thread, try starting a pollution thred and see what kind of response you get.
You wanna see global warming? come to this effin frozen tundra of a state I live in, if buring tires and shit would warm it up, I am going to burn all I can.:mad:
Hey! Welcome back!
You are an embarrassment to the right.
Since the "Right" is, by definition, any ideology other than Communisim or Socialism, it is possible for us to have many forms of embarrassment as well as much to be proud of on the political "Right". However, since the "Left" is, by definition, those who embrace those two authoritarian and mostly failed ideologies, it is a national embarrassment, that America even has a political "Left".:)
I honestly wish "Liberalism" had not been taken over by "Leftism" in this country.
It is always good to have opposing ideologies, however I just wish someone would come up with a new and intellegent ideology, to embrace, when they decide to oppose the Conservatives and the status quo.:(
Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars.
Although off topic, I would really like to hear how you arrive at the above conclusion.
I could go through them piecemeal, but I'd rather mow the yard.
Once again, we are back to ultra, doing the following:
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesisusually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausibleand then looks only for items which appear to support it
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
So I guess in the interest of burnig less fossil fuel, you'll be selling the boat, and the truck that tows it?
You going to take credit in 15 years when the earth is cooling off Ultra and we are headed for an Ice Age (like 1978, again)?
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Little things like the fact that none of the climactic changes in the last 1,000 years can be explained by CO2 levels in the atmosphere, especially when CO2 levels were higher than now, and temperatures were lower.
Little things like MARS WARMING UP, right now, with a distinct LACK of human-generated CO2.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesisusually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausibleand then looks only for items which appear to support it
Like "The planet is warming/cooling and we people are so powerful that we MUST be causing it, and we can fix it."
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. Like extreemely iffy computer models, which have been found to be using invalid rules that just happen to be in violation of observed physics.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
"Just go outside and decide for yourself."
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. The incessant ignoring of past climactic changes, that vastly PREDATE human industry which currently stands blamed.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. Such as we must stop global warming, yet it is inevitable, and we cannot stop it.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Speaks for itself, we see the behavior only every single day.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature. Yet again, abject denial of history that does not fit the global warming blame game.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact. See 3 of the above 4 statements.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature. Yet again, ignoring and quiet denial of the factual history of earth climactic change that predates the 19th century.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
The claims of numbers of scientists who claim it exists, so it MUST be real, and the vast majority of scientists qualified to have a respected opinion on the climate and weather activity, (Yes, scientists are not qualified to speak on anything they fancy, only on their areas of expertise) are NOT in agreement with the GW crowd.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario. Every GW pusher I have heard interviewed, does exactly this, including the most recent one I heard on the way to Guard Drill last Sunday morning.
Nice try Smokin,
You have no facts to the contrary, as there are none.
Your words "For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe"
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Look another long post from Smokin. Smokin's long posts are always full of facts NOT
Go mow your lawn and have a great day
Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars.
Strangely enough, the one thing your opinion of Global Warming has, is exactly what religious followers, of ALL RELIGIONS have, and it is the only thing that they have, because proof of their religious beliefs is impossible to come by.
Faith.
Because people like you characterize this issue as political, and call it left verses right and anything viewed as left must be contradicted at all costs.
You should look in the mirror while posting on Global Warming sometime Ultra, while contradicting the historical scientific evidence with your opinion that GW is a "settled, proven, issue".
SLSS
He's right you know.
It's never been hotter than now, nope, never.
In the seventies he was positive there was an ice age coming too.
Silent Spring and The Population Bomb are his bibles.:rolleyes:
Just another disciple worshipping at the temple of THE ALGORE.
We must all kneel before him.:eek: :sqeyes: :D :D
Nice try Smokin,
You have no facts to the contrary, as there are none.
Your words "For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe"
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Look another long post from Smokin. Smokin's long posts are always full of facts NOT
Go mow your lawn and have a great day
He has goats for that.
:D Hey! Welcome back!
Hey thanks.:D
Your opinion is not based on any more factual information than mine.
Which factual details would you like to debate, specifically?
The fact that CO2 levels TRAIL the historical global temperature changes, yet some would tell you & I that they precede the changes, which is a direct contradiction to the actual scientific data?
The fact that there is a very CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between earth temperature changes and solar output?
The fact that 5% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 0.54% of THAT 5% (.00027%) of the atmosphere is MAN-MADE CO2, yet it is heating the planet?
The fact that, in the last 100 years, human CO2 output was very low prior to 1940, yet most of the global warming in the last century PREDATES 1940?
The fact that as CO2 emmissions increased HUGELY after 1940, the planet COOLED from 1940 untill 1980?
The fact that there was a midevil warm period, warmer than now, that occured in the 1300's, centuries BEFORE human industry?
The fact that the above midevil warm period, as well as the "little ice age" durring the Maunder Minimum is quietly IGNORED by the global warming pushers, even to the point of removing it from charts?
The fact that a scientist who resigned from the IPCC, whose name was put on a report he had nothing to do with, HAD TO THREATEN TO SUE to get the IPCC to remove his name from the list of contributors?
And he isn't the only one of "the 2500" to be a "supporter" who does not support G.W.
Discussing the concept has displayed people's positions.
Go ahead, start us in discussing the FACTS. Pick a fact.
Just the facts, not the concept, or the socialist anti-capitolist politics driving it.
Which factual details would you like to debate, specifically?
The fact that CO2 levels TRAIL the historical global temperature changes, yet some would tell you & I that they precede the changes, which is a direct contradiction to the actual scientific data?
The fact that there is a very CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between earth temperature changes and solar output?
The fact that 5% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 0.54% of THAT 5% (.00027%) of the atmosphere is MAN-MADE CO2, yet it is heating the planet?
The fact that, in the last 100 years, human CO2 output was very low prior to 1940, yet most of the global warming in the last century PREDATES 1940?
The fact that as CO2 emmissions increased HUGELY after 1940, the planet COOLED from 1940 untill 1980?
The fact that there was a midevil warm period, warmer than now, that occured in the 1300's, centuries BEFORE human industry?
The fact that the above midevil warm period, as well as the "little ice age" durring the Maunder Minimum is quietly IGNORED by the global warming pushers, even to the point of removing it from charts?
The fact that a scientist who resigned from the IPCC, whose name was put on a report he had nothing to do with, HAD TO THREATEN TO SUE to get the IPCC to remove his name from the list of contributors?
And he isn't the only one of "the 2500" to be a "supporter" who does not support G.W.
Discussing the concept has displayed people's positions.
Go ahead, start us in discussing the FACTS. Pick a fact.
Just the facts, not the concept, or the socialist anti-capitolist politics driving it.
Smokin,
Don't have the time to debate details with you on the internet. Everyone
already knows that you are the Heavy Weight Champion of Hot Boat. Debating issues pertaining to negative atmospheric changes, in detail could take years, since neither of are experts.
Here's something for you to ponder,
I believe that we agree that the scientific community is still out on this one. Obviously there is compelling evidence on both sides of the issue, otherwise we would agree.
If the American people treat this issue as if it doesn't exist, little more will be done to reduce the production of emissions. If this belief proven to be invalid, further damage will have been done?
If the American people treat this issue as if it does exist, substantially more will be done to reduce the production of emissions. If this belief proven to be invalid, what damage will have been done?
It's common sense, isn't it?
It's common sense, isn't it?
It's common sense to not pollute. It's not common sense to blindly follow unproven theories into economic and social oblivion.
Your unwavering faith of what "must" be and stubborness to be influenced otherwise or even consider GW theory may be tainted, are amazing. You stereotype anyone not in agreement with your personal beliefs with all the monikers typically thrown about by the liberal left and then complain about the division between parties and the populace.
Your frustration with Smokin' is almost comical from the standpoint of how you discount all of what he throws at you as wrong, yet turn back around and refuse to offer any valid evidence other than personal opinion why he is wrong. And the personal opinion is based almost completely on "because THEY said so". Blind faith is very dangerous.
Please don't assume those disagreeing with your opinions don't care about the environment and don't assume those that disagree with you are blindly following any leader or philosophy. Those of opposing view just often times question the amazing amount of "social consciousness", "flavor of the day" issues that come to dominate our every waking moment. If you aren't careful they often cover up the real issues.
It's not common sense to blindly follow unproven theories into economic and social oblivion.
And you support gdumbya???