Reply With QuoteExactly. He, the expert, isn't sure, but of course, you are.
Have fun
BTW, there is nothing to be hysterical about.
He said he's not even sure there's been ANY warming.
He agrees with our position, not yours.
Hysterical??? HUH???
I never said anyone that doesn't think like me is a POS but I think anyone who doesn't agree with his own expert that he quoted to support his position needs more than just a little therapy. Did you even read what you quoted?
Your own source doesn't even believe in "MMGW".
I agree with the quote, he's not even positive there is any global warming at all much less MMGW.
Exactly. He, the expert, isn't sure, but of course, you are.
Have fun
BTW, there is nothing to be hysterical about.
Exactly. He, the expert, isn't sure, but of course, you are.
Have fun
BTW, there is nothing to be hysterical about.
He said he's not even sure there's been ANY warming.
He agrees with our position, not yours.
Hysterical??? HUH???
I personally have no problem with people choosing to believe in MMGW. My problem is with people who want to impose laws, that will impact the lives of others, as a result of their belief.
He said he's not even sure there's been ANY warming.
He agrees with our position, not yours.
Hysterical??? HUH???
From the father of scientific climatology
"We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century."
"What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!"
And my position is what?
I personally have no problem with people choosing to believe in MMGW. My problem is with people who want to impose laws, that will impact the lives of others, as a result of their belief.
Other then requiring that auto makers build more efficient vehicles and power generators be mandated to run as efficently as possible, I believe that this matter should be dealt with on an individual basis.
There are way to many unknowns to start imposing laws.
However, we do know that pollution isn't good and everyone should do their part and be conscious of individual pollution.
I have made these exact point from the beginning of the GW discussion and have been labeled a liberal, lying hypocrite because I have a 26 ' Deckboat that gets towed by 3 days a month by a Lightning.
Most of the folks here are here to argue and to one up those with even a remotly opposing views.
He agrees with our position, not yours.:
This is exactly the type of one sided non-thinking BS that I refer to.
ES, While you and I don't always agree, you have an open mind and communicate like a mature adult. The PRF would be a much better place to discuss political issues if the masses dealt with Right and Wrong as opposed to Right and Left.
No need for me to continue, as I don't see anything or anyone changing here.
From the father of scientific climatology
"We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century."
"What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!"
And my position is what?
Read his quote for god's sake.
He says PROBABLY, that is not a definitive statement. He's not even sure it's warmed at all. You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! SAVE ME AL SAVE ME!
Note: Hysteria added for humorous purposes only.
Read his quote for god's sake.
He says PROBABLY, that is not a definitive statement. He's not even sure it's warmed at all. You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! SAVE ME AL SAVE ME!
Note: Hysteria added for humorous purposes only.
You on the other hand keep saying man made global warming is real and must be dealt with, just listen to the Algore or we'll die!
Where have I said this?
There is no point trying to comminucate with you. It's hopeless
The PRF would be a much better place to discuss political issues if the masses dealt with Right and Wrong as opposed to Right and Left.
No need for me to continue, as I don't see anything or anyone changing here.
Are all issues then Right or Wrong? There is no in between or gray area?
John you claim to want to debate but show no compromise what so ever many times and it's a general concensus you don't completely "read and comphrehend" a lot of points.
No one here doubts your efforts and intentions to help the environment by your choices of transportation and marine engines. But you will not admit anyone else seems to be making an effort and is completely ignoring the environmental issues.
You get stuck on points within statements and seem to take many things far out of context. I'm not flaming, ragging, etc. your points just stating an observation of how your responses come across.
Kyoto and other "Green Party" theories are viewed by many as false and unrealistic from a scientific standpoint. These views are not off the cuff but derived from study of the supplied concept and the sources of those concepts.
Once again I ask, do you believe there are real efforts to improve efficiency being made by those in charge of technological advancements in power, energy, and environmental protection, or do you support the theories of many "green groups" that the majority of industry is just trying to sweep all these issues under the carpet and exploit the world for financial gain?
Global Warming, or whatever it is called each time it is brought up, is probalby never going to be sufficiently proven "Right or Wrong".
well stated...and up to our knees in it.
Nice avatar btw.
CC
y'all may be up to your knees, but out here in progressive-fornia, we're up to our eyeballs.
Are all issues then Right or Wrong? There is no in between or gray area?
John you claim to want to debate but show no compromise what so ever many times and it's a general concensus you don't completely "read and comphrehend" a lot of points.
No one here doubts your efforts and intentions to help the environment by your choices of transportation and marine engines. But you will not admit anyone else seems to be making an effort and is completely ignoring the environmental issues.
You get stuck on points within statements and seem to take many things far out of context. I'm not flaming, ragging, etc. your points just stating an observation of how your responses come across.
Kyoto and other "Green Party" theories are viewed by many as false and unrealistic from a scientific standpoint. These views are not off the cuff but derived from study of the supplied concept and the sources of those concepts.
Once again I ask, do you believe there are real efforts to improve efficiency being made by those in charge of technological advancements in power, energy, and environmental protection, or do you support the theories of many "green groups" that the majority of industry is just trying to sweep all these issues under the carpet and exploit the world for financial gain?
Global Warming, or whatever it is called each time it is brought up, is probalby never going to be sufficiently proven "Right or Wrong".
As I recall, in your words, Tex, talking to me is like talking to a 3 years old.
Take care
It is very hard to seperate out the right vs left aspects of this and other "environmental issues". Unfortunatly one of the main goals of all forms of "leftist" ideology is to gain as much collective/government control over business and industry as they can. Years ago the left learned that the environmental movement could be useful in this regard. It is a sad truth that the political left has largely usurped the environmental movement and is using it to pursue the above stated goal. This has naturally drawn strong opposition from the political right. As a result all people who are distrustful of fascist/socialist/communist style collectivism are forced to look at all "environmental issues" with a high index of suspicion.
Posting Permissions