I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.
1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie
2) With all the forest fires raging in California, is not carbon dioxide being produced? By the tons? If global warming is fact I think California is to blame. Just think of all the carbon contained in a house that is burning.
3) Methane hydrate. Any disturbance of the methane hydrate fields in the oceans could pump out tons of this stuff which would break down into water and methane. Methane is 25x the global warming gas as CO2.
4) What about methane in the landfills that is vented directly into the air? There are landfills everywhere in the world and why are they not brought up? I recall a few years ago burping cows were a concern.
5) Why is volcanic activity not mentioned with global warming? Especially with the gases they spew out.
6) Since traffic jams seem so common in major cities, and If global warming people have such a problem with CO2 why haven't ordinances been passed to make people shut off their cars in traffic jams? Just think of the problems this could solve. Wait that would be just one, fuel consumption. I doubt that Al could go that long without AC
7) Why don't all the dams in this country have hydroelectric capabilities. Oh wait, I recall that the Higgins Eye Clam is endangered and by putting a turbine on the dams it will effect the Higgins Eye Clam population. And the same people that are against global warming are for the clam, so I'm sensing cave era living. (I live along the Mississippi and this is the reason holding up electrifying the dam here)
8) I hear Ted Kennedy is for wind power, but not in his backyard. I would love to put one up in my yard, but the eagles fly in this area and well you know the same people that are against global warming are trying to protect the eagles (and probably the sparrows and cardinals and blue jays and crows and blackbirds and bats and who knows june bugs and mosquitos and flys and...)
9) With the billions of people on this planet and all the protected animals endangered and not endangered (deer population in Dubuque is out of control) we have all this breathing going on. Don't we exhale CO2? That has to be doing something to the atmosphere. And what about us poor bastards that have to do extremely heavy work. Are we going to need carbon credits? The pulling and the lifting I do can leave me out of breath and that heavy breathing will create more CO2. Multiply that by millions? billions? Did I mention weight lifters or runners? Just imagine what the insect population is cranking out. Are the global warming people in favor of pesticides? I'm pretty sure they are against herbicides. We need weeds to use CO2.
10) Geothermal energy is a possibility but then again the destruction of natures beauty will happen and we can't have that either.
If this country ever gets back to the Constitution, We the People will have a say. But with the republicrats and the demoplicans in charge we the people are shackled. And in their infinite wisdom we are bound. Sounds like slavery is alive and well doesn't it? Is this another stepping stone to communism?
I know I strayed a little take the ramblings as food for thought,
I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.
[quote]1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie
quote
2) With all the forest fires raging in California, is not carbon dioxide being produced? By the tons? If global warming is fact I think California is to blame. Just think of all the carbon contained in a house that is burning.
7) Why don't all the dams in this country have hydroelectric capabilities. Oh wait, I recall that the Higgins Eye Clam is endangered and by putting a turbine on the dams it will effect the Higgins Eye Clam population. And the same people that are against global warming are for the clam, so I'm sensing cave era living. (I live along the Mississippi and this is the reason holding up electrifying the dam here)
8) I hear Ted Kennedy is for wind power, but not in his backyard. I would love to put one up in my yard, but the eagles fly in this area and well you know the same people that are against global warming are trying to protect the eagles (and probably the sparrows and cardinals and blue jays and crows and blackbirds and bats and who knows june bugs and mosquitos and flys and...)
9) With the billions of people on this planet and all the protected animals endangered and not endangered (deer population in Dubuque is out of control) we have all this breathing going on. Don't we exhale CO2? That has to be doing something to the atmosphere. And what about us poor bastards that have to do extremely heavy work. Are we going to need carbon credits? The pulling and the lifting I do can leave me out of breath and that heavy breathing will create more CO2. Multiply that by millions? billions? Did I mention weight lifters or runners? Just imagine what the insect population is cranking out. Are the global warming people in favor of pesticides? I'm pretty sure they are against herbicides. We need weeds to use CO2.
Evidently, it's isn't a problem. Good thing, I'd hate to think what the enviros would do to us if we were a major contributor to global bullshit...er...warming.
" Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?
A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels. [RMC] "
Longest-term study yet of the continent says nothing to fear.
For global warming activists, Greenland is the most potent weapon of fear in their arsenal. With Antarctica cooling, and the floating ice at the North Pole incapable of affecting sea levels, Greenland alone can contribute the vast amounts of melted ice capable of flooding cities. Greenland -- which began gradually melting at the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago -- continues to slowly shed ice today.
The only problem? It's melting far too slowly. At its current rate, Greenland will take thousands of years to significantly affect sea level.
Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming. Some past studies have indicated this may be happening, by measuring the rate at which glaciers have slid towards the sea, sped by melt water beneath lubricating the process.
However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.
The researchers noted the speedup observed by past studies was strictly a short-term transient phenomena, occurring primarily in the summer months.
The study, which is appearing in the Friday edition of the journal Science, was led by Dutch Researcher Roderik S.W. van de Wal, of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research of the University of Utrecht.
Claiming losses in coastal property values, a group of Spanish homeowners and investors last month threatened Greenpeace with legal action over exaggerated claims of sea level rise.
I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.
1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie
Oops, sorry dude, I forgot one reference...about surface station data being HIGHLY suspect because of the location of the temperature equipment. Such as on a roof, on or near asphalt, next to air conditioning units, and so on. Much of the temperature data they use for global warming comes from these stations, and they show a temperature spike after they've been placed at or moved hear the above mentioned heat sources.
This site is run by Anthony Watts, who has been doing a study on how badly the temperature sensors are placed at many of the official weather stations here in this country: http://www.surfacestations.org/
You can also hear or see a talk he gave at the International Conference on Climate Change, which featured speakers presenting the evidence against AGW. Link: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-13-2008).]
Pt Columbus weather service station is in the middle of the airport. Completely surrounded by paved tarmac gates and ramps, not to mention the 30 jets setting there most of the times.
ASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) publishes a global temperature index. The temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development and land use changes. NASA applies an “urbanization adjustment” to adjust the temperature histories to eliminate these effects. The resulting GISS temperature index is supposed to represent what the temperatures would have been in the absence of urbanization and land use changes. Most scientists assume that these adjustments are done correctly. The index is used to show that CO2 emissions are causing climate change.
An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends.
The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.
Satellite data is free of urbanization effects and provide truly global coverage continually. Previous problems with satellite drift affecting temperature calculations have been corrected. Newer satellites have station keeping capability and do not drift. The satellite data is much superior to land measurement. The satellite global temperature trend from 2002 to May 2008 is a decline of 0.25 Celsius per decade, significant global cooling for over 6 years. Read Ken’s full report here. See this informative post by Steve McIntyre here on the NASA urban fiasco. Also other reasons why GISS is warmest here.
New research indicates no warming for next 15 years.
Previous articles in DailyTech highlighted the views of scientists who believe another Ice Age approaches, the rapid temperature decline in 2007, and the official prediction of the United Nations that the planet will continue cooling in 2008. Now, a team of researchers has predicted that global warming will halt for up to 15 years, as oscillating ocean currents cause the planet to cool slightly.
In a paper appearing the journal Nature, the scientists study changes in SST (sea surface temperatures) caused by the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation and the Meridional Overturning Oscillation. A larger, slower-acting version of the better-known El Nino/La Nina oscillation, the MOC is expected to weaken over the next 15-20 years, causing cooling throughout Europe and North America. Pacific temperatures are expected to remain flat.
The actual cause of the MOC is unknown, but its cycles last from 60 to 70 years and, by this new research, it appears to have a much stronger effect on climate than previously thought. It may also explain why global temperatures rose during the first half of the 20th Century, before beginning a 30-year cooling trend in 1940.
The most intriguing part of this research is the scientists themselves. Led by Noel Keenlyside, the team from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology have not in the past been global warming skeptics. In fact, they've been solidly on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.
Physicist and ex-Harvard professor Lubos Motl, who was not involved in the research, says the discovery of such a large, previously unknown factor indicates a "critical flaw" in modeling predictions, "no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO". Motl believes the research indicates that IPCC climate predictions will be incorrect for as much as 70 years in the future.
However, Richard Wood, from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Change, says that it's "important to make sure we don't get distracted" from the long-term problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Wood also cautions that such modeling is in its infancy, and the results may change.
And thanks for doing the leg work. I use these links on another forum and love watching the Gorites go into convulsions attacking the sources and the motives of the skeptics but never the data or the showing of how the data is seriously flawed. The best is when they attack me for posting the links saying I'm an idiot that knows nothing about the way science works. I am an evil moron it seems because I question the Gorical.
And thanks for doing the leg work. I use these links on another forum and love watching the Gorites go into convulsions attacking the sources and the motives of the skeptics but never the data or the showing of how the data is seriously flawed. The best is when they attack me for posting the links saying I'm an idiot that knows nothing about the way science works. I am an evil moron it seems because I question the Gorical.
You're welcome. It bugs the s*** out of me, the hype and bullshit surrounding this subject. So I'm on a quest to learn the truth, and I'm studying the science - as best as I can - on AGW.
Flat, flat, flat...more data that shows the temperatures over the last decade are FLAT. If CO2 is driving temperature, and we are either getting dangerously close to some mythical climate "tipping point" - or have allegedly already passed it - then why is CO2 going up, but temperatures AREN'T?
... Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.
“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (LINK )
[Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK) ] Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)
Global Warming 'A Big Cash Grab'
Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics.
“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.
"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.
'An Entrenched Interest'
Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy.
"Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams," Singer explained on June 30, 2007. (LINK)
"In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage," Singer added.
For a detailed breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)
"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (LINK) Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for 'action' to combat their computer model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'" (See EPW Blog for full article – LINK )
As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech: “The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.” (LINK)
Senator Inhofe further explained: "I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns." (LINK)
Now contrast all of the above with how much money the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive.
The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision)
The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical of man-made global warming – LINK )
To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider:
One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” (LINK or LINK )
As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry’s wife Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004. (LINK )
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has noted how proponents of man-made climate fears enjoy huge funding advantages. "Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding," Lindzen wrote in a April 12, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (LINK) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis," Lindzen added. (For more on the vilification of climate skeptics see LINK)
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff...
Dont give up, I like knowing that theres a stockpile of ammo I can use against the WEtards in the world...
(WEtards are the brainless folk who flock to wecansolveit.org) /\/\/\ GOD I hate those commercials, show me ONE conservative who is pro global warming....
(PhysOrg.com) -- In an attempt to understand the extent of cow flatulence on global warming, scientists in Argentina are strapping plastic bags to the backs of cows to capture their emissions. Argentina has more than 55 million cows, making it a leading producer of beef. In the study, the scientists were surprised to discover that a standard 550-kg cow produces between 800 to 1,000 liters of emissions, including methane, each day.
Further, methane - which is also released from landfills, coal mines and leaking gas pipes - is 23 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
"When we got the first results, we were surprised," said Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina. "Thirty percent of Argentina´s (total greenhouse) emissions could be generated by cattle."
In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals´ stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis.
The Argentine researchers say that the slow digestive system of the cows causes them to produce these large amounts of methane. Now, the scientists are performing trials of new diets designed to improve the cows´ digestion and reduce global warming. By feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain, "you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent," according to Silvia Valtorta of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations.
Just a little interesting fact: A local dairy farmer puts all of his manure in a "greenhouse" and routes a tube right off the top of it, collects the methane, and runs a caterpillar engine with it that produces electricity for the entire farm.
He gets $50 FROM the electric company a month for electricity added to the grid....
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff... .
No they don't. They don't care. I use the links on another forum and get attacked for my posting style, the sources, the authors and everything but the actual data and substance. They don't care about the truth. They will dismiss any info that isn't backing up the global warming BS.
No they don't. They don't care. I use the links on another forum and get attacked for my posting style, the sources, the authors and everything but the actual data and substance. They don't care about the truth. They will dismiss any info that isn't backing up the global warming BS.
That's because it has become very much like a religious belief for those who believe in AGW. You can't argue against religion with facts.
I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.
1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie
.......
Rich
I find this to be one of the MOST interesting questions. When the global warming activists talk about how temps have risen "x degrees in the last 100 years," what is the starting point? Random measurments taken at an air port in Reno, NV back in 1905? Well, actually, YES according to some info I've read- other places too, but that is one named in an article. And I'm not talking about on-line stuff. The problem is that we don't know how drunk that guy or gal was every night, we don't know if their equipment measured the temps even remotely correctly, etc. Nor do we know if the person just walked outside and wrote down a number they thought fit. Basing policy on this sort of information and making mandatory changes based on this stuff worries me.
I am NOT saying to ignore more recent measurements done in a more controlled manner that might indicate something is going on. I'm just saying that using measurements from a time when they weren't concerned about what they were doing like we are now is dangerous. There was an article about this very issue in Popular Mechanics for sure, and somewhere else as well I believe...
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff... ....
Not really- but that's the nature of the beast when people become emotionally attached to a fact related issue. When one wants to "believe," no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds. Same goes for the other side of the card as well. Those who don't want to "believe" can ignore facts as well. The evidence really isn't there definitively for AGW- some circumstantial stuff certainly, and we definitely should be concerned and even start being more proactive toward reducing pollution, etc. But to modify policy and force things on the populace based on loose evidence is worrisome to me.
All in all, when it comes down to emotional arguments, it becomes like the quote one of the guys on Mythbusters said one time:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own..."
Trouble is, there really is only ONE REALITY when it comes to YES or NO on AGW. I don't think the evidence for it is strong enough yet, but I don't think we can ignore it and not investigate it fully either.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 07-17-2008).]
Originally posted by fierobear: But I post info like this more for the open-minded people
hahahaha
yeah, good one. Nobody here is "open minded". It's like smokey yunicks car. Either you believe it got 500mpg and 200hp or you don't. If you do, you think everyone else is being paid by the oil companies. If you don't, you think everyone's a quack. There's no middle ground and nobody will change.
I could post different studies refuting all of your points one by one... would it make a difference? No. The IPCC was paid off by Gore and all the scientists are sleeping with Alicia Silverstone. Open mind my ass.
Might as well have started a different thread altogether, you would have gotten the same results:
quote
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: Trouble is, there really is only ONE REALITY when it comes to YES or NO on whether or not God exists. I don't think the evidence for it is strong enough yet, but I don't think we can ignore it and not investigate it fully either.
Originally posted by ryan.hess: Might as well have started a different thread altogether, you would have gotten the same results:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: Trouble is, there really is only ONE REALITY when it comes to YES or NO on whether or not God exists. I don't think the evidence for it is strong enough yet, but I don't think we can ignore it and not investigate it fully either.
indeed. There's no middle ground on that one.
I don't really care for the way your post makes it look as though it was ME who wrote "God" in that statment. Next time please don't quote me and change words in the quote that way. Go ahead and use a statement you've changed, but my actual post read "AGW" in place of the word "God."
Further, comparing a discussion about a measurable (AGW) to an unmeasurable (God) is apples and oranges. But if your point was to illustrate that many people approach issues like this in the same manner they approach "God," then I'm okay with the illustration.
Thanks! -Gary
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 07-17-2008).]
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff... .
They prob dont, or skip the parts they dont want to listen to. I know people here first hand that went to Gores movie and give me all the speeches on the doom. Ive argued they only listened to his side, wont even bother to read or watch any videos of people disputing him that I print out or copy for them. He is god and his word is the only truth. Now I just look at them and laugh while shaking my head as I go to my CO2 causing V8 cars.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 07-17-2008).]
The real problem in trying to show the truth is the media already latched on, they are already selling credits, its becoming a business. Which is the real reason I think Gore is in it, that and fame. When they report how much cash "green" ( hate the word too) business is doing, it'll be a runaway train. What they are doing is a waste of time and money that will screw things up in the long run. Conserving energy is fine, but it is already beginning to go too far. Keep digging, this is meant to be a motivator, not a "give up" post.
The real problem in trying to show the truth is the media already latched on, they are already selling credits, its becoming a business. Which is the real reason I think Gore is in it, that and fame. When they report how much cash "green" ( hate the word too) business is doing, it'll be a runaway train. What they are doing is a waste of time and money that will screw things up in the long run. Conserving energy is fine, but it is already beginning to go too far. Keep digging, this is meant to be a motivator, not a "give up" post.
I'm not completely on either side of the fence on this issue- but a kicker here is that EVEN if Gore or others turn out to be completely wrong, that's OKAY because they were trying to do the "right thing" or had "good intentions..." So you can say things like "Global Warming will lead to severe hurricane seasons this summer," and then when there are FEWER hurricanes, you can just say "Well, that's PROOF of global warming because Global Warming makes the weather unpredictible" and people take you seriously. THAT is what I don't understand. I prefer facts over opinion, especially on issues of science that can be proven through evidence...
I'm not completely on either side of the fence on this issue- but a kicker here is that EVEN if Gore or others turn out to be completely wrong, that's OKAY because they were trying to do the "right thing" or had "good intentions..." QUOTE]
It was hard to tell you were not saying this yourself 1st time I read it. Ya I would agre they do not have good intentions, good for their wallets ya. UNless they are that misguided and closed minded them selves, maybe they believe their own muck.
It was hard to tell you were not saying this yourself 1st time I read it. Ya I would agre they do not have good intentions, good for their wallets ya. UNless they are that misguided and closed minded them selves, maybe they believe their own muck.
ya know, call me crazy but I believe all politicians actually believe what they are saying,
We've all seen how brainwashed some people can be, so what happens when an articulate wealthy person gets truned in the wrong direction?
I can see how people would think that people like pelosi and gore would be doing it for thier own greed or power, but I honestly think they are just that stupid.
Originally posted by ryan.hess: yeah, good one. Nobody here is "open minded". It's like smokey yunicks car. Either you believe it got 500mpg and 200hp or you don't. If you do, you think everyone else is being paid by the oil companies. If you don't, you think everyone's a quack. There's no middle ground and nobody will change.
No doubt people have biases. I'm trying to be open minded on this. I'm doing my own reading, research, and trying to understand the science. What got me to examine this myself was the hype, bullshit, and hysteria surrounding AGW.
quote
I could post different studies refuting all of your points one by one... would it make a difference? No. The IPCC was paid off by Gore and all the scientists are sleeping with Alicia Silverstone. Open mind my ass.
Oh, I know. We both can post studies going either way. I've been involved in a discussion elsewhere that is over 400 pages long on this subject. Post away. I'd like to keep it friendly and reasonable. If you'd like to discuss it, go for it.
