29 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat article just smacks of 1980's sleaze. Ill informed, self serving, polyester suit wearing sleaze.
I couldn't resist:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Dont-Tell-Al-Gore-It-Just-Snowed-In-Phoenix.htm
I could go into how the majority of Australia has had it's hottest year on record. And how the majority of the population is going into stage 4 permanent water restrictions. And how bushfires are reeking absolute havoc. And how our arid deserts had 200mm of water dumped in 20 minutes in recent “storms of a lifetime”. And how geological evidence shows this sort of thing has never happened at such a rapid rate.
But it's ok. It snowed in Phoenix so "global warming" has to be wrong.
I could also go into the depths of research by Scientists (not politicians) that climate change due to emmisions actually causes more sever and unstable weather (read: snow and flood in deserts, drought in wetlands) all caused by the overall warming of the globe, (not just phoenix).
By the way, we know a hell of alot more about climate change than we did in the 70's, just like we will know alot more about it in another 20 years. I’m sure some of our current predictions will also be wrong. This doesn’t mean we should bury our heads in the sand and keep
fist(expletive)'ing this planet just so we make another cool billion.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by EsotericWere you one of the loons promoting global cooling in the 1970s?
...By the way, we know a hell of alot more about climate change than we did in the 70's, just like we will know alot more about it in another 20 years. ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by EsotericIt's funny that your churlishness towards global warming skeptics is based on the absurd notion that we’re “in it for the money,” yet you exhibit no concern for the economic loss and dire hardships your religion would impose on everyone should it be enacted:
...I’m sure some of our current predictions will also be wrong. This doesn’t mean we should bury our heads in the sand and keep
fist(expletive)'ing this planet just so we make another cool billion.
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/SuicidePact.shtml
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by CliffLandin*sigh* Late to the party, are we? I've never contended that it wasn't getting warmer or that there weren't unusual weather occurrences, only that man isn't responsible for the warming and that signing Kyoto would impose a huge economic burden on the average person.
Don't tell der Fuhrer, but global warming doesn't mean that it is always hotter. It means that average temperatures are up and that there are unusual weather occurances (like snow in Phoenix).
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat is like "proof" that inflation doesn't exist because you get a bargain in one particular shop.
I couldn't resist:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Dont-Tell-Al-Gore-It-Just-Snowed-In-Phoenix.htm
You can get peaks and troughs all the time, but the general trend could be rising.
29 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAre non-shareholders not people now?
*sigh* Late to the party, are we? I've never contended that it wasn't getting warmer or that there weren't unusual weather occurrences, only that man isn't responsible for the warming and that signing Kyoto would impose a huge economic burden on the average person.
Maybe it's a good idea not to get too dependent on fossil fuels and really trying for viable alternatives so that future generations don't suffer a massive energy crisis.
29 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI don't think that there is a serious scientist who disputes that
[b...only that man isn't responsible for the warming and that signing Kyoto would impose a huge economic burden on the average person.[/b]
humankind is contributing to global warming. At issue is the degree
to which humankind is contributing. That is, we know that there have
been periods of relatively warmer weather in the past (12th century, as
I recall) and periods of relatively cooler weather (think ice age) in which
it is clear that human pollution did not have a role.
The question is: how much of a role is human polution playing now?
That is, to what degree are we increasing the rate of 'natural global
warming' by our behaviors?
The answer to that question is: probably a significant one. Weather is
a thorny science to begin with, so, there is always going to be a good
deal of debate. And even decades' worth of information is a small
drop in the meteorological bucket.
That having been said, we can measure pollution densities. We
can measure the amount of ozone. We can measure the
levels and natures of radiation retention and reflection off of our
atmosphere. And signs strongly point to the notion that we are
contributing noticably if not substantially to things which will result in
greater meteorological turbulance.
I disagree with Gore's 'Look! It's New York Underwater!" hysteria. He is
taking science and trying to manipulate people's emotions rather than
appealing to their intellect.
But, people often become irrational if they feel it is going to hit them
in the pocket. That's why people carry quintuple-digit credit card balances.
They ignore today what they think they can stave off tomorrow. And,
perhaps Gore's attempt to appeal to their sentiment is because appeals
to their intellect is overridden by their greed.
That having been said, it's gonna cost a hell of a lot more money to
recover from the damages caused by rising ocean levels than to make
adaptations to behaviors now.
Nemesio
30 Jan 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI am all for finding any alternatives to fossil fuels, mainly because it would be the fastest way to give the Middle East what it wants: a return to the middle ages. But until the free market (no government subsidies for eco-friendly companies that Nancy Pelosi and co. own stock in) finds a cheaper, more efficient alternative, then oil is the only game in town. By the way, the price for a gallon of gasoline dropped again today. Makes me want to go out and buy a muscle car or an SUV.
Are non-shareholders not people now?
Maybe it's a good idea not to get too dependent on fossil fuels and really trying for viable alternatives so that future generations don't suffer a massive energy crisis.
30 Jan 07
Originally posted by NemesioYou would be wrong -- there are plenty, including the leading climatologist from France who switched to our camp a few months ago. Despite what Al Gore says, the debate is far from over and the science is unsettled. In the meantime, if you're so confident in your side's correctness, then why do you want to stifle debate and hurl vulgar epitaphs at mine? Those sound like the tactics of a side that is losing the battle and clinging to whatever emotional appeals it can wheedle out of people.
I don't think that there is a serious scientist who disputes that
humankind is contributing to global warming.
Nemesio
30 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThere's no genius in a French person switching camps at the eleventh hour, one need not cast aspersions on their masculinity to realize how things swung during the Vichy era.
You would be wrong -- there are plenty, including the leading climatologist from France who switched to our camp a few months ago.
The point I think everyone has been clear to point out is that we are clearly undergoing climate change. The science suggests that this change may be precipitously close to being irreversible. Irreversible climate change will mean unusual unseasonal weather on a continuous basis the world over, with the overall trend being a rise in average world mean temperatures.
Even a trend upwards average will still include a standard deviation about that mean and temperatures close to previous lows will always be in abundance. Stands to reason does'nt it?
30 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOkay, that's 1 to 100000. Can you provide his name and a link to some of his data? Or is it like "I've got a girlfriend in Canada."
You would be wrong -- there are plenty, including the leading climatologist from France who switched to our camp a few months ago. Despite what Al Gore says, the debate is far from over and the science is unsettled. In the meantime, if you're so confident in your side's correctness, then why do you want to stifle debate and hurl vulgar epitaphs a ...[text shortened]... is losing the battle and clinging to whatever emotional appeals it can wheedle out of people.