1. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    03 Sep '05 23:121 edit
    Is it real? or is it hyped up by left wing nuts? The left ,in the guise of science, claim there is ample evidence, well there is just as much evidence to the contrary, but this is not shown by the major media and is not brought up much to national attention...why?..is it because the Left control the media, and most major institutions?...Why do the haters of America world wide want us to believe in global warming?...and to keep it in the Spirituality forum, what does the bible say? Will the world end as the bible states?...maybe global warming is in the book of Revelations?
    Any thoughts out there?

    P.S. Ivanhoe suggested this thread and it sounded good to me too.
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    03 Sep '05 23:265 edits
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Is it real? or is it hyped up by left wing nuts? The left ,in the guise of science, claim there is ample evidence, well there is just as much evidence to the contrary, but this is not shown by the major media and is not brought up much to national attention...why?..is it because the Left control the media, and most major institutions?...Why do the haters ...[text shortened]... ?
    Any thoughts out there?

    P.S. Ivanhoe suggested this thread and it sounded good to me too.
    I have seen no valid application of the scientific method that leads to the finding that humans are warming the globe to any extent beyond the earth's natural range of temperature variation; I have not even seen any data that indicates that the earth is in fact warming beyond its natural range of temperature variation.

    The most recent lecture I attended on this matter was about two months ago, and was in fact given by a left-wing nut job, whom I got to admit that the available data on average global temperature dates back less than 100 years, and that there is no control data at all for the time period prior to humankind's existence. There is no data establishing a confident range of the earth's natural range of temperature variation. Global warming scientists' idea of what that range is is based on extrapolating from less than 100 data points, which isn't atrocious science in itself, until you consider that they all lie in a blink of an eye on the geological time scale, thereby making them essentially one data point.

    The claim is substantially no different than somebody standing at a roulette wheel in a red shirt and seeing the wheel spin red a few times in a row making that claim that your shirt color influences the wheel.

    The claim is also substantially no different than if I were to claim that all scientists who believe in global warming are left-wing nut jobs, based on my attending a few lectures on the subject which were given by left-wing nut jobs. It could very well be that the majority of global warming scientists have no political motivation and are performing poor science simply by virtue of being products of academic incest.
  3. Joined
    29 Aug '05
    Moves
    40
    03 Sep '05 23:36
    I think we would do well to distinguish between the approaches of conservationists vs. those of environmentalists in addressing the issue of supposed Global Warming.

    I think it is reasonable for human beings to conserve energy in all its forms, to recycle, explore alternative fuel sources etc. I think most conservatives would agree with me there. After all republicans and democrats all drink the same water, breathe the same air, etc. Now many on the Left would have you believe that republicans are out to destroy the planet - motivated by simple greed.

    I think this is where Global Warming has become an effective scare tactic. If you isolate the last 100 years - global temps. are rising slightly - but if you look at research covering the last 10,000 years you'll find that our current global temp. (while on an upswing) is lower than it was for much of that 10,000 year period.

    I find it interesting that in the last fall campaign Dems labeled the Bush Administration (of which I'm no huge fan) the fear-mongers for their tactics in the war on terror, when the dems are so often the ones being alarmist. And often about stupid stuff.

    - "Bush's private social security acounts will leave present retirees without ANY benefits."

    - "If we let John Roberts on the SCOTUS - he WILL overturn Roe v Wade."

    - The NARAL ad accusing Roberts of defending actions of abortion clinic bombers.

    - The unsubstantiated claim made by several prominent dems that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Global Warming and by the enviro policies of Bush and Haley Barbour.

    -John Bolton was rude to an employee once before! Therefor he will make a mockery of the US before the UN.

    And the list goes on and on. Ask yourself - who's the party sounding the alarm bells at the drop of a hat?
  4. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    04 Sep '05 00:12
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Is it real? or is it hyped up by left wing nuts? The left ,in the guise of science, claim there is ample evidence, well there is just as much evidence to the contrary, but this is not shown by the major media and is not brought up much to national attention...why?..is it because the Left control the media, and most major institutions?...Why do the haters ...[text shortened]... ?
    Any thoughts out there?

    P.S. Ivanhoe suggested this thread and it sounded good to me too.
    If you believe that the media is controlled by the left, then you are severely deluded.
    Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer?
    Do you think they are left wing?
    Do you understand politics at all?

    You clearly don't believe that mankind is capable of affecting the environment enough to create the global warming problem - have you ever heard of Acid Rain?
    Do you deny acid rain was caused by pollution too?
  5. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    04 Sep '05 00:42
    Interesting websites that run counter to "Global Warming"....

    http://members.aol.com/baffauthor/warming.html?mtbrand=AOL_US

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b34ae435752.htm

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

    http://www.thecapitalist.net/globwarm.html

    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1824

    http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalwarming.html

    http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/new_page_3.htm

    There are over 1,000,000 websites that say Global Warming is a myth...the major media, however, has once again failed us. They have only shown us one side...🙂
  6. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    04 Sep '05 00:47
    Originally posted by howardgee
    If you believe that the media is controlled by the left, then you are severely deluded.
    Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch or Kerry Packer?
    Do you think they are left wing?
    Do you understand politics at all?

    You clearly don't believe that mankind is capable of affecting the environment enough to create the global warming problem - have you ever heard of Acid Rain?
    Do you deny acid rain was caused by pollution too?
    No, but I have heard of Dan Rather, Tim Russert, etc...

    I said Major media, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN,etc...

    You lefties think alike...
  7. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    04 Sep '05 00:59
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    No, but I have heard of Dan Rather, Tim Russert, etc...

    I said Major media, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN,etc...

    You lefties think alike...
    By 'major' of course, you mean 'American'.

    You are so parochial. Do you realise there are more countries than your own?
  8. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    04 Sep '05 01:19
    Here is an article from an INDEPENDENT newspaper out of Philidelphia:

    Global warming is not a new idea. Most people are at least aware of the theory that certain gasses, i.e. carbon dioxide or methane, emitted from large factories are causing heat to get trapped in the ozone, which in turn is contributing to a constant rise in global temperature. But the scary thing is that while the average person can acknowledge the dangerous repercussions of such a situation, U.S. leaders are treating it as if it were something trivial.

    How can a problem that threatens the entire planet be seen as trivial? One reason is that some view global warming as if it were a kind of urban legend.

    President Bush's advisers, for example, have argued that the concept of global warming is too uncertain to take as fact, but a recent study covered by London's The Independent in February proves otherwise. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego has conclusive proof that global warming is indeed a problem, and that it is caused by gas emissions from factories around the world.

    A member of the team conducting the study, Dr. Tim Barnett, explains, "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 percent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

    Dr. Barnett's team determined that each ocean has a different temperature at different depths, which gives them distinct "fingerprints." The team then created different computer simulations to see if those "fingerprints" could be created by natural occurrences, such as solar changes or volcanic activity. Of all the computer simulations, the only one that produced data similar to the "fingerprints" they recorded was the global warming scenario.

    "The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?'" said Dr. Barnett. "The debate now is what are we going to do about it?" Unfortunately, as much as Bush's advisers would like to think that global warming is just a scary story to tell around a campfire, it is a very real problem that needs very real action.

    Another reason why the United States is so reluctant to make a serious effort to prevent any further global warming is because of economic implications. When asked to sign the Kyoto Treaty, which would force countries with industry to cut down on emissions of gasses responsible for global warming, President Bush refused because the effects of the treaty on global warming would not be worth the damage to our economy.

    Bush's failure to sign the treaty is not the inherent problem, since it is only a small step in the overall process needed to prevent global warming from getting worse. The Kyoto Treaty would only reduce emissions by about 5 percent, while most scientists agree that upwards of 60 percent of emissions need to be reduced.

    The problem is that putting our economic troubles ahead of reducing emissions again displays our government's overall lack of concern for global warming. It is like jumping out of an airplane and refusing to buy a parachute because it is too expensive.

    Right now the Himalayan glaciers are melting, which will eventually cause massive flooding in India, China and Nepal. And since the glaciers provide water for much of those areas, once the glaciers are expended and the flooding has subsided, those countries will actually suffer from a shortage of fresh water.

    Sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters in the last century, and they could rise by as much as 88 centimeters by 2100. That may not seem like a lot, but even a slight rise in sea level can drastically change the position of the shoreline, covering more and more land with ocean water.

    --Bryan Payne, The Temple News
  9. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    04 Sep '05 01:26
    And my best arguement in favor of Kyoto or other environmental measures: Why take the risks. Err on the side of caution. If you ignore global warming and act with that belief and are wrong, the consequences are much more severe than if you believe global warming and act on that belief and are wrong. What I am saying is that if there is no global warming and you act to prevent it anyway, you cost a small amount of money to companies that hurt the environment and you protect the environment a little on the side. But if you ignore global warming and it is real, you create much more serious problems for the world at large and whatever country you live in. It is the same type of math logic you use when gambling and determening if the risks are worth the potential rewards and I think I applies here.
  10. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    04 Sep '05 02:121 edit
    Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
    And my best arguement in favor of Kyoto or other environmental measures: Why take the risks. Err on the side of caution. If you ignore global warming and act with that belief and are wrong, the consequences are much more severe than if you believe global warming and act on that belief and are wrong. What I am saying is that if there is no gl ...[text shortened]... ambling and determening if the risks are worth the potential rewards and I think I applies here.
    I understand your arguement, and while it seems sound, how would you put a stop to every scientist, that had a theory and we erred on the side of caution? What would that turn into?..

    Further more, what would you say to Christians that believe this world will end when God says it will?
  11. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    04 Sep '05 02:20
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I understand your arguement, and while it seems sound, how would you put a stop to every scientist, that had a theory and we erred on the side of caution? What would that turn into?..

    Further more, what would you say to Christians that believe this world will end when God says it will?
    I don't think we should take every theory seriously. But the ones with a large body of supporting evidence should be. And as for believing god will end the world, there isn't really anything you can do about that now can you. Also, there is that line about god helps those who help themselves, so maybe he would want you to try to avert more obvious ways the world could become worse so that it would be a less miserable place before he ended it. I don't believe this but I am trying to make my arguement from your point of view.
  12. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    04 Sep '05 02:221 edit
    Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
    I don't think we should take every theory seriously. But the ones with a large body of supporting evidence should be. And as for believing god will end the world, there isn't really anything you can do about that now can you. Also, there is that line about god helps those who help themselves, so maybe he would want you to try to avert more obvious ...[text shortened]... e ended it. I don't believe this but I am trying to make my arguement from your point of view.
    Ok..fair enough, but have you honestly looked at the opposing views on Global Warming?
    Are those scientists crackpots?
  13. Subscriberwidget
    NowYouSeeIt
    NowYouDon't
    Joined
    29 Jan '02
    Moves
    271481
    04 Sep '05 03:092 edits
    Duh - this is a no-brainer! Buy future oceanfront property in Idaho, now, while it is still cheap. The vast ignorance of the American populace (... and their Pres) is continually amazing. Pass me a Twinkie, turn up the tube. Living in Canada, next to the deluded, is always exciting. When y'all invade for the water you've polluted and pissed away, please stay South of 50'. We'll send Maple Syrup!

    Get with the program, f'r gawd'sakes:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1546797,00.html

    This is not debatable. This is the new reality.

    Bush doesn't have to recognize Kyoto. It is happening, regardless....

    Like I said ~ buy oceanfront in Idaho. Sell your kids to the glue factories. Sing Randy Newman songs.
  14. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    63917
    04 Sep '05 05:57
    Originally posted by widget
    Duh - this is a no-brainer! Buy future oceanfront property in Idaho, now, while it is still cheap. The vast ignorance of the American populace (... and their Pres) is continually amazing. Pass me a Twinkie, turn up the tube. Living in Canada, next to the deluded, is always exciting. When y'all invade for the water you've polluted and pissed away, pleas ...[text shortened]... id ~ buy oceanfront in Idaho. Sell your kids to the glue factories. Sing Randy Newman songs.
    There's plenty to debate.

    Yes there is such a thing as global warming, if the temperature were stable i.e. not going up or down...now that would be news.

    What mans influence (if any) is on global warming is debatable.

    What influence (if any) Kyoto will have is debatable.

    One thing that is clear, if Kyoto is to have any influence it would be so minor as to not be worth mentioning let alone the trillions of dollars it will cost to implement.
  15. Standard membercaissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    San Antonio, Texas
    Joined
    08 Mar '04
    Moves
    615443
    04 Sep '05 08:11
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    [b]Is it real? or is it hyped up by left wing nuts?
    What planet are you on? The USA does not recognise the Kyoto Accord.
    Whatever your position on global warming (the GW Effect) is, all reputable scientists agree the planet is warming. We know for certain that gases, CO2 and methane and others, promote higher temps. So you can debate and debate the nature of this temp rise or try to address the temp rise.
    BTW, climate can be studied from ice cores and tree cores dating back much more than 100 years.
    100 years ago, dumping chemicals into the rivers and streams was considered okay. All of us are still eating and drinking that one.
Back to Top