Is this happening due to global warming?
- Thread starter GOZTEK
- Start date
I have found a good single malt and hand rolled Havana cures what ails you
Andrew_Davies
Seed
So however many years ago the earth started to lock away carbon in many forms within its many layers. Us humans roll along, start sucking it out, processing it and releasing that carbon in the form of CO2 (amongst others) into the atmosphere. Fact. Regardless of whether this has contributed to global warming (something I believe, 2 + 2 tends to always equal 4), the reliance we have on such a finite resource needs to be reconsidered. The "conspiracy" of climate change may help us to bring about a more sustainable existence. If so, is it really such a bad thing us lefty tree huggers are flapping our arms about?
Lessee here... on one side you've got the vast majority of the world's scientific community saying that accelerated warming of the earth's climate is real and undeniably exacerbated by human activity, and on the other side you've got experts like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Will Heath in a state of uninformed denial and adding to the problem every time they open their mouths. Lets all go stand out on the shrinking polar ice caps and think it over.
rockm
Spuds Moyogi
"so basically from what i can understand is that nobody beleives in this thing. I am not an expert and i may believe and not, but i can't really ignore that we made the world our garbage, built where we were not suppose too and the nature showed us that it was illegal building in such plases. We have used almost all raw materials. Some of you may be old and don't give a flying fu$k about this but i am 27 and i have a child coming and i want a future for us. Apart from all this we all know that if another world war happens its the end of the world so i hope this won't happen in our lifetimes."
This is exactly the kind of hysterical mindset that makes me think twice about global warming and the "science" behind it. "Global warming" is about a lot more than science. It is about religious fervor--Say something that the purists don't agree with, don't believe EXACTLY as others do in the minute details, you become a heretic, who "doesn't give a flying F&(*@ about anyone but yourself."
Back in the dark ages, heretics were burned at the stake if they questioned what were then "the facts" about God...I can't wait for the warming inquisition...
There were (and still are) scientific skeptics of the whole mess, not so much the "facts," but in the lock step mindset behind the movement. I'm not denying the world is in a warming period, what I'm skeptical of are some of the motives behind those pushing "solutions" to it.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Let me tell you buddy, I'm 49. I have a son who is about to step out into the real world and begin to handle the world YOU (yeah, YOU. You're not off the hook just because you're under 30 and you don't have the right to tell me what I should believe and not believe) AND I left him. I care about his future. I care that he is being saddled with what will be an astronomical cost of trying to stop something that is more belief system than scientific phenomena.
What I care most about is his freedom to believe as he wants and to act as he wants. I've taught him the difference between right and wrong. Between just and unjust. Between moral and immoral--just as my parents taught me. Contrary to popular belief, those of us who don't buy the whole "global warming" idea, DO care deeply about the environment. Always have always will. It is the right thing to do.
We can also contribute MORE than those who scream and yell about how bad we nonbelievers are.
Case in point--how much have you contributed to preserving your national/local forests in the last decade?
I've paid hundreds of dollars over the last three decades in hunting licenses, big game stamps and other state fees. Those fees go directly to land preservation, wildlife support and management and other activities that have a longlasting impact on the environment around me. My payments are equalled by thousands of other environmental pariahs...
This is exactly the kind of hysterical mindset that makes me think twice about global warming and the "science" behind it. "Global warming" is about a lot more than science. It is about religious fervor--Say something that the purists don't agree with, don't believe EXACTLY as others do in the minute details, you become a heretic, who "doesn't give a flying F&(*@ about anyone but yourself."
Back in the dark ages, heretics were burned at the stake if they questioned what were then "the facts" about God...I can't wait for the warming inquisition...
There were (and still are) scientific skeptics of the whole mess, not so much the "facts," but in the lock step mindset behind the movement. I'm not denying the world is in a warming period, what I'm skeptical of are some of the motives behind those pushing "solutions" to it.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Let me tell you buddy, I'm 49. I have a son who is about to step out into the real world and begin to handle the world YOU (yeah, YOU. You're not off the hook just because you're under 30 and you don't have the right to tell me what I should believe and not believe) AND I left him. I care about his future. I care that he is being saddled with what will be an astronomical cost of trying to stop something that is more belief system than scientific phenomena.
What I care most about is his freedom to believe as he wants and to act as he wants. I've taught him the difference between right and wrong. Between just and unjust. Between moral and immoral--just as my parents taught me. Contrary to popular belief, those of us who don't buy the whole "global warming" idea, DO care deeply about the environment. Always have always will. It is the right thing to do.
We can also contribute MORE than those who scream and yell about how bad we nonbelievers are.
Case in point--how much have you contributed to preserving your national/local forests in the last decade?
I've paid hundreds of dollars over the last three decades in hunting licenses, big game stamps and other state fees. Those fees go directly to land preservation, wildlife support and management and other activities that have a longlasting impact on the environment around me. My payments are equalled by thousands of other environmental pariahs...
Last edited:
The last I heard, importing Havanas was Illegal.................
keep it green,
Harry
As always Harry....don't ask...don't tell.
Attila Soos
Omono
A distinction should be made between the political agenda of the left or the right, and the a-political reality, that can be explored through the methods of science.
What often happens, is that conservatives align themselves with those who deny the human factor on the global climate, for the simple reason that they don't want to be associated with any group that includes people with left-wing agenda. This is normal human behaviour: if I hate your political agenda, then I will reject EVERYTHING that you stand for.
This is clearly a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Science should have nothing to do with political debate. One doesn't have to agree with any agenda coming from left or right. Global climate change is all about numbers, raw data, temperature measurements, parts per million, chemical analysis.
I would welcome somebody who can come up with an intelligent scientific model that proves the rest of the scientists wrong. I would welcome the good news, that after all, there is no reason for alarm. A debate based on real data and science is always good.
Who gives a hoot about the opinion of anybody who has zero qualification in the science of climatology.
Would you let somebody perform heart surgery on you, if the person is a good plumber but never went to medical school? Well, drain pipes and bood vessels, close enough, right?
Forget about politics. Get all the available data, create climate models to the best of your ablilties, run the numbers through the computer, and look at the result. If you have different climate models, compare the results. Debate the merits of your model. Create best and worst scenarios based on the data you have. THIS is what the debate should be about: numbers and models. Numbers don't lie. They don't care about politis.
Making this into a political debate is ridiculous. It is like two idiots fighting over some pocket change, in the middle of the ocean, while their ship is sinking. Just repair the f#%@ing ship and move on.
What often happens, is that conservatives align themselves with those who deny the human factor on the global climate, for the simple reason that they don't want to be associated with any group that includes people with left-wing agenda. This is normal human behaviour: if I hate your political agenda, then I will reject EVERYTHING that you stand for.
This is clearly a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Science should have nothing to do with political debate. One doesn't have to agree with any agenda coming from left or right. Global climate change is all about numbers, raw data, temperature measurements, parts per million, chemical analysis.
I would welcome somebody who can come up with an intelligent scientific model that proves the rest of the scientists wrong. I would welcome the good news, that after all, there is no reason for alarm. A debate based on real data and science is always good.
Who gives a hoot about the opinion of anybody who has zero qualification in the science of climatology.
Would you let somebody perform heart surgery on you, if the person is a good plumber but never went to medical school? Well, drain pipes and bood vessels, close enough, right?
Forget about politics. Get all the available data, create climate models to the best of your ablilties, run the numbers through the computer, and look at the result. If you have different climate models, compare the results. Debate the merits of your model. Create best and worst scenarios based on the data you have. THIS is what the debate should be about: numbers and models. Numbers don't lie. They don't care about politis.
Making this into a political debate is ridiculous. It is like two idiots fighting over some pocket change, in the middle of the ocean, while their ship is sinking. Just repair the f#%@ing ship and move on.
Last edited:
Bill S
Masterpiece
Okee Dokee thats good for me, if you can would you mind telling me where this "VASTmajority is, or are you just assuming Obama and the boys are telling you the truth????? I suppose you pay your internet fees to Al Gore too
.Undeniably exacerbated by human activity, yep i drove my Explorer to work today, I hate those damn ice caps. and another Heath hater comes out of the closet. Would you mind by the way telling me how anyone using first amendment rights, and creating debate is causing a problem, oh ya thats right, the"good guys" don't want anyone to think, they just want everyone to accept what they tell you as gospel, can I get an AMEN. If you don't accept it you are an unpatriotic liar. Smear on my friend, trouble is people are thinking, and in due time will rid the system of the politicians who think we are all stupid.
One post in how long, and this is it.???????
rockm
Spuds Moyogi
"Making this into a political debate is ridiculous."
It has been political for a VERY long time. This politicization of science has a long history in the environmental movement. Leveraging political aims using an environmental pry bar began with the snail darter back in the 70's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail_darter_controversy
The long and short of that case was the researcher went in search of something that would become extinct if the dam project was completed. As a biologist, he knew that species--especially in isolated place can become unique to that place. He found the snail darter. It didn't matter that the species probably would have gone extinct by itself, given the small gene pool (happens all the time with already rare species the world over). The fish became a tool. The concern wasn't the animal, it was the larger political leverage the animal provided...
It's this willing, cynical use of science that has continued in the global warming debate. Look at the leaked emails out of the UK and the willingness to keep out things that didn't jibe with their arguments--and the "clever" use of data. Regardless of the cutesy scientific jargon, something smells bad about the whole thing
http://news.aol.com/article/university-of-east-anglias-phil-jones/793315
It might not be a huge deal, but at the least it shows the figures are FAR from concrete and are being manipulated for maximum impact...
It has been political for a VERY long time. This politicization of science has a long history in the environmental movement. Leveraging political aims using an environmental pry bar began with the snail darter back in the 70's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail_darter_controversy
The long and short of that case was the researcher went in search of something that would become extinct if the dam project was completed. As a biologist, he knew that species--especially in isolated place can become unique to that place. He found the snail darter. It didn't matter that the species probably would have gone extinct by itself, given the small gene pool (happens all the time with already rare species the world over). The fish became a tool. The concern wasn't the animal, it was the larger political leverage the animal provided...
It's this willing, cynical use of science that has continued in the global warming debate. Look at the leaked emails out of the UK and the willingness to keep out things that didn't jibe with their arguments--and the "clever" use of data. Regardless of the cutesy scientific jargon, something smells bad about the whole thing
http://news.aol.com/article/university-of-east-anglias-phil-jones/793315
It might not be a huge deal, but at the least it shows the figures are FAR from concrete and are being manipulated for maximum impact...
Last edited:
Chris Johnston
Omono
I couldn't agree more. With all the screaming from the far left and the posturing from the far right, finding scientific ifnormation about climate change is increasingly difficult. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe that with the amount of chemicals we put in the air, 6.5 billion people with their assorted factories, SUVs etc. have no impact on our global health, including air pollution. Is AGW real? I want to see the SCIENCE! (I'm also sick of seing folks post, "Coldest Sept 18 on record in Washington D.C.! Global warming a fraud!") I also have a problem with some folks claiming that it's arrogant to think we could affect it either way, simply because they believe in God or gods. I look twice at any scientific assumption made by anyone who denies the evidence for evolution based on their faith and gaps in it. If Rush Limbaugh is making a scientific statement of fact, that's a red flag right there!
On the other hand, the global warming (now climate change) movement has beens seized on by anarchists, progressives, anti-capitalists, and anti-americans to try to punish the US for real or perceived wrongs. Instead of working to help developing countries leapfrog the most destructive technologies, they want to punish the west. I have a real problem accepting their line when even my quite liberal, yellow-dog Democrat (she'd vote for a yellow dog if he had a D behind his name), highly intelligent bride couldn't sit through "An Inconvenient Truth" for its obvious obfuscations and Chicken Little pronouncements. (There's a documentary out there called "Not Evil-Just Wrong" that supposedly refutes AIT but has just as much wrong with it.)
So I want to see the science, from scientists, not polititicians , their lackeys, toadies, or panting followers. Let's see the science and figure out what to do or not to do.
Attila Soos
Omono
Okee Dokee thats good for me, if you can would you mind telling me where this "VASTmajority is, or are you just assuming Obama and the boys are telling you the truth????? I suppose you pay your internet fees to Al Gore too
Bill,
This is the probem with this debate, people keep talking about what Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and Joe Blow believes. What they believe has no relevance on the issue.
If you care at all about this global phenomenon, then please stop listening to Obama and any other politician, and study the findings of the following organizations:
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences
World Meteorologican Organization
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
You can read THOUSANDS of papers issued on peer-reviewed forums on this issue. Why do you insist on listening what Joe The Plumber has to say?
Attila Soos
Omono
Mark,
Isn't it so convenient to take incidents like you just selected, and use it against the rest of the scientist community?
The example you have shown only proves that some people become blinded by their ageda and resort to cheating. We are talking about crooks here. May be 1% of the whole community? I have no idea how many cheaters do this, but I expect that in peer reviewed publications, there can't be too many.
The figures are NOT far from concrete. The figures are absolutely concrete. The interpretation of these figures is what causes the debate amongst scientist, but there is very little disagreement on the effects of the CO2 emmission, and the need to drastically reduce this emmission. There are many controversial issues in science, but the negative effects of human polution and waste on our globe is NOT one of them. We all know that the emmission of billowing smoke that blackens the skies (plus other gases, invisible to the eye), and pollutes our water cannot be sustained indefinitely without backfiring on us. How complicated is to understand that?
Last edited:
Attila Soos
Omono
That's right, this is a common concern that will affect us all. It's too sad that the loudest voices that we hear in the media are NOT coming from those who have a much deeper understanding of the issues.
Klytus
Omono
One could say they are passing marked cards.
Attila Soos
Omono
Here is an interesting video on the debate:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/hoax-exposed-the-great-global-warming-swindles-swindle/
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/hoax-exposed-the-great-global-warming-swindles-swindle/
rockm
Spuds Moyogi
Al,
Again, I point to my arguments not against the idea, but to my objection to tactics and attitudes of those global warming true believers.
We're NOT talking about crooks here. The folks who apparently diddled the numbers are not small fry in the warming research community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
Do I assume that all data is somehow tainted, well, given that apparently some of the leading researchers aren't really being quite as forthcoming as one would hope, I have no idea how some of the rank and file deal with their research...
The figures are far from concrete, no matter how slowly you speak to me
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm
Although this story is a year old, it centers on the biggest problem global models always have-complex systems are impossibly hard to study, especially over time. You cannot tell me that we intimately understand all the implications and understand all the possible (or even the most likely) results.
YEah, pollution is a bad thing. Yeah, we should work to reduce it. The issue for me is, should be impoverish ourselves and destroy our society tilting at this windmill? For me, given all the self-interested parties (research grants, private investments and fame
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/al-gore-conflict-of-interests )
I'll remain skeptical.
Again, I point to my arguments not against the idea, but to my objection to tactics and attitudes of those global warming true believers.
We're NOT talking about crooks here. The folks who apparently diddled the numbers are not small fry in the warming research community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
Do I assume that all data is somehow tainted, well, given that apparently some of the leading researchers aren't really being quite as forthcoming as one would hope, I have no idea how some of the rank and file deal with their research...
The figures are far from concrete, no matter how slowly you speak to me
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm
Although this story is a year old, it centers on the biggest problem global models always have-complex systems are impossibly hard to study, especially over time. You cannot tell me that we intimately understand all the implications and understand all the possible (or even the most likely) results.
YEah, pollution is a bad thing. Yeah, we should work to reduce it. The issue for me is, should be impoverish ourselves and destroy our society tilting at this windmill? For me, given all the self-interested parties (research grants, private investments and fame
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/al-gore-conflict-of-interests )
I'll remain skeptical.
Last edited:
