or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming - Page 2

Poll Results: Are humans the primary cause of global warming?

 
  • 67% (25)
    Yes
  • 24% (9)
    No
  • 8% (3)
    Other (Please Elaborate)
37 Total Votes  
post #41 of 291
Thread Starter 
I don't recall ever mentioning anywhere that we shouldn't be environmentally responsible, look for better, cleaner ways of producing energy, etc.

I do not, however, believe that the earth is in danger of "catastrophic climate change" due to me driving my car, or using my computer.

There is no conclusive evidence that humans have a NEGATIVE impact on the earth's climate.

This issue has been politicized by governments and political parties all over the world for the sole purpose of gaining power.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #42 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't recall ever mentioning anywhere that we shouldn't be environmentally responsible, look for better, cleaner ways of producing energy, etc.

I do not, however, believe that the earth is in danger of "catastrophic climate change" due to me driving my car, or using my computer.

There is no conclusive evidence that humans have a NEGATIVE impact on the earth's climate.

This issue has been politicized by governments and political parties all over the world for the sole purpose of gaining power.

How convenient.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #43 of 291


No. There is no evidence that humans impact the environment. These trees (which take CO2 from the air and produce that horrible gas called oxygen) decided to go on strike, luckily for us.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #44 of 291


..and this is Mother Nature's way of answering the prayers of New Yorkers for a brief respite to the heat on a hot summer day. Isn't she just the sweetest little old lady you ever did meet?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #45 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


No. There is no evidence that humans impact the environment. These trees (which take CO2 from the air and produce that horrible gas called oxygen) decided to go on strike.

wow... would you look at all those new trees sprouting up amongst the dead ones (the ones that, surely, were supposed to have an infinite lifespan)... Of course, I'm sure those didn't occur naturally ... surely someone from the Sierra Club went up there and planted seedlings...

So how is that picture due to human intervention?... are you sure that dead-stand wasn't due to a decades-ago fire?... or volcanic ash?... or a beetle infestation?... A picture of dead trees does not necessarily have to be translated as something other than nature's normal course of events.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #46 of 291
That pic of the forest looks like the result of Acid Rain.

I bet there are still people that deny it's a problem.
post #47 of 291
Thread Starter 
So because I do not believe that humans are causing "catastrophic global warming", it must mean that I want to raze forests and pollute the air?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #48 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So because I do not believe that humans are causing "catastrophic global warming", it must mean that I want to raze forests and pollute the air?


I guess you were right in the Political Outsider thread, Sometimes you take things personally.

I don't see how my post refers to you, unless of course...
post #49 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I guess you were right in the Political Outsider thread, Sometimes you take things personally.

I don't see how my post refers to you, unless of course...

I was referring to the pictures. I used myself as an example because I have already stated I believe in being environmentally responsible, developing cleaner more efficient energy and production technologies, etc.

It is possible for someone to be mindful of the environment without believing all of the hype and politicization of the issue.

Do we need to be good stewards of the planet on which we live? Absolutely.

Do we need to enact legislation to further infringe upon the right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) in order to "save the planet"? Absolutely not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #50 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Do we need to enact legislation to further infringe upon the right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) in order to "save the planet"? Absolutely not.

So we have the right to act as selfishly as we wish in those pursuits because they are above all others and possibly deny future generations the right to pursue them, too?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #51 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

wow... would you look at all those new trees sprouting up amongst the dead ones (the ones that, surely, were supposed to have an infinite lifespan)... Of course, I'm sure those didn't occur naturally ... surely someone from the Sierra Club went up there and planted seedlings...

So how is that picture due to human intervention?... are you sure that dead-stand wasn't due to a decades-ago fire?... or volcanic ash?... or a beetle infestation?... A picture of dead trees does not necessarily have to be translated as something other than nature's normal course of events.

A doubter, a see. Here's another pic. No sign of fire damage, volcanic eruption nor rebirth.



I guess the builders planned for it to erode away; they must have used hardened water paint.

---

When I was in college (eons ago), we saw many similar pics taken by our prof who had actually studied the areas and found high levels of acids.

---

Areas in the US with the highest levels of rain acidity:



Where is Detroit, again? (and the other major industrial areas)

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #52 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

So we have the right to act as selfishly as we wish in those pursuits because they are above all others and possibly deny future generations the right to pursue them, too?

Giving up those rights now will most certainly deny future generations the same.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #53 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Giving up those rights now will most certainly deny future generations the same.

You make it sound so "all or nothing".

There's a valley near where I live, a few kilometers outside a large city. It is being used as a landfill. Twenty years ago, the city expected to be able to use it for about 80 years. It is now so full they expect it only to be useable for the next twenty years. The entire area is fenced off, and the city is in the process of acquiring the next valley over to use it in the future. People will be forbidden from using these areas for a couple of hundred years, maybe more.

The sunday fishermen who often visit the stream downhill complain that the fish stocks have dropped dramatically over the years. One guy, who is pushing 80, has been going there since before the fill was started. He hasn't caught any fish in two years and goes now more because he has been going for the past 70 years than because of the good fishing.

His great grandfather taught him to fish in the stream (that makes 4 generations). His grandson is the first member of his family to not learn to fish in that stream.

We are already denying the future generations the same rights we enjoy.

What would be wrong about cutting back on some of our excesses?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #54 of 291
Bergermeister, using plants to illustrate the effects of global warming is pretty short sighted - they would actually benefit from increased CO2, and "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" has significantly reduced acidic deposition in many parts of the northeastern United States.



We have "cut back".
Quote:
Following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1990 acidic deposition in North America has declined significantly since its peak in 1973. Consequently, research has shifted from studying the effects of acidic deposition to the recovery of these aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

(my bolding)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0112130647.htm
post #55 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

You make it sound so "all or nothing".

There's a valley near where I live, a few kilometers outside a large city. It is being used as a landfill. Twenty years ago, the city expected to be able to use it for about 80 years. It is now so full they expect it only to be useable for the next twenty years. The entire area is fenced off, and the city is in the process of acquiring the next valley over to use it in the future. People will be forbidden from using these areas for a couple of hundred years, maybe more.

The sunday fishermen who often visit the stream downhill complain that the fish stocks have dropped dramatically over the years. One guy, who is pushing 80, has been going there since before the fill was started. He hasn't caught any fish in two years and goes now more because he has been going for the past 70 years than because of the good fishing.

His great grandfather taught him to fish in the stream (that makes 4 generations). His grandson is the first member of his family to not learn to fish in that stream.

We are already denying the future generations the same rights we enjoy.

What would be wrong about cutting back on some of our excesses?

I am not denying that humans have an impact on the environment.

I am not denying that it is our responsibility to take care of our planet.

I am challenging the theory (being presented as fact) that humans are causing "catastrophic global warming".

Yes, I agree there are many ways in which we can improve. But I do not believe that massive global government intervention and regulation is the right way to effect the necessary changes.

I find it utterly hypocritical that Al Gore lambasted Bush for betraying this country and playing on our fears with respect to 9/11 and the subsequent unconstitutional war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Al Gore himself is betraying this country and playing on our fears by portraying the "man-made catastrophic global warming" theory as fact and essentially giving us a bogus ultimatum: "unless you give people like me power over you, you'll destroy the planet".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 291
I brought up Acid Rain and the point I was making was that there were deniers and probably still are.

Using plants as a barometer isn't a bad way to measure if your actions may be problematic.

Think about it.
post #57 of 291
Aren't the activists now talking more about "climate change" rather than "warming"?

As science garners a better understanding of what is happening, the theories and models are get refined. These terms mostly refer to the same thing but the newer version more clearly communicates the issue at hand. In complex ecosystems, slight variations in one variable can lead to drastic localized impacts.

Also, with the new term, hopefully there will be fewer anti-science types half-jokingly declaring global warming to be fake every time there is a warm day in the winter.
post #58 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I was referring to the pictures. I used myself as an example because I have already stated I believe in being environmentally responsible, developing cleaner more efficient energy and production technologies, etc.

It is possible for someone to be mindful of the environment without believing all of the hype and politicization of the issue.

Do we need to be good stewards of the planet on which we live? Absolutely.

Do we need to enact legislation to further infringe upon the right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) in order to "save the planet"? Absolutely not.

I applaud you on your first sentence.
Second, sure.
Third, yup.
Fourth, not an infringement, if you are affecting those around you.
Fifth, disagree.

As shown here on the previous page,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...agewanted=1&hp
Industry has been shown to be less than truthful and the need for regulation is definitely needed, just like it was in the Acid Rain battle.

Then again, I like to litter every now and then, just to show those fuckers.
post #59 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Industry has been shown to be less than truthful and the need for regulation is definitely needed, just like it was in the Acid Rain battle.

Then again, I like to litter every now and then, just to show those fuckers.

"Erin Brockovich"

A good movie for the times.

Julia Roberts and albert Finney are great in it.

---

Not far from where I live:



This was our local version of the PG&E story, years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #60 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I am not denying that humans have an impact on the environment.

I am not denying that it is our responsibility to take care of our planet.

I am challenging the theory (being presented as fact) that humans are causing "catastrophic global warming".

Yes, I agree there are many ways in which we can improve. But I do not believe that massive global government intervention and regulation is the right way to effect the necessary changes.

I find it utterly hypocritical that Al Gore lambasted Bush for betraying this country and playing on our fears with respect to 9/11 and the subsequent unconstitutional war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Al Gore himself is betraying this country and playing on our fears by portraying the "man-made catastrophic global warming" theory as fact and essentially giving us a bogus ultimatum: "unless you give people like me power over you, you'll destroy the planet".


Denying the effects of climate change so you can attack people as unpatriotic and colluding to destroy your country is what your really doing. It's one thing to dislike world leaders meddling in your country, it's another thing to deny the problem of climate change exists, so that you can try to vilify them yet further.
Who do you guys think you are, because your acting like dictators, determined to live a lie?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #61 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Denying the effects of climate change so you can attack people as unpatriotic and colluding to destroy your country is what your really doing.

You are the first person to bring up the word "unpatriotic" in this discussion. I am trying to preserve and defend my country, as I am sure you are.

Quote:
It's one thing to dislike world leaders meddling in your country, it's another thing to deny the problem of climate change exists, so that you can try to vilify them yet further.

There is no conclusive scientific evidence that climate change is a problem. Many world leaders are trying to make us believe it is, or at the very least are trying to ride the wave of popular sentiment to obtain and retain power.

Quote:
Who do you guys think you are, because your acting like dictators, determined to live a lie?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #62 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There is no conclusive scientific evidence that climate change is a problem. Many world leaders are trying to make us believe it is, or at the very least are trying to ride the wave of popular sentiment to obtain and retain power.

While the evidence isn't conclusive, it is what I'd call substantial and credible. The overwhelming majority of climatologists are in agreement that climate change is real and that humans have contributed. Given this fact, I'd rather not wait for entirely "conclusive" evidence. That evidence would come in the form of mass tragedy. Food shortages and refugees don't go well together.

Personally, I'm not swayed by world leaders on this subject. Instead, I'll rely on the scientific community and peer reviewed research. While some leaders are using climate change to further their own agendas, that doesn't mean that the scientists are wrong.
post #63 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

"Erin Brockovich"

A good movie for the times.

Julia Roberts and albert Finney are great in it.

---

Not far from where I live:



This was our local version of the PG&E story, years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

Wow, 10 years this company pumped mercury laced, and who knows what else as raw sewage into the drinking, fishing waters without concern.

I remember a thread here where sslarson, posts since hidden, posted the thoughts of some guy, an economist, that he revered.

Can't remember his name, suffice it say, crackpot but who has many followers in certain camps.

He wasn't shilling for anyone as far as I can remember but this was in one of his books on economics.

Knordkap was arguing points in that thread as well but under a different screen name that I forgot.

This guy denied that dioxin and other toxic substances that were under fire at the time, were toxic and regulating them was costing business to much and thus harming the economy.

His kind of thinking is what too many in power turn to or except as truth and the public that is being affected or forced to fight.
It's always about money first and if no one bitches, they won.

Seeing as sslarson is a libertarian, maybe someone here knows who I'm talking about.
post #64 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

While the evidence isn't conclusive, it is what I'd call substantial and credible. The overwhelming majority of climatologists are in agreement that climate change is real and that humans have contributed. Given this fact, I'd rather not wait for entirely "conclusive" evidence. That evidence would come in the form of mass tragedy. Food shortages and refugees don't go well together.

Personally, I'm not swayed by world leaders on this subject. Instead, I'll rely on the scientific community and peer reviewed research. While some leaders are using climate change to further their own agendas, that doesn't mean that the scientists are wrong.

I agree with much of this.

I do not, however, agree that "mass tragedy" would be conclusive evidence that climate change is detrimental to the planet, let alone that humans caused it.

I assume by "mass tragedy" you mean natural disaster (please correct me if I am wrong).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #65 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

While the evidence isn't conclusive, it is what I'd call substantial and credible. The overwhelming majority of climatologists are in agreement that climate change is real and that humans have contributed. Given this fact, I'd rather not wait for entirely "conclusive" evidence. That evidence would come in the form of mass tragedy. Food shortages and refugees don't go well together.

Personally, I'm not swayed by world leaders on this subject. Instead, I'll rely on the scientific community and peer reviewed research. While some leaders are using climate change to further their own agendas, that doesn't mean that the scientists are wrong.

Well said, but, you pick and choose who you believe and what you want to believe, until, like you said, it's to late.

While jazzguru says he's doing his part, he's wrong in the belief that constitutional rights trump regulation of actions that affect everyone.
post #66 of 291
The mass tragedy I was referring to would come in the form of the planet being less able to provide for its inhabitants.

Climatic changes result in food shortages and eventually mass migrations to more fruitful regions. The economy can also suffer, resulting in less prosperous average life. For instance, entire industries can disappear, such as fishing, farming for food and material, logging, etc...

Natural disasters are also likely to happen more frequently with climate change. But pinning down exactly which ones are a result of the change would be tough. So its an easier argument when sticking to things like depleted fish populations.
post #67 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

The mass tragedy I was referring to would come in the form of the planet being less able to provide for its inhabitants.

Climatic changes result in food shortages and eventually mass migrations to more fruitful regions. The economy can also suffer, resulting in less prosperous average life. For instance, entire industries can disappear, such as fishing, farming for food and material, logging, etc...

Natural disasters are also likely to happen more frequently with climate change. But pinning down exactly which ones are a result of the change would be tough. So its an easier argument when sticking to things like depleted fish populations.

I've read numerous scientific reports/studies that indicate just the opposite--that some of the most frutiful and abundant periods in Earth's history have been when it was much warmer than it is now. Some studies also suggest that plants thrive when CO2 is more prevelant in the atmosphere.

I think screener is right. It really comes down to who you choose to believe.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #68 of 291
On CNN right now, Gingrich wading into the GW debate.

Okay, one of their teases, fuckers.
post #69 of 291
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

While jazzguru says he's doing his part, he's wrong in the belief that constitutional rights trump regulation of actions that affect everyone.

I think these guys say it better than I can:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #70 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I've read numerous scientific reports/studies that indicate just the opposite--that some of the most frutiful and abundant periods in Earth's history have been when it was much warmer than it is now. Some studies also suggest that plants thrive when CO2 is more prevelant in the atmosphere.

I think screener is right. It really comes down to who you choose to believe.

It really comes down to not cherry picking. All the problems being highlighted from numerous sources and you and your GW bashers, espouse the benefits of lush environments!!! Are you really sure you want to limit CO2 emissions when the benefits are so widespread? Why not burn as much coal as possible that should lush things up a bit.

I've seen the data collected by the geological society and I suggest you read more of what they have to offer, you might begin to understand the downsides.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #71 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I think these guys say it better than I can:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Personal freedoms and Corporate freedom to do what they want are two different things.
Your quotes are to wide in scope.
There has to be a middle ground for both.
Are my rights infringed upon when I get a ticket for littering where it's illegal because it's a blight on the neighborhood?
Is a corporations rights infringed when they are fined and told to clean up or government will legislate because they are affecting the health of citizens?

To raise an old argument, you used to be able to freely own slaves, Jefferson did and as far as I remember, was opposed to it but it took another 70, 80 years to end it.

Times change and those that cling to a document as if it were the final word instead of a living document will continue to live in past glories instead of making new ones.
post #72 of 291
Politics or sincerity,
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming
Quote:
As recently as two years ago, Gingrich ridiculed the notion that humans are causing the earth to warm, but yesterday he said the evidence was "sufficient."

Just what to do,
Quote:
"We have now passed the tipping point of that argument," he said yesterday. The former Georgia congressman even allowed that he agreed with "about 60 percent" of "This Moment on Earth," a recently published book Kerry co wrote with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

But if the debate was proof of the emerging political consensus that global warming is for real, it also showed that profound disagreements remain over how to tackle the problem. In his remarks, Gingrich proposed giving polluters tax incentives to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily, an approach Kerry derided as inadequate.

"That's like saying, 'Barry Bonds, go investigate steroids,' " shot back Kerry, who favors a government-imposed limit on emissions and a system that would allow businesses to buy and sell credits entitling them to release a certain amount of carbon pollution into the atmosphere.
post #73 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Politics or sincerity,
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming

Just what to do,

There goes the constitution

Back in January http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/ent...limate_change/
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #74 of 291
You know, we can argue all we want about whether global warming or climate change is real or not, and what to do about it. In the end, Earth doesn't give a crap about us humans. The planet will still be here long after we're gone, and can spend the next 1,000 years renewing and healing while a new species comes to dominate Earth.

But if we, as humans, want to preserve this unique rock flying around the sun at about 66,514 miles/hour for future generations, we need to take better care of it and stop treating it like a public toilet.
post #75 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I've read numerous scientific reports/studies that indicate just the opposite--that some of the most frutiful and abundant periods in Earth's history have been when it was much warmer than it is now. Some studies also suggest that plants thrive when CO2 is more prevelant in the atmosphere.

I think screener is right. It really comes down to who you choose to believe.

Even if the earth were becoming more fruitful with the current climate trends, which doesn't seem to be the case, it would still be massively problematic. Mass migrations are necessitated by such changes. Either that or wars break out over resources as the balance of power shifts.

But I agree, it does come down to who you choose to believe. That is, unless you happen to be a climatologist who immerses themselves in data. Since I'm not, i have sided with the vast majority of the scientific community. Not only are they the vast majority, their findings seems more consistent with my rudimentary understanding of the data.
post #76 of 291
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #77 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Seriously. \

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

No Emmy! No Oscar! No Nobel! No contest!

Quote:
Monckton was born on 14 February 1952, the eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.[1]

Quote:
American Physical Society article on climate sensitivity

In July 2008 Monckton wrote an article about climate sensitivity for the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society.[16][17], concluding: it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration [surface temperature] will rise not by the 3.26 °K [sic] suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.

Some media commentators asserted that the publication of his paper was a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change.[18] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."[19] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[20] In a response[21], Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". Notwithstanding, Arthur Smith, long-time member at the APS Forum, has identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions in the article.[22][23]

I have three degrees with the word Science in them.

This Mockery, err Monckton, is a rank amateur, relative too even my body of knowledge, with respect to all things related to CC/GW/AGW.

This guy is an outright abject dimwit and halfwit, from across the pond no less.

Why would the US Congress allow a foreigner into what is essentially formulation of US climate policy.



EDIT - Oh lookie here, a hearing in March, conducted by one Joe Barton (R - TX), of the House Energy and Commerse Comittee REPUBLICANS (aka the Minority website). Go figure.

Quote:
Grasp of underlying science

On April 22, 2009, Barton asked Secretary of Energy and Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu how oil got to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean, if those places currently had such low temperatures. Chu replied that due to continental drift, Alaska had once been located much further south. Later that day, Barton wrote on his Twitter account that "I seemed to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question". The YouTube page had its comments disabled after the video was released on several news aggregators such as Fark and Digg, turning Rep. Barton's video into an internet meme. Articles written about this exchange, which was posted on Barton's official Youtube account under the title "Energy Secretary puzzled by simple question"[29], expressed astonishment at Barton's seeming ignorance of basic 6th-grade scientific concepts.[30][31][32][33]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #78 of 291
Thread Starter 
Did you read ANY of the other articles on that website? Or are you busy trying to discredit the ones you don't agree with, as well?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #79 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

http://www.climatedepot.com/

An interesting link with some useful reading. Hasn't changed the fact that global warming and other countless degradations to our environment are occurring. I'm particularly glad the repubs aren't in office. Did you watch the video in my link a couple of posts earlier, I really did watch your linked film. This onehttp://blogs.state.gov/index.php/ent...limate_change/

Sorry folks. I liked the article about Latin America!!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #80 of 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

http://www.climatedepot.com/

A Project by CFACT.
Who are these people and who funds them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ...ctive_Tomorrow
Quote:
Funding

A large proportion of CFACTs funding comes from corporations in the energy and automobile industries, as well as conservative foundations. Its financial backers include The Exxon Mobil Corporation,[5] The Chevron Corporation,[6] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[6] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[7] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[8]

I mean, seriously.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming