Global warming--not convinced

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

please no more "spinning" of stats! 35 year study? if you go back 70 years you'll find hottest temps on record,not the 90s-2000s as reported. but on record--what does that mean? what about before recorded stats. one scientist has said the most intense and most frequent hurricane activity was about that time as well('30s). cycle,cycle,cycle. some scientists believe we may be heading towards a cooldown(iceage). so i'll stay where i am to avoid said natural cycle of hurricanes.

Peer reviewed sources pleez.

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is--move to the wilderness with no electricity and no car. when GW kills you, you'll have a great position serving the god of mother earth or be reincarnated as a polar bear to survive the freeeeeeze!

O.k. You're insane. Good luck with reality!

[jharbert]

Global warming is the wrong topic. There are far too many skeptics whose minds will never be changed.

Instead, we should be talking about the cause: pollution. Everyone can agree that pollution is a bad thing. Rivers poisoned by coal mining runoff so badly that nothing can live in them. DDT showing up in mother's breast milk. Petroleum-based fertilizers that actually strip soils of their nutrients. These are easy to show and prove, and it's easy to demonstrate alternatives to prevent these problems.

Fix pollution and you fix global warming, with nearly everyone's support.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Oh no, I'm fairly sure someone who tells someone else they can die and have a great position serving the god of mother earth or be reincarnated as a polar bear to survive the freeeeeeze is insane.

P.s. Your net provider can post up anything they want, doesn't mean it's in any way accurate. That's almost as silly as saying the news has to be factual.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

...we SHOULD try to eliminate pollution in the mean time in a manner that sustains our economy!...

Vague references to articles sent by random ISPs isn't exactly research.

And I haven't seen ANY evidence that we are currently behaving in a sustainable manner in the USA, did you know we represent 5% of the worlds population and put out 25% of the green house gasses, you know, the kind that cause an increase in a planets temperature? Like Venus?

Did you know that Venus is incredibly hot? Hotter than mercury? Even though it is twice as far from the sun? This is ENTIRELY because of the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/mercury.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

[skewbe]

but this is your thread about global warming, and you are talking about medicine, as if it is the other side of the issue?!? We can't look ahead 10 years to see where we are headed?

Let's see if you have been paying attention,

Venus is hot because:
A. Free Will
B. Those damn politicians
C. The greenhouse effect
D. People needing, and dying from, medicine

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

glad you're still here. don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it? i believe sarcasm and related comedy and laughing contribute to strong mental health.

So does coherence. Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

[cfg83]

skewbe -

Originally Posted by skewbe

but this is your thread about global warming, and you are talking about medicine, as if it is the other side of the issue?!? We can't look ahead 10 years to see where we are headed?

Let's see if you have been paying attention,

Venus is hot because:
A. Free Will
B. Those damn politicians
C. The greenhouse effect
D. People needing, and dying from, medicine

You forgot :

E: Too many taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CarloSW2

[ELF]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Venus is hot because:
A. Free Will
B. Those damn politicians
C. The greenhouse effect
D. People needing, and dying from, medicine

I guess C. the greenhouse effect, Sooo.... I guess people used to live on venus?

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by ELF

I guess C. the greenhouse effect, Sooo.... I guess people used to live on venus?

Problem is that the op was not convinced of environmental change because he doesn't want to believe it, not because of the evidence, which I do not see that he has bothered to examine when forging his opinion.

The op basic argument at this point seems to be: Politics and money exist, therefore GW doesn't.

There would be nothing left in the universe if that were a valid argument.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

can't decide if you're insulting my intelligence or missing my points. so here it is in simple form: GW is aposed(and supported) by scientists with compelling data. because politics can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

Jejejejeje. The only problem with that angle is it can be used with almost anything. Because you can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

If you really think GW is BS, why not address pro-GW peer reviewed papers in a coherent matter? If it is indeed being spun around for profit, the papers published on it will not pass muster. Unfortunately I'm afraid you'll find that even if every scientist alive agreed GW was a problem that needed to be addressed ASAP, they still wouldn't let anything peer reviewed get past 'em if it was grossly inaccurate.