Global warming--not convinced

[Telco]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Ya pretty much lost me when you admitted to voting w twice. Wow.

Sorry, but it was a choice between Bush and an admitted war criminal. Check out Kerry's Congressional testimony during Viet Nam. From that, in my opinion Kerry should never have been allowed to run in ANY office, much less for President. And in 2000, it was a choice between Bush and Gore. Bush at least never tried to hide any oil ties, nor is he hypocritical like Gorey.

Let the Dems run a true centrist candidate, not a panderer to the extremes, and I'll be glad to vote for a Dem. And no, Hillary Clinton is not a centrist candidate, her record does not match her rhetoric. If she gets in it'll be left face double time, no matter how much she claims to be a centrist. And I feel sorry for Obama if he shares a ticket with Clinton, because if they win I see Obama choking to death or slipping on a bar of soap or something. I just can't see Clinton letting him live once she is either in office as #1 or #2, especially if she's #2. She's killed to forward her personal interests before. At this time, the only Dem I can see voting for is Obama, but I'm still not sure yet. I do know that if Clinton is any part of the ticket, no vote from me.

And no, I'm not threatening any candidate here. If I don't like the President, I wait for the next election and cast a vote. This is just what I see happening.

What I find to be particularly short sighted and narrow minded is the idea that a person following the correct actions for a different reason than your own makes that person's contributions less meaningful or less worthy. If someone voluntarily cuts their fuel use and emissions the reason they do so should not matter. The fact that they did so is what is important. The opinion that a person must make these changes only because they support a particular belief, in this case global warming, is very bigoted. Personally, I don't care if it's because of global warming, money, pollution, the dog told you to, or you're trying to bag a hottie, if you cut your fuel use and emissions you did good.

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

Ya pretty much lost me when you admitted to voting w twice. Wow.

Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... won't get fooled again.

CarloSW2

[skewbe]

Let it not be said that I do not appreciate any efforts to conserve. This thread apparently has been about propoganda to limit conservation efforts however.

Look, we are all acting out of fear here, some are afraid of change, I can certainly forgive that. I do not know that grandkids/history will see us as anything less than self-serving monsters, who, when presented with the choice, decided to squabble until it was too late.

( and yes, telco is nuttier than squirrel poo , watch as he rambles on about anything BUT the facts of global warming with just the slightest provocation )

[SVOboy]

I, for one, would like to see some serious research suggesting global warming is not an issue/is not created by people,

Just asking.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

now, must pose the questions:do these sound like words of irrefutable proof? and did you read or have you read the other argument. I HAVE looked at both sides...still not convinced!!!!

There is no such thing as irrefutable proof in science until after the fact. However, given that most of our current fossil fuel could be minimized via changes in power generation and increased efficiency of energy use, it would be silly to ignore the possibility that we are causing and will continue to cause significant climate change. Look at it this way, given how little it would cost us as a civilization, how much it may save in the future due to the impacts, and how certain we are that fossil fuel emissions are responsible for climate change, it's financially irresponsible to not act. If we're wrong and climate change isn't caused by human activity, we may loose out on a few hundred billion bucks over the next decade or so, around what we've spent in Iraq. But if we're right and it is caused by human activity, we will save around a hundred trillion bucks in the US alone.

For the record, AFAIK there is no published scientific dissent regarding climate change.

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

...

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

Telco makes more sense and volume with one statement than you've made this entire discussion.

I don't agree that Telco made any sense in any of their posts, but I do agree about the volume part. It's what happens when we heat air...

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

by the way gotta remind you that you're conversing with a newbie--haven't learned how to paste articles yet. your advantage.

Sure you can't. You're just pretending not to be able to post stuff because you can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage.. So how is the pro fossil fuel lobby paying you?

[skewbe]

LOL, bowtie, you are one confused individual. That didn't make ANY sense, or maybe I just lack the appropriate combination of brain tumors to decypher it, LOL!

I suppose thats what happens when you embrace non-science. You can claim 1+2=pink unicorns, and believe it.

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

LOL, bowtie, you are one confused individual. That didn't make ANY sense, or maybe I just lack the appropriate combination of brain tumors to decypher it, LOL!

I suppose thats what happens when you embrace non-science. You can claim 1+2=pink unicorns, and believe it.

And what is non-science? Anything that disagrees with what you believe? Just how much is the global warming lobby paying you anyway? Next time you talk to them, can you have them have Al Gore check with Dick Cheney on where my check is? Cause I've not ever gotten one.

Here's the facts. We know we pollute. We know that much of the pollution is greenhouse gas.

Now here's the theory, which has not been proven. Man may or may not be contributing enough greenhouse gas to make a difference. There may or may not be a way to eliminate all of it. There may or may not be a consequence to eliminating all of it, not just man's emissions. Global warming may cause the planet to get hotter or colder. Global warming may cause the ice cap to melt or build as far south as Wisconsin (sorry Canada).

Now here's the joke. My internet sources were found by searching Yahoo for

next ice age -movie

The sites are all proponents of the global warming theory. They all claim different stuff. From what they are saying, they have no idea what they are looking at.

So once again, I'll say why waste money on global warming? Just spend the research money on eliminating pollution, and if man is causing global warming then the problem will take care of itself. If not, then we will either get hotter or colder, and the ice caps will either get larger or smaller, and ocean levels will either rise or fall. Simple, eh?

Oh, one other thing. If squirrel poo is nutty, does this mean that when you need peanut butter you just squeeze a squirrel over your bread? How does that work out for you? Does it piss off the squirrel?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

Busted! you got me...my real name is Scott "W" Exxon. i want to maximize my oil profits before we run out! if GW destroys the world, so what, i'll have enough money to move to the moon. it concerns me that you might possibly believe that fiction. by the way, amsoil lubricants are used in my vehicles which, as you know are not fossil fuel based. very small conservation, but true none the less.

GW won't destroy the world, it'll just cost a ton of money to change where and how we live if the climate changes enough. As Scott "W" Exxon, you don't have to move to the moon, just someplace else if it becomes to hairy where you are. So yer gettin' paid off by amsoil too? Man, just get the Nike swoosh tattooed on yer forehead and call it a day.

[Telco]

I understand. They are pretty close-minded about this, but then the liberal left never has been able to see anyone's point of view other than their own, on anything.