Carbon Credits

[Rainsford]

And seriously, what's with the Al Gore derangement syndrome? He's one guy, he doesn't personify every single environmental issue...arguing that he's a moron has NOTHING to do with the underlying issue, any more than arguing that GWB is a moron invalidates his side of the issues.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And seriously, what's with the Al Gore derangement syndrome? He's one guy, he doesn't personify every single environmental issue...arguing that he's a moron has NOTHING to do with the underlying issue, any more than arguing that GWB is a moron invalidates his side of the issues.

..Algore is NOT a moron. He's a very slick..smart business man with a grift sales pitch. He's effectively selling refrigerators to Eskimos. He's engineered a cash flow from the carbon con.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: BriGy86
I'm not quite sure what is so great about them. Seems like some sort of scam to get money.

Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ja1484
Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the carbon con is a great racket. it's going to open up a lot of wallets.

I can't help but notice that not a one of you can actually come up with a decent argument...all you have is one-liners. Is this what passes for political debate on the right now?

If someone can't look at Carbon credits (and really the whole "environmental movement") and see it's absurdity in plain sight, why should I bother myself to enlighten them? They're going to deny what I say anyway because it doesn't fit their rhetoric, and I stand to gain nothing by helping them. I also have nothing to lose by leaving them alone to their foolish notions.

In short: I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: IGBT
..I'm stating the obvious. The carbon con is going to make a ton of money for those with the entrepreneurial infrastructure in place to tap into the windfall cash flow it will produce. Algore and others keenly set them self up in such form and fashion before they went on the stump and circuit with their alarmist propaganda. Willing accomplices in the media are propping up the alarmism for their own gains. Not all are fooled.. but more then happy to take your money.

Yeah, it's not like he's been talking about this for three decades or anything.

I know in your gut you FEEL like global warming has to be a scam, and that Al Gore is your enemy that must be defeated, but really this is all starting to look pretty sad on your part. You've been asked over and over again to provide the slightest shred of support for what you're saying, and every time you're asked you duck back to some sort of argument you heard on talk radio.

At this point you're just embarassing yourself.

Wow, he's been talking about man made global warming ever since global cooling was a crisis?

No kidding. The funniest part about all this is that people think that we can actually control global climate with our actions. Them's some serious delusions of grandeur right there - I guess there's a reason ignorance and arrogance sound so much alike.

 

[piasabird]

In a way companies already do this.

As an example I use to work for Winchester Ammunition. Ammunition can be seen as harmful and it can be used to kill people. However, another area it is used in is Hunting. To create a better image the company donates large amounts of funds for wildlife and hunting reserve work to be done in our area. The company does not have to do this but it kind of feeds back into one of its largest customers which is the hunters. They need a place to hunt and someone has to manage the wildlife and resources. It is like self preservation. They also support Gun sporting, gun ranges, and sell Clay and skeet equipment.

You could say ammunition supports nature preserves and wildlife management. Some other industrties may not really support much in these areas. Take Cars and Gasoline for instance. We want cars and gasoline to get to work, but I dont know if they do anything to help the environment. However, some of these companies may also support things like Golf, or car racing, or other activities. Besides that they often support things like Community Education, the Arts and other areas. I think many of these companies want to be seen in a better light and have excess funds which if they donate to worthy endeavors can be used for the common good, and in return earn a tax deduction to offset their taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Yeah, it's not like he's been talking about this for three decades or anything.

I know in your gut you FEEL like global warming has to be a scam, and that Al Gore is your enemy that must be defeated, but really this is all starting to look pretty sad on your part. You've been asked over and over again to provide the slightest shred of support for what you're saying, and every time you're asked you duck back to some sort of argument you heard on talk radio.

At this point you're just embarassing yourself.

Wow, he's been talking about man made global warming ever since global cooling was a crisis?

No, global cooling was never a crisis. That's a frequent red herring used by ignorant, stupid, and/or dishonest people in a pathetic attempt to discredit global warming.

Scientists and scientific groups observed the trend from the beginning of the century to the 70's and noticed that temperatures were cooling. They said it might be a sign of something to come, but that they lacked the research to make a definitive statement. (at least that's what nearly all legitimate science groups said). The news media took this as a story they could run with and printed these cooling fears without the scientific caveats. (ie: we don't have any solid proof of this) It was irresponsible reporting, but it was certainly never a crisis.

Global warming on the other hand is backed up by millions of man hours of research over the span of decades, billions in funding for studies, etc... etc... The global scientific community feels comfortable in stating without equivocation that mankind is causing the planet to warm, and that the warming trend is statistically significant.

Then again, you probably already know these things. They've been told to you before. I'm going to guess that you will simply ignore the information you find inconvenient this time the same as before though. Hopefully my posting will allow other people who are open to rational argument to see what you're trying to do though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ja1484

No kidding. The funniest part about all this is that people think that we can actually control global climate with our actions. Them's some serious delusions of grandeur right there - I guess there's a reason ignorance and arrogance sound so much alike.

If you honestly think this you SERIOUSLY need to do some reading on the subject. Your point of view is one that almost no climatologist on the entire planet shares.

That is unless by 'control' you meant some sort of dominant influence. That would be correct. If you meant 'can change the climate' as I suspect you did, then my first statement stands.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously there is the potential for scams surrounding carbon credits

Yeah...well, at least we've gotten you to admit that much. :roll:

The fact is, Carbon Credits are a scam. Complete and total scam.

Do you know who "sells" these right now? For example, Gore "purchases" his carbon credits from a company which he owns a majority stake in, thereby creating a large tax write-off.

Well gee, you got me there, because that NEVER happens in any other legitimate business :roll: Clearly the only solution is to ban all non-government businesses, right, comrade?

And I also take issue with the idea that at a fundamental level carbon credits are good. Why? You're not encouraging a company to change their ways, just to make a few bucks and swindle someone else.

For the love of God, read up on carbon credits, THEN argue. It's pretty fundamental economics, you make something cost money, you introduce rules of supply and demand. If you control the supply, you can control price, then you can control demand. You guys sound like the folks arguing that our money isn't backed by gold, so it should be worthless. A compelling argument, I suppose, but one that doesn't make a lot of sense if you weren't sleeping through any basic college economics course.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: BriGy86
I'm not quite sure what is so great about them. Seems like some sort of scam to get money.

Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ja1484
Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the carbon con is a great racket. it's going to open up a lot of wallets.

I can't help but notice that not a one of you can actually come up with a decent argument...all you have is one-liners. Is this what passes for political debate on the right now?

If someone can't look at Carbon credits (and really the whole "environmental movement") and see it's absurdity in plain sight, why should I bother myself to enlighten them? They're going to deny what I say anyway because it doesn't fit their rhetoric, and I stand to gain nothing by helping them. I also have nothing to lose by leaving them alone to their foolish notions.

In short: I'm not going to waste my time.

If you don't want to make an argument, why bother posting here at all? If all you're looking for is some intellectual masturbation, there are a lot of forums where you won't even be bothered by dissenting opinions. Why come to a board with heated issues debates if all you're going to do is proclaim that you have the right answer and you're not going to share how you got it with anyone else? It seems a lot like the guy in a study group who always pretends to get the answer before everyone else, but refuses to tell anyone what it is so he can look smart without having to actually BE smart.

Ah, you know what, I think I answered my own question...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: BriGy86
I'm not quite sure what is so great about them. Seems like some sort of scam to get money.

Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ja1484
Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the carbon con is a great racket. it's going to open up a lot of wallets.

I can't help but notice that not a one of you can actually come up with a decent argument...all you have is one-liners. Is this what passes for political debate on the right now?

I'm sorry but what makes you think that you have the intellectual high ground here? Are you a professional in the field or something?

I'm not a professional at all, and I don't think I'm claiming to be one. But at least I'm willing to make an argument and have a debate, which is more than I can say of a lot of the people posting in this thread. It doesn't take much to have the "intellectual high ground" over people with nothing but bumper sticker viewpoints. I might not be an industry expert when it comes to financial stuff, but let's face it, I'm not exactly debating with Alan Greenspan here either.

Well in the MMGW threads you act as if you have the intellectual high ground on this issue. I find this funny because when myself and other Police/former Police Officers are defending our profession in the anti police threads you make a point to tell us that we do not hold the intellectual high ground, even though we have much more experience knowledge with that issue than you do with MMGW.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: BriGy86
I'm not quite sure what is so great about them. Seems like some sort of scam to get money.

Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ja1484
Oh my God, you just summed up the entire green movement in two sentences. Nice work.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the carbon con is a great racket. it's going to open up a lot of wallets.

I can't help but notice that not a one of you can actually come up with a decent argument...all you have is one-liners. Is this what passes for political debate on the right now?

I'm sorry but what makes you think that you have the intellectual high ground here? Are you a professional in the field or something?

I'm not a professional at all, and I don't think I'm claiming to be one. But at least I'm willing to make an argument and have a debate, which is more than I can say of a lot of the people posting in this thread. It doesn't take much to have the "intellectual high ground" over people with nothing but bumper sticker viewpoints. I might not be an industry expert when it comes to financial stuff, but let's face it, I'm not exactly debating with Alan Greenspan here either.

Well in the MMGW threads you act as if you have the intellectual high ground on this issue. I find this funny because when myself and other Police/former Police Officers are defending our profession in the anti police threads you make a point to tell us that we do not hold the intellectual high ground, even though we have much more experience knowledge with that issue than you do with MMGW.

What the heck are you talking about? I don't think I've EVER told you (or anyone else) that they don't "hold the intellectual high ground" or that their experience doesn't count for anything. I HAVE said that the fact that you have experience in certain things doesn't give you the ability to silence everyone who disagrees with you, but that's a pretty different thing.

Stop playing dumb, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. My argument isn't that anyone is making a bad argument or that they disagree with me or that I'm smarter than everyone else. All I'm asking is that if someone wants to make an argument, then MAKE ONE...this one-liner bullshit passing as actual debate is really stupid, and I would imagine you of all people would understand what I'm saying. In those "anti-police threads", how annoying is it to have what is often a well thought out and well argued position dismissed by someone saying nothing other than "The police are just jack booted thugs out to abuse their powers."?

I'm a pretty smart guy, and yeah, I do think I know a fair amount about certain issues. But you know what, it's entirely possible I'm wrong some of the time, and it's possible that I don't know as much about some issues as I think I do. Hell, a big part of educated debate is supposed to be learning more and maybe even changing your mind...and I've changed my mind a lot on any number of issues since I started posting here more than 6 years ago.

But whether my opinion is right or wrong, whether or not you agree with me or not, whether *I* end up agreeing with me or not, when I say something, I try and back it up...I try and make an argument. I don't throw out snotty one-liners or some snide, smug, superior focus group tested slogan I picked up watching some nimrod on TV or reading some jackass in the OP-ED section. And quite honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that other people try and treat issue debates as actual debates.

You seem to think this is about expertise, but it's not. My problem with Pabster and ja1484 and the rest of that crowd isn't that I disagree with them, it's that they aren't even bothering to make an argument. It's like the political equivalent of "Yeah? Well your momma's so fat...", like debating particle physics with someone who can't stop laughing about how the particle accelerator "would make a great bong". If someone wants to debate this issue, fine by me...you'll notice I've responded to a number of people who want to do just that. But this 6th grade cafeteria style discussion is getting really old.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


What the heck are you talking about? I don't think I've EVER told you (or anyone else) that they don't "hold the intellectual high ground" or that their experience doesn't count for anything. I HAVE said that the fact that you have experience in certain things doesn't give you the ability to silence everyone who disagrees with you, but that's a pretty different thing.

Stop playing dumb, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. My argument isn't that anyone is making a bad argument or that they disagree with me or that I'm smarter than everyone else. All I'm asking is that if someone wants to make an argument, then MAKE ONE...this one-liner bullshit passing as actual debate is really stupid, and I would imagine you of all people would understand what I'm saying. In those "anti-police threads", how annoying is it to have what is often a well thought out and well argued position dismissed by someone saying nothing other than "The police are just jack booted thugs out to abuse their powers."?

I'm a pretty smart guy, and yeah, I do think I know a fair amount about certain issues. But you know what, it's entirely possible I'm wrong some of the time, and it's possible that I don't know as much about some issues as I think I do. Hell, a big part of educated debate is supposed to be learning more and maybe even changing your mind...and I've changed my mind a lot on any number of issues since I started posting here more than 6 years ago.

But whether my opinion is right or wrong, whether or not you agree with me or not, whether *I* end up agreeing with me or not, when I say something, I try and back it up...I try and make an argument. I don't throw out snotty one-liners or some snide, smug, superior focus group tested slogan I picked up watching some nimrod on TV or reading some jackass in the OP-ED section. And quite honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that other people try and treat issue debates as actual debates.

You seem to think this is about expertise, but it's not. My problem with Pabster and ja1484 and the rest of that crowd isn't that I disagree with them, it's that they aren't even bothering to make an argument. It's like the political equivalent of "Yeah? Well your momma's so fat...", like debating particle physics with someone who can't stop laughing about how the particle accelerator "would make a great bong". If someone wants to debate this issue, fine by me...you'll notice I've responded to a number of people who want to do just that. But this 6th grade cafeteria style discussion is getting really old.

1. but don't try and paint yourself as holding the intellectual high ground here...you don't.

2. I think the one liners are thrown out there in this debate because its a little silly for us to be arguing over this issue. First of all, anytime one of us MMGW skeptics posts anything to back up our argument, it is immediately dismissed for many different reasons. Certain people here act like they are experts on MMGW and discount any factual information that could question their stance on the issue. Secondly, I doubt any one here is actually qualified to even understand the MMGW issue in its entirety. So all we are doing is regurgitating something that we've read that backs up the stance that we've already taken.

There have been plenty of threads with the MMGW skeptics backing up their stance with facts, but all we do is get ridiculed, so whats the point of bringing out those facts if the MMGW faithful are just going to say something like "well that scientist is obviously an idiot because the scientific community has come to a consensus blah blah blah". With all of the "crisis" that we've faced over the last ten years (SARS, Y2K bug, anthrax, chemical attacks by terrorists so we better buy lots of plastic and duct tape, ebola, etc..) I'm going to remain skeptical.

Edit - I completely understand that you're tired of the one liners, but I'm tired of the "OMG the sky is falling the ice caps are melting new york is going to be underwater unless we do something NOW" fearmongering.

 

[charrison]

Carbon credits are only pointless if you leave out china and india. China has already passed the US co2 emissions. And if you leave china out of the deal, countries will just move carbon heavy industry to china. Cap and trade on pollution generally works, but it will backfire big time if these emerging countries are left out of the deal.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: JD50

Edit - I completely understand that you're tired of the one liners, but I'm tired of the "OMG the sky is falling the ice caps are melting new york is going to be underwater unless we do something NOW" fearmongering.

You say that part like it would be a bad thing...I've been to Noo Yawk City...I've never seen any place that needed a good douching more...

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Yeah, it's not like he's been talking about this for three decades or anything.

I know in your gut you FEEL like global warming has to be a scam, and that Al Gore is your enemy that must be defeated, but really this is all starting to look pretty sad on your part. You've been asked over and over again to provide the slightest shred of support for what you're saying, and every time you're asked you duck back to some sort of argument you heard on talk radio.

At this point you're just embarassing yourself.

Wow, he's been talking about man made global warming ever since global cooling was a crisis?

No, global cooling was never a crisis. That's a frequent red herring used by ignorant, stupid, and/or dishonest people in a pathetic attempt to discredit global warming.

Scientists and scientific groups observed the trend from the beginning of the century to the 70's and noticed that temperatures were cooling. They said it might be a sign of something to come, but that they lacked the research to make a definitive statement. (at least that's what nearly all legitimate science groups said). The news media took this as a story they could run with and printed these cooling fears without the scientific caveats. (ie: we don't have any solid proof of this) It was irresponsible reporting, but it was certainly never a crisis.

Global warming on the other hand is backed up by millions of man hours of research over the span of decades, billions in funding for studies, etc... etc... The global scientific community feels comfortable in stating without equivocation that mankind is causing the planet to warm, and that the warming trend is statistically significant.

Then again, you probably already know these things. They've been told to you before. I'm going to guess that you will simply ignore the information you find inconvenient this time the same as before though. Hopefully my posting will allow other people who are open to rational argument to see what you're trying to do though.

That goes for both sides. We give you evidence that things are not as they say they are, ie MMGW, and you dismiss this as though it isn't even happening. This winter should be a great example of all that. Record snowfall in most all New England States, even as far south as Florida tonight. Yet you keep harping about how MMGW is going to ruin civilization as we know it. I would like to say take your head out of the sand and look around at what is going on.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Comanche

That goes for both sides. We give you evidence that things are not as they say they are, ie MMGW, and you dismiss this as though it isn't even happening. This winter should be a great example of all that. Record snowfall in most all New England States, even as far south as Florida tonight. Yet you keep harping about how MMGW is going to ruin civilization as we know it. I would like to say take your head out of the sand and look around at what is going on.

I mean no offense, but your posting shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Global warming will lead to cooler temperatures in certain parts of the planet along with increased precipitation. It's hard to have a reasonable debate when one side doesn't have a basic understanding of the issue. Even if what you were saying were somehow evidence against global warming (which its not), you would be using a single year's results as some sort of evidence against long term trends. That's a poor argument.

The other 'evidence' that people tend to bring up is papers on inaccuracies in climate models and temperature measuring equipment. They present this as evidence against MMGW even though many of the papers they cite explicitly endorse MMGW in a different part of the paper. All this shows is that these people are desperately searching for something to validate their viewpoint as opposed to actually understanding what is going on.

Maybe those who accept the evidence for MMGW are too quick to dismiss others here, but its mostly due to frustration. I can't count how many times the exact same argument you just tried to use has been said on here, but it has to be dozens... and every time it is done with the same sort of attitude as if you have some sort of common sense solution that we global warming people just can't get out of our ivory tower to see when in reality, your argument stems from ignorance. It's just very difficult to argue with that, particularly when people seem so invested in their point of view.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Comanche

That goes for both sides. We give you evidence that things are not as they say they are, ie MMGW, and you dismiss this as though it isn't even happening. This winter should be a great example of all that. Record snowfall in most all New England States, even as far south as Florida tonight. Yet you keep harping about how MMGW is going to ruin civilization as we know it. I would like to say take your head out of the sand and look around at what is going on.

I mean no offense, but your posting shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Global warming will lead to cooler temperatures in certain parts of the planet along with increased precipitation. It's hard to have a reasonable debate when one side doesn't have a basic understanding of the issue. Even if what you were saying were somehow evidence against global warming (which its not), you would be using a single year's results as some sort of evidence against long term trends. That's a poor argument.

The other 'evidence' that people tend to bring up is papers on inaccuracies in climate models and temperature measuring equipment. They present this as evidence against MMGW even though many of the papers they cite explicitly endorse MMGW in a different part of the paper. All this shows is that these people are desperately searching for something to validate their viewpoint as opposed to actually understanding what is going on.

Maybe those who accept the evidence for MMGW are too quick to dismiss others here, but its mostly due to frustration. I can't count how many times the exact same argument you just tried to use has been said on here, but it has to be dozens... and every time it is done with the same sort of attitude as if you have some sort of common sense solution that we global warming people just can't get out of our ivory tower to see when in reality, your argument stems from ignorance. It's just very difficult to argue with that, particularly when people seem so invested in their point of view.

The problem that I have is that people say the earth is getting warmer and they cite any one of many observations. Just the other day there was a guy who wrote a column about 2007 and all the record that were set this year. But he didn't go on to recognize all the records that are still being set on the other side.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...TR6ASG0&show_article=1
Now they are saying that the NE is setting records on snowfall which in my book doesn't fall under the heading of warming. They are also saying that the antarctic has had one of the worst blizzards in modern history http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1400510.php?
They tell us that MMGW is something to fear and yet the earth is not as warm as it was 700 years ago. That we are bound for uprecidented levels of sea rising and now today I discover that there has been forging in documents to that matter http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978
I hear arguements that we need to instill carbon credits all based on the information that we are getting from politics who want this to raise capitol. I have said this before, but I have no desire to pay a tax on something that is un proven as in the "Theory" of MMGW.
Nobody has come up with difinitive proof that this is happening. Otherwise, the theory, as I have said before woudl be a law. People cite that the "majority of Scientist" believe this is going on. At the same time I read that there are more and more Scientists coming out against it. You want me to just drop everything that I know and go along with what people are saying in the news and on the forums. Seems to me this whole issue is pretty well divided and that doesn't count as consensus to me. Consensus means that everyone agrees. I don't see that.
Now down to facts. South America Experienced one of the coldes winters in 100 years. Australia had one of the coldest years in that past 30 years. Sea levels are not rising like they say they are, how could they be if the Antartic and Greenland Ice Sheets are getting thicker. Europe has had some of the earliest ski resort openings in history.
And you want me to believe in MMGW. I don't even see GW happening. What I see is a natural cycle in the weather patterns happening. I look back in history and see that it was warmer in the 1930's than it is today. I see global cooling happening during the 50', 60's and early 70's. I also see that it has gotten warmer since the 1970's, but that doesn't mean that is going to continue.

I am hoping beyond all hope that the sunspot activity that is happen right now is going to put an end to all this debate once and for all. But that is going to have to wait for another 2 or 3 years to happen because these things don't happen over night.

It is all a cycle and will prove itself out. In the meantime, I sure hope that civilization as we know it doesn't jump the gun and start programs that in the end will turn out to be nonsence, just like giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. They should have waited, just like every other Nobel Prize in the past to make sure that what he was saying is all correct, which it isn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Comanche

The problem that I have is that people say the earth is getting warmer and they cite any one of many observations. Just the other day there was a guy who wrote a column about 2007 and all the record that were set this year. But he didn't go on to recognize all the records that are still being set on the other side.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...TR6ASG0&show_article=1
Now they are saying that the NE is setting records on snowfall which in my book doesn't fall under the heading of warming. They are also saying that the antarctic has had one of the worst blizzards in modern history http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1400510.php?
They tell us that MMGW is something to fear and yet the earth is not as warm as it was 700 years ago. That we are bound for uprecidented levels of sea rising and now today I discover that there has been forging in documents to that matter http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978
I hear arguements that we need to instill carbon credits all based on the information that we are getting from politics who want this to raise capitol. I have said this before, but I have no desire to pay a tax on something that is un proven as in the "Theory" of MMGW.
Nobody has come up with difinitive proof that this is happening. Otherwise, the theory, as I have said before woudl be a law. People cite that the "majority of Scientist" believe this is going on. At the same time I read that there are more and more Scientists coming out against it. You want me to just drop everything that I know and go along with what people are saying in the news and on the forums. Seems to me this whole issue is pretty well divided and that doesn't count as consensus to me. Consensus means that everyone agrees. I don't see that.
Now down to facts. South America Experienced one of the coldes winters in 100 years. Australia had one of the coldest years in that past 30 years. Sea levels are not rising like they say they are, how could they be if the Antartic and Greenland Ice Sheets are getting thicker. Europe has had some of the earliest ski resort openings in history.
And you want me to believe in MMGW. I don't even see GW happening. What I see is a natural cycle in the weather patterns happening. I look back in history and see that it was warmer in the 1930's than it is today. I see global cooling happening during the 50', 60's and early 70's. I also see that it has gotten warmer since the 1970's, but that doesn't mean that is going to continue.

I am hoping beyond all hope that the sunspot activity that is happen right now is going to put an end to all this debate once and for all. But that is going to have to wait for another 2 or 3 years to happen because these things don't happen over night.

It is all a cycle and will prove itself out. In the meantime, I sure hope that civilization as we know it doesn't jump the gun and start programs that in the end will turn out to be nonsence, just like giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. They should have waited, just like every other Nobel Prize in the past to make sure that what he was saying is all correct, which it isn't.

I'm sorry, but your post is just showing that you lack a basic understanding of the issue.... or the word consensus. Consensus does NOT mean that everyone agrees, just that most people do.

1.) Cold temperatures in certain places (or even in certain years) do not in any way disprove global warming. As the earth warms some places will in fact get cooler then they are now. Anyone who argues that hot temperatures somewhere is evidence of global warming is also similarly ignorant.

2.) Snowfall is a form of precipitation, the models for a warmer world predict just such increased precipitation. So actually, if anything record snowfalls in certain areas would be evidence in supportof global warming, not against it. In short any weather report you hear, regardless of its content, is not a useful metric for this debate.

3.) That link is to claims from one scientist with a loooong history of making unfounded, deliberately controversial claims. Even if he is totally right, global warming is exactly what it says... global. There are hundreds, if not thousands of predicted effects from it. Some predictions will almost certainly be wrong. This does not mean that global warming isn't happening however.

4.) Claiming that MMGW is just a 'theory' shows that you do not have an understanding of what a scientific theory is, nor do you have an understanding of what sorts of things become laws in science. Scientific laws are almost always based on very fundamental and very specific principles. Nothing as complex as MMGW will ever be considered a law, no matter how well proven. They just don't fit in the same boxes.

5.) You read that more and more scientists are coming out against global warming because you seek out things that validate your worldview. In reality the vast, vast, VAST majority of published peer reviewed work along with the vast vast vast majority of climate scientists endorse the idea of MMGW. Sure they disagree in regards to the effects and the extent, but the actual principle is pretty well settled.

The idea that things are 'pretty well divided' is an attempt by people to say that because a handful of scientists disagree with something that somehow the debate is still raging. This is a similar position to those who try and dispute evolution. Finally, the solar variation theory has been shown (repeatedly) not to account for a large amount of the warming we have experienced in the last 40 years or so.

You have shown that you simply don't know very much about this topic. I can't really argue with you because what you are writing just isn't based on the facts or on scientific analysis. Not even global warming deniers would use the arguments you are trying to use. I'm not asking you to 'drop everything that you know', I'm telling you that this is a case of knowing too little.

There are millions of pages of global warming related material out on the internet, and so if you're truly interested in discussing this you should go read some of it. Of course the usual caveats of making sure the pages are from credible sources applies. Not only will you learn more about MMGW (and maybe change your mind), but even if you don't, your arguments against the consensus opinion will be much better and much harder to dismiss if you bring some real knowledge to the table.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Comanche

The problem that I have is that people say the earth is getting warmer and they cite any one of many observations. Just the other day there was a guy who wrote a column about 2007 and all the record that were set this year. But he didn't go on to recognize all the records that are still being set on the other side.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...TR6ASG0&show_article=1
Now they are saying that the NE is setting records on snowfall which in my book doesn't fall under the heading of warming. They are also saying that the antarctic has had one of the worst blizzards in modern history http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1400510.php?
They tell us that MMGW is something to fear and yet the earth is not as warm as it was 700 years ago. That we are bound for uprecidented levels of sea rising and now today I discover that there has been forging in documents to that matter http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978
I hear arguements that we need to instill carbon credits all based on the information that we are getting from politics who want this to raise capitol. I have said this before, but I have no desire to pay a tax on something that is un proven as in the "Theory" of MMGW.
Nobody has come up with difinitive proof that this is happening. Otherwise, the theory, as I have said before woudl be a law. People cite that the "majority of Scientist" believe this is going on. At the same time I read that there are more and more Scientists coming out against it. You want me to just drop everything that I know and go along with what people are saying in the news and on the forums. Seems to me this whole issue is pretty well divided and that doesn't count as consensus to me. Consensus means that everyone agrees. I don't see that.
Now down to facts. South America Experienced one of the coldes winters in 100 years. Australia had one of the coldest years in that past 30 years. Sea levels are not rising like they say they are, how could they be if the Antartic and Greenland Ice Sheets are getting thicker. Europe has had some of the earliest ski resort openings in history.
And you want me to believe in MMGW. I don't even see GW happening. What I see is a natural cycle in the weather patterns happening. I look back in history and see that it was warmer in the 1930's than it is today. I see global cooling happening during the 50', 60's and early 70's. I also see that it has gotten warmer since the 1970's, but that doesn't mean that is going to continue.

I am hoping beyond all hope that the sunspot activity that is happen right now is going to put an end to all this debate once and for all. But that is going to have to wait for another 2 or 3 years to happen because these things don't happen over night.

It is all a cycle and will prove itself out. In the meantime, I sure hope that civilization as we know it doesn't jump the gun and start programs that in the end will turn out to be nonsence, just like giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. They should have waited, just like every other Nobel Prize in the past to make sure that what he was saying is all correct, which it isn't.

I'm sorry, but your post is just showing that you lack a basic understanding of the issue.... or the word consensus. Consensus does NOT mean that everyone agrees, just that most people do.

1.) Cold temperatures in certain places (or even in certain years) do not in any way disprove global warming. As the earth warms some places will in fact get cooler then they are now. Anyone who argues that hot temperatures somewhere is evidence of global warming is also similarly ignorant.

2.) Snowfall is a form of precipitation, the models for a warmer world predict just such increased precipitation. So actually, if anything record snowfalls in certain areas would be evidence in supportof global warming, not against it. In short any weather report you hear, regardless of its content, is not a useful metric for this debate.

3.) That link is to claims from one scientist with a loooong history of making unfounded, deliberately controversial claims. Even if he is totally right, global warming is exactly what it says... global. There are hundreds, if not thousands of predicted effects from it. Some predictions will almost certainly be wrong. This does not mean that global warming isn't happening however.

4.) Claiming that MMGW is just a 'theory' shows that you do not have an understanding of what a scientific theory is, nor do you have an understanding of what sorts of things become laws in science. Scientific laws are almost always based on very fundamental and very specific principles. Nothing as complex as MMGW will ever be considered a law, no matter how well proven. They just don't fit in the same boxes.

5.) You read that more and more scientists are coming out against global warming because you seek out things that validate your worldview. In reality the vast, vast, VAST majority of published peer reviewed work along with the vast vast vast majority of climate scientists endorse the idea of MMGW. Sure they disagree in regards to the effects and the extent, but the actual principle is pretty well settled.

The idea that things are 'pretty well divided' is an attempt by people to say that because a handful of scientists disagree with something that somehow the debate is still raging. This is a similar position to those who try and dispute evolution. Finally, the solar variation theory has been shown (repeatedly) not to account for a large amount of the warming we have experienced in the last 40 years or so.

You have shown that you simply don't know very much about this topic. I can't really argue with you because what you are writing just isn't based on the facts or on scientific analysis. Not even global warming deniers would use the arguments you are trying to use. I'm not asking you to 'drop everything that you know', I'm telling you that this is a case of knowing too little.

There are millions of pages of global warming related material out on the internet, and so if you're truly interested in discussing this you should go read some of it. Of course the usual caveats of making sure the pages are from credible sources applies. Not only will you learn more about MMGW (and maybe change your mind), but even if you don't, your arguments against the consensus opinion will be much better and much harder to dismiss if you bring some real knowledge to the table.

You just discredited everything that I said withouth any backup. After reading all your notes, I still fail to see the evidence. Give me something to go on. Don't just spout the usual you should accept this. I gave you links, discredit them!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Comanche
You just discredited everything that I said withouth any backup. After reading all your notes, I still fail to see the evidence. Give me something to go on. Don't just spout the usual you should accept this. I gave you links, discredit them!

I'll give you a few to start with, but these have been posted so many times that you're going to have to do the rest on your own.

First of all, your link on temperatures. Not only is a single year's data not particularly useful in judging long term trends because of outliers, but this excerpt from an easy to read explanation of global warming and climate change shows you why cooling in certain areas could take place even within the context of a warmer overall climate.

It's even possible that some regions could actually experience regional cooling at the same time the planet as a whole is experiencing global warming. Here's how.

The "thermohaline circulation" in the world's oceans is part of the planet's temperature regulation system. It can warm or cool regional climates to make their average temperatures different that they would be normally based on their latitude.

The most notable example of this is how the Gulf Stream brings warm water up from the tropics to make Europe much warmer than it would be naturally. This part of the thermohaline circulation is dependent on regular additions of fresh water from melting Arctic ice (which is replaced every year through additional snowfall). If the flow of fresh Arctic water decreases enough, it could slow or even stop the thermohaline circulation, leading to cooler temperatures in Europe?even at the same time other areas are experiencing severe temperature increases

A warmer planet also increases evaporation, thus increasing precipitation (in some areas). Logically this leads to increased rainfall (and snowfall). Thus, record precipitation levels are to be expected... yes even increased snow. As shown here.

I can't really disprove your link about sea levels as it is basically a scientist with a history of making controversial statements... making a controversial statement.

There you go though, those are some links. I'm really not willing to go out and find you a whole slate of materials to read up on this subject with though, if you are interested in really finding out what is going on you will do so yourself.

 

[StageLeft]

They are stupid. A rich person on a private jet buying carbon credits (e.g. gore) is still burning that waste and pumping crap into the atmosphere regardless of what else he does, but it's easier for him to sacrifice a few more meaningless dollars than his lifestyle.

Anyway, I cannot believe how many are still such dogged supporters of this "GW thing" using faux and conflicting science to defend the indefensible. The science is just too weak right now, but this has become more a psychological and political battle than a scientific one anyway. I wonder how it feels to be a pawn in it...

 

[Genx87]

You just discredited everything that I said withouth any backup. After reading all your notes, I still fail to see the evidence. Give me something to go on. Don't just spout the usual you should accept this. I gave you links, discredit them!

I just need to reiterate what eskimopy has said clearly.

No offense but you dont understand what you are talking about, you are wrong, sorry.

Dont you get it? Pointless to try and debate with anybody who has a preprogrammed response of "you are wrong because I say so". It is this religious fantatcism which will do these zealots in the end. Most people already see through the charade and now many in the scientific community are finally piping up tell people to slow the eff down until we get a better grasp on the situation.

 

[piasabird]

Canada Native tribes are saying that the polar bear population is growing and thriving, not getting smaller or shrinking.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

You just discredited everything that I said withouth any backup. After reading all your notes, I still fail to see the evidence. Give me something to go on. Don't just spout the usual you should accept this. I gave you links, discredit them!

I just need to reiterate what eskimopy has said clearly.

No offense but you dont understand what you are talking about, you are wrong, sorry.

Dont you get it? Pointless to try and debate with anybody who has a preprogrammed response of "you are wrong because I say so". It is this religious fantatcism which will do these zealots in the end. Most people already see through the charade and now many in the scientific community are finally piping up tell people to slow the eff down until we get a better grasp on the situation.

Looks like you have some reading comprehension problems. Genx seriously, you do this all the time and it's getting really old. A far more accurate way to say things would be that this is similar to trying to debate a book with someone who hasn't read it. Anyone attempting to use the snowfall results for this year to debate global warming does not understand the issue.

I won't even bother with the stupid, misleading, and ultimately pointless attacks on Gore. They've already been dispensed with time and time again on here. Remember kids, if Al Gore uses a 100 watt lightbulb when a 40 watt one will do... it means that global warming isn't real.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

You just discredited everything that I said withouth any backup. After reading all your notes, I still fail to see the evidence. Give me something to go on. Don't just spout the usual you should accept this. I gave you links, discredit them!

I just need to reiterate what eskimopy has said clearly.

No offense but you dont understand what you are talking about, you are wrong, sorry.

Dont you get it? Pointless to try and debate with anybody who has a preprogrammed response of "you are wrong because I say so". It is this religious fantatcism which will do these zealots in the end. Most people already see through the charade and now many in the scientific community are finally piping up tell people to slow the eff down until we get a better grasp on the situation.

Looks like you have some reading comprehension problems. Genx seriously, you do this all the time and it's getting really old. A far more accurate way to say things would be that this is similar to trying to debate a book with someone who hasn't read it. Anyone attempting to use the snowfall results for this year to debate global warming does not understand the issue.
I won't even bother with the stupid, misleading, and ultimately pointless attacks on Gore. They've already been dispensed with time and time again on here. Remember kids, if Al Gore uses a 100 watt lightbulb when a 40 watt one will do... it means that global warming isn't real.

I read all your links and didn't find anything that I didn't already know.
But the bolded above goes both ways!