No such thing as a "perfect" temperature

[dahunan]

What do you say about the impact CURRENT WARMING TRENDS are having on the ecosystems and animal migration and feeding etc?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

You are confusing research money for the school and the money he gets paid to consult.

If they wanted to pay you to testify wouldn't you want some big cash for your time?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

It's not really a 'good point'.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

You are confusing research money for the school and the money he gets paid to consult.

If they wanted to pay you to testify wouldn't you want some big cash for your time?

If you were contacted to consult and you said .. I need $500 per day with expenses.. then they countered and said "we will pay you $2500 per day with expenses to do research that supports our needs"

^^ His pay could be $50,000 per month if he worked everyday...

Would you speak differently depending on how great the financial return would be?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:

?I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.? (Tony Jones, ?Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,? Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; www.abc.net.au/lateline/ content/2005/s1318067.htm)

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200702051.html

Richard Lindzen, who has ties to ExxonMobil-funded groups including the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and Marshall Institute

http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcrisis/greenhouse/scientists.html

Other scientists involved in the campaign to discredit greenhouse emission reduction targets include Dr Richard Lindzen, Dr Robert Balling, and Dr S. Fred Singer. Lindzen, who was also featured in the New Scientist article and in the Australian Institution of Engineers' Engineering World as an independent scientist is a consultant to the fossil fuel industry, charging $2500 a day for his services.

Robet Balling is also heavily funded by fossil fuel interests. Balling is reported in The Arizona Republic as saying that he had "received more like $700,000 over the past five years" from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany and the US in the previous six years. A report by Ozone Action also details how Balling received research money from the Kuwait Government. His book, The Heated Debate, was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a think tank opposed to environmental regulation. Balling was also on the advisory council for the Information Council on the Environment and the Greening Earth Society contributes to the World Climate Report.

Fred Singer is executive director of the think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This project was originally set up in 1990 with the help of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) which provided it with free office space. (SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon and receives its funding from various foundations.)

Some real winners there.

:roll:

It's like those sites that list information about abortion doctors.

It's really interesting how people are so similar.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

It's not really a 'good point'.

great counter point.......

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

It's not really a 'good point'.

great counter point.......

I already responded to DSF, it's you who said nothing at all.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

You are confusing research money for the school and the money he gets paid to consult.

If they wanted to pay you to testify wouldn't you want some big cash for your time?

If you were contacted to consult and you said .. I need $500 per day with expenses.. then they countered and said "we will pay you $2500 per day with expenses to do research that supports our needs"

^^ His pay could be $50,000 per month if he worked everyday...

Would you speak differently depending on how great the financial return would be?

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time.

On that note, I heard that Al Gore originally wanted only $10,000 for his movie deal... but the producers offered him $10,000,000 and told him to make a movie that supports their agenda.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

You are confusing research money for the school and the money he gets paid to consult.

If they wanted to pay you to testify wouldn't you want some big cash for your time?

If you were contacted to consult and you said .. I need $500 per day with expenses.. then they countered and said "we will pay you $2500 per day with expenses to do research that supports our needs"

^^ His pay could be $50,000 per month if he worked everyday...

Would you speak differently depending on how great the financial return would be?

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time.

On that note, I heard that Al Gore originally wanted only $10,000 for his movie deal... but the producers offered him $10,000,000 and told him to make a movie that supports their agenda.

Did I say it was a fact? I say it is a possibility..

How can people so freely claim that pollution is not bad for our atmosphere, environment, ecosystems and general health of the planet and the inhabitants and not have significant impact on the oceans and the weather?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

It's not really a 'good point'.

great counter point.......

I already responded to DSF, it's you who said nothing at all.

You only responded to the second part of his statement. Why is there no big push for nuclear power?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

You are confusing research money for the school and the money he gets paid to consult.

If they wanted to pay you to testify wouldn't you want some big cash for your time?

If you were contacted to consult and you said .. I need $500 per day with expenses.. then they countered and said "we will pay you $2500 per day with expenses to do research that supports our needs"

^^ His pay could be $50,000 per month if he worked everyday...

Would you speak differently depending on how great the financial return would be?

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time.

On that note, I heard that Al Gore originally wanted only $10,000 for his movie deal... but the producers offered him $10,000,000 and told him to make a movie that supports their agenda.

Did I say it was a fact? I say it is a possibility..

How can people so freely claim that pollution is not bad for our atmosphere, environment, ecosystems and general health of the planet and the inhabitants and not have significant impact on the oceans and the weather?

Nobody has ever said anything of the sort. That's a false argument which is so often brought up. Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit. The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility. It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

It's not really a 'good point'.

great counter point.......

I already responded to DSF, it's you who said nothing at all.

You only responded to the second part of his statement. Why is there no big push for nuclear power?

I'm part of the push for nuclear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

You're the one who thinks it's some sort of terrorism.

I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the correct implementation is climate change ---> study ---> action, while you seem to think that the desire for action is driving the whole process?

Or perhaps it's the desire for research funding?

I'm quite unclear, perhaps because I don't have my tinfoil hat on.

I thought my post was clear...I'm looking for meaningful action that's commensurate with the shrillness of the rhetoric predicting our eminent doom.

I honestly don't know why these people (collectively speaking) are all talk and no action. I strongly suspect that there are many who are masquerading as 'True Believers'...but, when it comes down to it...they, like dahunan, appear to believe that nuclear waste is a much bigger problem than the potential dire consequences of GW.

 

[piasabird]

I have never seen any body of evidence of global warming. It would make sense that a scientist would have to present evidence of such a claim to the public. All I ever see are reports and predictions without any hard data. I assume it is all a bunch of hooey. Where is this evidence at and why havent I seen a body of evidence spanning 1000 years of recorded temperatures to prove it?

The reason is it does not exist.

 

[jackschmittusa]

What the article in the OP fails to point out is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does not produce an arithmetic progression in warming, but a geometric one.

A single example is snow and ice melt. CO2 stops a percentage of reflected energy from the Earth from being radiated back into space. The higher the level, the more effective the screen. But, we have reached a level where there is significant snow and ice melt, leaving a less reflective surface. We now have less energy passing through the CO2, but the CO2 is still doing the same filtering job, meaning even more retained energy, which leads to more ice melt, etc..

Think of it like this (using arbitrary numbers for example only):

100 energy units strike the Earth in a time frame

90 units reflected

10 units filtered

80 units radiated

20 units net gain

melt some snow and ice

100 units received

80 units reflected

71.2 units radiated (at the same % of filtering)

28.8 units net gain

This is one of the reasons that many scientists talk of a "tipping point" where even holding the line on emissions will see increases in retained energy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have never seen any body of evidence of global warming. It would make sense that a scientist would have to present evidence of such a claim to the public. All I ever see are reports and predictions without any hard data. I assume it is all a bunch of hooey. Where is this evidence at and why havent I seen a body of evidence spanning 1000 years of recorded temperatures to prove it?

The reason is it does not exist.

Watch this. Then, either keep your head where it is, now, tucked deeply between your gluteal cheeks, or wake up. :roll:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

You're the one who thinks it's some sort of terrorism.

I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the correct implementation is climate change ---> study ---> action, while you seem to think that the desire for action is driving the whole process?

Or perhaps it's the desire for research funding?

I'm quite unclear, perhaps because I don't have my tinfoil hat on.

I thought my post was clear...I'm looking for meaningful action that's commensurate with the shrillness of the rhetoric predicting our eminent doom.

I honestly don't know why these people (collectively speaking) are all talk and no action. I strongly suspect that there are many who are masquerading as 'True Believers'...but, when it comes down to it...they, like dahunan, appear to believe that nuclear waste is a much bigger problem than the potential dire consequences of GW.

Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems? It's certainly the obvious first-step solution to CO2, but it's hard to blame people for being a little concerned about it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have never seen any body of evidence of global warming. It would make sense that a scientist would have to present evidence of such a claim to the public. All I ever see are reports and predictions without any hard data. I assume it is all a bunch of hooey. Where is this evidence at and why havent I seen a body of evidence spanning 1000 years of recorded temperatures to prove it?

The reason is it does not exist.

This is the best example yet.. ^ You believe in religion and God and Christ.. ever seen them?

People can actually see the effects of current warming issues.. just cannot prove the causes..

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

You're the one who thinks it's some sort of terrorism.

I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the correct implementation is climate change ---> study ---> action, while you seem to think that the desire for action is driving the whole process?

Or perhaps it's the desire for research funding?

I'm quite unclear, perhaps because I don't have my tinfoil hat on.

I thought my post was clear...I'm looking for meaningful action that's commensurate with the shrillness of the rhetoric predicting our eminent doom.

I honestly don't know why these people (collectively speaking) are all talk and no action. I strongly suspect that there are many who are masquerading as 'True Believers'...but, when it comes down to it...they, like dahunan, appear to believe that nuclear waste is a much bigger problem than the potential dire consequences of GW.

Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems? It's certainly the obvious first-step solution to CO2, but it's hard to blame people for being a little concerned about it.

Every form of energy has its issues, and none are eco-friendly. Just gotta take the lesser of evils.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

You're the one who thinks it's some sort of terrorism.

I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the correct implementation is climate change ---> study ---> action, while you seem to think that the desire for action is driving the whole process?

Or perhaps it's the desire for research funding?

I'm quite unclear, perhaps because I don't have my tinfoil hat on.

I thought my post was clear...I'm looking for meaningful action that's commensurate with the shrillness of the rhetoric predicting our eminent doom.

I honestly don't know why these people (collectively speaking) are all talk and no action. I strongly suspect that there are many who are masquerading as 'True Believers'...but, when it comes down to it...they, like dahunan, appear to believe that nuclear waste is a much bigger problem than the potential dire consequences of GW.

Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems? It's certainly the obvious first-step solution to CO2, but it's hard to blame people for being a little concerned about it.

"Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems?" Oh really?!? I'm shocked!:roll:

I personally don't find it hard to blame people who are intellectually dishonest...not to brag, but it comes natural for me. Glad to hear that your pro-nuclear which is consistent with your position on MMGW. I'm also pro-nuclear for environmental reasons not related to alleged MMGW.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

Absolutely

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
Nobody says pollution isn't bad, and that reducing it wouldn't be to our benefit.

The argument is against the religion of climate change, which has completely consumed the media and politics, forcing it's agenda on the world and distorting scientific facts, labeling anybody who disagrees as a heretic with no credibility.

It's moved from a scientific debate to a crusade by the environuts to change the world as they see fit, backed by celebrities and politicians all waving the flag in the name of the Earth.

If it gets us off the friggin Oil then I don't care what you call it.

Damn the consequences?

Absolutely

wow. Just wow. What a short sighted man you are.

Anyway.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Would it shock you for someone to say that nuclear has its own set of problems?" Oh really?!? I'm shocked!:roll:

I personally don't find it hard to blame people who are intellectually dishonest...not to brag, but it comes natural for me. Glad to hear that your pro-nuclear which is consistent with your position on MMGW. I'm also pro-nuclear for environmental reasons not related to alleged MMGW.

I'm just saying it's not a direct link from global warming to supporting nuclear power. I think the people who run and hide from nuclear are mistaken, but I at least understand why they think what they do.