Who believes the hype of global warming?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

So if I post scientific data from a Earth First or Green Peace related websites that point to the opposite opinion of your link would you call it valid data ?

His link may be a strange website, but it appears to just be describing the research results of various scientists. It's not coming up with results on its own, just publishing the results of others in an article. It would be nice if it cited some sources directly.

 

[Moonbeam]

We do know that coal and gas pay great sums to scientists to 'study' global warming. I'm sure however that all the payola influences nobody's perspective and all these industrial shills publish untarnished data.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

If the source is invalid then the data is by default not reliable. Since the data presented is at odds with data presented on many scientific websites and the website is sponsered by an organization with obvious political motives, then it is illogical to blindly accept the data as factual.

Bull. The source could be the devil and he can still be right.

Lol... true but I never said it had to be wrong. Just that there is no reason to believe data from unqualified sources.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

If the source is invalid then the data is by default not reliable. Since the data presented is at odds with data presented on many scientific websites and the website is sponsered by an organization with obvious political motives, then it is illogical to blindly accept the data as factual.

Bull. The source could be the devil and he can still be right.

Lol... true but I never said it had to be wrong. Just that there is no reason to believe data from unqualified sources.

Just checking!!!!!!!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We do know that coal and gas pay great sums to scientists to 'study' global warming. I'm sure however that all the payola influences nobody's perspective and all these industrial shills publish untarnished data.

We do know that scientists are being demonised for their research, similar to Galileo. One can easily say that environmental interests pay scientists great sums to 'study' global warming as well, similar to how they 'studied' DDT which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. There is a lot of payola available for pro-global warming scientists than anti-global warming scientists, it is a much-talked about topic by many scientists in recent months. I'm sure however that all the payola influences nobody's perspective and all these environmental interest group shills publish untarnished data and don't demonise other legitimate scientists.

 

[LumbergTech]

I would like to point out that global warming isnt the only risk that we face.....the effects of the health of every individual on earth is also at risk...even if global warming didnt turn out to be all it was cracked up to be, that doesnt mean oh no we can party like theres no tomorrow and just say screw everything because the temperature isnt rising..many of the things that supposedly cause global warming are also not good for our health

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would like to point out that global warming isnt the only risk that we face.....the effects of the health of every individual on earth is also at risk...even if global warming didnt turn out to be all it was cracked up to be, that doesnt mean oh no we can party like theres no tomorrow and just say screw everything because the temperature isnt rising..many of the things that supposedly cause global warming are also not good for our health

That is true. The same result will need to happen whether global warming is happening or isn't happening - pollution will still need to be reduced. However, people will argue on which method to follow.

 

[LemUUU]

global warming does exist, it is nowhere near as significant as some people make it out to be, but those people (for example our president) who say it does not exist are saying that out of sheer ignorance.

Global warming however is the least of our worries, I would be more worried about a crazy group of radical extremeists getting ahold of a few nuclear bombs and starting a nuclear winter, then we would have global chilling ... or us completely devoiding the world of any usable resources, but none of this will happen in our lifetime well I guess the bomb theory is a possibility...

I do however find it strange that after hundreds of years the average trajectory of hurricanes has changed so abruptly, but this could be due to weather patterns that were never recorded because there were no people to record them, or that they never saw a reason to track every single storm...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: LemUUU
Global warming however is the least of our worries, I would be more worried about a crazy group of radical extremeists getting ahold of a few nuclear bombs and starting a nuclear winter, then we would have global chilling ... or us completely devoiding the world of any usable resources, but none of this will happen in our lifetime well I guess the bomb theory is a possibility...

I find the prospect of biological warfare much scarier than any nuclear weapons.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Davan
"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

LOL nice link. But you should know who's funding that site: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

LOL nice link. But you should know who's funding that site: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html

Our audited figures show that most -- 97% in 2004, 73% in 2003, 81.5% in 2002, 93% in 2001, 93% in 2000, 88% in 1999 and 80% in 1998 -- of The National Center's funding comes from small gifts from individuals. The remainder comes from foundation/non-profit grants (1.2% in 2004, 16% in 2002, 4.6% in 2001, 3% in 2000, 5% in 1999 and 11.6% in 1998), with additional income coming from corporate contributions (1.2% in 2004, 2.0% in 2002, 2.6% in 2001, 4% in 2000, 4% in 1999 and 8% in 1998), rental income, sales of publications and materials and interest income.

?

 

[slash196]

What hype? The only "hype" about global warming I see these days is people saying it doesn't exist. It's quite obvious that humans are f'ing up the planet in a million different ways, and within our lifetimes we're going to start feeling the reprocussions. Then, hopefully, people will wake up and try to live for a healthier planet. Whether it will be too late remains to be seen.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

 

[Rainsford]

The problem with arguing global warming is that people look at the data expecting to see some huge change in temperature, or water level, or SOMETHING. But the real problems arising from global warming aren't that it will be too hot, it's what happens when the temperature balance is off even a little bit. Weather is something that is VERY sensitive to changes like that, and while a few degrees warmer won't bother us directly, hurricanes will increase and other weather patterns will change, causing potentially huge problems.

Granted, I'm not convinced it's a super duper emergency like some people seem to think, but I'm also not convinced it's a smart idea to take the Michael Crichton approach (read his truly awful book "State of Fear" if you don't know what I'm talking about) and clap our hands over our ears chanting "Everything's fine, I can't hear you!". Mostly because PREVENTING the problem before it's an issue is a hell of a lot easier than trying to fix it once things are really getting out of hand. And speaking of Michael Crichton, I find it interesting that he is very often cited by people trying to make the case that global warming isn't real. You'd think if they had a lot of peer reviewed science to back them up, they'd, you know, use it.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

two things.

1)
It is proven so far to the extent of our knowledge, but nothing is certain, all evidence points towards the fact that it's happening. We just don't know how bad it's gonna be.

2)
Noone's telling developing countries to stop burning coal. Noone needs to yet. usa still lets out 25% of the worlds Co2.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Davan
Youre terribly smart arent you.

Well compared to someone like you who thinks that the only way to reduce pollution is to kill millions of people then yes, he is rather smart.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

I'm smart enough to see that things are not all black and white. In my experience, that's a pretty good measure of intelligence. The guy telling you (often very loudly) that there are ONLY TWO OPTIONS is probably a few beers short of a case.

Of course I'm not suggesting 3rd world countries should start out with nuclear power plants, but if you'll look at polution data, very little polution is being produced by Ghana...most of it comes from the large, industrialized nations like the US, China and India. If those countries start converting to alternative power sources, that would sharply decrease the amount of polution being generated, even if Ghana was burning coal as fast as they could.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

american can afford it, but politics get in the way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

american can afford it, but politics get in the way.

That's true...although I'm happy to say that environmentalist types are starting to get on board with the whole idea of nuclear power, probably the most reasonable solution overall. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Forsythe


two things.

1)
It is proven so far to the extent of our knowledge, but nothing is certain, all evidence points towards the fact that it's happening. We just don't know how bad it's gonna be.

Im sorry but the facts do not agree with this comment.

Originally posted by: Forsythe
2)
Noone's telling developing countries to stop burning coal.

Incorrect. This is exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do.

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Noone needs to yet. usa still lets out 25% of the worlds Co2.

Incorrect. CO2 is a *naturally occuring* trace gas that is essential to the world and environment, and humans are only responsible for about 3.4% of the gas released into the atmosphere anually. Therefore, the amount of the worlds supply of CO2 being released by the United States is 0.85%

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

Good point... if this was true. Unfortunately just because you make something up, doesn't make it true. The biggest polluters ARE the industrialized nations, and in trying to come up with solutions, i have never heard of a single suggestion to deny fossil fuels or coal to people whose lives depended on it. If you have, send me the links, because i'll really like to give them my 2 cents.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

I'm smart enough to see that things are not all black and white. In my experience, that's a pretty good measure of intelligence. The guy telling you (often very loudly) that there are ONLY TWO OPTIONS is probably a few beers short of a case.

Of course I'm not suggesting 3rd world countries should start out with nuclear power plants, but if you'll look at polution data, very little polution is being produced by Ghana...most of it comes from the large, industrialized nations like the US, China and India. If those countries start converting to alternative power sources, that would sharply decrease the amount of polution being generated, even if Ghana was burning coal as fast as they could.

You act as though its a silly alternative that Im proposing, when in fact that is exactly what is happening. Millions of people *DO* die annually in poorer and underindustralized nations because of lack of heating and the other benefits of coal/fossil fuel burning that you so callously dismiss as being easy to remove while you use air conditioning in your home, keep your freezer/refrigerator cool etc.

Global warming is a tool being used to prevent competition from emerging nations, and no science backs it up. Call a spade a spade.