Bush admits the global warming results from fossil fuels....

Those conservatives, they like the "feel bad about themselves" programs....

Firs jem claims liberals are self loathing, AAA claims they just want to feel good about themselves...

Lots of confusion in that Grand Old Party....

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's pointless to debate this, or any other issue really, with liberals. For them it's all about feeling good about themselves, as one of the above posts makes clear. They just get annoyed if you confuse them with facts or legitimate doubt. It doesn't make them feel better, so they don't want it.

The proof is how utterly oblivious they are to the absence of any practical effect from all their feel good programs, whether it is recycling or not using plastic or whatever. For them, the payoff is in moral superiority, not in any real world benefit. That is why they are angered and indeed baffled that thinking people raise doubts about global warming and the draconian measures proposed to alleviate it.
More...
 
LMAO

You provide your own selective anectodal evidence, and claim others are talking out of their ass.

You can't really be an attorney can you?

Oh well, I guess someone had to finish at the bottom their class...

Quote from jem:

exactly --

regarding recycling. did you know that only the recylcing of cans actually works economically and enviornmentally. The others lose money and actually harm the envoronment.

Again we have a ---------- like zzz talking out his ass again.

I have shown him to be taking out his ass on two other current threads.

Now he is somehow asking about christians and environmentalism. If the ______ knew anything he would know there is a big movement to eat well among the families in christan churches. Organic food and eating well is as much the rage or more so in Christian chruches as anywhere else. In fact the epicenter of that eat well deal may be southern cal and there are tons of evangelicals in north county and organge county. There are Christian speakers who lecture about eating well and one at least one guy who talks about eating kosher because it is healthier.

He would also know that in california there are tons of born again surfers, many whom are members of the surf rider foundation and some of whom are members of the sierra club or go to the meetings.

How do I know this stuff. From experience. Do I say this anecdotal evidence is conclusive-- no. But do I know zzz is talking out his ass on this issue. Yes.
More...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's pointless to debate this, or any other issue really, with liberals. For them it's all about feeling good about themselves, as one of the above posts makes clear. They just get annoyed if you confuse them with facts or legitimate doubt. It doesn't make them feel better, so they don't want it.

The proof is how utterly oblivious they are to the absence of any practical effect from all their feel good programs, whether it is recycling or not using plastic or whatever. For them, the payoff is in moral superiority, not in any real world benefit. That is why they are angered and indeed baffled that thinking people raise doubts about global warming and the draconian measures proposed to alleviate it.
More...

The fact is the conservatives are in the pockets of the utilities and oil companies. The administration has staffed the EPA with former lobbyists from the power industry and the Pres and his VP are former oil industry executives.

Policies premised upon carbon caused climate change would cause too much damage to these industries, thier leaders feel. And they don't have to change. They are the policy makers now.

So what can the rank and file conservative say but deny that fossil fuel burning contributes to climate change?

They can't turn against thier bosses and the last thing they will do is admit they are wrong.
 
Quote from nitro:

Read carefully

nitro
More...

I did and don't see what you are referring to, which link and which section of the link has the information re. warming of the arctic?


The first link refers to the Antarctic so that can't be it. And its author says this:

"Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

"Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate."

So to me this link contradicts you or I think it does as the author seems in doubt over what if or even if there is any thinning of the
arctic ice.

The second link:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011802a.htm?iam=savvy&terms=+doran++antarctica

has as its lead paragraph:

"
Supporters of the global warming theory got a bit of a chill when researchers announced that Antarctica, long considered a dependable predictor of a global warming trend, is actually getting colder.
"

So this link seems to be saying there are doubts about GW and nothing about the arctic.

The 3rd link:

http://www.solcomhouse.com/ElninoLanina.htm

Explains that El Nino and La Nina impact the Anarctic Sea Ice dipole and that the dipole affects global climate but it did not have any commentary as to how that would explain the disparity of the climate models predicting warming at the polar regions but that warming is not seen in Anartica.

Another comment from the 2nd link:

"The findings seem to contradict previous predictions that polar regions would respond first and most rapidly to increases in global temperature."

So, IMO the links you provided really show little support for GW as predicted by the models and seem to mostly show the models do not predict what is observed.

Granted the models may get better but will they really or will this modelling effort become an entrenched bureaucracy that gobbles up money and concludes that more studies are needed.

I'm surprised you did not comment on soot that the NASA researchers believe cause 25% of GW. If this is true everyone is missing a major potential causer. Also, it seems to be one of the key reason for the disparity in the arctic.

DS
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

As is often the case with Evangelicals, what they preach, and what they do are diametrically opposed.

How many Evangelicals give money to the Sierra Club?

How many Evangelicals march on Earth day?

How many Evangelicals buy organic foods to protest against corporate farming and the poisoning of the earth?

LMAO...you are so full of shit....
More...

ZZZ you were the one who posted this after asserting that evangelicals do not not care about the earth because they are expecting the rapture.

I pointed out that you did not know what you were talking about because evangelicals preach on the subject of being a good steward of the earth. I think you probably confused evangelicals with Rush Limbaugh.

Then you made you list of stupid question I pointed out that in my experience plenty of evangelicals participate in environmental causes and I know that many of them care about eating organic food because there are people making money giving lectures on the subject.

To be objective I admitted that this was not the best potential evidence as I would prefer a poll taken of environmental groups. But again it is way more substantial than any of the crap you have provided in the last few months.

In fact you arguments have been so lacking in substance lately I think you are starting to go over the falls. You are starting to rely on rhetorical tricks again to make up for you lack of substance.
 
This is worth reading from this months SciAm:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0001D260-6966-12B9-9A2C83414B7F0000

CLIMATE CHANGE




Can We Bury Global Warming?
Pumping carbon dioxide underground to avoid warming the atmosphere is feasible, but only if several key challenges can be met
By Robert H. Socolow


When William Shakespeare took a breath, 280 molecules out of every million entering his lungs were carbon dioxide. Each time you draw breath today, 380 molecules per million are carbon dioxide. That portion climbs about two molecules every year.
No one knows the exact consequences of this upsurge in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration nor the effects that lie ahead as more and more of the gas enters the air in the coming decades--humankind is running an uncontrolled experiment on the world. Scientists know that carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, which in turn is causing sea level to rise, and that the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is acidifying the water. But they are unsure of exactly how climate could alter across the globe, how fast sea level might rise, what a more acidic ocean could mean, which ecological systems on land and in the sea would be most vulnerable to climate change and how these developments might affect human health and well-being. Our current course is bringing climate change upon ourselves faster than we can learn how severe the changes will be....continued at Scientific American Digital ...
More...

Too bad they make you pay to read most of the articles. Oh well, everyone should have a subscription to SciAm anyway.

nitro
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

How many Evangelicals give money to the Sierra Club?
More...
The Sierra Club is the standard by which one should judge their concern for the environment?!? I have had the unfortunate experience of having to listen to their lies year after year in my job, and let me tell you, they epitomize the concept of raising money by creating controversy that is unsubstantiated by science.

ROFLMAO!!
 
Another in a long line of arguments based on hapless's personal experiences....

Yawn......

Quote from hapaboy:

The Sierra Club is the standard by which one should judge their concern for the environment?!? I have had the unfortunate experience of having to listen to their lies year after year in my job, and let me tell you, they epitomize the concept of raising money by creating controversy that is unsubstantiated by science.

ROFLMAO!!
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top