Though not a scientist, this man had an interesting viewpoint of the politics of the matter.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21418509.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21418509.htm
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Quote from wjk:
Lets say it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have created the current global warming, and it's not a normal cycle in 4 billion years of Earth history.
That's not how science typically works.
What are you willing to do? Are you willing to fork over control of your life to the powers that be? Are you willing to make these sacrifices while China and India don't? Lead be example, right? Do you believe goverment can fix global warming? Gov can't fix anything. And the UN? Give me a break. If it's real, what do you propose?
Schwarzenneger has his "hydrogen highway" which is already being built. As well, California is to build two solar plants with the ability to produce as much power in a single day as a coal plant.
It seems you're debating me from a climate viewpoint.
I'm debating you from a factual viewpoint.
I agree with the warming theory. That's been proven. I am not convinced that man is as big a factor, though certainly some. Show me a study that proves man is the sole cause.
Nice canard served up by a strawman -- no one is saying that man is the sole cause, only that human caused temperature increases are a threat.
I'm debating from a political point of view. I think gov hopped on board, hyped the issue, and now sees a golden opprotunity to impose their will. I don't think that will solve any pollution issues. Do you? Is Gore walking the walk he talks?
Well, whether or not Gore is a hypocrite (and for the record if you examine his houses, he isn't) has absolutely zero to do with the validity of the argument. I believe that fallacy is called ad hominem tu quoque.
Quote from wjk:
...
I'm debating from a political point of view. I think gov hopped on board, hyped the issue, and now sees a golden opprotunity to impose their will. I don't think that will solve any pollution issues. Do you? Is Gore walking the walk he talks?
I find these cities, individual schools, etc adopting "green" policies to "combat" global warming to be hilarious. No one can claim they have any effect whatsoever, but they still do it. To "feel" better. Classic liberal elevation of intentions over results.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Schwarzenneger has his "hydrogen highway" which is already being built. As well, California is to build two solar plants with the ability to produce as much power in a single day as a coal plant.
That's Arnold. What will you do? What personal sacrifice(s) are you willing to make for the cause you have bought into?
I'm debating you from a factual viewpoint.
No your not. An unproven theory is not a fact. Man has not been proven to be the cause.
Nice canard served up by a strawman -- no one is saying that man is the sole cause, only that human caused temperature increases are a threat.
The implication is there, or else we would be hearing much more
about historical warmings and coolings. Those are selectively left out. The only comparisons I've heard about what would be considered normal C02 and what man produces has been on science and discovery shows. None in the media. The public will only be fed enough to frighten them into swallowing the agenda with as little public debate as possible
Quote from wjk:
[That's Arnold. What will you do? What personal sacrifice(s) are you willing to make for the cause you have bought into?
Your argument is wandering wildly. If you claim that there's nothing we can do, then you're incorrect. With government action we are able to avoid at least some of the more dramatic consequences of global warming.
No your not. An unproven theory is not a fact. Man has not been proven to be the cause.
How does one prove such a thing? You misunderstand science entirely. The evidence is overwhelming.
[/B][/QUOTE]The implication is there, or else we would be hearing much more
about historical warmings and coolings. Those are selectively left out. The only comparisons I've heard about what would be considered normal C02 and what man produces has been on science and discovery shows. None in the media. The public will only be fed enough to frighten them into swallowing the agenda with as little public debate as possible
Uhhhh... no. Check out the website realclimate.org which is run by climatologists themselves and you can follow the debates. Mostly the debate is down to the finer details at this point. Your statement that anthropogenic global warming means that humans have to be the only cause is just strange and silly.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Well, whether or not Gore is a hypocrite (and for the record if you examine his houses, he isn't) has absolutely zero to do with the validity of the argument. I believe that fallacy is called ad hominem tu quoque.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
Quote from bigdavediode:
Your argument is wandering wildly. If you claim that there's nothing we can do, then you're incorrect. With government action we are able to avoid at least some of the more dramatic consequences of global warming.
Uhhhh... no. Check out the website realclimate.org which is run by climatologists themselves and you can follow the debates. Mostly the debate is down to the finer details at this point. Your statement that anthropogenic global warming means that humans have to be the only cause is just strange and silly.
It's amazing how you keep misconstruing or misunderstanding my comments or questions. Or perhaps you debate as a true liberal. I am quite familiar with the issue. I have been reading weather pubs for over 30 years. I visit many weather web sights regularly. I am familiar with realclimate.
Climatology is not an exact science, as I'm sure you know, and I am opposed to having measures like kyoto imposed without many more years of data. There are many respected meteorologists and climatologists who think warming is being misrepresented to push an agenda, and I happen to agree with their reasoning. For every link that supports your side, I can find one that opposes. You would no doubt discredit them as you did the senate report. I side with those who believe man's contribution to global warming is minuscule and current warming is a natural cycle.
The statement you made promoting government action pretty much says it all. Been fun.
Later
Except that electricity consumption almost always increases when you install an environmentally friendly ground loop geothermal system.
You have to run the compressor.
Quote from wjk:
It's amazing how you keep misconstruing or misunderstanding my comments or questions. Or perhaps you debate as a true liberal.
That must be it.
I am quite familiar with the issue. I have been reading weather pubs for over 30 years. I visit many weather web sights regularly. I am familiar with realclimate.
Then the obvious question becomes "Why don't you even know that the 'weather' (ie. meteorology) is different from climatology?"
Let's be honest here -- you know little about the topic, almost nothing at all. You haven't even referenced the Keeling curve.
Yet you've formed a solid, unchangeable opinion based on what some editorialists told you.
The statement you made promoting government action pretty much says it all. Been fun.
Later
Well, I tried to educate you. Bye.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Then the obvious question becomes "Why don't you even know that the 'weather' (ie. meteorology) is different from climatology?"
Let's be honest here -- you know little about the topic, almost nothing at all. You haven't even referenced the Keeling curve.
Yet you've formed a solid, unchangeable opinion based on what some editorialists told you.
First of all: This is exactly my point. You assume I don't know the diff between the two. I never indicated such. Second: I worked in the military as a meteorologist for 5 years so I know more about it then you think. You try and sound intelligent by putting out bits and pieces of various studies.
Have you every launched balloons and plotted upper air soundings by hand?
Have you ever plotted adiabatic charts without a computer? Do you know what they are used for and what is derived from them?
Have you every plotted temps and wind on a worldchart from 850mb, 700mb, 500mb, 300mb, 250mb pressure level's?
These are some of the data that go into the climate models, data I played a part in providing, so save your fucking insults.
Have you ever briefed pilots?
Can you call a cloud base without a ceilometer?
Can you even read a surface wx plot or wind barb?
Having compared data from 1 year to the next as I have done is climatology. As the dictionary states: The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena
To educate you must be educated. I've seen no evidence of that. Spend your bullshit on someone who buys it. Some other time.Well, I tried to educate you. Bye.