Big John Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 did you sleep at a holiday inn last night? Or the Holiday Inn Express, as that is the one with those effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 so, have bush or atomic responded in any substantive way to anything john christy had to say? gee, I wonder why not.  When the overwhelming consensus of scientific data supports the opposite, why would anyone have to go out of their way to rebut this? It legitimizes a severe minority opinion.  Think of the evolution arguments. Just because two people swear up and down that there is no scientific proof of evolution, does that mean the have legitimate opinions that need to be disproved? Or have they just got an agenda and ignore what doesn't fit their model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 did you sleep at a holiday inn last night? Â I....live....at a Holiday Inn.... Â the CO2 emissions are exponentially higher than at any time in history....that's not completely natural.... Â and to think that we can't at least have an affect on what is going on by doing something is silly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 its june 3rd and its 49 degrees in chicago right now  Way to go Bill Nye the science guy! You blew the lid off this whole "hoax" by sticking your head out the window!  Keep up the good work Mr. Wizard . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) Way to go Bill Nye the science guy! You blew the lid off this whole "hoax" by sticking your head out the window! Keep up the good work Mr. Wizard . . . . .   dont you have a tee box that needs to be mowed?  maybe thats why youre an expert, you need to be to keep my fairways nice!!! dont let this nasty global warming burn my greens!!! Edited June 3, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) maybe thats why youre an expert, you need to be to keep my fairways nice!!! Â You couldnt afford it princess . . . trust me. Â Stick to hanging out in Wrigleyville . . . . Edited June 3, 2009 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) You couldnt afford it princess . . . trust me. Â Stick to hanging out in Wrigleyville . . . . Â Â get back on that toro please. Edited June 3, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'll bet this is why Chicago has like 500 murders every weekend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'll bet this is why Chicago has like 500 murders every weekend... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'll bet this is why Chicago has like 500 murders every weekend... Â Â global warming has a direct relationship to murder. look it up!! al bore said so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 Was that all you needed, to simply find one guy (hell, even a few guys) who isn't a puppet of the auto industry to say this is not a man made issue and that's it? Â couple things....one, this isn't just "a guy", it's one of the most reputable guys in the field. two, he's not saying "it's not a manmade issue". he's saying there has been warming, and there's likely some human contribution, but 1) that human contribution has been over-estimated by bad measurements, and 2) more importantly, the things people are proposing to address it will have practically zero impact at huge cost. Â if any of those assertions are easily disproven, it should be pretty easy to find a convincing argument doing so. I mean, it'd be great if this thread became an exchange of good info rather than atomic braying "bush sucks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 Then it goes on and on until they look foolish, because essentially they are arguing a crazy conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to deceive the world for some mysterious non-specific payoff, and that huge corporate interests are the innocent helpless victims just trying to tell the truth.  the hugh corporate interests are the ones driving the boat.  The Climate-Industrial Complex  President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain. .... U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.  The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.  The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 How much money does Al Gore stand to make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much will GE (read NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Sloberman) make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much money will Lehman Brothers make if Cap and Trade is enacted? You guys on the left complain and complain about Big Oil and it's influence on studies, why don't you look at the source of your argument and see what they have to gain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 How much money does Al Gore stand to make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much will GE (read NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Sloberman) make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much money will Lehman Brothers make if Cap and Trade is enacted? You guys on the left complain and complain about Big Oil and it's influence on studies, why don't you look at the source of your argument and see what they have to gain? Â Â its cause they are sheeple. the left somehow thinks that their politicians arent crooks and liars. they dont bend the facts. all politicians do, thats the game. make money, not save the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 When the overwhelming consensus of scientific data supports the opposite, Â Do you know what 'consensus' means? I suggest you look it up. Â Do you know how science works? You know, like equations, problem solving, reproducible results? Â Science and consensus don't go together. One is practical and applicable, the other is based on faith and opinion. Â Let's go at this from another angle. Â Let's assume the planet is warming, lets assume man is a cause. Do you have any idea how much worse off we would be with a cooler planet than a warmer one? No, you don't. When has the planet had the greatest amount of life? Â You and ignorant people like you listen to alf bore and the UN, and just lap it up. You can't wait to use corn in your car, drink your urine, make hemp diapers and hand your paycheck over to a non-elected dude somewhere in the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 How much money does Al Gore stand to make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much will GE (read NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Sloberman) make if Cap and Trade is enacted? How much money will Lehman Brothers make if Cap and Trade is enacted? You guys on the left complain and complain about Big Oil and it's influence on studies, why don't you look at the source of your argument and see what they have to gain? Â About as much money that the Bush family with their business dealings with the Saudi royal family and all the wealthy oil companies stand to make if not enacted. Â Not defending these ideas here Perch, but both sides have vested interests in their views prevaling here. Â BOTH sides need to remove their blinders and just follow the money train . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Well reasoned, we thought out arguement.  “So when the right wing f0ktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...tive_tomorrow_1 Â Your link is funded by Exxon . . .LOL. Very impartial . . . Â http://www.scribd.com/doc/7807842/Green-Pe...ming-Denialists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 H8 will keep posting the same stuff and not care how wrong it is. That's how he rolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Lets think of some other 'science' in history that required a consensus! Â Don't you people realize how silly you look? The earth is flat! The sun rotates around the earth! Eugenics is awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 H8 will keep posting the same stuff and not care how wrong it is. That's how he rolls. Â Â Point immediately exemplified. Apparently H8's grasp on identifying or differentiating historic religious ethnocentrism is equal to his grasp of ....well.......everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 its june 3rd and its 49 degrees in chicago right now  How incredibly compelling.  It's June 4 and we hit a record high today in Seattle.  Have to agree here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Lets think of some other 'science' in history that required a consensus! Â Don't you people realize how silly you look? The earth is flat! The sun rotates around the earth! Eugenics is awesome! Â Â H8: Â Enjoy your head with the Bozos here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 When the overwhelming consensus of scientific data gathered by only the part of the scientific community I wish to recognize as credible supports the opposite, why would anyone have to go out of their way to rebut this, pissing me off by forcing me to show my intolerance for anything that is not contained in my established for everyone else rules that you must live by? By creating and forcing the parameters of the discussion in a way that I deem as the only valid frame and scope of discussion, It legitimizes a severe minority opinion. Think of the evolution arguments. Just because two people swear up and down that there is no scientific proof of evolution, does that mean the(y) [sic} have legitimate opinions that need to be disproved? I understand I have no understanding of the scientific method, and it is convenient for me to cite disproving a negative as opposed to testing a hypothesis, but this would completely underline the lack of my understanding of politically driven science. Or have they just got an agenda and ignore what doesn't fit their model? I understand that this is equally applicable to both sides of the argument, umm, I mean discussion, but since we are only allowed to discuss and accept that which is convenient to my position (see above), we will just assume you are wrong, since being an elitist implies "better than you" independent of cordial discussion and non-emotional and logical presentation of other possibilities. Remember, there are none and our position is not EVER open for questioning or discussion! Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 couple things....one, this isn't just "a guy", it's one of the most reputable guys in the field. two, he's not saying "it's not a manmade issue". he's saying there has been warming, and there's likely some human contribution, but 1) that human contribution has been over-estimated by bad measurements, and 2) more importantly, the things people are proposing to address it will have practically zero impact at huge cost. Â Hmmm, his "truth is somewhere in the middle" opinion holds some water for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.