spain Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny, and I haven't seen Gore's movie. I just think that going to an admittedly conservatively biased publication to find reinforcing opinions on global warming is like going to a car dealership and asking the salesman if he thinks it's the right time to buy. Why would you go to a "news" source who's sole purpose is to tell you that what you already believe is correct? You must have pretty low confidence in your opinions to seek out positive, and only positive reinforcement like that. But you only seem to attack the source of information posted here when it comes from a so called "conservative" site, delivering information you disagree with. When have you, or any other liberal here for that matter, decried the source when comrade Skins posts something from some leftwing nutbag site like moveon.org or the New York Times? The answer? never. The standard changes because of your bias. Thats all I am saying. If you disagree with the piece, I have no problem at all. But if you are always looking to bag on only conservative sites then your credibility as being objective suffers mightily. Do you really want to be seen as just another Skins with red hair and a taste for asian boys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 the earth is not flat.... next you will tell me that those lights in the sky are acutely other suns and planets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 But you only seem to attack the source of information posted here when it comes from a so called "conservative" site, delivering information you disagree with. When have you, or any other liberal here for that matter, decried the source when comrade Skins posts something from some leftwing nutbag site like moveon.org or the New York Times? The answer? never. Ummm... Do you post on the same message board as me? I don't even pretend to get along with skins, and I constantly deride his sources and bias. I've never quoted moveon.org. I think you're confusing me with the imaginary liberal in your head again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ummm... Do you post on the same message board as me? I don't even pretend to get along with skins, and I constantly deride his sources and bias. I've never quoted moveon.org. I think you're confusing me with the imaginary liberal in your head again. When have you ever attacked a liberal source as being biased or having an agenda? Examples please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 When have you ever attacked a liberal source as being biased or having an agenda? Examples please... I direct you to the search function and ask you to prove that I don't. Do you still think that the war in Iraq is going poorly because of "Liberals bad attitudes", and not because of bad intel, poorly defined goals, lack of strategy, and a commander in chief who bailed on the National Guard? If you do... I'm not gonna bother trying to use logic to change your opinion of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I direct you to the search function and ask you to prove that I don't. Do you still think that the war in Iraq is going poorly because of "Liberals bad attitudes", and not because of bad intel, poorly defined goals, lack of strategy, and a commander in chief who bailed on the National Guard? If you do... I'm not gonna bother trying to use logic to change your opinion of me. I used the search function and cant find any examples of you attacking any liberal sources. I have long advocated pulling out of Iraq. I think the war in Iraq is going poorly for all of the above reasons and a few others not mentioned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 we know that we are putting increasing amounts of unnatural chemicals into the air we breathe I agree, we need to find a way to plug all volcanoes, we also need to immediatly stop all air travel and start riding horses... doh, no, I mean walk around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) I just think that going to an admittedly conservatively biased publication to find reinforcing opinions on global warming is like going to Al Gore's admittedly liberal movie to find reinforcing opinions on global warming. fixed, for more relevance. granted you say you haven't seen it, but have you ever derided anyone for posting facts taken from 'an inconvenient truth' and presenting them as gospel? if not, how does your claim "I hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny" really stand up? Edited February 26, 2007 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 I'd argue that the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth owed more to religion than science, plus the incentives that religion provided to keep people believing that in the form of the rack and being burned alive went some way to stifling the opposing belief. 400 years ago when Copernicus and Galileo were brave enough to argue against the Earth-centric church, the scientific tools were extremely limited, as were numbers of scientists. In 2007, there is no such excuse - zillions of dollars in technology and tens of thousands of scientists from all over the entire world are pointing in the same direction. when I wake up tomorrow I will teach you a couple of historical facts about your fair planet and its scientific history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 when I wake up tomorrow I will teach you a couple of historical facts about your fair planet and its scientific history I'll repeat what Rush Limbaugh and the National Review told me. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Quite a bit of Hollywood love and support for Al Gore tonight. I wonder what will come of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) Quite a bit of Hollywood love and support for Al Gore tonight. I wonder what will come of this? I didn't watch the whatever award show that was on tonight but one thing is for sure. Republicans will bitch and moan about any actor they don't agree with,while complaining about the Hollywood influence. But, if they agree with said Hollywood actor, they vote his unqualified arse into office. Edited February 26, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 when I wake up tomorrow I will teach you a couple of historical facts about your fair planet and its scientific history I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) fixed, for more relevance. granted you say you haven't seen it, but have you ever derided anyone for posting facts taken from 'an inconvenient truth' and presenting them as gospel? if not, how does your claim "I hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny" really stand up? I realize that you and Spain are playing the we are a better circle jerk than you guys game but... I saw the movie and it is sound from a scientific view. However, I was much more interested in the comparative data from 100s of thousands of years ago to present, than the short term phenomenas in the last thousands or hundreds of years. That being said, it was still a valid presentation of data endorsed by the scientific community and something to consider. If that view makes me a crazy liberal, then so be it. Edited February 26, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 fixed, for more relevance. granted you say you haven't seen it, but have you ever derided anyone for posting facts taken from 'an inconvenient truth' and presenting them as gospel? if not, how does your claim "I hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny" really stand up? Uh oh! Atomic is about to ask you to go use the search feature to prove he hasnt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 I don't think so. Rush Limbaugh made this stuff up Google this guy "Eratosthenes" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Google this guy "Eratosthenes" So what? My point was that in ancient times the facilities available to scientists was limited. Now those facilities are virtually limitless - satellites, thermal imagery, sensitive sensors and so on. I'm not denying the existence of scientists down the ages - I'm saying that there weren't that many of them and those that were around, while clearly brilliant, lacked the facilities to demonstrate their work in a practical manner, easily understood by lay people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possum Jenkins Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) So what? My point was that in ancient times the facilities available to scientists was limited. Now those facilities are virtually limitless - satellites, thermal imagery, sensitive sensors and so on. I'm not denying the existence of scientists down the ages - I'm saying that there weren't that many of them and those that were around, while clearly brilliant, lacked the facilities to demonstrate their work in a practical manner, easily understood by lay people. By that same account, wouldn't you agree that data-wise, in "ancient times" we have absolutely no idea what kind of subtle climate shifts occured? Of course we know about the major ones due to the evidence that they left behind, but if from 200 AD to 300 AD the climate warmed 2-3 degrees (and then subsequently cooled during a natural cycle) how would we possibly know? That being said, there is no doubt that man is putting an ever-increasing amount of crap into the environment - an environment that for the most part has been able to absorb it historically. However, there is no long-term historical perspective for what we are doing now - only the last few hundred years of industrialization. We do know that our water and air are measurably much cleaner than they were 50 years ago, and technology and man's innovation will continue to reduce our pollution output. There is a buck to be made selling a Prius to every tree-hugger out there, so the free market will continue to improve our situation. Now if the liberals want to get the conservatives on the bandwagon, you need to stop bitching about global warming - This is basic marketing 101. Many conservatives like the idea of being able to play golf in December and January, so you're not hitting any of our hot buttons. You need to tie conservation/alternative fuels to AN ELIMINATION OF OUR NEED FOR FORIEGN OIL. In the short term, you might even have to allow us to drill a little here until the paradigm shifts and we are using solar, wind, whatever. A conservative is far more interested in the REALITY that is our dependence on foriegn oil (and the policy decisions that come with that reality) than the HYPOTHOSIS of what could occur if the earth warms 3 degrees over the next 100 years. I may be biased, but we won't need to worry about global warming if we keep funding those kooks in the Middle East by buying their oil. How about we eliminate the real threat first? You might get a few more people on board... Edited February 26, 2007 by Possum Jenkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I watched the flick this weekend. Other than being irritated by how much artisticly light footage there was of Al looking serious and concerned, I came away very impressed with the data. They actually made some very convincing arguments that what we are seeing is completely out of the accepted ebb and flow of the climate over the last thousands of years. Now, I'm no scientist and can't make any claims that what I saw was accurate. So, I do like I should and follow the money. So, which small but very wealthy group has more to gain by either convincing us that we need to clean up our act or convincing us that Al Gore and others are making a mountain out of a molehill? Honestly, who gets rich off people cleaning up their act? Why do you need to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that poluting the air is a bad thing? Doesn't it seem likely that it is? Shouldn't the purden of proof be on the side that says pumping tons of garbage into the air is actually completely fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Honestly, who gets rich off people cleaning up their act? it's a LONG list. do you honestly believe otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f344/dmo...lobal_temp2.jpg looks like a normal cycle to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possum Jenkins Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 ...Honestly, who gets rich off people cleaning up their act? Why do you need to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that poluting the air is a bad thing? Doesn't it seem likely that it is? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side that says pumping tons of garbage into the air is actually completely fine? Actually, plenty of people will get rich off people cleaning up their acts - it is a burgeoning industry, and one that has merit regardless of where you fall in this debate. If global warming doesn't concern you, the higher rates of cancer should cause you to pause. Regardless, you've got to sell the sizzle, and the sizzle is not cancer or global warming - the sizzle is turninig the Middle East back into a big sandbox without a shot being fired - we can ALL get behind that. As far as the burden of proof goes, that typically belongs to the one making the accusations, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the other party... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Greatest Terp basketball player ever. Very sad and huge waste. And that is saying a LOT considering John Lucas, Len Elmore/Tom McMillan, and Joe Smith, etc. played there. The Celtics missed a chance there. What a waste, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) it's a LONG list. do you honestly believe otherwise? Well obviously there are plenty. However, one has to think that if you stack the two sides up status quo pays that side a whole lot more than cleaning up does the eco side. Opening up the argument to ecologically sound choices that don't affect global warming. Sure, the guys that make bamboo building materials make more money if people start choosing renwable over clear cut. Toyota sells more Priuses if people choose them over Suburbans. The list goes on and on. However, that's some pretty crazy conspiracy theory to think that all this flap about known toxins being pumped into our environment actually having an adverse effect is nothing more than a hoax to create new niche markets. Once again, it's not exactly like they're asking you to suspend belief to think that pollution is, in fact, bad. Edited February 26, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 the problem with the whole global warming mantra is that it has essentially become a religious crusade. what other conclusion could you come to when you hear the self-righteous hollywood windbags (whose chartered transatlantic planes, hugh houses and the like burn a lot more fossil fuels than the average joe, but that's really another topic entirely) talking about how global warming isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. sounds a little like pat robertson to me, except this circle-jerk of concerned citizens has chosen consummate loser al gore as their guru. they talk about "saving the planet" as an impenetrable, unarguable moral imperative veiling over all sorts of naked political ambition, EXACTLY the way religious conservatives use their concept of "God" to do the same thing -- and they shout down and villify "deniers" in EXACTLY the same way. it baffles me that some of you who lean left can't seem to recognize this. and you wonder why the "movement" turns a lot of people off? 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.