Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mexico City is a perfect example of why emissions need to be controlled and it has nothing to do with global warming. The place has improved greatly over the last decade. I hated to even drive through the place at one point, but spent a very nice week on business there a short while ago. I don't agree with Government intervention at this point. I do believe there is an immediate need to reduce TOXIC emissions from our machines and hopefully new technologies will help this.

 

Rationally, it is OBVIOUS that emissions of all types need to be reduced from our vehicles. Run your car (with you in it) in a closed garage and you die! The black and gray crap that you see build up on the snow can't be very good for any of us. Toxic or acidic concentrations of these goodies kills water systems and eats the paint off of your car. These are the things that need to be specifically targeted when talking about emissions and make the environmentalists position much more credible. IF CO2 is a contributor, then cleaning up these other emissions from coal and oil burning engines will cause CO2 to likewise be reduced.

 

As a biologist by education with a lot courses on eco-systems under my belt, the whole issue frustrates me. I think the end result demanded by the left is an important and valid one. I just think they have chosen the wrong battlefield and extremist, fear-mongering methods to push their agenda. Their position, data and tactics discredits an overall very important theme. We have to get better at keeping the planet clean for our own survival. The planet and life will carry on with or without us. I fully support a cleaner environment and hope that efficient energy sources like nuclear power are embraced by the left.

 

i agree with that completely. i mean, i subscribe pretty strongly to the notion that we, individually and in some instances collectively, should take steps to reduce our footprint. i drive a 4-cylinder car, i take the bus to work about half the time, when i bought my house a year and a half ago two of the first things i did was to put in new windows and change out most of the light bulbs with flourescents, and i pay the extra 20 bucks a year or whatever through my energy company to be on their "wind" programs. nothing extreme, but i try and do stuff like that for the same reason i don't litter, i mostly stay on the trail when i go hiking, etc. so i'm not entirely un-sympathetic to environmental issues and causes, i just really have a strong distaste for:

1) the alarmist, apocalyptic hype of the greenhouse warming movement, and

2) the crass way this demagoguery is employed in furtherance of a specific political agenda that, in realtity, predates and supercedes any concern over anthropogenic global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

well, it's also a bit disingenuous to reduce his argument on this particular point to "a few warmer or cooler years strung together." he's talking about a quarter century of sustained cooling, from roughly 1940 to 1975 (resulting in all the 1970s media hype of a coming ice age), right at the particular point in human history, wwii and the post-wwii economic boom, when human CO2 emissions were going through the roof. i think it's fair to argue that this fact poses a rather profound challenge to the anthropogenic GW theory.

 

 

Its not proper to look at CO2 in a vacuum as proof for or against GW regardless of time span. If someone shows me data were all greenhouse gases are going up, and the ocean temps are staying relatively flat during that time period, well they might have something there.

 

i think it's a great point. not so much his illustrative example of india (i don't know enough about that either way), but the notion that climate change means different things for different regions. warming carries both positive and negative potential effects, yet the alarmists tout only the negative and hype them up to a cataclysmic scale. and i don't think it's ridiculous to hypothesize that, on balance, a little warmer may be a little better. :D

 

You're right about the alarmists, and no, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize the change might have a net benefit. However, I think I'll side with caution instead of optimism which has even less scientific support than the GW theory it hopes will be beneficial.

Edited by The Irish Doggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left demands that you to think as they do. Man made CO2 is the solitary cause of global warming and it is our fault.

Your problem, McB, is right there in your first two words. If "the left" says grass is green, you will automatically disagree. Your focus on what the political views of people are betrays your critical faculties.

 

Could you point me at someone who says that global warming is ALL down to CO2, as you claim? It's been the focus of this thread, for sure, but there are way more things in play than just CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now there you have gone and insulted someone.... this is the end

 

 

I have been insulted...insulted I say! Please purge this thread imm-ah-diatley and make global warming go away since it's all a bunch of hooieeee. Thank you in advance...I said thank you.

 

-Signed

Foghorn Leghorn

Bush voter in '00 and '04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem, McB, is right there in your first two words. If "the left" says grass is green, you will automatically disagree. Your focus on what the political views of people are betrays your critical faculties.

 

Could you point me at someone who says that global warming is ALL down to CO2, as you claim? It's been the focus of this thread, for sure, but there are way more things in play than just CO2.

 

 

Contrary. You are the one who is focused on that. You edit out the part of the sentence where I blame the "right" as well. You go blind at the slightest idea someone is not on your side and refuse to accept the basic truths of the theme. Why not talk about the theme of the thread and the non-political points I made? :D I never said that YOU believe that uniquely CO2 is the problem, but YOU are not the one this thread is about. I have NEVER believed you to be part of the uber=left, but if that is what you want to be percieved as, so be it. The "experts" seem to be clearly "black-and-white" on this issue. Gore certainly is.

 

You provide nothing to further educate on the issue and only poo-poo opposing viewpoints, even if they are not opposite. You excise the only part of my thread that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about and why I came back to the thread. I am passionate about "leaving a smaller footprint". I just don't think that the approach by the uber-lefties is the way to accomplish this. You fail to see that and only remain in the political mindframe. Problem is with you, not with me.

 

What about the Part where I write...

I think the end result demanded by the left is an important and valid one.
Or did you see all you needed to get your panties in a bunch before reading the whole post?

 

I am truley of the mindset that I have... loonies to the left of me, wimps to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with who?

Edited by McBoog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is good to see that there are a lot of average stupid repubtards here. :D

 

 

It's always fun to see lefties calling conservatives stupid and then watch debates commence and see the "stupid" conservatives completely undress the "vastly intelligent" lefties with loads of facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always fun to see lefties calling conservatives stupid and then watch debates commence and see the "stupid" conservatives completely undress the "vastly intelligent" lefties with loads of facts.

 

what facts?? one source does not a case make .... load us up swammy, tell us how the earth is fine, co2 is not harmful and that man is doing nothing to speed up global warming...

 

could you also include links to were the earth is flat , the sun revolves around the earth and unicorns were real...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what facts?? one source does not a case make

 

 

:D

 

If you could read & knew what footnotes are and how to use them, you'd know that there are a whole lot more than one source there.

 

And despite your googling, as you said, you have yet to produce one fact contradicting any of what was put forth in the article I posted. Furthermore, the article clearly points out even to the most elementary reader that the data used for CO2 emissions to prove man-made global warming were obviously and blatantly fudged to acommodate the theory.

 

Geez, lefties arguing from their hearts vs conservatives armed with facts is like a guy bringing a knife to a gunfight...

 

:D

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information