polksalet Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) Al Gore paints himself as a pretty nice target. He is global warming's Larry Flint. As I said - I think he does the cause a disservice. can someone do the Easter Bunny a disservice? Edited April 5, 2008 by polksalet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I was just thinking of you and your idealogical brethren here at the huddle. You think that I "follow this belief with a religious fervor"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Yes I agree. Being stuck in any ideology closes the mind to science and reason. Scientists(real ones) may go into research expecting to prove what they believe but if the science leads them in an opposite direction they let the facts and science lead them and not force the outcome. Thinking you know where you're going sometimes leads you into a ditch. Any scientist that follows any of this is NOT a scientist. Real scientists do not go into research expecting to prove what they believe. This is trying to prove an opinion and it is NOT the Scientific method (no I will not link the definition for the 30th time). You test a hypothosis, If you are trying to porve something, then your method id flawed and biased and so are your findings (think of Mr. Spock). Hyoto did just this and that is why I have trouble with their findings. BTW. I keep getting lumped into the right wing conspiracy label. Can any of you describe my position on this issue. Bet you can't! You label and follow the standard attack method, I am an ally to "the cause". I just don't perscribe to the reasining and alarmism behind those who are looking for the same outcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 (edited) Once again, I'd like to point out that the last 12 times Global Warming has come up as a topic in this forum, it has been by H8, McBoog, or Polksalet. It doesn't sound like the liberals here are living up to your expectations of tree hugging chicken-littles. Sorry. All you have to do is turn on the TV and open the paper and you are bombarded by this rubbish! Are you disavowing your own just because of the self-doubt we have instilled in you on these boards? This is such a condescending, elitist attitude to take to the discussion it is almost too stereotypical. You basically imply just like the other ABSOLUTE alarmists, that the discussion is over, don't talk about it any more. I am not your child that you can "quiet" with your elitist browbeating. You like and want the "chicken little" 'cause that is what you don't want challenged. You buy into it without defending it with any rational evidence. The self-hatred, eeeevil humans thingy don’t fly here! Have you read the latest Kyoto update? They have completely REMOVED the famous "hocky stick" because it was meaningless and based on bad conclusions! My biggest fear about the alarmist approach is not that the seas will rise 20 feet by next summer, the atmosphere will "literally catch on fire" making sunscreen useless and we will all turn into cannibals. My REAL FEAR and the worst part about this alarmist approach is that IF this approach is disproved (I have not claimed anthropogenic effects are a non-factor, just a piece of a larger effect) OR just self-corrects and we start gettin' chilly, that the focus/hysteria will be focused on something else and the real issue of TOXIC emissions will fall by the wayside. What comes out of our machines is dirty and poisonous. It pollutes our water, soil and effects our lives and the world around us adversely, independent of impending cannibalism (thank God I am one of the people with plenty lots of guns and ammo at home. I'll have LOTS to eat!) The over-reaction has already started to show adverse effects. Ethanol has created bigger, more immediate problems. Besides it not burning as efficiently as straight gas, causing higher consumption, it is killing the ocean around the Mississippi delta on a scale never before measured due to fertilizers being used to keep up with the demand leaching into the water table. The demand for it as fuel has raised the cost of our food. Not only that, because the cost of corn based products (including ethanol) is rising, it is contributing to the INCREASE in the price of gasoline. Its overall net benefits have been a negative on the environment and a hardship on cash strapped, less economically capable families. The corn producer lobbies are evolving into some very influential entities D.C. That is all we need, another financially powerful influence corrupting the inner workings of our government. I thought this is what the "progressives" were trying to remove from our system. Exacerbating the food production problem is that farmers are growing fewer other grains and turning to corn because they can make more money, causing a shortage in the other grains that raises their prices. With a weaker dollar, foreign countries are buying the supplies, raising the prices even more. We are doomed to live these catch-22 scenarios until we can RATIONALLY look at the big picture and evaluate long term consequences to our short term solutions. Edited April 7, 2008 by McBoog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 All you have to do is turn on the TV and open the paper and you are bombarded by this rubbish! X Once again, I listen to NPR and I read news online, and I don't see it bombarding me at all. You're faking outrage, because it's the republican way to do so. Invent an enemy who is an idiot, and then pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is that person. I didn't get to the rest of your post. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 My argument is with those who seem hell bent on trying to disprove the human contributions to global warming. No one here as ever said such a thing. See, you are a BOLD FACED LIAR! I have a problem with your ilk telling me man is destroying the planet. The planet has been here billions of years, look at all the changes it has gone through... and you have the audacity to think we can destroy it as we know it in 100 years? Makes you seem retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 No one here as ever said such a thing. See, you are a BOLD FACED LIAR! Just because no-one here on the opposite side squawks and spooges like two paranoid chicken littles with there heads cut off about this stuff 1/20 of the amount you and Boog do, doesn't make ACEO's statement untrue. There have been several huddlers who have claimed several times that there is no proof of human contributions to global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 X Once again, I listen to NPR and I read news online, and I don't see it bombarding me at all. You're faking outrage, because it's the republican way to do so. Invent an enemy who is an idiot, and then pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is that person. I didn't get to the rest of your post. Sorry. Outrage? I'm not the one throwing insults or labels brah! Just trying to have a discussion about ALL the possibilities. You dictate that there is only one, and by taking a fascist position to the topic, you are threatened by any form of deviation from the dogma. Enemy? The only real enemy to fear is the one you are not prepared for. And in terms of this topic you are lazy, uneducated and boring Why are you so threatened by my position? I have carried this torch for 30 years now. Reduce emissions and protect the environment. What don't you get about that? Tell me how ethanol has helped ANYTHING? Oh! BTW. I'm neither an R or a D. But you need your labels so you can spew your canned response. Minimal effort for an all too important topic. That is the most dangerous position of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Why are you so threatened by my position? You are the one who posted a hyper-defensive 1000 word essay laced with smashes and rant icons, and won't let the subject drop. I'm not threatened, but you clearly are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 You are the one who posted a hyper-defensive 1000 word essay laced with smashes and rant icons, and won't let the subject drop. I'm not threatened, but you clearly are. So why then even open these threads? Go away and let those of us who want to evaluate ALL of the information post away. As usual, you are too weak in your knowledge of the subject to actually address anything discussed. It is easy and lazy to take meaningless pot shots. Taking a position and supporting it takes way too much effort. Go back a read your posts in this thread. NOTHING! How many times can you eat and puke the same plate of crap? Contribute or go away, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 So why then even open these threads? Go away and let those of us who want to evaluate ALL of the information post away. As usual, you are too weak in your knowledge of the subject to actually address anything discussed. It is easy and lazy to take meaningless pot shots. Taking a position and supporting it takes way too much effort. Go back a read your posts in this thread. NOTHING! How many times can you eat and puke the same plate of crap? Contribute or go away, please! At least people read my posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 For starters Mc Boog, don't back off of things you said. You said you can't turn on the radio or TV without being bombarded with this stuff, CEO correctly called BS, and you changed the subject. Secondly, if we're talking about global warming, why are you bringing up ethanol as an overreaction to the problem? I thought ethanol was a reaction to the fact that the Middle East is sitting on top of fossil fuels that we need. So, any adverse effects from that can't be pinned on people getting concerned about global warming. Have you seriously read anything that promoted ethanol as a solution to global warming? Maybe you have. I haven't. Lastly, if even most of the time somebody who bashed the global warming theories continued by pointing out other more grave environmental issues at hand, I'd have a much easier time buying the noble intentions you seem to claim. However, it typically goes like this: Global warming is a hoax started by Al Gore because he's a loser who wants attention. The end. (ooh, cut and paste out of context potential ripe for the picking!). Hell, just up the page H8's big argument is that the world is bigger than us and we can't kill it in 100 years. Great. OK, so maybe my motives are more selfish than H8's. Maybe he only cares if the world survives us and I actually care if the world can continue to support us. H8, I never took you for an eco-terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 For starters Mc Boog, don't back off of things you said. You said you can't turn on the radio or TV without being bombarded with this stuff, CEO correctly called BS, and you changed the subject. Global Warming Tax - TODAY UNRELENTING. Why was ethanol ever included as an additive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 You said you can't turn on the radio or TV without being bombarded with this stuff, CEO correctly called BS, If you don't think global warming hysteria is not part of mainstream news in this country, you are either ignoring it or need to pay attention. Who won the nobel peace prize? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Global Warming Tax - TODAY UNRELENTING. Why was ethanol ever included as an additive? Sorry, I guess I don't define opinion pieces in the "Dessert Dispatch" as "unrelenting media bombardment". And before you go there, I don't think OP/EDs from "Treehugger Monthly" do either. As for the ethanol deal. The biggest rally cry I ever hear for corn based fuel is lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 If you don't think global warming hysteria is not part of mainstream news in this country, you are either ignoring it or need to pay attention. Who won the nobel peace prize? What the f isn't part of the mainstream news in this country. We beat everything to death. The fact is, the news has not turned into the Global Warming watch that you guys imply it has. Is it covered? Of course it is. Then again, so is Paris Hilton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Google Search News Global Warming: 28,000 hits Read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Google Search News Global Warming: 28,000 hits Read them. For starters, why bother going to Google when I've got guys like you here in the huddle bringing it to me on the constant. Of course, we don't know how many of those 28K are stories like those that you post that attempt to debunk the theory. None the less, I suppose you proved your point. Paris Hilton only had 5K. That makes Global Warming almost 6x more important than her. Mind you, search pollution and you get just as many. Search US economy or Iraq and you get about 200K. Taxes? 80K US Education? 78K Hmm, I guess I just don't see it getting any more run than it deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Oh noooooo.... This won't make you happy. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commenta...eers_wrong.html Climate alarmists are alarmed, scaremongers scared, for their predictions of catastrophe are not coming true. "Global warming" has stopped. For 10 years, average temperatures on earth have not risen. For seven years, the trend has been downward. The fall between January 2007 and January 2008 was the biggest since records began in 1880. Read it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 And just for you lulu... cause you always barf up this crap: In the Arctic, the media reported less summer sea ice than at any time since records began. Most did not report that records began only 30 years ago; that at both Poles there is more sea ice now than ever since records began; that there are five times more polar bears today than 50 years ago; that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than today; or that the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet grew by 2 inches yearly from 1993-2003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 If you don't think global warming hysteria is not part of mainstream news in this country, I agree. You just have to read you and McBoog's posts in this thread to conclude the type of mindset that is easily manipulated into a hysteria by the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Oh noooooo.... This won't make you happy. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commenta...eers_wrong.html Read it all. Honestly, I'm really not sure how much closer we'll get to consensus on this by each side posting very agenda driven pieces to support their stance. Judging by your numbers, I'm guessing we could each post 10s of 1000s of articles on either side of that fence. So what? Oh wait, "my" side of the argument doesn't come here daily drumming this argument up again. Sorry, never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Here's the amazing thing. You are so hyper concerned about making sure that the data is 100% undeniable to get behind making changes to curb Global Warming. However, if Dubya thinks that driving the economy into record debt might create a bunch of new jobs or we should start a 5 year war over crappy intelligence, you're all for it. Where was the scrutiny then? Why do you only look under every pebble for data when it comes to someone telling you to turn down the freaking A/C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Google Search News Global Warming: 28,000 hits Read them. More evidence that you are literally searching for this news rather than being bombarded by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 I am having a meeting with a buddy of mine from NOAA Thursday. he always has the best global warming comments. I'll post what he says. You would think a climatologist/geodesist would be so humorous 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.