Global Warming Debate

[xort]

Regarding "greens" and murder, you do have the Earth Liberation Front who have had their leaders charged with murder and arson. And donations for their defense came from PETA.

[camaraderie]

While everyone knows where I stand on the GW issue... I think it is important to know that there are an equal number of bad science statements floating around to "prove" that GW does not exist...to support a similar political viewpoint. This only hurts the case against GW since they are so easily dis-proven. Be careful with all the data you hear about and check the "other side" to see where the truth may lie.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[chucklesR]

In other words, (from the below paste) you can't bring yourself to admit it was tongue in cheek and you didn't realize it, or care - you just wanted to post it as fact to defame.

Don't you realize that much like Cam's earlier post about 'bad' science and how it divides the issue and hurts the cause by giving the other side reason for disagreement?

The ELF is a fanatic fringe subgroup, hardly 'leadership' anymore than the bomber of an abortion clinic is a leader of the pro-life movement.

Neither one, with their wild eyed frothing mouth hyperbole and extremist derogatory statements is ever likely to be taken seriously or change the mind of a 'non-believer' any more than a Islamic extremist will via terrorism.

Such behavior hurts the cause, it certainly doesn't help.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

-- I was using the term "Greens" to denote all eco-concerned movements, or rather, the intellectuals and their leadership.

-- The Green Party has been cleaning up its leadership, its references and the scholars it funds for some time now. Same goes for Greenpeace, BTW. (That doesn't mask their intent for those who bother to look, but it makes them more respectable.)

-- The history, philosophic and political roots, personalities, writings, explicit and implicit ideas of these movements are in line with the notion that Man is the problem and that Nature is to be defended at all cost. (Ecos are the embodiment of the secular version of Original Sin. That idea always leads to disaster and death.) (Why are we stunned? The Greens' brothers in the political arena would end the US in a heartbeat. What's the dif?)

-- If that Letter was effective as an exaggeration it's because the conclusion you're dismissing is, in the broadest sense, the logical outcome of the policies called for by the Ecos.

-- There have been many calls for population control.

-- You have access to all kinds of thorough databases at any decent library. If you need to do the relevant research, have at it. Fact is, the drivers of the Eco movement have made their goals blatantly clear -- goals they share with all powerlusters. That you don't know it, or pretend not to for the fun of erecting hoops, isn't going to get me to start scanning ancient notes for a quote you'll just turn around and/or dismiss in some way.

The Greens, back to the way I use the term, are anti-Man or rather, anti-West, anti-progress. Whether they call for actual murder, which some have, or vandalize construction sites, which they'd done and threaten to escalate, the motive and end result are the same.

We banned DDT in the name of a subspecies of bird, knowing the escalation of malaria would kill millions of people per year -- the same people the Left would sacrifice the US to in a heartbeat. (The current death toll is estimated at "just" a million per. Setting aside that it's been estimated at far higher numbers for decades, how is a million deaths a year in the name of the thickness of a bird's eggshell acceptable. How is this not a blatant admission of their motives?)

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by bobwebster

Yes. CO2 captures more heat than O2. We use O2 and release CO2 when we breathe or burn. Maybe it's a minute difference, maybe not. Maybe it's natural, maybe not. But the fact is that people do contribute to global warming.

And I haven't even brought up farting.

I think we'll have to consider the chicken and the egg here. Is it that CO2 "captures" more heat or might it be that warmer air holds more CO2? I think that an examination of the partial pressure of gases will reveal the latter. which would then lead to the possibility that elevated CO2 levels within the atmosphere are not strictly the cause of the temperature rise but the result of a temperature rise.

I'd think that these questions might call for some further examination. Of course, it wasn't that long ago, at least to me, that President Reagan was panned for remarking upon the tremendous amount of CO2 "pollution" emitted by trees. Amongst the responses of the green movement, it was difficult to tell if they deciphered the tongue in cheek statement.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Amongst the responses of the green movement, it was difficult to tell if they deciphered the tongue in cheek statement.

Seems tongue in cheek is hard to tell from both sides.

A sense of humor is one of the most important senses to have.

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[chucklesR]

Rags,
Congrat's - you've summed up your position quite nicely.
Citing acknowledged fringe fanatic's as authoritative sources pretty much does the trick for me.

Wipe the froth from your mouth and use sunglasses to cover the wild eyed look

[RAGNAR]

zzzz