Global Warming Debate - Page 146

camaraderie · #**1451** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Jody...the point abut my data graphs that I would like to make to you for your consideration is that if you wander through this thread...they are not JUST arctic ice graphs...they are graphs and data that refute every "scientific" point made by those who would have us believe in man made warming and their scientific "evidence". I don't believe in spending trillions of dollars to fix a problem that doesn't exist and make other people rich. Just think what those trillions could do to fix real problems. You rely on analogies to dogs and lawns and your feelings to make your points...I'd rather focus on the actual measurements of climate impacts and new data to make mine. Guess that's why it's ART by Jody rather than Statistics by Jody! We look at the world from different perspectives and that is fine cause we sure do need the art as well as the science. You are welcome to support your beliefs with your $$ but your gonna have to PROVE them to get mine!

souljour2000 · #**1452** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Thanks for the rebuttal about ocean acidity but I think I will go along with 90% of the planets climatologists,marine biologists, and other people that have proof of the CO2-acidification and actually do this stuff for a living. Call me whatever you want but climate science and biology really should be left to the pros...this isn't Obama vs. McCain..this is a bit different and requires the cold hard facts dug up by somber-eyed scientists on research vessels and in labs...not to be found in the pages of "Hannity's Guide to Global warming" (it's coming if he already hasn't signed with Doubleday).

sander06 · #**1453** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

This thread is 146 pages long. Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations on how long a it takes to beat a horse to death?!

Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of humanity when our handiest point of reference is in relation to the intellectual capabilities of the family dog. Yep, that would be us... the smartest animal on a plant full of "dumb" animals.

Sorry, I think I may need to get back on my medication...

danjarch · #**1454** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Souljour, simply put, most would be happy to leave it to the pro's but since one side is going to cherry pick a few facts and use them to impose they're solution on the rest of us, at our cost of course. We can't just leave it to the pro's or simply accept one side.

I ask, would you let one religeous group decide what needs to be law so that we all followed gods plan? Would you allow one group of engineers from one industry decide what all cars were going to be. Do you want to allow one group of dietitions to decide what we're all going to have to eat for dinner tonight.

You say 90% climatologists, marine biologists and other people. Who are these other people, where do you get this number from? It sounds more like fellings then facts. Would you be willing to allow me to ban books in the libruary that I felt where hurting are planet? Can I go in and require authors to edit they're books because I can cite numerous studies that show there wording and/or content and/or number of pages leads to envionmental problems?

If you believe that one side is manipulating facts to make it appear that global warming isn't happening, how could you not see the same thing going on with the other side?

souljour2000 · #**1455** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Joe the Duck says "quack!..Quack!.....the burden of proof is really on the "global warming is a scam"' people because if you are right then the planet is a little bit cleaner ...but if your 10% of the science community is wrong..and the 90% of scientists are right...then we have really have a potential problem that we should have gotten right...but instead we went with the quacks and earth-is-inside out people because the new Obama Socialist govt liked taxing the capital gains off the Nuke plants generating all the power needed to run your anti-gravity force-field to keep your yachts from "sinking" from the ceiling.It's the Socialists fault...wait!..it's back to Bush/Cheney again...oh Grandpa!

camaraderie · #**1456** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Dead WRONG...if you want my money you have to PROVE global warming DUE TO MAN...that WE CAN do something about...that is WORTH doing something about rather than just living with the consequensces IF they occur.

Worst case is NOT the world is a little bit cleaner. Worst case is people starve due to the economic impact of the diversion of resources, disease goes unchecked due to lack of funding, we go back to living in more primitive conditions and economies collapse etc. ...We are talking about the proposed biggest transfer of wealth in history that will dwarf our current balance of payments deficit. ALL FOR A THEORY that is widely contested and has YET to be validated in any REAL and TANGIBLE way.

souljour2000 · #**1457** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Nobody said anything about banning books except you Danj...okay..maybe it's 87%...maybe its 93 %...maybe it's 70% or 60%...I am going with the majority of scientists and as far as I know...an overwhelming majority of science thinks we have a problem..so I will vote my two cents according to the evidence I have seen. I disagree with your assessment...you apparenty disagree with mine..fine..
As for the cost of stopping global warming and a "transfer of wealth" ..here's how I see it. A transfer of wealth is indeed coming...profits for companies that refuse to change will be reduced...those that change will get the money instead.... the "corporate fossil" tax breaks will end..at least for awhile...the people will get lots of green jobs that pay well...more transfer of wealth...the people will not be sick as much..(less sick days= bigger paycheck= transfer of wealth)...offshore corporate tax shelter money will be "transferred " into U.S. coffers where it belongs...more transfer of wealth)

1) I don't like to breathe dirty air and I dont want my kids to breathe it.call me crazy.... Q. why? A. because the polluting obsolescent technology and fossil fuels will replaced with alternative tech and fuels/methods which will create millions of new high-tech and low-tech jobs and the air will be alot better.

2) I don't like dirty water..I want clean water if I can get it ..call me crazy..

3) I don't like beaches covered with red-green algae or red-tide blooms that occur every summer .all summer long...due to the phosphate mines or over-fertilized fruit farms on a river 50 miles away...call me crazy
4) I like progress...not stagnation...to Hades with the fossil-fuel dinosaurs....to heck with the nattering nabobs...the young and the wise and the people who can dream of a better world that works for more people and isn't so self-destructive as the one they inherited are going to re-make it into something a bit better...utopia?..no...fairer ..hopefully...cleaner and greener...hopefully ...I believe human nature can evolve..however incrementally..

souljour2000 · #**1458** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

BTW.. I'm a big fan of what Shwarzenegger is doing for alternative energy...he is one cool Republican...Too bad he made so much money before he became a progressive...he'd be a Democrat...

PBzeer · #**1459** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

The only point of actual consensus is that the earth warms and cools. Climate is not static, nor does it have an optimum level that can, or even should be reached. Each change, brings about other changes, which can neither be effectively quantified, nor qualified. The planet, and all the natural systems on it are dynamic and ever changing, regardless of what mankind may or may not do.

Had there been no climate change prior to the Industrial Revolution, then one could make a circumstantial case that mankind is the primary cause of climate change. As it is though, of all the factors affecting climate change, mankind has the least effect.

To completely disrupt the global economy, choices in lifestyle and methods of existence on efforts which, even if successful, will hardly have a perceptible impact on the climate is beyond ludicrous.

souljour2000 · #**1460** (**permalink**) 11-01-2008

Yeah..Henry Ford was an A-hole*...causing all that DISRUPTION...bye bye whale oil..hello petroleum...bye bye spermacetti..hello WD-40....I agree that the earth has had all these cycles..but whats wrong with new tech, green jobs, and clean air?

* history has shown he had his share of faults...but I don't think he has been accused of disrupting the world economy in a while...