Global Warming Debate

[therapy23]

It took me a few days to read all this.
I read every post and most of the links.
All it did was reinforce what I already believe.
This part of a link was very telling for me.

-------------------------------------------------------------

We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.

Were it not about control, the dialogue would be about baffles and filters to eliminate soot, not about outright bans.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just want to chuck it all and use one diesel (maybe two depending on which cat I end up with) and a Honda 2000 every once in a while.

Will the Honda power my AC?

Oh wait............that is another thread.

Thanks all.

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by therapy23

It took me a few days to read all this.
I read every post and most of the links.
All it did was reinforce what I already believe.
This part of a link was very telling for me.

-------------------------------------------------------------

We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.

Were it not about control, the dialogue would be about baffles and filters to eliminate soot, not about outright bans.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just want to chuck it all and use one diesel (maybe two depending on which cat I end up with) and a Honda 2000 every once in a while.

Will the Honda power my AC?

Oh wait............that is another thread.

Thanks all.

Part of the discussion IS about carbon sequestering (OK, but not cost-effective compared to fission). Nobody is talking about "banning" anything. That's a strawman, popular with the tin-foil hat crowd (you know... UN, black helicopters, and so on) .

[mtboat]

Strawman? Tinfoil hat crowd u.n.black helicopters and so on. I'm offended. Not cool to try and minimize and belittle others beliefs. Just what do you know of the U.N. and black helicoptors? As a matter of fact, you sound like a U.N. supporter. You keep quoting IPCC sources. If you know all about it why don't you tell me why the lead writer of the report stated, to the AP, that " of all the models, the U.N. picked the worst case scenario, and that is not the one that will ever happen". Why did approximatly 700 scientists leave the IPCC? Why did some have to sue to get their names removed from the report after they discovered it there? And have you ever seen a black helicopter?

[StuMyers]

Actually, I support the belittling of 'beliefs'.

"Beliefs" are bad (or at least, silly), "predictions" based on data are good. I'll take confidence over faith any day.

[sailaway21]

I'll have to chime in with an agreement with Stu on that one. A belief is something you know to be true. Saying, "I think", on the otherhand implies somewhat less than metaphysical certitude. And since the core issue we are debating concerns the paucity of interpretable data, I'm in favor of bashing anyone who believes otherwise. (g)

[mtboat]

Has anyone seen the map of what the U.N. will do to the United States when they are finally in power. Just remember it starts with GW. I want you to look up :The Wildlands Project and U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity: Plan to Restore Biodiversity in the United States. Take a look at what happens when the U.N is running things. What better way to get the people behind it, then to sell the idea that there is a planetary emergency. And remember they have to act fast before it's too late,.... for the children... for our future.

[danjarch]

Europe tried to run America once. It didn't end well that time.

[mtboat]

Ok I've said my peace,sorry to offend anyone. It occurs to me that it is a complete waste of time to argue with strangers about global warming and the u.n. I should be working on my boat. I wash my hands of this weirdness.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by mtboat

The graph in cams post #478, starts at 1700 and ends past 2000. What would the graph show if it went back to 1600,1500,1400 ?

MT...the problem is that this is observational data on glaciers. Historically it relys on humans to report the size of the glaciers...and there are FEW reports even back as far a 1700. We just don't know what sized they were before then.

[therapy23]

[quote=StuMyers;228104]
Nobody is talking about "banning" anything.
QUOTE]

xxxx

Banning things occurs now.

It is how things are controlled.