|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/15/2008 9:16:50 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason? NO?
And this proves that we are not in control?
quote:
Reforestation efforts are always underway.
It can't keep up with deforestation efforts.
quote:
As far as the extinct animals? Sorry?
I'm not looking for an apology. You are the one contesting that we have no impact on the world.
quote:
Survival of the fittest, and apparently Humans are the fittest.
That's not what "survival of the fittest" means, but that is a Darwinian terminology not directly germane to this topic.
quote:
I am not advocating not being responsible and taking care of God's creation, but at the same time, the resources that are at our disposal
Saying that natural resources are "at our disposal" is advocating irresponsibility to conserve.
quote:
So what country do we eliminate first? I'm all for nuking Iran first, then we can go after China and when we conquer China, we can just march into Russia.
Pushing the button is another example of the kind of major impact that mankind can have over the planet. Or do you still deny that we have impact on the planet?
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/15/2008 9:23:09 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/15/2008 9:18:05 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
In my experience, a PhD isn't a guarantee that the person is objective or even knows what they're doing!
Neither does an engineering degree.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/16/2008 7:24:00 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
quote:
freakofnature, if you go to the pdf, there is a link to: www.scienceandpolicy.org
So then, by this, there were no errors in the IPCC report? Still doesn't wash with me. And it is "big" to
bacco, not "Big" oil? What's the connection???
It's a project for the Frontiers of Freedom - again, founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and which receives big bucks from big tobacoo. It's a conservative right-wing think tank. Again, why do you post from obviously biased sources? It would be like if I were to post from moveon.org or commondreams. Understand? I very well could post from moveon.org, commondreams, but I know they are biased, just like Frontiers of Freedom.
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/16/2008 7:26:06 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
OK, folks, here's a solution that should gladden the hearts of the GW crowd here.
1. All of us who work for any corporation must quit their jobs.
2. All corporations should be liquidated (old Soviet term). 
3. We should immediately bulldoze our homes and find a cave or some other "natural" abode.
4. The only means of transportation will be walking. Mechanical contrivances using fossil fuels of course is out. 5. Riding animals (horses, etc. is cruelty to animals)
6. All of our possessions and money will be immediately turned over to the state. After all, they know better than we, how to spend our money and manage our lives.
7. All nations will be dissolved into a world government.
8. We shall all gather together and sing "Kumbaya". (sp?)
What a lovely world that will be. I can only hope and pray the Good Lord will come and take me before it happens.
-Dave
I don't think anyone is advocating the aforementioned, but if you want to do these things, by all means, go ahead !)
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/16/2008 9:27:34 AM
|
|
|
freakofnature
Posts: 577
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason? NO?
And this proves that we are not in control?
quote:
Reforestation efforts are always underway.
It can't keep up with deforestation efforts.
quote:
As far as the extinct animals? Sorry?
I'm not looking for an apology. You are the one contesting that we have no impact on the world.
quote:
Survival of the fittest, and apparently Humans are the fittest.
That's not what "survival of the fittest" means, but that is a Darwinian terminology not directly germane to this topic.
quote:
I am not advocating not being responsible and taking care of God's creation, but at the same time, the resources that are at our disposal
Saying that natural resources are "at our disposal" is advocating irresponsibility to conserve.
quote:
So what country do we eliminate first? I'm all for nuking Iran first, then we can go after China and when we conquer China, we can just march into Russia.
Pushing the button is another example of the kind of major impact that mankind can have over the planet. Or do you still deny that we have impact on the planet?
Well, at least if we nuke half the population, now, it should eventually even itself out!!! Wouldn't you rather we eliminate half the population quickly? AND! I have never said we don't have an impact, I am confronting the doomsday theorist that say we are all gonna die if we don't conform to the church of global warming. Of course we have an impact, but the resources have to be used to maintain an earth population of more than a trillion people. The GW church members act as if humans are like a virus on a host body. God has set it up and gave us domain over all the earth. Otherwise the only way to confront this "issue" is we kill half the population and the living must live in the forest, in caves and in tents.??? But even if they do, the remaining living will have to... understand this will have to use the existing resources provided to live, still having an impact. Humans will continue to reproduce... and before long, we will be right back to where we are now. So to be honest, we just need to wipe out the human population all together. If, btw, global warming is as bad as it is and compares to the warming of the earth in the medieval times, why were there NO major impacts on human population at that time? No major ice melts covering over vast amount of land? And, if the earth had a major Ice Age, then, all of that ice melted, how come the earth isn't completely covered in water? Would you not agree that there were much larger areas of ice during the ice age? What happened to all of that melted ice? Where did it go? If then the ice caps melt, which I seriously doubt they will completely disappear, so even if half of the ice caps "melt" is that not less ice than appeared during the ice age? I think all the ice age left us was the "great lakes" between America and Canada and some nice smaller lakes and mountain ranges.
So going back to living in tents. I know here in the area I live, the police department considers that "homelessness" they recommend, strongly urging those staying in tents, to find a homeless shelter BTW.
We have ways of harnessing the powers of the earth, building dams, moving earth, extracting oil. But we don't have the ability to recreate uncertain weather patterns well enough to legitimately study the effects of co2 in the atmosphere. Therefore there is no real ability to know what the effects are going to be long term.
Well, once again, this topic has gotten well beyond what I cared to discuss. I apologize for entering back into the conversation when I said I wouldn't. And, please, if I have offended or upset anyone, please forgive me. It is not my intent to be offensive, but only to discuss the realities of the effects of the so called global warming. I happen to disagree with:
a) it is a man-made issue,
b) that even natural warming of the earth is as drastic as those preachning say it is.
< Message edited by freakofnature -- 5/16/2008 11:53:13 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/16/2008 2:26:32 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 381
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Not me, thanx! In a tongue-in-cheek way, I'm just giving the GW crowd some great ideas for when they come into power and take over the world. They're already making inroads: We are constantly bombarded with "big oil" is evil, "big tobacco" is evil, Wal-Mart is evil, etc. Every few years the CAFE standards get tightened. Building new power plants and refineries is at a standstill. Some group (I can't remember which one), recently declare horse racing cruel to animals, following the death of the horse in the Kentucky Derby. The IRS and state governments take more and more of our money each year. Groups are working to consolidate policies and activities of the US, Canada, and Mexico. The European Union.
Global warming has evolved into a political issue, driven (I believe) by a Marxist agenda. I want no part of it!
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
OK, folks, here's a solution that should gladden the hearts of the GW crowd here.
1. All of us who work for any corporation must quit their jobs.
2. All corporations should be liquidated (old Soviet term).
3. We should immediately bulldoze our homes and find a cave or some other "natural" abode.
4. The only means of transportation will be walking. Mechanical contrivances using fossil fuels of course is out. 5. Riding animals (horses, etc. is cruelty to animals)
6. All of our possessions and money will be immediately turned over to the state. After all, they know better than we, how to spend our money and manage our lives.
7. All nations will be dissolved into a world government.
8. We shall all gather together and sing "Kumbaya". (sp?)
What a lovely world that will be. I can only hope and pray the Good Lord will come and take me before it happens.
-Dave
I don't think anyone is advocating the aforementioned, but if you want to do these things, by all means, go ahead !)
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/16/2008 3:55:26 PM
|
|
|
radiorobert
Posts: 24
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
Well...I hope everyone is happy here who is in support of less drilling, less driving, less quality of life and less money in peoples pockets b/c you are getting for sure! 
It is crazy to believe for a second that some magical new technology will come around in a year or so that will be affordable, easy to make and readily available that will simultaneously be magically 'safe' for the earth.
It seems our elected officials in congress right now care more about this false new religious/scientific way of thinking, known as "earth worship" rather than how everyday Americans in middle America are going to get by.
Sure we COULD get our own oil from right under our nose, but unfortunately, you environmentalists have seen fit to deprive us of that and squeeze us to death b/c of this so-called 'global warming theory'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/17/2008 10:15:21 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
I am confronting the doomsday theorist that say we are all gonna die if we don't conform to the church of global warming.
All hyperbole aside, I am neither a "doomsday theorist," nor do I subscribe to any church. I am rational; are you familiar with this concept?
quote:
Of course we have an impact, but the resources have to be used to maintain an earth population of more than a trillion people.
Where did you get "more than a trillion?" There are 6.7+ billion people in the world today. At the rate we keep multiplying, I suppose that we could reach a trillion some day, but that day is still a long way off.
quote:
The GW church members act as if humans are like a virus on a host body.
There is no such a thing as "The GW Church."
quote:
God has set it up and gave us domain over all the earth.
And this is the fundamentalist justification for plundering the only inhabitable planet we have.
quote:
Otherwise the only way to confront this "issue" is we kill half the population and the living must live in the forest, in caves and in tents.???
Who says? Seriously, where did you get this?
quote:
If, btw, global warming is as bad as it is and compares to the warming of the earth in the medieval times, why were there NO major impacts on human population at that time?
Because their warming period did not compare with ours today. Btw, global warming is measured by geologic and meteoroligic impact, not self-inflicted human inconvenience or hardship.
quote:
No major ice melts covering over vast amount of land?
Melting glaciers, melting of snows in areas-- such as the Alps-- where year-round snowpack used to be the norm, but is no longer, expansion of deserts, and volatile weather patterns all indicate the inevitible.
quote:
Would you not agree that there were much larger areas of ice during the ice age? What happened to all of that melted ice? Where did it go?
. . . To the oceans. Btw, the rushing waters caused a great deal of calamity at the time.
quote:
If then the ice caps melt, which I seriously doubt they will completely disappear, so even if half of the ice caps "melt" is that not less ice than appeared during the ice age?
What does it matter. This isn't about ice, rather it is about worldwide alterations in weather patterns and natural biomes.
quote:
I think all the ice age left us was the "great lakes" between America and Canada and some nice smaller lakes and mountain ranges.
So? We are not debating the last ice age.
quote:
So going back to living in tents.
Go "back" to living in tents? When did we ever live in tents?
quote:
But we don't have the ability to recreate uncertain weather patterns well enough to legitimately study the effects of co2 in the atmosphere.
Wrong. You are very, very mistaken here.
quote:
Therefore there is no real ability to know what the effects are going to be long term.
But we can see what is happening right here and now, if we don't stop up our ears and cover our eyes while bellaring "Don't Worry, Be Happy" to the tops of our lungs.
quote:
It is not my intent to be offensive, but only to discuss the realities of the effects of the so called global warming.
You use nothing but inflammatory hyperbole to make useless points, and now you are apologizing by saying that you are just having a discussion?
Apology not accepted.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/17/2008 10:21:59 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/17/2008 5:29:17 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
. . . Only if he claims to be an accredited expert. Then you examine his claim, not his character.
I don't think it's wrong to point out that someone doesn't have credentials in general.
quote:
I am not Al Gore. I do not speak for him, and he does not speak for me. Therefore, if someone disagrees with Al Gore, they are disagreeing with him, not me. But their argument against Al Gore will receive my criticism if the argument is nothing but ad hominem.
But what you implied was that just because they disagree with him, they are not dealing with the scientific issues.
quote:
It's called hypocrisy. If I criticize you for being the same way that I am, then I am actually criticizing myself, am I not?
It's merely stating the facts. There is also nothing wrong with Al Gore's supporters pointing out what Al Gore critics don't have credentials. This is something that the public should know and stating such facts is not unethical from either side of the debate.
quote:
So, I can be fair about this topic because I have been on both sides of the fence.
Implying that just because someone disagrees with you they are not dealing with the issue is not fair.
quote:
quote:
No, that's not what I said. I said it's unfair for you to suggest that just because someone disagrees with you, they are not dealing with the scientific merits of the subject.
But I have not done this, so you can let it go now.
You said, " Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." You also said, " . . . On conservative sites whose agenda was not to examine the evidence fairly, but to dogmatically counter global warming with, "See? There is no such thing."" It is what you did. Your quotes suggest that just because they disagree with you, they are not dealing with the issues scientifically.
You also said, "No, I'm sorry but a conservative agenda wants people to accept only one side: the conservative meme." In other words, you are saying that conservatives aren't interested in the scientific issues, but they are only interested in getting people to accept, "the conservative meme." Once again, you are being unfair to the conservative side.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/17/2008 6:01:29 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/17/2008 5:34:25 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis
...
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.”
Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists
Just thought this would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/17/2008 6:08:46 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't think it's wrong to point out that someone doesn't have credentials in general.
No, not in general. But if someone expects me to accept someone else's anti-global-warming article because they are an expert engineer, then I am going to point out that an engineering degree does not make a person an "expert" critic of global warming.
Likewise with Al Gore-- now did you catch that? Read it again, please: likewise with Al Gore. He is not a scientist and does not deserve a scientist's credibility. I have not, do not, and never will plead from Al Gore's authority.
Are we clear on this? . . .
quote:
But what you implied was that just because they disagree with him, they are not dealing with the scientific issues.
No, I said that if their critique of global warming is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, then they are not dealing with the scientific evidence.
quote:
Implying that just because someone disagrees with you they are not dealing with the issue is not fair.
I never said this. I said that ad hominem arguments do not deal with the issue, and it is fair to say so.
quote:
Your quotes suggest that just because they disagree with you, they are not dealing with the issues scientifically.
Betta, if this is truly how you see it, and you're not just being obnoxious, then you are profoundly misunderstanding me. You need to read what I am actually saying, and not read into my comments that which you want me to be saying.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/17/2008 11:42:24 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis
...
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.”
Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists
Just thought this would be interesting.
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences; the petition has not been accepted by any credible scientific publication and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.
I clearly do not understand the relunctance to recycle (something my grandparents did without complaint), and to reduce pollutants that show links to increased asthma, cancer and reproductive problems...but no one on the other end seems to want to address this. On top of this, God commands us to be good stewards of HIS creation...but, of course, people will ignore this as well...interesting to me, very interesting and, quite frankly disappointing...
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 12:22:57 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences;
So?
quote:
the petition has not been accepted by any credible scientific publication
What constitutes a "credible" scientific publication is often subject to opinion.
quote:
and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.
So?
quote:
I clearly do not understand the relunctance to recycle (something my grandparents did without complaint), and to reduce pollutants that show links to increased asthma, cancer and reproductive problems...but no one on the other end seems to want to address this. On top of this, God commands us to be good stewards of HIS creation...but, of course, people will ignore this as well...interesting to me, very interesting and, quite frankly disappointing...
Peace and God bless,
I do not think that conservatives deny that people should take care of the environment and I think we should too (ie: I think we should recycle and reduce pollutants). I do not see how someone disagreeing with the notion that man made global warming is a reality means they are reluctant to recycle and reduce pollutants. I am not saying global warming is real or not (I do not know), I just don't think that simply disagreeing with global warming means they are reluctant to take care of the environment.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/18/2008 12:36:14 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 12:27:53 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
No, not in general. But if someone expects me to accept someone else's anti-global-warming article because they are an expert engineer, then I am going to point out that an engineering degree does not make a person an "expert" critic of global warming.
There is nothing wrong with doing this.
quote:
No, I said that if their critique of global warming is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, then they are not dealing with the scientific evidence.
...
I never said this. I said that ad hominem arguments do not deal with the issue, and it is fair to say so.
That is not what I quoted.
quote:
Betta, if this is truly how you see it, and you're not just being obnoxious, then you are profoundly misunderstanding me. You need to read what I am actually saying, and not read into my comments that which you want me to be saying.
I am not reading into your comments what I want you to say. I quoted you several times. You need to stop saying one thing when you mean another. Again, to quote you, what you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." If you did not mean what you said, just say that you did not mean what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 9:52:31 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That is not what I quoted.
Yes it is. I quoted you verbatim. I used the same little "quote" tab that you use.
quote:
You need to stop saying one thing when you mean another.
First I will have to start.
quote:
Again, to quote you, what you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." If you did not mean what you said, just say that you did not mean what you said.
. . . "They seek only to discredit Al Gore."
You missed that word "only": it means "nothing else but." It means that they disagree with the man's character instead of the evidence.
I meant what I said and said what I meant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 10:31:26 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences;
So?
So, when it comes to global warming, he is not endorsed by the scientific community at large.
quote:
What constitutes a "credible" scientific publication is often subject to opinion.
Everything is subject to opinion. What difference does that make?
quote:
quote:
and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.
So?
So, their opinion means very little if they are not experts in the fields of geology and climatology:
"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, 'and of those the greatest number are physicists.' This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists."
source
Dr. Arthur Robinson has himself proved to be of questionable credibility on the subject.
Btw, the OISM is chiefly dedicated to this: "Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging."
How does this qualify them as credible experts on global warming, and whatever became of their ten year old "petition?"
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/18/2008 10:38:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 11:35:40 AM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1834
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
Well the target for the blame in this hysteria is being made known. 
quote:
Obesity Promotes Global Warming?
By John Tierney
Tags: energy, exercise, fat, global warming
As someone who commutes by bicycle into Manhattan, I would normally applaud any scientific rationale for more bike lanes. But some calculations in the new issue of the Lancet make me uncomfortable. The authors argue that policies promoting cycling and walking are good for the planet because they could reduce obesity — and obesity, the authors calculate, contributes to global warming.
Do we really need to give fat people one more reason to feel guilty?
quote:
Fat people blamed for global warming
By Patrick Sawer
Last Updated: 8:52AM BST 17/05/2008
As if they didn’t already have enough problems on their hands fat people are now being blamed for global warming.
British scientists say they use up more fuel to transport them around and the amount of food they eat requires more energy to produce than that consumed by those on smaller diets.
According to a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine this adds to food shortages and higher energy prices.
Researchers Phil Edwards said: “We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility. Obesity is a key part of the big picture."
_____________________________
Stephanie
Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God. To a people caught in the tempest God says, `Be still, and know that I am God.' ~AW Tozer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/18/2008 2:46:50 PM
|
|
|
StephK
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
;