I drink on very rare occasion. I'm not a teetotaler, but I'm close.

Gotcha, been there done that.

My final post in this thread, and a useless one at that, since any reasonable argument is falling on deaf ears anyway.

In most western countries, there is no such thing as "the government". Instead, there are two or more political parties fighting for votes. The party/coalition in power is the one that has to take action. Taking action has immediate effects in terms of costs and economic growth. The party or coalition in power will be held responsible for these effects, and will likely lose votes because of this. If the effects are big enough, that party or coalition has a large chance of being voted out of office.

Meanwhile, looking at the long term, lower economic growth actually means *less* taxes can be collected - unless the government would choose to raise taxes further, which would hamper economic growth even more, etc.

Perhaps the most baffling thing about your position, though, is your strange conviction that there is an evil government that wants to tax you merely for the sake of taxing you. Where did you get that rather strange idea?

when things are attacked,it leads me to believe its truth because no one attacks bullshit.

My stand on it is that change happens no matter what. However, if a good bunch of hype makes us take a little bit better care of the world around us, I am all for it.

Humans are stupid, you need to scare them to make them take action in most cases.

scare them? you mean like getting them to agree to the patriot act, to go to war, to invade countries under false pretenses and everything else that people whine about?

Give me awhile to think of an answer for this one. Ive got to run and shovel some more coal into the furnace at my Styrofoam factory.....

One word: Venus.

Go to your local library and check out a book.

Great post.

:thumbsup

Pity these threads end up with two camps, both political and usually based on US domestic politics with "views" from Gore or whatever Republican angle, both of which are totally irrelevant.

Meanwhile, most industrialized countries have already started implementing environmental protection plans and negotiating with emerging industrial countries - they stopped the talking stage years ago.

At the same time, there is a scenario where whatever politician jumps on to the bandwagon for their personal gain, but hell - they don't matter either.

Agree :thumbsup

I got attacked 4 times as a right winger, republican, and a retard just
for making this post.

I'm none of the above but the sheep on the left are so fucking blind to what their leaders tell them they can't see anything but their warped side on any issue !

They've turned global warming in to a cult so they sound like complete wackos now and if you don't agree with them they attack you and call you names etc. !

Hmm. I guess I lied about the other post being my final one in this thread.

Looking at the title of this thread in combination with the article you posted makes it seem as if you consider this one article to be clear and evident proof that the scientific consensus on the issue is entirely false.

Clearly, that would be a bizarre position. The scientists studying this issue can be assumed to be familiar with any arguments given against human influences on global warming in a short, simple article written by someone who is not even a specialist in this specific field.

Thinking that there is most likely some point to the theory supported by the bulk of the scientific community is not something that makes one a "wacko". Indeed, ignoring the scientific consensus in favour of a minority view, when one is not a specialist in the field, is a decidedly "wacko" position to take.

Compare it to the field of law. If most lawyers by far were to tell you that your 2257 statements were incorrect and would most likely land you in jail, would you ignore them?

Or compare it to the field of medicine. If a doctor tells you you have cancer, and you seek a second opinion, and he also tells you you have cancer, and you seek a third opinion, and once again, he tells you you have cancer, and finally, on the fourth try, a doctor tells you it might not be cancer - do you seek treatment?

This is not a matter of "left" and "right". There is nothing left-wing about think the experts in the field probably have good reason to say what they're saying. It's just common sense.

Sure, it might turn out that humans have nothing to do with global warming. Right now though, the evidence, as viewed by experts in the field, seems to point towards a significant human influence.

If you don't agree with the experts, then become an expert yourself, so you can actually fully comprehend their arguments. Don't just say "hah! someone disagrees!", and take that as evidence that the scientific community is wrong, because that's just... well, dumb.

i dont think its a bizarre position when the system itself rewards alarmists and the institutions they are associated with.. with grant money to keep studying the same thing. there is no funding for "hey man, all is well, it seems to be part of a normal pattern that we don't fully understand yet"

thats part of the problem in this argument. i can get funding all day long to study why Stellar Sea Lion populations are declining in Alaska... i can't get grant money to study why "Stellar Sea Lions are just A-OK". If i can identify several potential causes of their decline... i can then continue to recieve money to study those causes.

science in most cases, is nothing more than prostitution and its often less than honest, in spite of its reputation.

weather has existed since the planet has been formed
and yes water existed before the earth was formed but when the comets that deposited the water on the earth broke down the water molecules broke down into the oxygen and hydrogen that became the basis of our atmosphere

this process continues today, with free hydrogen and free oxygen in the upper atmosphere combining into water molecules which then fall to earth picking up impurities ultimately getting heavyer and heavyer and combining together into dropplets (rain)
this water his heated by the sun and evaporates a process that at least in part breaks it into its two gassesous components (hydrogen and oxygen) which care it up into the upper atmosphere to start the entire process again

It call they hydrosphere and recognize weather pattern.

Unfortunately, you're wrong.

There is lots of grant money to be gotten by denying global warming. After all, the oil industry does not particularly like the idea of global warming. The only scientific organisation to reject human influence on global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists... that should tell you something.

If you want to see a global conspiracy, you might just as well look at the governments that have censored the findings of environmental scientists reinforcing the idea of global warming.

But who exactly do you want to trust on this issue if you don't want to trust the scientists?

i am wrong? "There is lots of grant money to be gotten by denying global warming. After all, the oil industry does not particularly like the idea of global warming." - sounds to me to be very much like another opinion and/or assumption stated as fact.

my point was that the issue by design, is set up to be biased and impossible. who is going to make the most noise? alarmists, or moderate people? what are the key words "global warming" - that implies that the climate shouldn't be getting warmer. then you move right into the obvious points that we are coming out of an ice age and idiots start slinging insults back and forth avoiding the real issue with is the possibly abnormally accellerated climate change.

i agree that it makes sense to side with science. i agree that nothing is to risk in being cautious. i just think these discussions end up being so fucked up from the get go because of the extremism and the obvious problems in the arguments on both sides.

I am saying you are wrong about how there is no money to be gotten by being non-alarmist. Remember the tobacco industry, and the tobacco industry scientists publishing studies saying there was nothing to worry about?

Whenever an issue has such huge economic effects as this one, you can be sure that there is also money available for studies that might indicate that things are alright after all.

Here's an interesting link. I don't know how trustworthy it is, though, and it does look to be a rather partisan site.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...xon_chart.html

Your theory that the system is biased towards alarmism, in my view, seems to be mistaken. Although it is certainly true in short-term cases concerning the media, in the long term, economic interests seem likely to make sure that research that possibly backs the other side also gets funded.

An important thing to realize about global warming is that what is often considered alarmism is, in fact, the moderate, most broadly supported view. There are quite a few scientists with much more radical theories concerning the issue of global warming (eg the idea that warming goes a self-inforcing feedback loop).

Besides that, any strong research showing a very likely cause for global warming other than human influence would be sure to get heaps of media attention, as the status quo has changed towards a point where human influence on global warming is now considered likely by most.

Yes, these discussions do end up rather badly, most of the time. The main cause for that, I think, is that people in general, on both sides of the argument, believe what they want to believe, not what is most likely looking at the available information. So you end up with two badly informed groups of people, pretending to be experts on an issue they know nothing about, engaging in utterly ridiculous discussions that don't even touch on the basic points of the issue at hand.

That always annoys me, but the people who go against the scientific community merely because they have a gut feeling that disagrees with science (eg "IllTestYourGirls") annoy me even more.

Science isn't perfect, but it's a much better way to deal with scientific issues than gut feelings :2 cents:

nevermind

The argument isn't about global warming it's about the cause !

Good article about the attacks one faces when opposing the AGW cult

Pretty similar to the attacks in this thread. If you don't run with the sheep you're a "retard", a "right-wing whacko", a "redneck" or you "suck Bushes cock", etc.

Meanwhile the world has spent over 1 trillion dollars with zero effect on something that has become as much of a blind faith excercise as any religion. The followers believe themselves to be enlightened and wise while declaring the doubters "misled", or in their best vernacular "stupid".

Hacks like Al Gore make millions peddling his "documentary" and travellling side-show while scientists like Henrik Svensmark and Richard Lindzen, and films like The Great Global Warming Swindle are all marginalized because they dare to speak out against the "consensus".

And you know what they say about environmentalists: they're like watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside. Environmentalism is the new Marxism/socialism. The stated goals might differ but the outcomes will be the same - more government control of our lives, less freedom and economic hardship for the masses (but riches for the elite).

some people are seriously deluded.

This all boils down to one simple thing..

Do people spewing pollution and deforestation cause an impact on the envornment thus the weather.. ?

Anyone who answers no is a fucking retard.


So obviously any rational person will agree humans cause an impact on the environment and thus the weather.

How much impact is obviously debateable.. and we will never know the answer to that. But we can keep ongoing tests to ascertain what impact we are doing.

This is just common sense..

Are there people with agenda's on both sides ? you bet

I won't be buying any ocean front property - that's for sure. Maybe rent a place for awhile, but I don't want to own underwater real estate.

They have?? I think it may be more than that - but, who is quibbling?

Zero effect?? Nope - I don't think so. There are also many other programs already started which will have effects greater than zero.

Don't think faith and religion were on the table for discussion when govts were formulating their policies :winkwink:

PS.. BTW - this has nothing to do with either Al Gore or any US republican opinions. Thankfully the world does not rely on any of these opinions.

It just a people thing Smokey :winkwink: A mental block...

Besides A Political topic. Another Agenda for some persons to make money with. The religion of Global Climate Worming Change.... .... I thought the world was ending long before the effects of this, 2012 the end of the Mayan Long Count.

There is no global warming.

Brownie you're doing a heck of a job.

There are nukes in Iraq.

There are wmd's in Iraq.

We will be greeted as liberators.

Mission accomplished.

Ehm, did you even read the post you responded to?

It mentions things like "human influences on global warming" and "the evidence, as viewed by experts in the field, seems to point towards a significant human influence."

The IPCC has concluded (quote from wikipedia) that "Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

That you so much for pointing out exactly why those denying any human influence on global warming are often idiots.

Let me first state that people like Lindzen and Svensmark are *not* idiots. They're scientists who actually know something about the subject, and come to a different conclusion than the scientific mainstream. Since it is important for different viewpoints to be heard, that can only be a good thing.

You, on the other hand, *are* an idiot. The final paragraph makes it very clear *why* you're an idiot: your opposition to the theory of human influence on global warming is a *political* opposition, not a scientific one.

You're like the people who oppose the theory of evolution because they consider themselves conservatives, or the people who refuse to accept common economic theories because they are socialists.

Newsflash: reality does not change merely because of your political views.