heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 No... he was providing an example to the point I made in my earlier post... Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Always the same old libs. Complaining about legit information, thinking it makes it null and void. This expert knows a hell of a lot more than you two clowns. Popular theory doesn't make fact. But do go ahead and tippy toe around the truth. mmgw is a theory. That's why there are scientists who disagree, often with a lack of funding from the UN, Soros funded "independent" orgs. Face it - "mmgw" and "gun control" means "we need more money and more money and more money to buy more votes" Even the corrupt UN is agreeing with the rest of us. Your theory is losing ground. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Okay, lets face it, man definitely contributes to the air quality which I'm sure causes a green house effect and raises temperatures. I'm not going to stand here and (or sit here) and type that the massive amounts of pollution going into the air, especially from China are not causing problems. Japan right now is getting caustic air blown over it from China which has lax Air pollution standards. With the millions of tons of pollutants being pumped into the air daily, how can you not say it contributes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Who someone's scientific research or study is being funded by is not by itself a complete refutation of their work. But let's not pretend all sources of funding are created equal, or have the same goals. Most scientific funding is used to do science, and to have that science and the conclusions stand up to the peer review process. Then there are political outfits, like The Heartland Institute, who aren't funding science. They're funding politics. They want to have "science" that points to a specific conclusion in order to back up what their industries want to say. Because, if you don't know the difference, it sounds a lot better to say "a professor who works for The Heartland Institute" than "an assistant professor who takes money from the fossil fuel industry." But the latter is just as accurate. The fossil fuel industry's relationship to global warming is rather comical. They fund this type of crap to muddy the waters with the public and delay carbon pricing, and all the while they're planning and lobbying government to have access to the places that are soon to be uncovered or more accessible because of climate change. It's a huge international battle going on right now. All the major nations are trying to claim the Arctic - and the Antarctic - as their own so they can have access to it once it's melted and ready to be drilled or mined. They're pouring millions and millions into preparing for a warmer, melted Arctic while paying people to tell you it's not really happening. The Republican Party is simply their willing dupes. As Woody notes, you can have reams and reams of data and conclusions dating back 30 years, scientist upon scientist upon scientist, in different fields, all coming to roughly the same conclusions. All those are ignored. You get one guy paid to say something that nobody in the scientific community respects or believes? That guy is telling the truth! This is what Bobby Jindal means when he says "we have to stop being the stupid party." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 man pollutes. That is pretty sick for a beautiful planet. My beef with the political crap is, they refuse to discuss the millions and millions of virgin RAIN FORESTS being destroyed. They don't give a frackin about that. Why? Because they can't make a lot of money on it, that's why. They want to talk about cows farting, and SUV's, so they can TAX ranchers/farmers, and anybody with enough money to own an SUV. Well, my other beef is, the Kyoto treaty EXEMPTED China and India for example. Why in the freakin is CHINA exempted? Because you won't make a lot of money trying to tax China. They won't allow it. During the Industrial Revolution and afterwards, we in the West polluted a heyl of a lot more. But, the temps stayed pretty much the same. The accumuated pollution over time, sure, affects the earth. But the mmgw idiots aren't upset about pollution ... they are upset about cows farting? I just call bs. And so do some scientists, more and more of them, who see that it is really a political gambit by the UN to give their Agenda 21 some impetus. That's what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm saying that mmgw is a theory. Insisting that it is absolute fact is hysterically driven by leftist political advantage - monetary and electoral. Here are two videos to watch, if you actually care about the truth. For heckbunker, his flea woodpecker, and sheply, wherever he sashes' For the rest of us, who are intelligent and honest enough to listen: http://blip.tv/jim-karlock/climate-orthodoxy-perpetuates-a-hoax-5924187 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 There was is a big difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. I went over this with Bunker awhile ago lol So Cal, from your earlier post, are you saying 98% of climate scientists are corrupt and it just so happens the few you agree with aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 There was is a big difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. I went over this with Bunker awhile ago lol So Cal, from your earlier post, are you saying 98% of climate scientists are corrupt and it just so happens the few you agree with aren't? So, Woodrow, just to clarify: Is the point you wish to make: A- That 98 percent of scientists agree that climate change is caused at least in part by mankind. Or B- That 98 percent of the scientific community is in lockstep about other causes ( as in discounting naturally occurring factors) or the ramifications or the future predictions as laid out in Hecks video? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 What's always interesting to me is that when you talk to global warming deniers they're: 1. always hardcore Republicans 2. always make the same exact 7-8 points, none of which work 3. they never relent even when they're clearly wrong And yet none of them ever seem to put it together that the reason they believe #2 is because of #1, and nothing else. It's about opposition to people they don't like, and therefore they're going to be against what the people they don't like are for. That's it, full stop. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, which is why they only need those 7 or 8 arguments, even if they clearly don't work. They simply need to be supplied with something to say in order to oppose the people they don't like. That's the goal. It's not about being right. It's about not liking/hating liberals. This is why you can't get through two minutes of a discussion about global warming without them mentioning Al Gore. And two minutes is generous. 30 seconds will usually do. There are hundreds of discussions to be had about global warming policy. It's very complicated stuff. It's the public policy problem from hell. It makes our fiscal policy problems look easily solvable. But we're never going to have that discussion, which is why most of the people who want to have that discussion (which includes a few Republicans who aren't part of this new breed of nihilists) seem to have moved on to simply ignoring the people who think that pointing out that global warming is a "theory" is an argument, or that America can't do it alone is an argument, or pointing out that CO2 is necessary for life is an argument, or that the "climate is always changing" is an argument. We don't have the luxury of making this the discussion. Because it's really not where the discussion needs to be. We've been trying to have it for two decades and it never makes a difference. Because the goal of the Republican base isn't to understand the arguments, or to separate what's true from what isn't. It's simply to not like liberals. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 So, Woodrow, just to clarify: Is the point you wish to make: A- That 98 percent of scientists agree that climate change is caused at least in part by mankind. Or B- That 98 percent of the scientific community is in lockstep about other causes ( as in discounting naturally occurring factors) or the ramifications or the future predictions as laid out in Hecks video? WSS You've still got two questions to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 You've still got two questions to answer. Two? I'm assuming the first is do I believe that the Ted video is accurate complete and set in stone? ( Or that it is the general consensus as of today?) What was the other 1? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 The first was the graph. The second is whether you accept that those are accurate summations of the range of projections of climate scientists. Basically, is that what you accept as the problem facing us, that we're facing anywhere between 3-6 degree temperature rise by the end of the century. Which sounds far off, but think of it more like "when my kid is your age." I'll give you something else to chew on: when you talk to elite Republicans on this issue, the really smart guys who simply come from the school that people and governments are so flawed that you should be really careful about what you let them do because there are always unintended consequences of government action, the consensus of those people is often that we need to act in the event that this turns out to be really, really bad, and the worst case scenarios, the ones with only 5% probability of happening, end up happening. They view it almost as you would an insurance policy. They accept the science. But the part of the science that moves them is the "inhabitable planet" scenario. And almost like how you'd prepare for a tornado or fire or hurricane even though the chances are you'll never face one, many of these people think we need to do something in the event the "feedback mechanisms" talked in the video start feeding back (they already are, but...) and the whole climate system spins out of control. in short, they think that there will be some amount of adaptation to a warming world, and that the costs of wide-scale action are too great to justify it, but the costs of the 5% scenario is so great that we need to act to avert that possibility, even though it's a smaller one. And then you get into the question of what it is we should do. Some people think the only way out is a huge technological advancement, and prefer pouring money into research and prize money to come up with it. And what did Obama propose last night? "The president then suggested creating an Energy Security Trust that would collect funds from domestic energy sources in order to pursue alternative energy projects that “will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.” But that's a whole different discussion we never have, because you nuts want to talk about what a theory is, and the size of Al Gore's house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Did you know Newsweek once had a cover in the 70s where some scientists warned of global cooling?? Really! It's true!! So how can we trust what those scientists are saying now?? There's #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Also did you know plants use carbon dioxide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 #1 is certainly this one: "The earth's temperature has risen and fallen throughout history." That's the go-to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 #1 is certainly this one: "The earth's temperature has risen and fallen throughout history." That's the go-to. That is true though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yep. So is "CO2 is necessary for life." That doesn't make them arguments against global warming. Both statements are fully understood and posited as true by scientists. The theory isn't that the earth has always stayed the same temperature, so pointing out that it hasn't always stayed the same temperature isn't relevant. The theory, of course, is that you can't explain the current rise in temperatures through natural means alone, and that most of it is caused by the change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere that results from human activity, namely taking carbon energy sources out of the earth, burning them, and releasing that previously stored carbon into the atmosphere. Also true that Newsweek ran a cover in the 70s where some scientists predicted global cooling. Also not an argument against global warming theory. You may spot a trend here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 yah. we now have some scientists concerned about a coming mini ice age. heckbunker is still playing the old mmgw political card. Hey ! ..... Si-entific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Cal, are you really this Retarded of a person or are you just that deep seated in doing everything you can to be pro-conservative and anti-liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 well, coming from a stupid woodpecker flea on heck's butt, that's really ironic. There are two sides to a theory. A fact is a fact. You almost made a genuine contribution to this forum in one post. That's as close as you get to being more than heckbunker's little flea. You probly' still give him inflamed veins in his legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Also did you know plants use carbon dioxide? Yes, and did you know that defoliation of the Earth's surface especially including the rain forest is a major contributor to the green house gases that scare you so? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Just 1 minor point. You always seem willing to take a bullet for Al Gore. He's just a symptom of your problem. ( That the world is in danger and we must act) If those in your movement,are serious about this problem then you should probably not have someone like him as your spokes person. Like the joy the atheists took when Jimmy Swaggart got caught with the hooker. That's all. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Did you know Newsweek once had a cover in the 70s where some scientists warned of global cooling?? Really! It's true!! So how can we trust what those scientists are saying now?? There's #5. Sure, and I remember it. I doubt that it was as big a consensus as with global warming but sure. And it sold a few magazines huh? We can speculate as to the reasons why but it does seem like we have to be in crisis mode every other week. And that is just 1 more reason you may find it hard to get everyone to pick up your banner. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yes, and did you know that defoliation of the Earth's surface especially including the rain forest is a major contributor to the green house gases that scare you so? WSS Write it off however you like. Fucking the planet up for future generations is not a good idea. Deforestation is bad too, idk why you keep bringing that up. Some is necessary though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 well, coming from a stupid woodpecker flea on heck's butt, that's really ironic. There are two sides to a theory. A fact is a fact. You almost made a genuine contribution to this forum in one post. That's as close as you get to being more than heckbunker's little flea. You probly' still give him inflamed veins in his legs. Is this your new go to post when you run out if shit to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 ask anybody who is intelligent on this board if I ever run out of things to say. Seriously. The category "intelligent' doesn't include you, so asking yourself is pointless. Surely someday you will grow up into a real person. Right now, you just suck as a member of this board. Having goofy, crazy ole Rich here would be a gigantic improvement over you. You got nothin. @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 ask anybody who is intelligent on this board if I ever run out of things to say. Seriously. The category "intelligent' doesn't include you, so asking yourself is pointless. Surely someday you will grow up into a real person. Right now, you just suck as a member of this board. Having goofy, crazy ole Rich here would be a gigantic improvement over you. You got nothin. @@ As long as you have your blogs and websites I don't think you'll run out if stuff to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Write it off however you like. Fucking the planet up for future generations is not a good idea. Deforestation is bad too, idk why you keep bringing that up. Some is necessary though. Well frankly I'm not surprised that it doesn't ring a bell. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well frankly I'm not surprised that it doesn't ring a bell. WSS Do you think I'm pro deforestation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Just 1 minor point. You always seem willing to take a bullet for Al Gore. He's just a symptom of your problem. ( That the world is in danger and we must act) If those in your movement,are serious about this problem then you should probably not have someone like him as your spokes person. Like the joy the atheists took when Jimmy Swaggart got caught with the hooker. That's all. WSS I think this is laughable. I really do. You guys really can't get past Al Gore. You have to bring him up over and over again. The only people who think of Al Gore as a spokesperson for the entire global warming movement are people who don't care about global warming anyway and don't like Al Gore. I'm not horrified that Al Gore made An Inconvenient Truth, nor that he was a prominent proponent of the cause after the movie came out. But Al Gore has barely shown his face in the last five years. He's not disgraced, like Jimmy Swaggart. He's nothing like that at all. I don't need to take a bullet for him because nobody's shooting at him but cranks. The idea that the difference between whether the movement is serious or not depends on whether the right thinks of Al Gore as its spokesperson just makes me laugh. As if Republicans are all just waiting for the movement to get serious and dump Al Gore as our "official spokesperson", and then they'd all hop on board. Please. This is what you want to talk about because you don't want to talk about the other stuff. It's a placeholder. You may have noticed that I post a lot of stuff about global warming and never once have I mentioned Al Gore. Somehow I'm able to do that, since global warming isn't about Al Gore. Except for people like you and Cal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.