Global Warming debate is over.

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate is over.

Where as that might be true, China, India and the US have about 3 ish billion people in them and none of them fall into that category. Many nations will benefit greatly from this wealth transfer scheme. There are better ways to go about doing this.

As one of the articles on the link I posted asks...why can't we have a scientific debate on this issue (in Canada) before we jump onto something like Kyoto? We simply do not have the information we need to make a sound judgment, and how people can believe this all to be "fact" is beyond me.

I encourage you to read the link and refute these points.....it needs to be done.

Alot of things seem to be beyond you Jay, you'd be a happy if you could accept the disabilitys Allah has gifted you with they are supposed to build character.
Lots of debate took place before Kyoto it was decided that the industrial activitys of modern man were damageing to the planet so it was decided to work together to help out our home, only the greedy corporate thieves disagree. If you debate with industrialist polluters you just get freemarket horseshit and greenwashing. Screw them they won't even be at the table, when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance. :lol:

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate is over.

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance. :lol:

Who exactly is "we"? Surely not the NDP, or is this some radical communist coup you are planning?

 

[darkbeaver]

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

It's not the disease or the cause I'm concerned with, it's the proposed cure/solution.

At least they test cancer drugs before launching them on the public. A bullet to the head would stop all cancers but no one proposes that as a cure. Make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.

I have no confidence that the proposed solution will have any impact on climate change at all.

Is there any proof that reducing CO2 emmissions below 1990 targets will do anything to address climate change? I know we are all supposed to be good little lemmings and not ask any questions, but I'm uncomfortable adhering to Kyoto when there is not proof that it's the right solution.

As well, when reading research from scientists I try to keep in mind that this is a person (or prganization) that relies on research grants from government and industry. It rarely taints the research but these scientists are open to the same criticism as industry scientists.

No these scientists are not open to the same critisims as industry scientists, when the money to study the problem comes from the problem there's a problem. Or would you hire some slick talking foxes to advise you about your chicken security problems.
:lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate is over.

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance. :lol:

Who exactly is "we"? Surely not the NDP, or is this some radical communist coup you are planning?

We, that would be me and the other sane intelligent handsome charming people on the planet. You know the club you can't get into yet. :lol:

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate is over.

[
when we make the rules we'll sent them thier orders of compliance. :lol:

Who exactly is "we"? Surely not the NDP, or is this some radical communist coup you are planning?

We, that would be me and the other sane intelligent handsome charming people on the planet. You know the club you can't get into yet. :lol:

Are you refering to the 4H Club?

 

[Jay]

Alot of things seem to be beyond you Jay,

Ya like how you made it this far.

 

[darkbeaver]

Alot of things seem to be beyond you Jay,

Ya like how you made it this far.

This is the sixth or seventh time arround for me, I used to be a tree. :lol:

 

[Karlin]

Exxon funds most of the global warming deniers
If that doesn't raise suspicion over the deniers, you are gullable, perhaps?

This blog says it well, lets let him take it away - pease read this:

In the early years, when the science was still somewhat in doubt, many companies from the oil industry, the auto industry and other sectors were members of a group called the Global Climate Coalition, whose de facto purpose was to oppose curbs on greenhouse gases. But as the scientific evidence became clearer, many members - including oil companies like BP and Shell - left the organization and conceded the need to do something about global warming.

Exxon, headed by Mr. Raymond, chose a different course of action: it decided to fight the science.

A leaked memo from a 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, in which Exxon (which hadn't yet merged with Mobil) was a participant, describes a strategy of providing "logistical and moral support" to climate change dissenters, "thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' " And that's just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming skeptics.

The people and institutions Exxon Mobil supports aren't actually engaged in climate research. They're the real-world equivalents of the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the movie "Thank You for Smoking," whose purpose is to fail to find evidence of harmful effects.

But the fake research works for its sponsors, partly because it gets picked up by right-wing pundits, but mainly because it plays perfectly into the he-said-she-said conventions of "balanced" journalism. A 2003 study, by Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff, of reporting on global warming in major newspapers found that a majority of reports gave the skeptics - a few dozen people, many if not most receiving direct or indirect financial support from Exxon Mobil - roughly the same amount of attention as the scientific consensus, supported by thousands of independent researchers.

http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/

----------------------------------------
The Queen of England is afraid.
International C.E.O.'s are nervous.
And the scientific establishment is loud and clear - If global warming isn't halted, rising sea levels could submerge coastal cities by 2100.

So how did this virtual certainty get labled a "liberal hoax"?
"50 ways to save the planet" :
http://tinyurl.com/zk22o[url] ----..... So don't be caught looking so silly eh?

 

[Jay]

Prove it Karlin.....go to the link I provided and prove these people are all working for Exxon.

Nobody actually believes that global warming isn't human caused and a serious threat,

That is a lie, and that makes you what?

 

[Toro]

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Edit: Oh, and thank you for proving my point...

 

[Vicious]

Exxon funds most of the global warming deniers
If that doesn't raise suspicion over the deniers, you are gullable, perhaps?/quote]

Blog article removed for space

----------------------------------------
The Queen of England is afraid.
International C.E.O.'s are nervous.
And the scientific establishment is loud and clear - If global warming isn't halted, rising sea levels could submerge coastal cities by 2100.

So how did this virtual certainty get labled a "liberal hoax"?
"50 ways to save the planet" :
http://tinyurl.com/zk22o[url] ----..... So don't be caught looking so silly eh?

Forgive me for being silly. You authoritative blog which does not say who runs it, they must be very proud of their work. It didn't take long to find the actual source of the column. It was NY Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. Since I don't have access to the NY Times I had to check up on him. He's an Economist and International affairs prof at Princeton. He's a friend of the US Democrats and a an out spoken critic of the Bush administation - source Wikipedia and various other sites you can find by googling Paul Krugman. He may be a highly intelligent man but he is not a scientist. So in IMO his opinions are nice to read but don't alter mine in any way.

The same holds for my respect of the Queen, International CEOs. I'll nice people I'd love sit down and have a beer with them but experts - I think not.

The scientific establishment is very loud and clear. There is one side that have made up their mind and don't want to advance the science of the issue one bit. And there's the others that are still looking into it from different angles.

I do love being labelled silly and a denier.

Here's a list of folks for you perhaps you've heard of them:

Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Homes, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, H. G Wells, George Bernard Shaw all these and more were supporters of an earlier scientific theory called Eugenics. Just because everyone believes something doesn't make it so.

The source of the above information on supporters of Eugenics is Michael Crichtons book State of Fear, Appendix 1- Why Politicized Science is Dangerous p.631

 

[Vicious]

RE: Global Warming debate

I'm unclear on this industry buying scientists idea. Does the money paid to scientists that work for industry spend differently than the money that is paid to scientists by government and environmental groups?

He who pays the piper calls the tune

 

[proudpegger]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate

I'm unclear on this industry buying scientists idea. Does the money paid to scientists that work for industry spend differently than the money that is paid to scientists by government and environmental groups?
He who pays the piper calls the tune

The point is when you are hired and paid by industry...or by industry-suported "think tanks"...then you are expected to expouse the preferred opinions of that industry.

The debate is over, that is clear. It continues only in the hallways of the asylum.

 

[Jay]

You have to believe that government scientists don't push agendas (unless their American) and environmental groups don't push agendas to understand all this.

I have posted a link that I'm still waiting hear rebuttals about...

 

[proudpegger]

Look at the consensus.

Editorials continuously claim that there’s “no scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming. The level of consensus in the scientific community concerning climate change is incredibly strong. The National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (w/ 2500 member scientists), The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), have ALL issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Of 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 not a single one disagreed with the consensus position (source: Naomi Oreskes “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”).

Also at APN:
http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/15/1/

 

[#juan]

Yah but,

Bush says it is "junk science....

 

[proudpegger]

Yah but,

Bush says it is "junk science....

Bush says Global Warming might be natural.

 

[#juan]

A good plan might be to

do the opposite of whatever Bush says. His record is perfect so far. :wink:

 

[proudpegger]

Go see "An Inconvenient Truth".

It presents the science behind Global Warming and gives micro and macro action we can take to curb it.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/ has release dates, downloadable stuff, and information on what you can do to fight global warming.

 

[Glider47b]

If global warming is true why do we continue to have such cold winters. Its freezing this year in our Oz. Come Global warming please come.