More global warming heresy...

[Larry Gude]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

As the emotional, witch burning freight of global warming hysteria rumbles down the track, on the verge of becoming completely out of control, it's always nice to read yet another piece of REASON.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

 

[Bustem' Down]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

As the emotional, witch burning freight of global warming hysteria rumbles down the track, on the verge of becoming completely out of control, it's always nice to read yet another piece of REASON.

The problem with Global Warming is that someone got politicians involved, and like everything else, they twist it and screw with it so that it read how they want it.

 

[Larry Gude]

And politicians...

The problem with Global Warming is that someone got politicians involved, and like everything else, they twist it and screw with it so that it read how they want it.

..work for who?


If Al Gore was running around saying 'having sex with children is a really terrible thing' and yet he was having sex with kids more than anyone, would he still be a hero?

Or would his supporters say "Shut the #### up. You're going to jail forever."?

Or would they say "Well, Al should know..."?


you jsut can't get far with a public policy position if you don't have strong support.

 

[Bustem' Down]

..work for who?


If Al Gore was running around saying 'having sex with children is a really terrible thing' and yet he was having sex with kids more than anyone, would he still be a hero?

Or would his supporters say "Shut the #### up. You're going to jail forever."?

Or would they say "Well, Al should know..."?


you jsut can't get far with a public policy position if you don't have strong support.

The problem is
1) A global increase in temperatures is fact.
2) this increase is due to the spike in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution is theory.
3) Dems and evornmentalists use this theory to say that it is fact.
4) Republicans hate dems so much, they will not even admit to number 1.


Leave it all to scientists and they will actually figure out what is happening without exess taxes, legislation etc.

 

[Lenny]

The problem is
1) A global increase in temperatures is fact.
2) this increase is due to the spike in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution is theory.
3) Dems and evornmentalists use this theory to say that it is fact.
4) Republicans hate dems so much, they will not even admit to number 1.


Leave it all to scientists and they will actually figure out what is happening without exess taxes, legislation etc.

Well, getting three of four correct is pretty good. Take another look at any objective proof for supposition 2.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well, getting three of four correct is pretty good. Take another look at any objective proof for supposition 2.

I said it was a theory. Which means it isn't proof, but a conclution based on good supporting evidence which is constantly being tested. Only Democrats and evironmentalists think it is fact.

 

[aps45819]

Leave it all to scientists and they will actually figure out what is happening without exess taxes, legislation etc.

Not true anymore. I'm sure it's a lot easier to find funding for a study on global warming than any other project these days. The more dire the warnings, the bigger the grants.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

1) A global increase in temperatures is fact. That's true.


2) this increase is due to the spike in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution is theory. Theory is not fact.


3) Dems and evornmentalists use this theory to say that it is fact.

Which doesn't make it so.


4) Republicans hate dems so much, they will not even admit to number 1.

Not true. Everywhere you look, including the link I posted, say warming is fact. A pointless one, but a selective fact as defined by the people.


Leave it all to scientists and they will actually figure out what is happening without exess taxes, legislation etc.[/QUOTE]

Or they won't. Weather men are scientists.

 

[Bustem' Down]

1) A global increase in temperatures is fact. That's true.


2) this increase is due to the spike in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution is theory. Theory is not fact.


3) Dems and evornmentalists use this theory to say that it is fact.

Which doesn't make it so.


4) Republicans hate dems so much, they will not even admit to number 1.

Not true. Everywhere you look, including the link I posted, say warming is fact. A pointless one, but a selective fact as defined by the people.


Leave it all to scientists and they will actually figure out what is happening without exess taxes, legislation etc.

Or they won't. Weather men are scientists.[/QUOTE]
I never said theory was fact.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

Or they won't. Weather men are scientists.

I never said theory was fact.[/QUOTE]


...and I didn't say you did, so let's not quibble about it.

If people believe our environment is in such grave danger, the only rational response is to stop emitting CO2, at all.

Fact is, it's not in dire straights and the hysteria hurts objectivity and productively addressing the issue. Ergo, the are killing Mother Earth.

 

[ylexot]

Not true anymore. I'm sure it's a lot easier to find funding for a study on global warming than any other project these days. The more dire the warnings, the bigger the grants.

And that right there is an argument against government-sponsored research. I'm not saying that it should be done-away with, but it could use a little more scrutiny.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I never said theory was fact.

...and I didn't say you did, so let's not quibble about it.

If people believe our environment is in such grave danger, the only rational response is to stop emitting CO2, at all.

Fact is, it's not in dire straights and the hysteria hurts objectivity and productively addressing the issue. Ergo, the are killing Mother Earth.[/QUOTE]
Funny thing is, even if we stopped all increase in greenhouse gases, tempurature rise would continue for another decade.

 

[Larry Gude]

Maybe...

.Funny thing is, even if we stopped all increase in greenhouse gases, tempurature rise would continue for another decade.

...maybe not. There is science that argues due to how CO2 works, we may be actually moderating the planets climate if the worst case is true.


One of the most revealing and illustrative points I've heard was in context to the current hysteria compared to 20 years ago when we were going to freeze the planet;

If it follows now that we are hurting the planet and MUST cut CO2 emissions, then 20 year ago the argument should have been to BURN fossil fuel like crazy.

It made no sense then. It makes none now.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...maybe not. There is science that argues due to how CO2 works, we may be actually moderating the planets climate if the worst case is true.


One of the most revealing and illustrative points I've heard was in context to the current hysteria compared to 20 years ago when we were going to freeze the planet;

If it follows now that we are hurting the planet and MUST cut CO2 emissions, then 20 year ago the argument should have been to BURN fossil fuel like crazy.

It made no sense then. It makes none now.

There's a problem, that I really have with the left, is that CO2 is not the lone culprit, but that love it because it fits so nicely with thier plans.

 

[Tinkerbell]

... are killing Mother Earth.

That's the irony of it - you can't kill mother earth. She's been through all sorts of things (Ice ages, Dinosaurs, etc. etc. etc.) and killed off and re-created everything again. She may not be the way you know her today, but do you think this planets gives a rat's butt about us and what we do? This planet doesn't care if it's green and lush or dry and dusty. And, this place isn't going anywhere until the Sun super novas! We're killing ourselves, if we are killing anything at all.

 

[Larry Gude]

And there it is...

There's a problem, that I really have with the left, is that CO2 is not the lone culprit, but that love it because it fits so nicely with thier plans.

...and it knows no political ideology; you are either basing an argument on science and facts or you are not and they either don't know the difference or don't care and, in either case, it is dangerous, stupid, dishonest and just as likely to make things worse as better or do nothing at all.

 

[Larry Gude]

But...

That's the irony of it - you can't kill mother earth. She's been through all sorts of things (Ice ages, Dinosaurs, etc. etc. etc.) and killed off and re-created everything again. She may not be the way you know her today, but do you think this planets gives a rat's butt about us and what we do? This planet doesn't care if it's green and lush or dry and dusty. And, this place isn't going anywhere until the Sun super novas! We're killing ourselves, if we are killing anything at all.

...there is NO evidence we are even harming OURSELVES.

Take away fossil fuel and all that has come from it and we're living in a cave.

 

[Tinkerbell]

...there is NO evidence we are even harming OURSELVES.

Take away fossil fuel and all that has come from it and we're living in a cave.

That's why I said "...if we are killing anything at all."

The environmentalists can scream "Save the Planet" all they want. It doesn't need saving.

 

[Larry Gude]

Prince William Sound...

That's why I said "...if we are killing anything at all."

The environmentalists can scream "Save the Planet" all they want. It doesn't need saving.

...is a wonderful example.

What happened was bad and catastrophic at the time. Today? Never know it happened.

 

[jazz lady]

Prince William Sound...is a wonderful example.

What happened was bad and catastrophic at the time. Today? Never know it happened.

Actually, 18 years after the spill, the area is still fouled by oil:

There is still oil fouling Alaska's Prince William Sound 18-years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. And a local professor is on a mission to find out the reason.

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground, it spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound and some of it is still fouling the water. Michel Boufadel, chairman of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Temple University says normally, microorganisms normally consume the left-over oil, but that's not happening here and he wants to know why.

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/330934.php?contentType=4&contentId=394265

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Lingering crude from the nation's largest oil spill has dissipated only slightly almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and fouled hundreds of miles of Alaskan shoreline, a new federal study concludes.

The estimated 85 tons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound is declining by about 4 percent per year and even more slowly in the Gulf of Alaska, according to research chemist Jeffrey Short with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

At that rate of decline, oil could persist for decades below the surface of some beaches along the gulf, the report says.

The findings are to be published in the Feb. 15 edition of Environmental Science & Technology, the journal of the American Chemical Society.

"Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to intertidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shorebirds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination ... and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands," the researchers wrote in their conclusion.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWS/701310394