No, it's global cooling now.

It's Global Climage Change now. That way we can blame it on ourselves whether it warms or cools. Because ya know the climate has never changed until the last 50 years or so.

edit, just saw this on drudge, file it under related news...

Japan is planning to label consumer goods to show their carbon footprints in a bid to raise public awareness about global warming, an official said Tuesday.
Under the plan, a select range of products from beverages to detergent will carry markings on the carbon footprint -- or how much gas responsible for global warming has been emitted through production and delivery.

Similar labels have been introduced in other developed countries such as Britain and France.

"We hope that displaying carbon footprints will raise awareness among consumers as well as companies of their emissions and motivate them to emit less C02," said trade ministry official Shintaro Ishihara, who is unrelated to Tokyo's governor by the same name.

The ministry's research shows one example of carbon footprint using potato crisps.

A bag of crisps emits 75 grams (2.63 ounces) of carbon dioxide. Forty-four percent of the C02 comes from growing potatoes and another 30 percent from production of the processed food.

Another 15 percent comes from the packaging, nine percent from delivery and two percent from disposal of the bag.

The ministry plans to launch the project during the next fiscal year, which starts in April 2009. The exact number of products that will carry the labels is yet to be decided.

More than 20 companies joined a trade ministry panel in June to look at carbon footprints.

The companies -- including leading retailers Aeon and Seven & I Holdings along with Sapporo Breweries -- will show carbon footprint labels at an exhibition of environmental friendly products in December, Ishihara said.
Click to expand...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080819093128.5xf1wcko&show_article=1
 
Global warming exists as much as global cooling. It was just forty or so years ago when people were talking about the world entering another ice age.

Climates change, weather changes, that is the way it goes. There are just too many factors that are way out of our hands to control that can determine climate.

Not that I don't agree with the environmental movement, it is a good thing. Cleaning up after ourselves and taking care of what we have is positive. I just don't personally do it under the global warming banner, I didn't believe it back then and I don't believe it now.
 
But Global Warming is making Al Gore rich - how could it possibly be bad?

He'd better hope word of this doesn't get around.
 
Nine percent on delivery my ass. I would LOVE to see one of those carbon labels on stuff coming from China here. Oh wait it won't happen because it makes importing from China look bad.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']what do you guys have against drudge?[/QUOTE]

Matt Drudge is a partisan hack, although he'll deny it. One of the biggest tools on the web.
 
Sure. It's akin to me saying "while I was looking at HuffPo, I found this article..."

And thinking that it's objectively presented.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Matt Drudge is a partisan hack, although he'll deny it. One of the biggest tools on the web.[/quote]

Drudge was one of the first against the Patriot Act. That strikes me as not being a complete lapdog.

I haven't heard his radio show in years, but I doubt he is as bad as Medved or Limbaugh in bias.
 
Does he even have a radio show anymore? I can't find it anywhere. Last time I heard it (2005) it wasn't that bad from what I remember.

Anyway, if they really wanted all of us to buy into the whole "global warming" thing, they should've kept their stories straight. One small crack leads to a canyon.
 
I always thought global warming was just a little bit bogus...but I'll happily embrace it if it means that we'll all clean up after ourselves. The most important reason is that we keep our land, air, and water clean - not to lower the average temperature of the Earth by .25 degrees.
 
The reason I'm against global whatever the heck they call it is because I see it as another way for the Government to control our lives. I'm against that. Picking up after ourselves has nothing to do with global warming. It's call common sense. But I will say that if I see some trash on the highway, it does disgust me that people do that.
 
Interesting.

So some self-proclaimed expert somewhere in Mexico thinks we'll have global cooling instead of global warming.

Well that certainly closes the book on the subject for me.

"They" can't even make up their minds - I mean look - some guy in Mexico disagrees with the theory of global warming and says it will be global cooling. This is damning evidence indeed.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The reason I'm against global whatever the heck they call it is because I see it as another way for the Government to control our lives.[/quote]

Just by capitalizing "government" made you seem like a paranoid uber-libertarian...
 
[quote name='camoor']Interesting.

So some self-proclaimed expert somewhere in Mexico thinks we'll have global cooling instead of global warming.

Well that certainly closes the book on the subject for me.

"They" can't even make up their minds - I mean look - some guy in Mexico disagrees with the theory of global warming and says it will be global cooling. This is damning evidence indeed.[/QUOTE]

Obviously I used the "/thread" tag too soon.
 
No offense.. but have you guys ever taken any sort of science class? Anything at all?

No theory is ever, ever 100%. Never. Never ever ever. Nothing. Absolutely, positively nothing. Haven't you ever heard "the only certainty is uncertainty"? Our most solid physical theory is quantum mechanics, which itself dictates how little we know. Our most solid theory is that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle. And even though it's our most solid theory, some prominent physicists reject it. No joke. Hell, Einstein rejected it.

Gravity? You think we know what gravity is? No. There's no agreement in the scientific community, there are many alternative theories. Sometimes it's modified general relativity, other times it's modified newtonian gravity, other times quantum, other times something else altogether. Some people accredit string theory, even though we don't know what "string theory" actually is yet, since we have no working mathematical models.

For decades people didn't believe in continental drift (the precursor to plate tectonics). Skeptics presented tons of reports in prominent journals. After plate tectonics was posited skeptics remained (although fewer).

Many prominent Biologists believe in creation, they reject the rock solid theory of evolution. They outright reject it, and write journals discrediting it with evidence supporting their own belief (creation).

I could go on and on and on, hitting every field of science and every theory, there's at least two sides to every single theory no matter how solid it may be. At one point you just have to say "Okay, this is the one that's probably true. Now what?" and in this case man-caused global warming is at least 100 times more likely. Seriously, it's accepted because it's undeniably solid.

You guys are being ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Matt Drudge is a partisan hack who has opposed global warming for nearly a decade now. New evidence supporting global warming is released every month and it has no effect on his predetermined, myopic view. And you... listen to him?

Jesus fucking Christ why are you bastards so gullible. Ignore the partisan hack. Look into the topic on your own if you want -- use your public library (or school's library) scientific journal search (they all have it). Get it from the source, not filtered through this joke (or any joke -- I wouldn't recommend going through Al Gore or anything either).
 
[quote name='Koggit']No offense.. but have you guys ever taken any sort of science class? Anything at all?

No theory is ever, ever 100%. Never. Never ever ever. Nothing. Absolutely, positively nothing. Haven't you ever heard "the only certainty is uncertainty"? Our most solid physical theory is quantum mechanics, which itself dictates how little we know. Our most solid theory is that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle. And even though it's our most solid theory, some prominent physicists reject it. No joke. Hell, Einstein rejected it.

Gravity? You think we know what gravity is? No. There's no agreement in the scientific community, there are many alternative theories. Sometimes it's modified general relativity, other times it's modified newtonian gravity, other times quantum, other times something else altogether. Some people accredit string theory, even though we don't know what "string theory" actually is yet, since we have no working mathematical models.

For decades people didn't believe in continental drift (the precursor to plate tectonics). Skeptics presented tons of reports in prominent journals. After plate tectonics was posited skeptics remained (although fewer).

Many prominent Biologists believe in creation, they reject the rock solid theory of evolution. They outright reject it, and write journals discrediting it with evidence supporting their own belief (creation).

I could go on and on and on, hitting every field of science and every theory, there's at least two sides to every single theory no matter how solid it may be. At one point you just have to say "Okay, this is the one that's probably true. Now what?" and in this case man-caused global warming is at least 100 times more likely. Seriously, it's accepted because it's undeniably solid.

You guys are being ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Matt Drudge is a partisan hack who has opposed global warming for nearly a decade now. New evidence supporting global warming is released every month and it has no effect on his predetermined, myopic view. And you... listen to him?

Jesus fucking Christ why are you bastards so gullible. Ignore the partisan hack. Look into the topic on your own if you want -- use your public library (or school's library) scientific journal search (they all have it). Get it from the source, not filtered through this joke (or any joke -- I wouldn't recommend going through Al Gore or anything either).[/QUOTE]

Calm down tiger.

Just out of curiosity, where do you read your news from?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Calm down tiger.

Just out of curiosity, where do you read your news from?[/QUOTE]

The only news site I visit is SeattlePI.com (my homepage, actually). They're mostly for local stuff, but they do a pretty good job of covering national politics and world news in a fair way. Most news I actually get through forums -- I frequent quite a few.

When I had cable I watched O'Reilly, Daily Show & Colbert. Now that I've canceled cable I just catch the latter two through Hulu. You question made me realize how hypocritical it is for me to say "ignore the partisan hack"... I guess I should just say "be skeptical of anything the partisan hack shows you".
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Now you can use it.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Glad I waited.

*cracks knuckles*

This one's for Koggit:

rocky_l.jpg


/thread.
 
Scientists have said for a long long time that the Climate was going to go through a brief heat up, a small cooling and then the severe heat up. I recall reading articles in Discover and Popular science as well as places like the Nytimes/AP where scientists have said they are scared that the brief cooling period will mean people ignore or assume global warming is false. Sadly thats exactly what is happening.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Scientists have said for a long long time that the Climate was going to go through a brief heat up, a small cooling and then the severe heat up. I recall reading articles in Discover and Popular science as well as places like the Nytimes/AP where scientists have said they are scared that the brief cooling period will mean people ignore or assume global warming is false. Sadly thats exactly what is happening.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, making claims like those you claim you saw in articles doesn't really help anything. Those scientists are no more useful than soothsayers that say "Something really big is going to happen next year". It's too vague.

Saying the Earth is going to warm, then cool, then get really warm, is like saying that next months forecast is going to include some rain, some sun, and then get cold. That's what weather does, it changes. Predicting it's going to change, but not when, is not a prediction, it's stating the obvious.

Regardless of your claims, pro-climate change scientists have been very poor at predictions based on their theories thus far. Those are the facts. The entire theory of global warming has been mostly based on examining the weather at the time and trying to explain it, hardly predictive at all.

Remember, nobody is outright saying anthropomorphic climate change is totally false. The detractors are simply saying that the science, thus far, used - is way too sketchy and shaky to use as a foundation for making the most expensive painful changes for global humanity in the history of the world.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Unfortunately, making claims like those you claim you saw in articles doesn't really help anything. Those scientists are no more useful than soothsayers that say "Something really big is going to happen next year". It's too vague.

Saying the Earth is going to warm, then cool, then get really warm, is like saying that next months forecast is going to include some rain, some sun, and then get cold. That's what weather does, it changes. Predicting it's going to change, but not when, is not a prediction, it's stating the obvious.

Regardless of your claims, pro-climate change scientists have been very poor at predictions based on their theories thus far. Those are the facts. The entire theory of global warming has been mostly based on examining the weather at the time and trying to explain it, hardly predictive at all.

Remember, nobody is outright saying anthropomorphic climate change is totally false. The detractors are simply saying that the science, thus far, used - is way too sketchy and shaky to use as a foundation for making the most expensive painful changes for global humanity in the history of the world.[/QUOTE]

I dont pretend to be a genious or understand all of this. But I do know when the vast majority of scientists come together on a conclusion and present data. Ya things may not happan exactly how they say. But its our best bet and in our best interest to believe it. Its not like they have said the earth is going to end next year via alien attack. They have given specific reasons we we see the weather change in very specific ways. Its not a perfect science and it probally never will be, but all the data and the evidence is pointing in one direction.

To me global warming is like evolution vs intelligent design. I may not understand evolution to the fullest extent, but I understand the data that has been gathered as well as the basic concepts which seem sound. Given that im content to believe a scientific theory then those that disbelieve and in general have very fanciful views of reality.
 
I was going to let this thread die, but ...

Did anybody catch the "Green" episode of Penn & Teller: Bull*? It was on earlier this week.

I like how Al Gore pays for his carbon indulgences to his own company and, supposedly, only 3% of carbon emissions are manmade.

That's why I don't bring the environment up when I harp on alternative energy.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']all the data and the evidence is pointing in one direction.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's true at all. There is valid data used on both sides of the argument. Just recently, for example, it has been determined that no warming has occurred in the last 10 years.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think that's true at all. There is valid data used on both sides of the argument. Just recently, for example, it has been determined that no warming has occurred in the last 10 years.[/QUOTE]

Iv never seen this printed on any reliable site, news paper or magazine. The few times I see stuff like that posted its usually some ultra conservative site or Fox News and then its slammed by the other 95% of scientists out there. Again I read Discover and Popular Science which are directly science mags, then on top of it the associated press, foreign affairs, the nytimes and newsweek/time. Its rare to see people arguing against Global Warming and when they do their not just a minority but a minority with a crap load of other scientists pointing out why they are wrong.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Iv never seen this printed on any reliable site, news paper or magazine. The few times I see stuff like that posted its usually some ultra conservative site or Fox News and then its slammed by the other 95% of scientists out there. Again I read Discover and Popular Science which are directly science mags, then on top of it the associated press, foreign affairs, the nytimes and newsweek/time. Its rare to see people arguing against Global Warming and when they do their not just a minority but a minority with a crap load of other scientists pointing out why they are wrong.[/QUOTE]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
 
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/[/QUOTE]

Several problems. First off its just a few scientists. It ignores the fact that crap loads and crap loads of scientists disagree with it. We are no longer living in the days when it comes to scientific matters that the majority on issues such as this are just dead wrong. Seriously like less then 1% of scientists actually still question global warming and 90% of the time when an article like this is posted 100s stand up to shoot down why its wrong or innacurate.

Second it doesnt really give many facts. We have seen much evidence that even simpeltons like us can understand for Global Warming. This article just blames the solar system then moves on, no real depth or explanations.

Finally and most importantly its pretty obvious the author has quit a bit of disdain for Global warming and switchs what he is saying several times through. First he talks about global cooling and how the planet is getting cooler not warmer so HAHAH! Global Warming doesnt exist! But then he switches to well it exists but just not as a result of man, its other stuff! Its a complete hack and bias job.

These 3 things make it hard to respect....and as I said that almost always seems to be the case with global warming doubters. You are people clinging to very small facts that other scientists disproove or have disprooven. And these articles cant decide if Global Warming is fake......or real but just not man made.

This is the problem with modern people and science. We are living in the most amazing times with science just taking leaps and bounds every day. Everyone realizes this...and everyone loves it....but when it doesnt coincide with our views we try to go pshhh science its not accurate...and then disprove it with other bad science.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Several problems. First off its just a few scientists. It ignores the fact that crap loads and crap loads of scientists disagree with it. We are no longer living in the days when it comes to scientific matters that the majority on issues such as this are just dead wrong. Seriously like less then 1% of scientists actually still question global warming and 90% of the time when an article like this is posted 100s stand up to shoot down why its wrong or innacurate.[/QUOTE]

Source?

By the way, I also disagree completely that the majority of scientists are always right on everything, even today. There is no evidence this is the case. I believe most people are far too easily convinced that we understand nature well at all.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Several problems. First off its just a few scientists. It ignores the fact that crap loads and crap loads of scientists disagree with it. We are no longer living in the days when it comes to scientific matters that the majority on issues such as this are just dead wrong. Seriously like less then 1% of scientists actually still question global warming and 90% of the time when an article like this is posted 100s stand up to shoot down why its wrong or innacurate.[/quote]
Absolute conjecture. 1%? Try 20%. And those are just the ones brave enough to admit it publicly and risk losing their jobs/funding/respect in the community.

Second it doesnt really give many facts. We have seen much evidence that even simpeltons like us can understand for Global Warming. This article just blames the solar system then moves on, no real depth or explanations.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. Most of the evidence people bought without question just two years ago is now either in question or outright turned out not to be true.

These 3 things make it hard to respect....and as I said that almost always seems to be the case with global warming doubters. You are people clinging to very small facts that other scientists disproove or have disprooven. And these articles cant decide if Global Warming is fake......or real but just not man made.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. Unfortunately, you clearly believe what you are saying out of outright blind faith in what you hear most from certain sources you trust more than you should. There is a growing and mounting question mark coming out of the scientific community, and it's only going to grow more over time.

This is the problem with modern people and science. We are living in the most amazing times with science just taking leaps and bounds every day. Everyone realizes this...and everyone loves it....but when it doesnt coincide with our views we try to go pshhh science its not accurate...and then disprove it with other bad science.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what you and all other "true believers" are doing. Squashing the discussion because shaky unproven theories and failed predictions have become accepted as fact in certain academic circles.

You would do yourself a favor by reading this neutral article on the global warming debate itself, questioning why so many such as yourself feel the debate is over.

But the argument over the green consensus does matter: If the green alarmists are right, we will have to turn our civilization inside out virtually overnight to save ourselves. One would like to know this is based on good, well-tested science, not mere "consensus."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Absolute conjecture. 1%? Try 20%. And those are just the ones brave enough to admit it publicly and risk losing their jobs/funding/respect in the community.


Not true at all. Most of the evidence people bought without question just two years ago is now either in question or outright turned out not to be true.


Not true at all. Unfortunately, you clearly believe what you are saying out of outright blind faith in what you hear most from certain sources you trust more than you should. There is a growing and mounting question mark coming out of the scientific community, and it's only going to grow more over time.


Which is exactly what you and all other "true believers" are doing. Squashing the discussion because shaky unproven theories and failed predictions have become accepted as fact in certain academic circles.

You would do yourself a favor by reading this neutral article on the global warming debate itself, questioning why so many such as yourself feel the debate is over.[/QUOTE]

Meh you guys can say what you want. I dont mind believing or disbelieving. Im not a liberal and im not a conservative. Im not religious but im not an atheist. In every way of my life I believe the middle ground and data based ground is the way to live and believe. You can say what you want but you both are burying your heads in the sand and just trying to believe im doing the same. Is Global Warming a prooven fact? No. Are most of the data and scientsits on the side of Global Warming being real? Yes? Have most respectable publications and intelligent articles been put out by believers and most rebuts of Global Warming only hit places like fox news and been ripped to shred by other scientists? Yes. If this wasnt the case again we would see more articles in places like Discover and Popular Science(who might I add are not scared to post unpopular theories and publish unpopular scientists)but we simply dont.

As I said believe what you want, and I will drop this now to avoid having a pointless argument wtih someone that wont change their mind. But the facts and data are on the side of global warming being real and as I showed articles like the one you posted flip flop on their own damn views. They are only there to refute something people like you dont want to believe in. This argument makes no matter anyways. If Global Warming isnt real or isnt caused by pollution it doesnt freaking matter. Because guess what, all the stuff we are doing like green energy and cleaning up the ocean we have to do anyways. We are consuming too much and too fast and its causing prices to rise and our land/water to become unusable. So argue all you want that global warming isnt real......we must take the same steps if it exisits or not to create a sustainable future for the billions of people. So whats the point in ignoring the data and facts? Your facing the same damn future...your just making it harder for those willing to accept things to move forward.
 
Again, the data and facts are sketchy at best. Your only reading one side.

I actually do not have a stance on global warming. I'm neutral until more facts are in. I just think the debate is still relevant, that's all. I think an academic lynching that's been taking place has kept a healthy debate from being recognized. Many stalwart scientists and academics of high standing question it, and that should be enough to have public discourse on it still, that's all. If it were as cut and dry as you say, there would be total consensus and there isn't.

And I agree with you that we need to clean up the environment and do many of those things anyway. I am all on board with that. But gradually, as the market permits. As politicians, policies, and legislation aimed at turning the whole world inside over night out out of fear of the planet exploding is what I'm against, until there is hard scientific proof that it's as dire as Al Gore types say. And there isn't. Not even close.

I actually use global warming as a symbol. A symbol for the rot that's taking place in our schools. When we start telling people in halls of education that something is not worth discussing, questioning, or debating, because the "truth" is already known and it's settled, we are in trouble. That's not science, that's cult-like "true believer" behavior.
 
I could reply, but http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4763914&postcount=18


I will add, however, that unlike theories past in which we have decades to collect empirical evidence, this climate change requires immediate action. Remaining neutral is not the best of options.


It's pretty sad that conservatives, as a whole, oppose the idea of climate change simply because they oppose government spending and regulations. That's the only rational explanation for the discrepancy in acceptance between the two demographics. There's no fundamental difference in the accepted science behind each group, yet liberals acknowledge the urgency and conservatives either say "it's wrong" or "let's wait and see."
 
Where was this level of skepticism leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

By the by, there's no evidence whatsoever that "the markets" will even be negatively altered if we tried to be more environmentally responsible. It's total hogwash that looking further than the next fiscal quarter into the future with regards to concern for the environment is something that stands at odds with our economic viability on the whole.

fucking hell, blue collar's on the way out in this country, and the "green sector" is on the way in. So, I'd argue that y'all defending business are defenders of helping out the already wealthy and their third world labor, to the detriment of American jobs growth.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Where was this level of skepticism leading up to the invasion of Iraq?[/QUOTE]

It's interesting that you raise that very good question, as they are very similar. Both are super expensive endeavors that have or will be launched on best guesses, shady evidence, and a lot of politics - with the real key being they both were founded on spreading fear. The comparisons are staggering.

Of course, as seen above, many take the position of "Who really cares how accurate climate alarmism is, we need to clean the planet up some day anyway, if lies get it done faster, then awesome!". I find such positions startling and I want no part of a society that's ok with massive changes based on possible lies just because the end result is deemed good anyway.

Also, don't forget, most of the same journalists pushing climate alarmism were involved in the ethanol fiasco.

I have never really seen the climate change issue as very partisan. I know some pretty staunch liberals that think it smells rotten, as well as some environmentalists that think "green alarmism" is approaching dangerous levels.

Myke, I agree with you though, if handled correctly, lots of changes can be made quickly in industry for our own country. But like with most things I am for, it must be done through incentive, not fascist fees, fines, and criminal action. But I can't say the same about the third world. If we impose global policies, it will literally kill people in some places.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's interesting that you raise that very good question, as they are very similar. Both are super expensive endeavors that have or will be launched on best guesses, shady evidence, and a lot of politics - with the real key being they both were founded on spreading fear. The comparisons are staggering.

Of course, as seen above, many take the position of "Who really cares how accurate climate alarmism is, we need to clean the planet up some day anyway, if lies get it done faster, then awesome!". I find such positions startling and I want no part of a society that's ok with massive changes based on possible lies just because the end result is deemed good anyway.

Also, don't forget, most of the same journalists pushing climate alarmism were involved in the ethanol fiasco.

I have never really seen the climate change issue as very partisan. I know some pretty staunch liberals that think it smells rotten, as well as some environmentalists that think "green alarmism" is approaching dangerous levels.

Myke, I agree with you though, if handled correctly, lots of changes can be made quickly in industry for our own country. But like with most things I am for, it must be done through incentive, not fascist fees, fines, and criminal action. But I can't say the same about the third world. If we impose global policies, it will literally kill people in some places.[/QUOTE]

Again the problem with your logic is its not that their lies. You keep posting sources but the sources are crap and the scientists are a minority. If its lies im still happy that things get cleaned up....but I dont approve of it being via lies. I simply said this stuff has to be done regardless, not that it should be done via lies.

Again say what you want, but anyone that says "let the markets take care of it" has no right even in this discussion because the markets will never freaking take care of it. They dont care that this kind of stuff will create millions of jobs or an influx of cash.....because they are not the ones directly benefiting. The markets only care about the markets....and the only people that give a flying fig about it otherwise are ultra conservatives that dont give 2 squats about anyone but themselves and their own interests(thus why you cling to bad science and claim its just as reasonable to believe).
 
1- I'm not an ultra conservative (What is that anyway? Someone that doesn't think like you so you are forced to categorize as selfish in order to understand? It's always amusing how the far left immediately label people with different views as obviously selfish and uncaring about others.... because otherwise, they'd agree with liberals, right?)

2- You continuously characterize conservatives in nearly every post with stereotypical dailykos quality bs that is comparable to how Sean Hanity characterizes Liberals, which dilutes the useful things you do have to say.

3- I never said "let the markets decide", I agree with what you say about that, although I am not sure why you brought it up. Nobody has said that that I have seen.
 
I didnt say you were ultra conservative, I simply made a statement about ultra conservatives. But hey, if your position on this issue are so in line with the ultra conservative that you make that mistake....then might want to rethink your position. And im not a liberal. On most issues I do lean a bit more to the left and on this issue I do lean much further to the left. However most issues im moderate and some like welfare reform, social security and the economy I lean to the right or heavy to the right(hehe prison reform id shock most even on the right). Besides you never gave me a chance to talk about the left here so why assume im on the left? The left are a bunch of morons that want to hand all of our cash over to bio fuels which are starving the poor and causing a large chunk of rising food costs. They also refuse to use foreign bio fuels despite the fact that corn is one of the least efficient forms of bio fuel. Add to it the fact that liberals also tend to rule out all drilling(iffy issue though)and Nuclear(down right moronic)and im far from happy with the left on this issue.

As for you claiming you never said the markets thing. Look on the last page, this is an exact quote from you.


But gradually, as the market permits.
Click to expand...

You clearly stated you were only for cleaning up the planet and moving towards renweble energy based on the markets. I agree we have to take the market into consideration, but sometimes we do need to give the market a push or a helping hand. If we wait on the market to fix things it never will because they hate the investment stage.
 
Ok, I think we got off on the wrong foot. What I meant by the market statement was that I don't think we should suddenly, over night, enact tons of legislation that leaves major corporations in a tale spin. It's wrong to enact legislation that forces them to alter their entire business model in a panic stricken state, laying off droves, charging a lot more for their products, etc. This is exactly what some in the "alarmist" movement want. They feel like the earth is truly doomed unless we make some amazingly dire changes like tomorrow - as in almost outlawing most carbon fuels in a week. That's what I'm against, that sort of extreme.

Corporations and Company's in America have been made to change before through smart incentives. Make it so their profit margins widen if they change, then they will WANT to. That's what I'm talking about.

Please keep in mind though, I never said Climate Change/Global Warming was complete bullshit. I just get tired of the attitude of those on that ship that it's beyond debate or dissent now, because it's not. Scientific Consensus is not Scientific Fact, and until this issue is Scientific Fact, it's up for debate and dissent. All things are.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Ok, I think we got off on the wrong foot. What I meant by the market statement was that I don't think we should suddenly, over night, enact tons of legislation that leaves major corporations in a tale spin. It's wrong to enact legislation that forces them to alter their entire business model in a panic stricken state, laying off droves, charging a lot more for their products, etc. This is exactly what some in the "alarmist" movement want. They feel like the earth is truly doomed unless we make some amazingly dire changes like tomorrow - as in almost outlawing most carbon fuels in a week. That's what I'm against, that sort of extreme.

Corporations and Company's in America have been made to change before through smart incentives. Make it so their profit margins widen if they change, then they will WANT to. That's what I'm talking about.

Please keep in mind though, I never said Climate Change/Global Warming was complete bullshit. I just get tired of the attitude of those on that ship that it's beyond debate or dissent now, because it's not. Scientific Consensus is not Scientific Fact, and until this issue is Scientific Fact, it's up for debate and dissent. All things are.[/QUOTE]

I dont think its beyond debate. I think few things in the science community are beyond debate because science is just that....science. Its not always 100% correct nor within our understanding and a large part of the time when people say it is we find out later they were wrong. However, I have a real problem when people post crap articles like the one you did and claim a large number of scientists disagree with it. Its simply not true. As I said iv yet to see a respecatble article in disagreement. Its always hack scientists that are disprooven by a shit load of other scientists and articles like the one you posted where in one breath they question global warming....then in the next say its real...just not man made.

Debate is a great thing, and if someone disproved global warming id have no problem with it.....hell I would be happy since as it stands right now I try to conserve alot and refuse to run my air conditioning or car too much to try and do what little I can....it being disprooven just takaes some of the guilt out of overconsuming ;). Like I said the problem is that you cant post articles like the one you did and expect people with a brain to respect it.
 
MSI - I'm certainly not burying my head in the sand, as you can see with my knowledge of current climate trends. I am not saying global warming caused by humans isn't possibly true. I do believe, however, that we don't understand climate well enough to make that judgment at this time. I realize that makes me an "unbeliever" to some, but I am usually skeptical about simplistic explanations to incredibly complex processes.

[quote name='Koggit']II will add, however, that unlike theories past in which we have decades to collect empirical evidence, this climate change requires immediate action. Remaining neutral is not the best of options.[/quote]

Please elaborate about why global warming (I'm sorry, "climate change") requires "immediate action."

It's pretty sad that conservatives, as a whole, oppose the idea of climate change simply because they oppose government spending and regulations. That's the only rational explanation for the discrepancy in acceptance between the two demographics. There's no fundamental difference in the accepted science behind each group, yet liberals acknowledge the urgency and conservatives either say "it's wrong" or "let's wait and see."
Click to expand...

Why do you think people who do not believe everything fed to them by the media and some scientists about computer climate models do so only because they oppose government spending and regulations? Is no dissent valid on this issue for you -- it's all because the "unbelievers" are intellectually dishonest and actually believe what you are saying while denying it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top