Re: [OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:59:01 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <4r4582dutrf2a81ilotmsoldqb1hr784hg@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:07:11 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

In article
<gmgraves-177028.13420403062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<timberwoof.spam-455123.11562403062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<gmgraves-C1E082.10394103062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <znu-F52E08.02543503062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <VMWdnUtKSZDt_OLZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:

In article <gYsfg.32$065.2271@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Wegie <here@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article
<Bob_S-36DFE8.21103531052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bob_S <Bob_S@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced
man
is
to
blame, in whole or in part.

yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons
of
coal
and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so
natural".
"so
god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on
the
ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".

wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard
coal
a
year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put
industry
to
work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes
the
next
mars.


What makes you think that such a climate shift IS reversable?
That
if
the whole world stopped burning stuff for energy, that the earth
would
start to cool? This scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Those
Chinese
burn 2.2 billion tons of coal because/year because they have no
other
way of keeping warm. Its like trying to get Brazilians to stop
burning/clearing the rain forest by telling them that its
damaging
the
ecosystem. While they might understand the concept on an
intellectual
level, the answer will always come back that their families need
to
eat
NOW, and that clearing this new field is the only way to assure
a
crop
next year (because the jungle, paradoxically, has poor soil that
can
only sustain a few crops before being depleted).


Another interesting thing is the suggestion of curtailing a lot of
industrial power plant production to curb the CO2. How many jobs
will
be lost and how hard will this affect the stock markets?

Yeah, it's really too bad there's absolutely no way to produce power
without dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. I mean, if only
that
whole nuclear energy thing had panned out, I bet you'd see some
nations,
like maybe France, getting, I don't know, maybe 80% of their power
from
it.

Too bad large-scale nuclear energy programs turned out to be
impossible.

Oh, wait. They didn't. You're constructing an absurd false
dichotomy. I
should have realized sooner.

I'm all for nukes. Unfortunately, given the "soccer mom" politics that
mindlessly fears nuclear energy in the US, we'll never see
fission-produced energy expand the way it should. The bottom line is
that we live in a society where enough ill-informed people can get
together and actually affect policy at the national level. The media,
with their depth-less 'sound-byte' approach to reality, fuels the
fires
of ignorance and the soccer moms pick-up the banners and take to the
streets with their half-baked fears. The result is that we all suffer
the consequences.

One example of scientifically uninformed people making policy decisions
is all this bull*** about some sort of "controversy" over global
warming. According to one recent metastudy, there is none ... in the
scientific press. In the popular press, however, half the articles on
global warming say that there's controversy. But remember, most popular
science articles are written by journalism majors. Real scientists get
told by PR pukes to put the word "theory" in their articles.

There is no controversy that we are in a warming cycle. Global warming
is fact. To what extent that human habitation is responsibe is where the
"controvery" lies.

Look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the
past 650,000 years. Not only is there an amazing correlation, there is
also a causative link. now consider that the CO2 concentrations now are
at least twice as high as they have ever been during that time, and show
no signs of leveling off or decreasing. To the people studying how much
coal, oil, and gas humans burn annually and how much that has been
increasing the CO2 concentrations lately, there is no controversy.

There wasn't any controversy amongst them when they were telling us we
were all going to die in an Ice Age either.

You're lying: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

What a load. I lived through that era. Anybody and everybody was
screaming that we were all going to die in an Ice Age. Many even
predicted that the Arctic ice packs were going to get so heavy that
the planet was goijng to flop over on its side. It was pretty much the
same level of idiotic hysteria that we have now over 'global warming'.
The a drought struck much of North America in the early 80's
accompanied by higher than nor,mal temperatures. In order to keep from
admitting that they were know-nothing idiots these people switched to
'We're all gonna dies from global warming!'. They've been reeling in
fools ever since.


Or when they were telling us we were all going to fry in 1938.

I haven't even heard of that one.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp
This is the fourth go'round of the 'We're all gonna die from climate
change' in the last 100 years or so. The first one was in 1895.
Climate scientists have just as good a track record as anybody else
for predicting the end of the world.
Oh, and the 1938 'global warming' DOOM! prediction? It was made while
we entering a 30 year cooling period.
Of course I fully expect you to ignore its facts. You'll probably dig
up something like one of their janitor's ex-girlfriend's mother's
cousin once talked to a guy in a bar who worked for the company that
picked up the dumpsters at a company that sold paper clips to
Exxon-Mobil thereby 'proving' that its energy company propaganda.
That seems to be the favorite tactic of the global warming
fundamentalists when they can't refute the facts.

Fool me once and all that.

A good principle. You should try applying it to the anti-science
propaganda outlets that have fed you so many lies about climate change
and evolution.

You should apply it to the propaganda pieces that have you convinced
anyone in a lab coat is never wrong.




--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."

Steve Jobs
.

Loading