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

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:32:08 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <d1c782let2pv51ad913h3dhsuvjkes4naf@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

I see. So, you followed the literature of climate change closely during
the '70s? Which journals did you subscribe to?

It was all over the freakin' news just like 'global warming' is now.


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_exec
sum.asp

Sorry, Mayor, you know I don't read your propaganda sites.

I don't have any. All you do is read global warming fundamentalists'
sites. Like any 'good' fundamentalist you like to keep your mind
firmly clamped shut lest any facts that contradict your Holy Writ get
in there.

[snip]

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.

People in lab coats are often wrong, and it's virtually always other
people in lab coats who discover it. It's essentially never people who
really wish something wasn't true because of their financial
self-interest, their political ideology, or their religious faith.


And guess what? There's plenty of other people in lab coats saying
that your people in lab cioats are wrong. You're just too busy reading
your Holy Writ to listen to them.




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

Steve Jobs
.

Loading