Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who says it's impossible for 6,500,000,000 people to change the Earth's climate half a century after we sent a man to walk on the moon is delusional.
Its always the bible thumper. They have this "we're just god's servants we can't do anything big" approach that has stalled progress over the entire course of humanity.
Wrong. There are many of us non-"Bible thumping" people that have these differing viewpoints. Try not to make blanket assumptions, will ya? It makes people look foolish.
Anyone who says it's impossible for 6,500,000,000 people to change the Earth's climate half a century after we sent a man to walk on the moon is delusional.
Its always the bible thumper. They have this "we're just god's servants we can't do anything big" approach that has stalled progress over the entire course of humanity.
Can you name one environmental disaster that the global warming scientists were tight about in the past? Maybe it's a good thing to treat their "evidence" with skepticism given their miserable track record. Here's some of the things they have been wrong about:
acid rain
ozone layer
Kuwati oil fires
global cooling
overpopulation
water shortages
massive famines
nuclear winter
3 mile island
killer bees from Mexico
desertification
red M&Ms
deforestization
land fill shortages cell phones causing cancer
swine flu
SARS
oil shortages
species extinction
love canal.
cranberries causing cancer
Exxon Valdez
Saccharin
Agent Orange
PCB plant explosion in Italy
Leaded gasoline
Coffee causes cancer
BST
DDT
Malathion
C8 water
Times Beach dioxins
Alcohol causes 50% of breast cancers
California beach sand is a carcinogen
Aflatoxin
I could go on but you get the point.
You care to list the environmental predictions that did come true? I'm sure they are right this time though. Past performance would indicate scientists never **** up. The are scientists. And people claim the Bible is made up. Maybe they should look in the mirror. lols.
Did this Oil company run over your puppy as a child? I swear... you need to have some serious counselling for this obsession you have with Exxon. I feel like I'm conversing with a 5-year old. You know the type: the one that believes that if he keeps repeating "I don't want a bath" long enough, it'll come true.
You state that Exxon has an agenda in the "climate change" discussion, based on their biasness, which of course, could be true. But don't you think you've stepped over the line with biasness against them? I think I can speak for many others in here that your repeated posts for the above links is somewhat ridiculous, tiresome, biased and altogether unneeded. We get the point. Big Oil is bad.
But what about those of us that hate big oil? Those of us that hate Fox News? Those of us that actually have science backgrounds and can converse on the topic with experience and expertise, and still voice our skepticism on AGW? Do you summarily dismiss us as well? Of course you do, because no matter what we say, as long as it is even remotely counter to your unnatural hatred of Exxon, you dismiss all we have to offer in terms of contrary evidence.
And you still haven't answered my question - one in which I have posted in this and many other forum threads, probably 2 dozen times. How could we possibly destroy this planet?!?!? Why can't someone answer this? A dozen posters - including you - have used this terms hundreds of times, but not once have they ever been specific as to how this could occur. Why not?!?!? is is because you are just mouthing crap you've heard from somewhere else? Is it because you have no real science background and cannot converse intelligently about it. Or is it because you want to beleive this so much that its a part of your psyche and, since you can't answer realistically, you simply act as if you didn't see the question? Tell me specifically, How do we cause irrepairable damage to the earth!!! What damage can we cause that cannot be repaired by the earth's own natural cycles?
And you still go on about that 97%... I'm starting to believe that maybe you are being paid by someone to post that crap... All you can do is post links, instead of actually discussing the topics. You occasionally mouth the generic phrases concerning climate change, but you have no other real input into the debates. So how's this? I'm utting you on my ignore list, because there's truly nothing even remotely intelligent coming from you that adds anything to these discussions.
The oil companies never ran over my dog, but they pay scientists to say "man made global warming is not happening." Just like the 8 sources I listed explain.
In the past the cigarette industry paid scientists to say "cigarettes don't cause cancer."
Did you believe the cigarette industry paid scientists, like you believe the ExxonMobile paid scientists ??
We are 2 different kinds of people. You trust the ExxonMobile paid scientists in matters of global warming, and I trust groups like NASA, the EPA, and climate scientists that are (not) paid.
And you claim to be a scientific person, but the average child has more scientific knowledge than you.
You keep on asking me "How could we possibly destroy this planet??"
(Most children know about the following things)
Human activities cause plants and animals to go extinct every day.
We are destroying the oceans fish stocks.
Things like 2 headed frogs are appearing in the wild from chemical exposure.
We are destroying the rainforests.
Topsoil erosion is threatening our farming.
We are running out of fresh water.
Overpopulation threatens food shortages.
ex.ex.ex.
And since your so obsessed with the question, our overuse of antibiotics could create super germs that could ravage this planet. Certain untested man made chemicals are inside every animal on Earth. Its dangerous to eat certain fish because they are filled with mercury. ex.ex.ex.
You make it seem like humans could never destroy this planet, (its off the subject) but we could destroy this planet 8x over with nuclear weapons tomorrow. Or biological weapons could kill every person on this planet.
Then you claim to be such a scientific expert, that sources are not needed to back up your statements.
But a scientific expert would be aware of terraforming. An example of terraforming is going to Mars and releasing gases, to change the atmosphere on Mars so humans can live there.
(We are terraforming Earth by releasing greenhouse gases.)
A scientific expert would also have knowledge of the greenhouse effect.
Reality is my 12 and 14 year old nephews, have 10x more scientific knowledge than you do.
(and they like airsoft gun wars more than studying.)
Now to 97% of climate scientists saying "man made global warming is happening."
The “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, July 6, 2010, focused on “an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers.”
It found that 97-98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field say "man made global warming is happening."
Nothing he said is incorrect. Climates change without human meddling.
And what evidence is there he "hates" science and math. That's just plain retarded.
The fact Barton wants to end the scientific careers of young American men and women who want to study and put on a factual basis problems in social science like gun violence, geology like palentology, medical science using stem cells or climate science by terminating Federal Funding makes a STRONG prima facie case that he is an ENEMY of modern science and should be treated as such.
Can you name one environmental disaster that the global warming scientists were tight about in the past? Maybe it's a good thing to treat their "evidence" with skepticism given their miserable track record. Here's some of the things they have been wrong about:
acid rain
ozone layer
Kuwati oil fires
global cooling
overpopulation
water shortages
massive famines
nuclear winter
3 mile island
killer bees from Mexico
desertification
red M&Ms
deforestization
land fill shortages cell phones causing cancer
swine flu
SARS
oil shortages
species extinction
love canal.
cranberries causing cancer
Exxon Valdez
Saccharin
Agent Orange
PCB plant explosion in Italy
Leaded gasoline
Coffee causes cancer
BST
DDT
Malathion
C8 water
Times Beach dioxins
Alcohol causes 50% of breast cancers
California beach sand is a carcinogen
Aflatoxin
I could go on but you get the point.
You care to list the environmental predictions that did come true? I'm sure they are right this time though. Past performance would indicate scientists never **** up. The are scientists. And people claim the Bible is made up. Maybe they should look in the mirror. lols.
Theres no such thing as acid rain, ozone depleting gases, Kuwati oil fires, overpopulation, water shortages, massive famines, ex.ex.ex. ??
Can you name one environmental disaster that the global warming scientists were tight about in the past? Maybe it's a good thing to treat their "evidence" with skepticism given their miserable track record. Here's some of the things they have been wrong about:
ozone layer
global cooling
3 mile island
killer bees from Mexico
desertification
red M&Ms
love canal.
cranberries causing cancer
PCB plant explosion in Italy
Coffee causes cancer
BST
C8 water
Times Beach dioxins
Alcohol causes 50% of breast cancers
California beach sand is a carcinogen
Aflatoxin
I could go on but you get the point.
You care to list the environmental predictions that did come true? I'm sure they are right this time though. Past performance would indicate scientists never **** up. The are scientists. And people claim the Bible is made up. Maybe they should look in the mirror. lols.
I get the point, all right, but it's not the one you intend. You do realize how dumb this post makes you look?
What a stupid list. Half that stuff are things that aren't problems because we fixed/eliminated/modified them BECAUSE science told us to. You call that being wrong? What planet are you from?
Then there are the things that are still happening and/or undeniably dangerous. If you say they aren't, please cite sources instead of making stuff up.
overpopulation
water shortages
massive famines
deforestization
land fill shortages
oil shortages
species extinction
I left the rest of the stuff because either I don't know anything about them without going off to Google, or because they do sound silly, and are probably early studies that indicated something *might* be wrong but it was just an early study and they wound up doing later studies that proved something else.
That's how it science works, a fact you seem completely oblivious to. Apparently on your planet they don't study science or even logic.
I suggest you step away from the keyboard and retreat to your mythology about the Sky God for comfort. You clearly will never understand the real world and how it works.
Out of respect I wanted to say, that when politics are not being discussed I love conservatives.
But your Fox news and Rush radio cult (needs to be destroyed!!)
well even if you dont believe in the biblical flood, you cannot escape the reality that most ancient civilizations had some kind of a flood tradition/story. Hisotorians agree that indicates that some sort of flood event was in the memory of the ancients that recorded the event.
Most civilizations lived near water that had frequent flooding. A local flood is quite likely. What's being rejected is a flood that covered the entire currently known world.
At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed….Once the freeze starts, it will be too late. (Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age,” Science Digest, February, 1973)
“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations. It has already made food and fuel more precious, thus increasing the price of everything we buy. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. (Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and producer of scientific television documentaries, “In the Grip of a new Ice Age,” International Wildlife, July 1975.
I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or two. (Red Bryson, “Environmental Roulette,” Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P. Holdren and Paul R. Erlich, eds., 1971)
Following are some environmental books published in the past. All these proved to be nonsense. Change a few words here and there and you got the global warming crowd. Which isn't surprising. The people that wrote these books are the leaders of the GW crowd.
Moment in the Sun by Robert and Leona Train Rienow
"Man's accelerating destruction of his own habitat has never been so dramatically presented...a blockbuster of a book." San Francisco Chronicle, 1970.
Perils of the Peaceful Atom: The myth of safe Nuclear Power Plants by Richard Curtis and Elizabeth Hogan
"inadequate government regulation and safety precautions, coupled with the ever present human error, can result in a nuclear accident that can unleash radiation to poison the present generation -and generations to come."
The Environmental Handbook edited by Garrett De Bell
" The 1970's is our last chance for a future that makes ecological sense. The crises of the environment cannot wait another decade for answers. This handbook brings together students, scientists, writers and others to focus on some of the major problems of our deteriorating environment, to explain the nature of ecology and -most importantly- to suggest action that can be taken right now in any community, by any individual."
S/S/T And Sonic Boom Handbook by William Shurcliff
" This book demonstrates that the SST is an incredible, unnecessary insult to the living environment, dangerous and destructive to animals and human alike. It tells you what you can do to stop this program in time and exactly why the supersonic transport must be stopped -now!"
And as everyone knows SSTs have been proven to have zero negative impact on the environmment. They even put enough water vapor in the atmosphere that they help strengthen the ozone layer. Imagine that, humans helping the environment instead of destrying it. Who knew. lols.
Look at yourself Chief. Your posting 1970's sources that talk about a global freeze.
Your attempting to manipulate people and discredit global warming, by getting people to believe the Earth is cooling (by posting unknown 40 year old scientific studies, that don't even have working links.)
My passion about global warming comes from groups like NASA, the EPA, the majority of the worlds governments, and climate scientists that say "the world could be in great danger from global warming."
What passion causes you to post about global warming ??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
