U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2007, 03:32 PM
 
Location: NC
1,250 posts, read 2,308,085 times
Reputation: 584

Advertisements

As is the one in DC and the townhouse in SF. He is nothing but a fraud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2007, 06:10 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,738,463 times
Reputation: 828
[quote=Fudoshin1115;1875299]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
First, I never claimed to be a scientist. I do thank you profoundly for pointing out my spelling errors. I now realize the errors in my ways. How about you go learn something instead of undercutting my grammar. I learned a valuable lesson, type slower so a ignorant a****** such as yourself cannot use it as cheap fodder to undermine my arguments.


Hey, lighten up buddy. My tone was good humored and at least I was grown up enough to not sling obscenities at you or name call. Write as if you were in front of the person you're addressing.

I wasn't writing about soviet satellites (where did you get that?), rather, land-based weather stations that went offline went the USSR went broke in the 80's.

Man-made global warming is a fad, a soup du jour created by Al Gore, and I'm not buying into it nor am I spending my hard earned money in a vain attempt to try and save the planet. Global taxation and carbon credits are a bogus solution.

A little common sense goes a long way. The Gore facists bought into it, hook, line and sinker and there is no turning them from the Dark Side. Anyone who says the debate is over is beyond contempt; science is a moving target and we're always learning something new.
I assumed youo were talking satellites like weather balloons, or something. I wasn't quite sure what exactly you were referring to.

I think you are confusing the messenger of Al Gore with the message of science. Gore is simply an active politician, I doubt he had the knowledge required to study such an immense topic.

Global taxation and carbon credits are nowhere near a solution, they are patches until we develop chaep, effective technologies. If you don't spend at least a little of your money on the planet now, it will cost you alot more when we get to rebuild cities and pay for other effects of global warming.

Oh, and fascist is a little strong of a word, no? Don't chastize me for name calling, and then make a sweeping generalization about a large majority of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,256,908 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
It is because there is a lot of hypocrisy in his claims and many others who claim to be the "light" to problems they claim are dire. Thats the reason why so many throw it back in their face.

Then there is the issue of making things "worse" than they are by over-stating issues in order to get the public into a frenzy. They end up making themselves look like wacko uneducated fools, hardly those who we could see as being role models to proper steps and decisions concerning issues. It is much like Michael Moore being caught in countless "lies" about his claims and then people excusing it away as if the lies were merely there to get peoples attention.

It isn't responsible. It is down right dirty politics and it disgusts anyone who happens to hold an honest pursuit of the truth into light.

The issue isn't settled, in fact it isn't even close to even coming to a hint of being settled, yet the fear mongering is absolutely horrid in the media. They say "We just want to live in a cleaner environment, to lessen our reliability on oil and other polluting based technologies".

Well most people would agree that this would be a good thing to do. The problem is that antagonists want to do it in one shot, under impractical methods, and they want to tax the hell out of people under the false pretense that the world is ending. Its a sucker scam and anyone who believes in it is misinformed or so tied up with their personal beliefs that they only care about getting their way. It is foolish beyond belief.

The media doesn't know the truth. The media is not worried about objective reporting, they are worried about making money and supporting their agenda.

If one follows the detailed science of the issue, even the IPCC is back peddling on issues, yet because they are so politically driven, they keep holding on to what they want to be true, rather than what they really know.

Mann has all but been thrown out the window in the community and further research is leading to the fact that more and more of his core work is showing up in "the other reports" that were proclaimed to hold to the truth even when Mann's research was not used.

Just watch, more and more information is coming out and more and more scientist who were waving the political flag of which Anthropomorphic Global Warming is are starting to back away from the table because they know if they are caught in the down pour that will come once science starts to find some answers, they are going to lose all credibility.

Green house gases are not the end of the world. Water Vapor accounts for most of that effect. Our contribution seems to be very minimal. Even with that, reports are starting to find major inconsistencies in the data and future gauges that are not syncing with the "world is turning into an oven" claim.

The point is, we don't know enough about anything and hearing some fool of a politician running around proclaiming the end of the world is something we should reserve for movies and fantasy, not legitimate research and science.

On every level, their position is in major question. If we support their claims, we can't fix it by their own math. We are doomed. On a contribution point, we can't fix it as the US because there are countries who are meeting our level of pollution and are slated to pass it very soon.

Then we have tons of "save the earth" events where an actress gets up in front of a stage with over 100 thousand lights, TV's, and media devices proclaiming she turns the water off when she shaves her legs. All to a crowd who are being fed by foods such as beef and chicken which have been shown to be a MAJOR contribution to green house gases.

What we really have is a bunch of famous people who are about as educated as a 3rd grader attempting to speak for the world about the "facts" of the situation and people like me are insulted by their stupidity.

The real issue of global warming is that it is no different than the proclaimed evils of witchcraft and there are lots of people ignorant to buy into the show while they also use it as a personal crusade against all things they dislike. Its pure and simple mob mentality at its finest.

it is not mob mentality.. if someone wanted to make it as such then ok.. but I certainly agree that we are harming the earth with out ways.. I don't live in a solar house.. I don't drive a hybrid.. but I understand the need to change.. we as a society need to come together before any real change can happen.. buying a hybrid car or living in a solar powered self sustained house is noble.. but really holds no point unless it becomes economical and feasible for everyone to do... otherwise there really isn't a point.. One Private jet going to 10 destinations... is not an issue when 200,000 jets are going to 1 million different destinations at the same time... I understand the principle behind it.. in practicing what you preach... and I think that some of these people who preach.. should be the first to step up and be an example.. but their failure to do so.. does not discredit the reality of the situation...
But like I said earlier... some would just rather ignore it.. because afterall.. jesus is coming and he'll make it all better right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2007, 11:26 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,379,751 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
it is not mob mentality.. if someone wanted to make it as such then ok.. but I certainly agree that we are harming the earth with out ways.. I don't live in a solar house.. I don't drive a hybrid.. but I understand the need to change.. we as a society need to come together before any real change can happen.. buying a hybrid car or living in a solar powered self sustained house is noble.. but really holds no point unless it becomes economical and feasible for everyone to do... otherwise there really isn't a point.. One Private jet going to 10 destinations... is not an issue when 200,000 jets are going to 1 million different destinations at the same time... I understand the principle behind it.. in practicing what you preach... and I think that some of these people who preach.. should be the first to step up and be an example.. but their failure to do so.. does not discredit the reality of the situation...
But like I said earlier... some would just rather ignore it.. because afterall.. jesus is coming and he'll make it all better right?

The problem is that the "evidence" that is being used to "claim" that the "hypothesis" of Anthropomorphic global warming is "peer reviewed" by those who are making the claims in the first place. Its like claiming some odd fool belief about black people and sourcing the KKK that they are all in consensus on the issue.

The following gives a very good account of the entire issue with the IPCC and their "claims".

http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

Quote:
The IPCC relies on peer review for quality control. There is no common standard
for this and the IPCC has no obvious procedures to guard against bias, undergoes no
‘due diligence’ checks on the validity of the science it summarizes and makes no
checks to ensure that data and methodology of the science that it cites are available to
critics. Indeed, as is discussed later, during the review process of the recent fourth
assessment report5 (AR4), the IPCC actually supported at least one author who had
declined to release data. Authors of many of the key climate studies cited in the IPCC
are brazen in their refusal to release data and methodology, as the governing principles
seem rightly to require, and despite their leading roles in the IPCC process giving
enhanced stature to their work. Repeatedly, the IPCC and its advocates strip the
uncertainties from the science and present possibilities as strong probabilities or near
certainties. Thus any belief that the IPCC review process is independent and
trustworthy, and thus that it is an acceptable “auditor” of the state of climate research,
is plain wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top