Fred on Global Warming (fast food, Baby Boomers, ethical, controversial)
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.
This Fred Thompson quote went out on NewsMax today:
“It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.”
If this is his own stuff, I love it. Anyone listen to him when he sat in for Paul Harvey on the radio, a number of months ago?
Fred is THE man!! He is saying like it is. The Learjet Liberals say the world will end next week if we don't start walking to work (that is 23 miles for me) while they fly around the world in polluting private jets and drive around in caravans of SUVs and strech limos!
Setting aside science and the endless debates it generates, let's use some common sense.
Carbon that has been stored in the earth for eons is being dredged up and burned at a phenomenal rate. This produces CO2 (sorry, have to use some scientific terms for this argument.) Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have shown a dramatic increase since the industrial revolution.
Assume nothing more than what I said above, which is, indeed, indisputable. Would you not expect, using simple reasoning, that a change in the composition of our atmosphere will result in changes that we cannot foresee? This is why I'm completely baffled by the arguments saying that humans aren't affecting climate.
It's as if I drove over your dog, you dog lay dead in the road, and I claimed that you were jumping to conclusions for political reasons by assuming that my car's location and your dog's death were anything more than a mere coincidence. We know that there are methods for testing how the dog died: checking the car's tires against the marks left on the dog and other forensic methods that lead to the reliably accurate theory that I did, indeed, kill your dog.
This is the process being used by climate scientists, forensic evidence. The evidence collides with the agendas of the most powerful industries and governments in the world. Using common sense, would you not trust the evidence of curious bystanders over the motives of profit and power? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose? The power is on the side of those who contribute most to CO2 emissions: auto makers, oil suppliers, suppliers of electricity, etc.
It is inconceivable to me that the power of "government grants for scientists" is enough to win the battle against the global economy. Furthermore, the government is funded primarily by corporations and lobbyists who profit from the burning of fossil fuels. So, what is the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory that scientists are all profiting by playing the role of the unarmed David against the world's Goliaths? Other than the incessant blustering of right-wing talk show hosts, I hear nothing to persuade me that there is a shred of merit to the argument that humans aren't changing global climate.
And Saddam had WMD's so what did the government do with these "facts"....
Setting aside science and the endless debates it generates, let's use some common sense.
Carbon that has been stored in the earth for eons is being dredged up and burned at a phenomenal rate. This produces CO2 (sorry, have to use some scientific terms for this argument.) Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have shown a dramatic increase since the industrial revolution.
Assume nothing more than what I said above, which is, indeed, indisputable. Would you not expect, using simple reasoning, that a change in the composition of our atmosphere will result in changes that we cannot foresee? This is why I'm completely baffled by the arguments saying that humans aren't affecting climate.
It's as if I drove over your dog, you dog lay dead in the road, and I claimed that you were jumping to conclusions for political reasons by assuming that my car's location and your dog's death were anything more than a mere coincidence. We know that there are methods for testing how the dog died: checking the car's tires against the marks left on the dog and other forensic methods that lead to the reliably accurate theory that I did, indeed, kill your dog.
This is the process being used by climate scientists, forensic evidence. The evidence collides with the agendas of the most powerful industries and governments in the world. Using common sense, would you not trust the evidence of curious bystanders over the motives of profit and power? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose? The power is on the side of those who contribute most to CO2 emissions: auto makers, oil suppliers, suppliers of electricity, etc.
It is inconceivable to me that the power of "government grants for scientists" is enough to win the battle against the global economy. Furthermore, the government is funded primarily by corporations and lobbyists who profit from the burning of fossil fuels. So, what is the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory that scientists are all profiting by playing the role of the unarmed David against the world's Goliaths? Other than the incessant blustering of right-wing talk show hosts, I hear nothing to persuade me that there is a shred of merit to the argument that humans aren't changing global climate.
Your welcome for the quote...... Oh, I'll quote a little snippet of it a second time because it looks like you missed it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
He goes onto state that you can pile all the theories and data you wish on top of a base assumption which seems to be the key term that you are misunderstanding. The house of the global warming alarmists is being built on a paper mache foundation.
Answer why it seems in the past before human influence that global temperatures would rise and a CO2 spike would follow that temperature spike??? Why is that??? And then why after said CO2 spike would temperatures then begin to recede???
Could it be that there's more afoot than what we understand??? Is it possible???
Yes, it is....... But no, Al made a movie and Polar Bears are having a b*t*h of a time finding a nice ice patch to fish off of so we'd better park our cars and sign a few worthless treaties that don't treat all industrialized nations fairly.
Again I'm for being cautious and for treating this planet with all the respect we can, but I don't believe that listening to these scientists who are espousing the beliefs of those that fund them are any more or less credible than those who say the opposite while being funded by those interests..... That's all a chicken-egg argument as far as I'm concerned. All that needs to be noted is that there's a LOT of science out there and we have a lot of theories right now......
Hey..... Whatever happened to that catostrophic hole in the ozone by the by???
Here, start with this.... A Phd Climatology Professor from the "Green Nation of Canada" Link to article....
I'm not saying this guy is the end all be all or anything, but a quick search turned this up and I could continue posting a link every ten minutes to another scientist/climatologist that believes otherwise for the rest of the day...... The point is that this is not some cold, hard fact that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. There's plenty to be skeptical about that has NOTHING to do with Rush Limbaugh....
Well a little follow-up research revealed that my initial enthusiasm for this fellow and his article was completely unfounded. Please read the following,and then tell me you don't think this guy is publishing biased articles.
He and two of his peers are founders of a group set up by and to help the oil companies the identical way the scientific organization highlighted in the movie "Thank you for smoking" (based on fact) was set up by the Tobacco companies to cover up and oppose anything which came out about smoking causing lung cancer (and other illnesses).
It's kind of sick actually. I would hope you can find other global warming skeptics who aren't so linked with oil company agenda. I mean really, this is just outright sick folks... if you haven't ever read about the way the tobacco companies covered up the truth perhaps you won't get it - but the organization headed by this man and two of his peers is coincidentially structured and funded the same exact way. If that doesn't turn your stomach, then I don't know what would.
I am still interested in reading anything else you can send my way on the anti-global warming topic published in the past year and a half, preferably peer-reviewed. Seriously, I'm open minded about this, perhaps the first link and expert you sent just so happens to be a bad one by sheer coincidence (trust me, as a researcher I've done worse over the years and made such mistakes multiple times).
This issue is kind of like the health care issue thread. Some people get so worked up about Al Gore and Michael Moore that they just close their senses to the actual evidence presented - that shows there are indeed serious issues to be discussed. Al and Mike have their biases and agendas like everybody else, but bringing these serious problems to the forefront for discussion is a good thing. Even Bush has recently admitted there are environmental issues. Even Bush!!!
This issue is kind of like the health care issue thread. Some people get so worked up about Al Gore and Michael Moore that they just close their senses to the actual evidence presented - that shows there are indeed serious issues to be discussed. Al and Mike have their biases and agendas like everybody else, but bringing these serious problems to the forefront for discussion is a good thing. Even Bush has recently admitted there are environmental issues. Even Bush!!!
If I thought for a moment that Al Gore and Michael Moore were simply trying to stimulate a discussion that would be one thing, but Gore is trying to play it off as FACT and that is where I have a problem.
This article is on Fox's website and I realize that they are probably considered to have an "agenda" themselves, but how do we ignore what is being said??? How do you listen to Al's science when you know he has an agenda, yet ignore the other side of the argument, agenda or not???
I like this part in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
First, despite all the carbon dioxide emitted by man since the industrial revolution, manmade carbon dioxide is an exceedingly small part of the total greenhouse effect — on the order of about 0.11 percent.
Remember that we’re talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in parts per million. You may choose to believe that a 3 percent annual increase in manmade carbon dioxide emissions — releases that represent way less than 1 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions — is something to worry about, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves.
And yes..... We have some environmental problems.... How big of an issue is man-made CO2 though??? We don't know...... Can we all just admit that???
I don't know much about global warming, to be honest. It's not my field of expertise. But Thompson's comments bother me. They are just too glib and shallow. We don't need more of that in the US. Glib and shallow thinking is the reason Bush was surprised by the insurgency in Iraq.
We need people capable of rigorous and deep thinking for the office of the president, because the big issues of the future (social security, medicare, health care, global trade relations, etc.) do not have glib or obvious answers.
And I don't have a link to the film but I've heard that the film mentioned in This blurb here is a very compelling piece against global warming....
So anyway, I could continue to argue with myself for days probably, but the point is that we have a bunch of scientists on two sides saying different things, both claiming the other to be "bought off" by certain interest groups.... I don't care really who is right, just give me my DAMNED electric car already and let me tell the Saudis, Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Syrians, Venezuelans, et al. to go to hell already.....
He and two of his peers are founders of a group set up by and to help the oil companies the identical way the scientific organization highlighted in the movie
The oil industry is accused of spending 16 million dollars between 1999 and 2005 funding "biased" reports. The american government provided 2 billion dollars in studies on climate change an increasing amount each year.
I've never seen a smear campaign so strong against people opposing a scientific viewpoint. If the evidence is so overwhelming and strong on their side, why is it that the alarmist refuse debates over and over and over with the tired old line, "the debate is over". The only debate I know of on the subject that was publicly held was in New York last year and the alarmists group had their a$$ handed to them by the skeptics. I would welcome someone to point me to any other debates that I must have missed.
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.
