Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 11-19-2007, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,221,236 times
Reputation: 6553

Advertisements

Mean while the alps have had near record snow falls this year. My own area has had a huge snowstorm well early of norms. At 44 yrs old I have seen years where the snow fell in early december and never melted until april. I have also seen years where we had 1 or 2 big snow storms and mild weather the rest of the time. It comes in cycles.
Perhaps the messengers of global warming would be more credible if they at least tried to pretend that they believed their own message and changed their own life styles first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2007, 05:51 PM
 
114 posts, read 137,997 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61 View Post
The problem with your argument is that you sound like al gore himself. Im sure if I wanted to trip you up in the middle of this frenzy it would be easy to find "so-called" science on the other side of the argument as compelling as the garbage you've managed to google up. Ive got better things to do with my time...
So the scientific articles I presented are all "garbage" because they go against your dogma? Fascinating. Yes please find me all this "science" that proves man-made global warming without using computer models. I want to win the $125,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 06:18 PM
 
2,260 posts, read 3,881,421 times
Reputation: 475
My dogma?

your the one with red in the face PO'd because al gores an idiot. My opinions on this subject were formed over 20 years ago and I have yet to discuss them here. You know squat about what i belive with regards to this issue
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 06:36 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,630,098 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
I'll concede uncertainty with the hurricane-global warming link argument as there have been well-publicized, apparently verified studies on both sides of the debate... I probably jumped the gun but it isn't really the crux of the argument, or of global warming's deleterious effects, so I'll leave it at that.

Nah na na na nya nah! I win!!!
J/K, point taken. Hurricanes are just one small part of the big discussion. You are one of the few people on this board I actually enjoy arguing with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,999,825 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) does not begin to become toxic until it is over 6000 PPM (We have no remote chance of achieving this) and is currently only 380 PPM in the atmosphere. Humans breath out Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and it is in our blood. So unless you want to say breathing is polluting, I suggest you reevaluate where you stand.

And the Clear Skies Act never made it out of committee: Bush's 'Clear Skies' Fails to Pass Senate Committee

Where do you guys get your propaganda?
You got me on the Clear Skies Act... I thought it passed for some reason. I got it confused with Bush weakening the EPA and implementing the Act partially through administrative means, without going through the Congress. An interesting (maybe not that interesting) aspect is that "BA Social Scientist And World-Renowned Truth Warrior Against the Socialist Global Warming Conspiracy" James Inhofe was one of the bill's main sponsors. As for where I get my propaganda, it propogates out of my ass mostly, which, while quite smelly and disgusting, nevertheless isn't quite as smelly as, say, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, or the NCPA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 05:10 AM
 
114 posts, read 137,997 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61 View Post
My dogma?

your the one with red in the face PO'd because al gores an idiot. My opinions on this subject were formed over 20 years ago and I have yet to discuss them here. You know squat about what i belive with regards to this issue
Lets see so far:

1. You have never seen Al Gore's Movie: 'An Inconvenient Lie'.
2. You have no time to research any of this.
3. You think it is crazy to ignore the possibility man-made pollution could effect climate. (yet I proved it has nothing to do with pollution).
4. You made your opinion up on something current - 20 years ago.

Yet you seem fine stating all sorts of positions on the issue which apparently involves regurgitating hysterical positions from the media and environmentalist websites. Sorry if I don't buy it.

I am not PO'ed, I am positive Al Gore is absolutely NOT qualified to be an authority on Global Warming in any way:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree)

The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)

"Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.
"

Last edited by Poptech; 11-20-2007 at 06:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Tolland County- Northeastern CT
4,462 posts, read 8,023,360 times
Reputation: 1237
I think to refute the IPCC's latest and final release as being 'pseudo science' is going to look rather foolish in a few years. The release and findings of the IPCC has been to the conservative side- and thus far many of their predictions about warming have been wrong- the warming is actually accelerating at a far faster pace then they predicted a few years ago.

The window is closed to prevent at least another 2-4 degree increase in global temperatures and the results that will occur. By 2013, the affects of warming will become more pronounced. By 2020 catastrophic events will likely begin to become commonplace.

A 3-6+ increase will change this planet in ways that hopefully I will not live to see.

Last edited by skytrekker; 11-20-2007 at 06:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 06:03 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,630,098 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrekker View Post
By 2020 catastrophic events will become commonplace.
Yeah, like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. These rare natural occurences will likely start happening on a regular basis. Like June-November for hurricanes, February through July for tornadoes, and floods and droughts are so rare that no one has figured out how to predict them yet.

Maybe once all this chaos ends, the planet will hopefully plunge back into the safety of an ice age...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 06:07 AM
 
114 posts, read 137,997 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrekker View Post
I think to refute the IPCC's latest and final release as being 'pseudo science' is going to look rather foolish in a few years. The release and findings of the IPCC has been to the conservative side- and thus far many of their predictions about warming have been wrong- the warming is actually accelerating at a far faster pace then the predicted a few years ago.

The window is closed to prevent at least another 2-4 degree increase in global temperatures and the results that will occur. By 2013, the affects of warming will become more pronounced. By 2020 catastrophic events will become commonplace.

a 3-6 increase will change this planet in ways that hopefully I will not live to see.
Right... No one stated the IPCC is pseudo-science, to the contrary it is stated that the IPCC is politically motivated science which cherry picks anything and everything in an attempt to convince you that man-made CO2 is causing climate change. There is SOME good science in the actual scientific report but it is overshadowed by the politically motivated positions of the organization and by the ridiculous statement for policy makers.

Please give your proposal for adjusting the Sun's energy output or for changing the Earth's orbit because all other proposals for stopping climate change are not based on reality.

Your hysterical points are not backed up by any remote scientific evidence.

It is funny how the IPCC is championed as the definitive body of scientific evidence by the alarmists until it is proven that they do not make the same hysterical doomsday predictions that the alarmists want and then it becomes "conservative" and not worth referencing. If any rational person cannot see the hypocrissy with the alarmists I do not know what else to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,407 posts, read 7,794,780 times
Reputation: 1198
Why do you state the IPCC is politically motivated? Who or what is the source behind this...? I am asking honestly. What do you think their real agenda is (their end goal) and who is financing them?
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top