|
On August 30 2011 02:12 RaQIl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:46 Bombmk wrote:On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March. Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development. And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow. Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there. You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not. I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time. I guess I can't explain that, at least. Provide links to those scientists and NASA publications ! Where are they? As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice. And lets talk about real man made dangers like cutting the Amazon rain forest, nuclear power plants and waste materials from chemical plants freely going into rivers and lakes that we and animals then drink and use. Lets talk about genetic engineering and species mixing to create cows that produce human milk and stuff. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.htmlSeriously man you need to wake up. I mean I've watched all these man made warming movies in which they say cows and pigs in farms shitting is causing part of the global warming and the other half is coal plants. I mean sorry if I'm not concern about cows and pigs shitting and releasing carbon dioxide that plants than breathe. Cows shit is like a breath of fresh air to plants. And sorry I don't think paying Al Gore money will save the earth from carbon dioxide, which again is what plants breathe. I mean why can't we talk about real issues like all the nuclear waste material and radiation that is stored underground and all the wasteful chemicals from chemical plants that go into the ground and rivers, but we talk about hoaxes like global warming which Al Gore took home since the 1970's and then campaigned on it in 1988. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html A simple google search will lead you to NASA's entire website on climate change. Here's the link to their evidence page. They have many other pages of discussion as well that you can read and learn from.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And here's a bunch of articles on climate change, many from universities and scientific publications.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=causes of "climate change"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
Now in return post a link to all those "credible" scientists who are "squashing" man made global warming. "As far as you know" means nothing because from what I see, you know absolutely nothing and are getting into arguments over your head by arguing ignorance over evidence. Don't act like you are smarter than the people who work in that field every day of their lives, because you are not. Maybe in your own little world but not the real world.
|
On August 30 2011 02:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 02:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan. So how about Obama's 24/7 blame republicans and/or Bush for everything campaign that he's been running since he was elected? Also, Obama's reelection campaign probably will be 100% negative because he really doesn't have anything good to run on right now. His signature achievements are Obamacare and the stimulus bill -- both of which are politically toxic. If the economy turns around over the next year, he'll be in a better position. However, as of now, he really doesn't have anything. Debatable. If one looks at the comments from Bachmann and other GOP leaders one gets the impression that it is a race against time to win and repeal the new Healthcare law( s) as there is some possibility, fear even, of it being accepted and worse being approved of and demand for more. Look what happened AFTER FDR's new deal, politically. And I don't think any Politician is going to say they favor bringing back preexisting conditions. Like it or not the without the Stimulus the economy would be in far worse shape. Bachmann, Perry, & Romney all have plans to unveil their plans for Jobs, and Healthcare.
I'm not sure that it's accurate to liken the New Deal to Obamacare. Obamacare has polled very poorly since it was passed, and I can't imagine why public opinion of it would improve when the most onerous parts of the bill haven't even gone into effect yet.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Perry, Romney, and Bachmann (it's almost time to remove Bachmann from the list of viable candidates, but that's another story....) all will need to unveil plans for the economy and healthcare at some point.
However, the onus really is on Obama to start unveiling some plans because he's the one who currently is in charge. I'm interested in seeing whether the Jobs Plan that he's unveiling next week will have any substantive detail to it as opposed to the broad platitudes that he's generally spoken in. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that whatever he floats is either 1) meaninglessly vague or 2) detailed only to the point of specifying very insignificant changes.
|
On August 30 2011 02:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan. So how about Obama's 24/7 blame republicans and/or Bush for everything campaign that he's been running since he was elected? Also, Obama's reelection campaign probably will be 100% negative because he really doesn't have anything good to run on right now. His signature achievements are Obamacare and the stimulus bill -- both of which are politically toxic. If the economy turns around over the next year, he'll be in a better position. However, as of now, he really doesn't have anything.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
He's actually done quite a bit, and kept quite a few promises. Despite the fact that he gets blocked by the repubs at practically every turn he's done a fair bit.
One of the big problems with the democrats as a party is they don't bang on about the good they do, they just defend themselves when they get called out on things they failed at or when they get slandered. It makes them look weak in the public eye. Essentially they aren't playing politics as much as the repubs are, who take every opportunity to discredit and defame the opposing party (while advancing little in the way of policy or how things could be done better themselves, shouting buzzwords and catchphrases like "cut spending!" constantly but not saying where or how).
|
Didn't know TL was housing so many right-wing nuts.. surprising.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 30 2011 02:41 Ben... wrote:
As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice.
If you are quoting NASA scientists then you are an idiot and Bachmann has a few words for your ignorance:
“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending. How many warnings do you think you’re going to get, and how many warnings do you deserve? This hurricane that is coming thorough the East Coast, for anyone who’s in the East Coast and has been listening to me say ‘Food storage!’ ‘Be prepared!’ […] If you’ve waited, this hurricane is a blessing. It is a blessing. It is God reminding you — as was the earthquake last week — it’s God reminding you you’re not in control."
|
So that's her God quote?
Oh my...she's worse than fucking Palin.
I don't believe it.
This is exactly why I wish Snoop Dogg would run for president. Who even cares anymore, when we have people like that in the highest echelons of government...and aiming for higher...
I'm not even saying either side is better.
There's like 10 people trying these days.
|
I interpreted the earthquake and the hurricane to God telling the Republicans to stop fucking around and start compromising. How many warnings do they fucking need to get their act together? HUH, REPUBLICANS?! GOD IS PISSED AT YOU!!
/fightfirewithfire
|
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
Government intervention will only result in inefficiency, waste, loss of individual freedom and loss of national sovereignty. I do not like and I do not ever want global government. Most schemes designed to fight global warming tend to involve loss of sovereignty and forced redistribution of wealth from some nations to others.
Schemes such as cap and trade will only hurt our already hurting American economy and will do nothing for the environment, pollution or global warming(man made or not). Subsidizing so called "green energy" is also a waste and can even be very destructive and we saw with ethanol. People will not invest in wind mills and solar panels because they are not cost effective. Using government to either force people to use them or even to provide incentives for their use would be very destructive to the ultimate goal of actual green energy.
As for the global warming debate itself there are too many variables. I am obviously not a climate scientist but I do know how to reason logically and if you consider how many variables and unknowns exist when talking about climate change it makes no sense to "conclude" that humans are the cause. At best you can say if x, y and z are true and our laundry list of assumptions (which are based on observations and of course archeological findings such as ice core samples) are all true then humans are the cause.
Consider just the sun and nothing else. What do we actually know about the cycles of our sun or even a typical star? Most of what we say we know is based off of mathematical models which are based on our understanding of physics. That can work out well at a macro level of understanding but consider the age of stars and how long we have been able to scientifically observe our sun and other stars...yeah a blink of an eye would be a vast over statement. Even a small amount of variability over time could easily result in differences in our climate on earth. You can argue that scientist have taken this into account but as someone with a background in computer science I doubt that they have. And even then you can't just look at the sun in a vacuum. Is the sun's activity influenced by its rotation through the galaxy, maybe as it oscillates through the galactic plane? Maybe maybe not. There are also many variables when trying to predict the earth's climate.
Then you have the issue of the scientists themselves. Considering how much influence politics and political correctness have and how much Universities depend on public funding to do research I take everything I hear with a grain of salt. You should always be skeptical anyways, would you automatically believe a scientific study that was funded by a private corporation? Yet when its funded by public people believe it automatically not understanding how great a role politics can play at all levels.
When I see people talking about how our weather patterns are becoming chaotic or whatever I just face palm knowing someone got all of their knowledge from that gangster Al Gore.
But regardless what do we do if we determine humans are responsible for warming? What do we do if the earth is warming and we find that we are not responsible. Would we actively try to find a way to interfere and cool the planet in order to maintain our climate? This is a more philosophical question. Is our concern about our interference in the natural order of things or is our concern about our own potential well being?
I look at it ilke this. If the con artist Al Gore was alive in the middle ages he would have be an alarmist about depleting the forests. Consider that humans cut down trees to build shelter, for home heating, some weaponry, fire for cooking etc. He could have calculated the growth of the human population and concluded that we would eventually grow too large and produce to much and the population of the worlds trees would not be sustainable...and we would wipe out nature by depleting the forests. Then we could have had limits placed on our production. The ability for people to go out and build on their own could have been hampered in order to protect the world from human destructiveness. Ingenuity and inventiveness would have been hampered and we would probably still be living in the middle ages today.
I see oil and natural gas the same way. Yes they have downsides and they wont sustain our growth forever but we need to use them to accelerate ourselves to the next level. New technologies will be discovered naturally as the need for new technologies gradually increases. I'll repeat that government intervention will impede rather than accelerate our progress.
This is why I'm not concerned with politicians who are global warming skeptics. The alarmists are the ones I am watching out for because chances are that they don't give a rat's ass about the environment. They want money and power, and power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't trust them for a second. I am wary of the more extreme social conservatives but I tend towards republican because they are the ones who give lip service to the notion of the government interfering less.
|
On August 30 2011 03:58 Happy Juvia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:41 Ben... wrote:
As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice.
If you are quoting NASA scientists then you are an idiot and Bachmann has a few words for your ignorance: Show nested quote +“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending. How many warnings do you think you’re going to get, and how many warnings do you deserve? This hurricane that is coming thorough the East Coast, for anyone who’s in the East Coast and has been listening to me say ‘Food storage!’ ‘Be prepared!’ […] If you’ve waited, this hurricane is a blessing. It is a blessing. It is God reminding you — as was the earthquake last week — it’s God reminding you you’re not in control." You misquoted me as the crazy guy (as in, put what he said under my name.), but none the less, I laughed. Bachmann quotes never get old.
|
|
|
On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile.
The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently.
When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them.
|
It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for.
|
On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for.
Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul.
|
I guess people outside the US will never understand how anybody could vote for the Repubicans.
|
On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:
The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory
Do you understand the use of the word theory in scientific context? Anyone who says something is, "still a theory\just a theory" is instantly, and probably rightly, suspect of not understanding the use of the word.
On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:
the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling.
No such thing ever happened. Do not confuse pop magazines with actually scientific work. CO2 was a well known greenhouse gas in the 70's. It was also well known that increasing CO2 was the result of human activity and that it would warm the planet.
The first proposal in question was that of the effect of aerosols in the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning; whether they would offset the CO2 warming increase from fuels. By the late 70's this was rejected for a number of reasons and only a minority ever fully embraced global cooling.
The second was that ice ages were timely events. Again, this was never fully embraced long before the 70s and was fully rejected in the 70s; ice ages do not come in perfect cycles.
On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:
It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently.
Are you referring to Climategate? There was no falsification and all investigations have led to not guilty. Climate Gate is, you know, one of those reasons you do not confuse academic work with the titles of articles written by magazines and Fox News.
On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:
When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them.
Unreasonable demand. Second to that, climate and weather are different.
This is like saying someone who goes through data and concludes 4% more TVs will be purchased next year is an idiot because they can't tell you exactly who will buy the TVs and where and what resolution they will be capable of tomorrow.
|
On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul.
Pretty much this.
and
I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc
But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican.
The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess".
|
On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Pretty much this. and I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican. The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess".
If only we didn't align to one of two parties.
|
On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics.
LMAO, are you trying to make a joke or something? I'm more inclined to believe that moderates are tired of the whole two party, extreme partisan bullshit. Plenty of people on all fronts are guilty of ignorance. Painting a broad stroke at the "middle ground" speaks volumes on what a partisan hack you are.
And in 2008, people by the watercoolers heard how insane Palin was more than how "conservative" McCain was.
|
On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them.
Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool.
There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end.
Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate.
|
On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Pretty much this. and I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican. The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess".
On the other hand the more you go into the right extreme the more people will be alienated from the party as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
