UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Global warming = liberal agenda?


2/2/07 8:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
142 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7429
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities." Solomon is a Ph.D. who works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
2/2/07 8:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11037
That's nice, but I thought you were proving something? An appeal to authority is not proof.
2/2/07 9:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hubris
68 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 54144
That's nice, but I thought you were proving something? An appeal to authority is not proof. it's not a mathematical formula to prove and it's not an appeal to authority the vast group of scientists, those people who study the Earth on a full time basis are saying that there is global warming and that man is causing most of it
2/2/07 10:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/14/2004
Posts: 24529
"The burden of proof lies with them to prove man is causing it BEFORE they burden the global economy with trillions of dollars in taxes." and they have done just that. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for you but they have shown conclusively that it is caused by mankind. "That's nice, but I thought you were proving something? An appeal to authority is not proof." appeal to authority? lol...dude...please
2/2/07 10:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
17 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4310
Avg temp is the same as a century ago, though. The actual warming only goes back 50 years or so...
2/4/07 12:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
142 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7430
"That's nice, but I thought you were proving something? An appeal to authority is not proof." LOL What is it you want? The actual scientific data in the report? As if your GED-having ass is going to interpret it better than a Ph.D. expert in the field.
2/4/07 12:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/14/2004
Posts: 24542
"That's nice, but I thought you were proving something? An appeal to authority is not proof." btw, the report is not an appeal to authority. The people who wrote it ARE the authority. lmao
2/4/07 12:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5524
Global Warming: How It All Began http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
2/4/07 1:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2653
LOL @ consensus
2/4/07 1:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18647
"The only folks you see committed to denying the science and evidence behind man induced climate change are Bush Republicans" Canada's Conservative Party was also in denial up until this weekend
2/4/07 1:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Keoni
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 19040
LOL @ that people still denying it.
2/4/07 2:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2657
Deny what? Global warming or that it's humans fault?
2/4/07 2:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18648
"The chief meterologist for ABC said they have NEVER met a meterologist who believed global warming was A)a threat and B)caused by mankind." WHY WAS THIS MAN NOT ON THE IPCC???
2/4/07 2:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11054
hubris said, "it's not an appeal to authority the vast group of scientists, those people who study the Earth on a full time basis are saying that there is global warming and that man is causing most of it" -Are you too stupid to realize that you just contradicted yourself? angryinch said, "and they have done just that. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for you but they have shown conclusively that it is caused by mankind." -Please provide a link that is more than opinion then. PfP said, "What is it you want? The actual scientific data in the report? As if your GED-having ass is going to interpret it better than a Ph.D. expert in the field." -Yes I want the data or your argument means nothing. Your appeal to authorty is sad and typical.
2/4/07 2:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11055
banco said, "But the scientific consensus is precisely that mankind is doing to things to the plant to cause this "slight warming trend". Oh and "slight warming trend" disguises the fact that small variations in temperature can have big impacts. I'd have more respect for the republicans if they just flat out said: "it will cost a lot of money and lower living standards to properly deal with global warming so we're not going to do it"." -There is NOT scientific consensus and I am NOT a repub. -People need to realize that "An Inconvenient Truth" is political propoganda and NOT conclusive science.
2/4/07 2:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11056
And weed is good for health. Fuck the repubs and dems.
2/4/07 3:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18650
JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com. Milloy defines "junk science" as "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune." He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junkscience.com Funding Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups--apparently run out of Milloy's home--received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto's implementation will "live in scientific and economic infamy." Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five. [5] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy#Funding
2/4/07 3:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11058
The Cato Institute is not a right wing think tank. It is a classical liberal think tank.
2/4/07 3:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
memory blues
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/17/2005
Posts: 359
I disagree with most of what "science" comes up with. "Scientific method"? More like "shmientific method". LOL, burn.
2/4/07 3:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11060
WTF is a right wing corp?
2/4/07 3:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2660
Are these the same scientist that advocated banning saccharin? Or are they different scientist? In the late 70's the -consensus- was that saccharin caused cancer.
2/4/07 3:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrPennypacker
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 12/21/2006
Posts: 228
This is an article by the head guy at the Cato Institute. Although he disagrees with the alarmists and some of their solutions even he accepts the basic FACT that that humans had a hand in global warming. February 2, 2007 Live with Climate Change by Patrick J. Michaels Patrick Michaels is senior fellow and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed. However, actually "doing something" about warming is a daunting endeavor. The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that's not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing. In the past four years, the Senate has voted twice against "cap-and-trade" legislation -- sponsored by New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, and Pete Domenici, a Republican -- that would set quotas on carbon emissions and let companies buy and sell them. If adopted, their cap-and-trade law would reduce emissions by less than the Kyoto Protocol specifies. In other words, the Senate has been loath to even adopt something that does less than nothing. The stark reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet significantly, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amount, and -- a truth that everyone must know -- we simply do not have the technology to do so. We would fritter away billions in precious investment capital in a futile attempt to curtail warming. Consequently, the best policy is to live with some modest climate change now and encourage economic development, which will generate the capital necessary for investment in the more efficient technologies of the future. Fortunately, we have more time than the alarmists suggest. The warming path of the planet falls at the lowest end of today's U.N. projections. In aggregate, our computer models tell us that once warming is established, it tends to take place at a constant, not an increasing, rate. Reassuringly, the rate has been remarkably constant, at 0.324 degrees F per decade, since warming began around 1975. The notion that we must do "something in 10 years," repeated by a small but vocal band of extremists, enjoys virtually no support in the truly peer reviewed scientific literature. Rather than burning our capital now for no environmental gain (did someone say "ethanol?"), let's encourage economic development so people can invest and profit in our more efficient future. People who invested in automobile companies that developed hybrid technology have been rewarded handsomely in the past few years, and there's no reason to think environmental speculators won't be rewarded in the future, too. This article appeared in the USA Today on February 2, 2007.
2/4/07 3:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2662
There was once a consensus among scientist that smoking did not cause cancer.
2/4/07 3:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18652
marines1 corporations only spend money to make money or reduce losses I know, I work for one
2/4/07 5:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2665
Consensus is the business of politics. Real science is based on proof, not consensus.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.