[04mustang232]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner That's great, another claim that I/we are required to take at face value as though you are some sort of authority. How about a link to get me started on some research?

Are you kidding me? Don't you recall members of the house with a list of over 10k scientists who were denouncing global warming in an effort to limit the insane restrictions and taxation that washington was trying to put on american manufacturing?

I am supposed to prove to you, a person who thinks global warming is killing us because a fucking wacko LAWYER (gore), said it is? hahahaha

[catchtheroadrunner]

Originally Posted by FluffyTheRhino You might want to go ahead and read my posts after that where I corrected myself. I called the guy and talked to him. Anything else you'd like to attempt to pick apart?

You spoke incorrectly and then went back and got the details. Why do I not feel like I'm on my heels? Did you get your Global Warming info from the same buddy?

And as far as "absolute", you didn't say it. That was my assumption since you offered it up to undermine Global warming claims. What exactly are you saying? What else might be the alternative agenda? Maybe this is possible, and maybe that is possible, but whatever the case it's definitely not global warming? Is that what you're saying?

04... that link? I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want to read what you read, to make sure you're not throwing a Fox News story at me. That sounds like a good place to start. I want to see it. Not because I'm arguing because I may not be as informed as I feel.

[navyman8903]

Like I said before it is half and half. We are reaching a cold period in a few hundred, thousand, whatever years. So we will warm up until then.

But all the crap we are doing is not helping remotely. Anything otherwise is pure retard. We are making things worse. But we will not destroy the earth, just our ablility to live on it until it resets itself.

[FluffyTheRhino]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner how about a link that demonstrates that a large number of American Scientists don't believe in global warming. A good link, like an open letter to a science journal with a few thousand names on it. I need a place to start if it really is a load of B.S.

Try doing the research yourself. I have. That's why I'm not swayed by the BS.

: D

[FluffyTheRhino]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner You spoke incorrectly and then went back and got the details. Why do I not feel like I'm on my heels? Did you get your Global Warming info from the same buddy? And as far as "absolute", you didn't say it. That was my assumption since you offered it up to undermine Global warming claims. What exactly are you saying? What else might be the alternative agenda? Maybe this is possible, and maybe that is possible, but whatever the case it's definitely not global warming? Is that what you're saying? 04... that link? I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want to read what you read, to make sure you're not throwing a Fox News story at me. That sounds like a good place to start. I want to see it. Not because I'm arguing because I may not be as informed as I feel.

I really don't care if you're on your heels : D

Like I said. I corrected myself. I spoke to him about it 5 years ago after a night shift while reading about all the conspiracy garbage. Pardon me for not remembering specific details of the conversation. But I at least admitted where I was wrong.

As for what I'm saying, I've already said it. What part isn't clear? I've already stated motives. What are you not understanding?

Are there any more lame insults you'd like to toss my way? Or are you interested in having an actual conversation.

Thanks : D

[catchtheroadrunner]

From the Atlantic monthly 2006

The Politics of Global Warming - The Atlantic (June 6, 2006)

"So far as I know, there is little scientific dissent from the view that the planet is warming. There is also a strong consensus that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the main reason why. But there is no corresponding consensus on the costs and benefits of warming to date. Evidently, the warming experienced up to now does not qualify as a cataclysm: That danger, the activists say, is still in the future."

You can't say the article is biased because most of the article up to that point points out the same cynical possiblities as Fuzzy. And you can see in just this paragraph, the author skeptically posits (paraphrased) if it was such a concern then, than shouldn't it be catastrophic by now.

more...

"We know what has happened to the climate so far, and (with a good degree of confidence) we know why. Working out what is going to happen to it from now on is much more difficult. And that makes judging policy especially hard—especially when you understand that the costs of ambitious front-loaded carbon abatement programs (such as the Kyoto Protocol, fully implemented) would have had (a) only a modest impact on our climate prospects, according to the current models, and (b) enormous economic costs. Yes, something must be done—but need it be as costly and as ineffective as that?"

The Atlantic Monthly is controlled by David Bradley who considers himself a Neocon, just like Bush and Cheney.

[catchtheroadrunner]

Originally Posted by FluffyTheRhino I really don't care if you're on your heels : D Like I said. I corrected myself. I spoke to him about it 5 years ago after a night shift while reading about all the conspiracy garbage. Pardon me for not remembering specific details of the conversation. But I at least admitted where I was wrong. As for what I'm saying, I've already said it. What part isn't clear? I've already stated motives. What are you not understanding? Are there any more lame insults you'd like to toss my way? Or are you interested in having an actual conversation. Thanks : D

You're right, I'll be more dignified. The Effing putz kind of got me.

But I needed to point out that you aren't beyond making some pretty wild uninformed claims. Getting it right afterwards is not what I consider a desirable way to spread information.

[mpboy]

i like watching you two argue, its actually entertaining, not to many stupid off the wall comments, with just the right amount of big words

[Fastback91]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner how about a link that demonstrates that a large number of American Scientists don't believe in global warming. A good link, like an open letter to a science journal with a few thousand names on it. I need a place to start if it really is a load of B.S.

Dunno if this helps but it was a 650 scientist according to this now there is 700 now dissenting that its not man-made.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[Fastback91]

Lets not mention a 68 page article that "38 year veteran EPA scientist Alan Carlin"
wrote saying that the climate is carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined over the last 11 years.
EPA cover up- Global Warming Report False! « Green Printing & Packaging Blog

[Fastback91]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner The latest G8 meeting (8 most advanced countries) focused on reducing global warming. So if it is a "SCAM", it's a scam the entire globe is perpetrating. It's possible, but would require so much competence at so many levels of so many countries. There is so much science supporting a call to reduce greenhouses, not to mention the asthma causing particulate matter that accompanies a lot of the emissions.

can i see some links plz

[Fastback91]

Might as well go out on this while i'm on

some info i found

The charts in this link show 2 models of Antarctica. one from 1980 and one now in 2009. It shows that now in 2009 Antarctica ice is up 43%.
NSIDC BIST: Compare data: Sea Ice Index: Extent, Concentration, and Concentration Anomalies

Another fact i would like to mention.
If Human production of C02 is causing This "Warming" how come The ice caps on mars are warming too?
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says


some website i found while back that has some good info.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

pretty long but a good read.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Re...ate_Claims.pdf
I will continue to add some research i found as soon as i can dig it up on this fourm. with the links of course.

[atlacatl213]

Pick your poison, from university scholarly search (academic search premier) articles/references I ran across these.

The_Cause_of_Global_Warming_Policy_Series_7.pdf

Journal_of_Geoclimatic_Studies_2007_23.pdf

global warming false alarms.pdf

Amazon.com: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths:...
Amazon.com: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths:...

Book: Thomas Gale Moore - Climate of fear: Most climate experts agree that industrial emissions of carbon dioxide either already have led or will soon lead to an increase in global temperatures. While many consider that reason enough to undertake dramatic political action, economist Thomas Gale Moore asks, So what? Both historical and economic analysis suggests, he argues, that a warmer climate would be, on balance, beneficial to both mankind and the environment. The book calls into question the entire campaign led by Vice President Al Gore and others to ratify the proposed treaty on global warming scheduled to be debated in the U.S. Senate early in 1998.

Book: Shattered consensus
By Patrick J. Michaels
The True State of Global Warming convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet's temperature.

Article Source
Warning about `extreme' views on global warming. By: Kincaid, Cliff, Human Events, 00187194, 2/23/96, Vol. 52, Issue 7

Section: Focus on the Media

One of the most politically incorrect viewpoints is that global warming is a natural phenomenon that doesn't present a threat to man's life on earth. You can still occasionally hear, see or read about this view in the major media. But if Jessica Mathews has her way, it will be increasingly branded as the viewpoint of a few extremists and may eventually be totally suppressed.

Mathews, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a columnist for the Washington Post, recently criticized those editors and producers who, in the name of balance, give time and attention to those who doubt the prevailing theory that global warming is such, a threat that we have to make major changes in the American way of life.

What Mathews called a "false controversy" over global warming, however, is actually a real debate among knowledgeable people. Her petulant position should help educate the American people about the real agenda of the radical environmentalists. They don't want to protect the environment so much as they want to limit industrial progress, the source of the so-called greenhouse gases that they claim are causing the warming.

If the issue were as cut-and-dried as Mathews suggests, some proponents of the theory wouldn't have to resort to phony statistics. The New York Times, for example, published a sensational story showing that 1995 was the "Hottest Year on Record." That would seem to support the global warming theory. But the data used by the Times were incomplete. The information was only through November, and December turned out to a very cold month. In fact, compared with a 10-year average for the same month, the temperature over much of the Northern Hemisphere plummeted by almost 1.3 degrees in December. This was the largest one-month drop since 1979, when researchers started using satellites to gather the data.

Rather than admit that this information contradicted the-sky-is-falling environmentalists, the Washington Post put it this way: "This seemingly paradoxical finding is a reminder of the enormous complexities and uncertainties still connected with efforts to understand the global climate." Translation: The fearmongers don't know what they're talking about.

The same goes for Newsweek magazine, whose January 22 edition hit the newsstands as much of the East Coast was digging out from under a major snowstorm. The cover story carded the headline "The Hot Zone. Blizzards, Floods & Hurricanes: Blame Global Warming." This time, the theory was that extremes in temperature reflected the phenomenon of global warming. Inside, however, the story said, "Last weeks blizzard can't be blamed on the warming world. No storm or drought or heat wave ever can be so neatly diagnosed."

In fact, the Global Climate Coalition has released a report by the prestigious Accu-Weather firm taking strong issue with stories like the one on the cover of Newsweek. The Accu-Weather report, based on an analysis of historical weather records, found no convincing evidence that extreme weather events are more common now than they were 50 or 100 years ago.

But it did find that more attention is now being paid to them. Why? Mainly because of the media. The study said that the media--because of modem communications equipment and more sophisticated weather-monitoring systems--are more able quickly to report severe weather events that occur in distant parts of the globe.

On the subject of global warming, the report found that average global temperatures had increased slightly within the past 10 years, but it also pointed out that the increase fell within the limits of natural change and did not necessarily signal that greenhouses gases were the cause. In fact, the report found that the increase, about one degree Fahrenheit, does not correspond with the increases in the amount of greenhouse gases. The majority of this slight temperature increase occurred before 1940, while the majority of greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

If we accept the Jessica Mathews point of view that drastic action needs to be taken immediately to limit these greenhouse gases, what would the consequences be? Such a proposal entails major restrictions on industrial activity and economic growth. If these restrictions are pursued through adoption of a carbon tax, the Global Climate Coalition says that one report predicts an average loss of half-a-million jobs a year in the U.S. economy over a 15-year period.

This helps illustrate the side of the debate that the media are not focusing on: Is it worth the loss of millions of jobs to protect ourselves against a threat that may not exist? If the media want a real scare story, this is it.

[03SonicBoom]

Originally Posted by Dansby It snowed in southeast texas this past winter. There is NO global warming, haha.

I went to the Boundary Waters the second week of July (about 1 month ago) and if FUCKING SNOWED!!!

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner Every major news outlet, university, and science source supports the evidence that the atmosphere is warming and that the mid atlantic conveyor is slowing down. What are the sources that says it's not? 60 German scientist? 60 German scientist's opinion would only be relevant if Germany has 100 or so total, than you could say that 60% say the globe is not warming.

See, this shows you're really not understanding the arguement given. You have presented facts. The atmosphere is warming and the mid atlanic conveyor is slowing down. I don't believe anyone is arguing these facts.

Scientists have yet to show any facts that link the cause of those to human emissions. The arguement is that there is/isn't a link between rising temps and human cause.

Stating what you stated is just like me saying it's 65 degrees outside. It's just a simple measurable fact that doesn't prove anything. Whoopdy fricking doooo.

[ford6693]

looking at history the many dictators in it, observe how they kept power. 1. keep the people in fear, and 2. keep them weak.
im not overly informed, but thats what it looks like is going on with this whole global warming thing. looking at the taxes they will be imposing on companies not "green" enough for their standards, and the government owning stock in these companies, and sharing the wealth. to me, maybe im wrong, but it removes the ability for exceptional people to rise and do things that inspire the rest of us to be more than ordinary.
weak and in fear, two things that will keep us under their thumb

[Ke^in]

Originally Posted by Nossit 60 german scientists are wrong.

There are many American scientists that think the same thing. We really have no clue about it all.

Global Warming in BIG BUSINESS, and BIG MONEY. There are a lot of people that are pushing it to keep getting their paychecks a month so they can study other things that are more important. Many scientists will agree just to get funding. GW is also a way for other countries to attempt to undermine the US economy/business. And a way for the liberals to screw with those that usually give money to the right wing.

Having said that, don't confuse me with a right, or left winger. I am neighter. Both sides are so full of it. Neither side wants to see American prosper under the "other sides" watch. Political zealism is what is ruining this country. Some people would rather see the country fail, than it to prosper under someone, like say Bush. The right are now doing it to Obama. Not that he is helping anything.

Is the climate changing? Sure. But it has fluctuated for longer than we've been here.

BTW we also have no clue as to what caused the hole in the ozone...Or even when it happened.

[Nossit]

I believe in global warming. Thats why I have no cats on my car. I like it hot!!!

[FluffyTheRhino]

Originally Posted by catchtheroadrunner You're right, I'll be more dignified. The Effing putz kind of got me. But I needed to point out that you aren't beyond making some pretty wild uninformed claims. Getting it right afterwards is not what I consider a desirable way to spread information.

I said nothing about being dignified. However, insulting people trying to have a conversation because you aren't getting your way isn't going to work either. al gore IS a putz. If you do a little reading, you'll find that after he stirred up the global warming fad, he was asked time and again to debate the subject. He declined. Goshity heck balls, I wonder why. Oh, that's right, because he's a putz.

"Getting it right afterwards" had nothing to do with the topic at hand. My mistake, I couldn't remember the exact words of a 5 year old conversation after working a 12 hour night shift. At least I was man enough to correct myself. I'll keep explaining it to you as many times as you keep reliving it because it is the ONLY thing you have to use against me. : )

How are my claims uninformed? You are posting internet articles. Just like everyone else. Are are you saying that you are equally uninformed? Is it because I haven't written a book on the subject that you feel I'm uninformed? Perhaps because I'm not a scientist? Perhaps because I'm not a politician? Or maybe I'm not one of the beloved Olsen twins and since they're in the public eye far more than I am, their words mean more than mine. Is that it? So tell me, exactly how is it, that I am "uninformed" as you claim.

Let's look at this whole thing from another perspective... when the earth is ready to go through another ice age, what is going to happen? I bet I know! Scientists and politicians (not to be forgotten, Hollywood) will jump on the band wagon AGAIN and everyone will kick and scream and all of the hippies will all tell us how we can combat global cooling. Everyone will worry and the discovery channel will feature shows dedicated to showing how scientists are working to start gigantic controlled fires and sending more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Fox News and CNN will feature stories about how some AIDE at the white house came up with the brilliant idea of painting every building on earth BLACK to absorb heat from the sun. That wild and uninformed enough for you?

Human nature is to linger around doom and gloom. Scientists have been thinking up ideas for years about how they could stop a comet, asteroid, or meteor from plowing into earth. To not worry about it, to not even think about it, would be just plain boring. And we all know BORING doesn't make us any money. Boring doesn't provide funding for programs designed by people who went to college for 12 years for the sole purpose of thinking up new shit to spend money on. If they don't come up with some doom and gloom scenarios, they lose funding, and they lose their jobs. It's a simple law of economics you may have heard of, called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Scientists supply the doom and gloom, and the government will follow it up with funding.

I'm not saying the planet doesn't heat up, I'm not saying humans haven't contributed (IMO the contribution is far less than what people such as al gore claim). I'm saying that no matter what we do, the earth is going to do what it wants and we have no say in it. On a grand scale of things, volcanoes, earthquakes, and every natural disaster you can think of has done more damage (which in turn created everything you see in nature) than humans could ever do. Humans are absolutely insane if we think that for just one moment, we can "save" the earth. They're so full of themselves that they haven't stopped to think that NO ONE can save them from the earth when it is done with us. As I mentioned before, no one can stop a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a tsunami, etc... So AGAIN, what makes us humans think that we can stop the earth from doing what it is going to do? Arrogance. And that's all.

[Fastback91]

Originally Posted by Ke^in BTW we also have no clue as to what caused the hole in the ozone...Or even when it happened.

wasn't that the stuff they put in aresol<spelling? cans hydroflouide carbons or somthin.

[Ke^in]

We have no clue how long that hole has been there Fastback.