The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

I lied. I'm not going to let vindictive negative rep spamming from Lucky stop me from posting the information that most of you would never see otherwise.

http://www.newsdaily.com/Science/UPI...matechange.xml

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ern-water.html

http://www.livescience.com/environme...te-change.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0124190814.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0123110405.htm

http://www.livescience.com/environme...nutrition.html

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

In other words, he thinks we need more propaganda.
I swear, Bill Clinton sounds more crazy every day.

*shrug* I think he was just being diplomatic.

With people like leejo and Jake Tapper going off the deep end at the mere suggestion that we make sacrifices to help the planet, what choice does he have?

bkelly

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I lied. I'm not going to let vindictive negative rep spamming from Lucky stop me from posting the information that most of you would never see otherwise.

Well thank you good sir for sharing this treasure trove of valuable links with the rest of us, the uneducated masses that otherwise would not have access to your plethora of top secret climate change "editorials". Now I can finally put to rest my ongoing internal conflict on the topic of global warming.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by bkelly

*shrug* I think he was just being diplomatic.

With people like leejo and Jake Tapper going off the deep end at the mere suggestion that we make sacrifices to help the planet, what choice does he have?

bkelly

The mere suggestion? I don't understand what you mean here. Are you referring to the constant drumbeat of cover stories in national magazines, Nobel awards, movies, proclamations, UN committees and reports, and countless posts by people such as yourself who are all too eager to dip into my pocket to "help" your pet project? That "mere suggestion"?

And who is "We"? Last year, I invested over $25,000 in "green" technologies for my house to drop my bills and improve my home's value. The market approach.

What did you do, "we"? Tell us about all your sacrifices.

And now I have "Almost Cut My Hair" stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Well thank you good sir for sharing this treasure trove of valuable links with the rest of us, the uneducated masses that otherwise would not have access to your plethora of top secret climate change "editorials". Now I can finally put to rest my ongoing internal conflict on the topic of global warming.

Since you want to argue with me so bad that you had to post that, where do YOU get your science information?

And here's a new "editorial" by researchers for the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204172224.htm

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Since you want to argue with me so bad that you had to post that, where do YOU get your science information?

And here's a new "editorial" by researchers for the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204172224.htm

Hmmm...I don't see anything there by the National Academy of Sciences....I see yet another "could happen" fear mongering article from the "Potsdam Institute". I'm actually reading the NAS Feb 08 report as I post this, interestingly enough they are saying that varying solar output and varying H2O in the atmosphere are the biggest contributors to global climate change.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by leejo

The mere suggestion? I don't understand what you mean here.

I am talking about your reaction to the idea that we slow down our economy to fight human caused global warming. First you misrepresented what Bill Clinton said and then dismissed the suggestion as fear-mongering and the haves attempting to take from the have-nots.

Originally Posted by leejo

Are you referring to... <snip>

No

Originally Posted by leejo

...and countless posts by people such as yourself who are all too eager to dip into my pocket to "help" your pet project?

I have made no statements about what should be done about global warming. I don't think I'm qualified.

Originally Posted by leejo

And who is "We"? Last year, I invested over $25,000 in "green" technologies for my house to drop my bills and improve my home's value. The market approach.

Good for you, but it is off topic. I suggested you had a problem with the idea of sacrifice for the environment. Investing to drop your bills and improve your home's value is not sacrifice.

Originally Posted by leejo

What did you do, "we"? Tell us about all your sacrifices.

Well, I have spent a great deal of the past six months talking to myself about the science of global warming on a public forum.

Originally Posted by leejo

And now I have "Almost Cut My Hair" stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch.

Welcome, and remember that when you see the Southern Cross for the first time...

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I'm actually reading the NAS Feb 08 report as I post this, interestingly enough they are saying that varying solar output and varying H2O in the atmosphere are the biggest contributors to global climate change.

Assuming NAS is the National Academy of Sciences, I call bull-patties!

Varying solar output does affect climate, water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and clouds can reflect sunlight but none of these explain the global temperature climb we've seen over the last 35 years.

Let's see your source, GhostintheShell.

bkelly

[leejo]

Someone who claims that his main sacrifice last year was lecturing people in the sandbox is telling me that my spending $25k on "green" technologies is "off topic" since I did it for personal gain and not as a "sacrifice for the environment"?

See, I thought results were more important than intentions. But then again I'm one of those nutty conservatives.

Yes, I absolutely have a problem with people who sacrifice little telling me that I need to do more.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Hmmm...I don't see anything there by the National Academy of Sciences....

You have to read the whole article.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

You have to read the whole article.

Aww, come on GlobalWarmin! How can anything reputable come from an institute named "Potsdam"?

bkelly

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

You have to read the whole article.

I did read the entire article, as painful as it was to wade through the mire of "maybe", "could", "might", "should", & "we feel" language.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I did read the entire article, as painful as it was to wade through the mire of "maybe", "could", "might", "should", & "we feel" language.

Okay. Didn't you just say that the article was fear mongering? Now it's playing it safe with soft language. Which one is it? And, where do you get your science information from? You avoided the question.

Anyways....

I found the smoking gun. This article sums up the past five years of conservative confusion about science.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...03+Bush&st=nyt

[GhostintheShell]

The articles you posted all basically do the same thing....they perpetuate the worst case scenarios (fear mongering) and they do it with soft language that really doesn't tell us anything other than someone or some group of peoples bleak opinion on what "could" happen.

Sorry if I'm looking for something more definitive....ie. no soft shoe or dog and pony show, here are the un-exaggerated facts and the data or citations to support it, and an unbiased analysis by these individuals who's appropriate credentials are....

I get my "science" from the same sources everyone else uses, everywhere.
I'm still out here looking for good info from both sides of the fence, I've said it before I'm still undecided either way. Right now I tend to sway towards the safest options. The options that will cost less in terms of the human costs, the least prohibitive options, and options that will allow us to maintain a strong economy. A strong economy is the only way for us to be able to avoid a crisis, if indeed there is one....

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

The articles you posted all basically do the same thing....they perpetuate the worst case scenarios (fear mongering) and they do it with soft language that really doesn't tell us anything other than someone or some group of peoples bleak opinion on what "could" happen.

Really? Could you expand on these different scenarios? I'm not aware of any pleasant scenarios for global warming; I've never heard about any major studies that conclude that global warming is making things better for life on earth. Please, share your sources for these "best case" scenarios, and explain why they are more likely and accepted than what you call "worst case" scenarios.

Fear mongering, eh? Do you know anyone stockpiling guns and food because of global warming? I wish you would pause to actually think about that. Now, think about the people who do stockpile weapons and food, and their reason why. As I'm sure you are aware, fear mongering is needlessly scaring people. For example, fear mongering is telling people that terrorists and Communists want to kill you and take your freedom. I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would claim scientific research is scary and needless. If science scares you, that is your problem, not the intention of the researchers and authors. I'd love to hear more about how fear mongering is applied to writing articles about research, though, and for you to show me some specific examples.

Sorry if I'm looking for something more definitive....ie. no soft shoe or dog and pony show, here are the un-exaggerated facts and the data or citations to support it, and an unbiased analysis by these individuals who's appropriate credentials are....

I can't imagine anything being more definitive than millions of scientists united in the conclusion of man-made global warming, with every single relevant organization of international standing issuing statements of the same. Unless God issues a formal statement into the record, there could not possibly be more unbiased analysis by individuals with appropriate credentials--you and other just fail accept or figure this out for yourselves.

I get my "science" from the same sources everyone else uses, everywhere.
I'm still out here looking for good info from both sides of the fence, I've said it before I'm still undecided either way. Right now I tend to sway towards the safest options. The options that will cost less in terms of the human costs, the least prohibitive options, and options that will allow us to maintain a strong economy. A strong economy is the only way for us to be able to avoid a crisis, if indeed there is one....

If you get your "science" (as you put it) from the same places as everyone else, that means you don't get science news. Science news is not everywhere, and that is precisely why I post about one quarter or the ones I come across, because I can tell that those of you who still want to argue about this truly are unaware of just how much information there is to support the theory of man-made global warming (and a hundred other things we have done to the planet).

For you the safest option is to insult me for posting factual information about the thread topic? The safest option is to do nothing, because you don't believe anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions about global warming, pollution, and the GOP? The sounds like the safest, least prohibitive, most economical option for the petroleum industry, and the worst case scenario for everything else on the planet.