Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 12:58:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant the need for drastic change?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 26

Author Topic: Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change?  (Read 5954 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,180
United States


« on: July 31, 2008, 01:14:44 PM »

Global warming is a distraction used by the government as a updated means of separating us from our money.

tin foil hats anyone?

Like I said, I don't believe in global warming.
No care, you pretty much just said 95% of scientists are part of a conspiracy. I can understand being a little doubtfull about it but saying it is a conspiracy...

     Damn scientists & their conspiracies to help protect the environment. Roll Eyes

     To clarify, I believe that there is more than enough reason to believe in global warming, though I disapprove of the extremes that many environmentalists take it to.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,180
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2008, 03:36:36 PM »

Snowguy, we disagree on a lot (we agree on a lot too, but tell anybody), but I must say, you do a great job on the global warming issue.  Thank you for your input.  You could easily be a puppet like many others, but you've obviously done your research past what the Al Gore's of the world preach to you and came up with a reasonable position on the subject.  We need more people like you on your side of the aisle.  Again, thank you.

You're only praising his effort because you agree with him.  If he had shown the consensus opinion of scientists rather than a minority opinion, he could have also written long paragraphs and showed charts, but I don't think you would have praised him then.
No, he's obviously done his research.  Everybody that I've ever talked to that's done that sounds exactly like him.  He's a Global Warming Realist.  The goofballs that swallow Al Gore's BS and then parrot it about like it's gospel and "scientific consensus" are wrong and dangerous and we should tell them to shut the hell up.  Snowguy could have been lazy and bought into the hype too, but he didn't.

And yes, the Global Warming Enthusiasts can make nice long posts with graphs and big words, but what they can never do is refute the things the Realists have said.

     I agree. I choose to believe in global warming because I find the idea useful in curtailing rampant pollution. However, the fanatics who want to sell us carbon offsets & electric cars are dangerous in my estimate, & ultimately counter-productive.

     Then again, I am a firm believer in the"noble lie," so regardless of the truth about global warming, I can use it to perfectly suit my ends. Wink
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,180
United States


« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2008, 04:19:25 PM »


     Not a problem. Smiley

Second, from my experience, most alledged believers in 'global warming' are merely using that as a pretext for larger and more intrusive government, with less freedom.

     Hence why I view the extreme evironmentalists as dangerous. Not to mention carbon offsets are really useless anyway. They're just taking care of the Carbon Dioxide from smoke, without doing anything about the Carbon Monoxide or the Hydrocarbons.

Third, if you take a look at developments over the past couple of generations in the United States, you will see remarkable progress on water pollution (which is far more critical than air pollution).

     Not to mention that since the late 1800s, huge progress has been made in all forms of pollution. Nevertheless, there is still progress to be made, & air pollution still exists. I would support some concessions to combat pollution, like signing the Kyoto Protocol.

     Nevertheless, we shouldn't make it such a big priority that we tear down our economy to destroy all pollution. There will be more ways in the future to further reduce pollution.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,180
United States


« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2008, 06:53:29 PM »

PiT,

Another thing that bugs me about the 'global warming' nuts is their grabbing at a handful of dubious numbers and coming to unfounded conclusions.

If anyone bothered to study the history of the earth (geoscienes) they would find that there have been a large number of significant warming and cooling periods.

Indeed, some major Russian scientists have suggested that the earth will be entering a cooling cycle in this century.

     Not to mention that there is a huge buffer zone between where we are now (70 oF, 20 oC) & an unliveably hot planet (120 oF, 50 oC). If it turns out that the Earth continues warming up because of Carbon Dioxide, there will be more than enough time to recognize this & take drastic action.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 11 queries.