PDA

View Full Version : Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'



The Night Owl
09-02-2008, 10:54 PM
Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record.

Melting has occurred earlier in the year than usual, meaning that the iced area could become even smaller than last September, the lowest recorded.

...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44965000/gif/_44965865_arctic_ice_gr466.gif
The 2008 graph shows a steeper decline than at the same time last year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

gator
09-02-2008, 11:13 PM
Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record.

Melting has occurred earlier in the year than usual, meaning that the iced area could become even smaller than last September, the lowest recorded.

...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44965000/gif/_44965865_arctic_ice_gr466.gif
The 2008 graph shows a steeper decline than at the same time last year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

If you are concerned that the earth is going to burn up then vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama. Both of them are listening to the environmental wackos and both will fix the problem with government action.:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
09-02-2008, 11:23 PM
If you are concerned that the earth is going to burn up then vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama. Both of them are listening to the environmental wackos and both will fix the problem with government action.:rolleyes:

Well, if I were to vote for John McCain, I would be voting to put Sarah Palin, AGW skeptic, one heartbeat away from the presidency. I just can't have that.

:D

Gingersnap
09-02-2008, 11:32 PM
If the bears, seals and Inuit survived the last warm-up, I'm sure they will all survive this. ;)

jinxmchue
09-03-2008, 12:41 AM
Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record.

Melting has occurred earlier in the year than usual, meaning that the iced area could become even smaller than last September, the lowest recorded.

...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44965000/gif/_44965865_arctic_ice_gr466.gif
The 2008 graph shows a steeper decline than at the same time last year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)



To sum up...




WE'RE ALL GOING TO FUCKING DIE!!!!!!





Film at 11.

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 05:39 AM
WE'RE ALL GOING TO FUCKING DIE!!!!!!

Film at 11.

They said that in 2004

and in 2000

and in 1994

and in 1992

......


..we're still here. :confused:

marinejcksn
09-03-2008, 07:31 AM
They said that in 2004

and in 2000

and in 1994

and in 1992

......


..we're still here. :confused:

and in 1971....

and in '72....

'73..........

'74........

'75.....

OHHHH NOEZ!!! TEH 10,000 YEARS OF GLOBAL ICE AGE IS COMING!!!:rolleyes:

You have to listen to me, please. Global Warming is going to hit us 2 days before the Day after Tomorrow.


:eek:

FlaGator
09-03-2008, 08:13 AM
If the bears, seals and Inuit survived the last warm-up, I'm sure they will all survive this. ;)

Exactly! Besides the evolutionists should be cheering this own. It's all about survival of the fittest isn't it?

wilbur
09-03-2008, 08:36 AM
Exactly! Besides the evolutionists should be cheering this own. It's all about survival of the fittest isn't it?

Shouldnt the Christians be concerned about being proper stewards of the planet God gave them?

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 08:48 AM
Shouldnt the Christians be concerned about being proper stewards of the planet God gave them?

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f62/Cerriadh/wilbur.jpg

Bongo55
09-03-2008, 09:13 AM
Who exactly determined where the "Tipping Point" is?

Let me guess, its some org that has their funding coming up for renewal.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 09:26 AM
Who exactly determined where the "Tipping Point" is?

Let me guess, its some org that has their funding coming up for renewal.

About tipping points...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/langswitch_lang/in

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 10:16 AM
..Owl...it may take while to percolate through..but no one is really listening. Since I was five years old I have been hearing doomsday predicti0ons..and all of them have proven to be so much bullshit and yet another Ponzi scheme.

Five years ago was "the tipping point"..then two years ago Gore said "we have ten years left"...then a year ago" we have ten years left" then this year" we have almost ten years left"..then "we've reached the tipping point"..

..get it now?

It's all lies. It's all a load of garbage. It's another lunatic agenda ridden hack running around with Chicken Little imitations..."the sky is falling"

No, it isn't. It never was.

In the seventies they panicked and said that all the nuclear tests would destroy the reefs at Mururoa and wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. Ten years ago they said the crown of thorn starfish would wipe out the reef.

Ten years later...reef is intact. Atoll thriving. Doomsayers slink off into the darkness.

1975..all the nuclear tests will send the earth off its orbit and into the sun, or knock us off orbit and send us into space.,..

No.

Then it was the harbinger of doom that was Halleys comet and the end of the world was nigh....

It wasn't.

Then it was a giant asteroid....which promptly missed us and went on its merry way.

It's the same broken, tired old record and it has one aim, and one aim alone.

Money.

So...give it, and us, a rest already. Okay? Thats the fifth or sixth time I've seen this "tipping point" horseshit...and there can only be one "tipping point" so either we reached it and nothing happened...or we are being lied to by a load of snake oil salesmen. Again.

Tell you what, Owl..I will believe you are serious about this issue when you

1. Disconnect from the power grid and go 100% solar.
2 Walk everywhere and never never fly again.
3. Never ever use a fridge or other electrical appliance
4. Disconnect from the internet and stop emitting greenhouse gases
5. Never ever use any form of public transport ever again.
6. Go 100% green, never use gas fired heaters, gas stoves, wash in cold water( you cant light a fire because that gives off greenhouse gases)
6. Throw away all your clothing, and only use materials that are biodegradeable
7. Never ever use any form of plastic ever again.

..because the moment you use any technology, any cars, buses, planes....you are a hypocrite.

If the crisis is as bad as you say.,..then maybe you should set the example and show us all how it's done.

jinxmchue
09-03-2008, 10:17 AM
So... TNO... I have but one question that you must answer in order to convince me to hop on the bus. It's a very simple question, really. I've never seen a straightforward answer to it, however. Are you ready for it?





Really ready?








Really, really ready?







Okay, here it is:





What is the correct temperature of the planet?

ConJinx
09-03-2008, 10:23 AM
I thought the mayans said it was 12/21/2012. and how come the Antarctic ice expansion is never mentioned, or the fact that during the little ice age Greenland WAS FUCKING GREEN.

Bongo55
09-03-2008, 10:43 AM
About tipping points...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/langswitch_lang/in

I read the first couple of paragraphs.

"I wonder if any else has noticed that we appear to have crossed a threshold in the usage of the phrase 'tipping point' in discussions of climate? We went from a time when it was never used, to a point (of no return?) where it is used in almost 100% of articles on the subject. Someone should come up with a name for this phenomenon…."

I have a name for it........ BULLSHIT!

Sorry Owl but they are talking about an issue that takes hundreds mabey even thousands of years to manifests itself.

Like I said before, this planet can shake us off any time she wants to "Like a dog with a bad case of fleas".

Bongo55
09-03-2008, 10:48 AM
I thought the mayans said it was 12/21/2012. and how come the Antarctic ice expansion is never mentioned, or the fact that during the little ice age Greenland WAS FUCKING GREEN.


Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but wasn't Iceland green and Greenland ice.
The Vikings misnamed them so no one would bother them? I think:confused:

LogansPapa
09-03-2008, 11:15 AM
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but wasn't Iceland green and Greenland ice.
The Vikings misnamed them so no one would bother them? I think:confused:

:D Right. Fucktards don't do history. :D

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 11:36 AM
So... TNO... I have but one question that you must answer in order to convince me to hop on the bus. It's a very simple question, really. I've never seen a straightforward answer to it, however. Are you ready for it?





Really ready?








Really, really ready?







Okay, here it is:





What is the correct temperature of the planet?

Well, that was anticlimactic.

There is no "correct' temperature Earth should be at but even a small amount of warming can have major consequences...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080514-global-warming.html

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 11:44 AM
In the seventies they panicked and said that all the nuclear tests would destroy the reefs at Mururoa and wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. Ten years ago they said the crown of thorn starfish would wipe out the reef.

Ten years later...reef is intact. Atoll thriving. Doomsayers slink off into the darkness.


Who panicked?

wineslob
09-03-2008, 01:07 PM
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3588

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23979327-5017586,00.html

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/midwest-floods-and-unjustified-climate-change-fears/




I can C&P too.

wilbur
09-03-2008, 01:11 PM
..Owl...it may take while to percolate through..but no one is really listening.


Obviously.

wilbur
09-03-2008, 01:13 PM
So... TNO... I have but one question that you must answer in order to convince me to hop on the bus. It's a very simple question, really. I've never seen a straightforward answer to it, however. Are you ready for it?

What is the correct temperature of the planet?

Honestly, you need to quit getting your talking points out of a pamphlet. This question has been posed already and responded too at least 3-4 times now. Whats funny is, somehow, somewhere, there are people who think that question is the ultimate gotcha for AGW and they appear to be spreading it like its going out of style.

What is the correct temperature of your oven? Now stick yourself inside the oven, and ask yourself the question again.

jinxmchue
09-03-2008, 01:35 PM
What is the correct temperature of your oven? Now stick yourself inside the oven, and ask yourself the question again.


Which is exactly the point. There is no correct temperature for either the oven or the earth. The planet has warmed and cooled considerably many times in the past and we're still here.

wilbur
09-03-2008, 01:50 PM
Which is exactly the point. There is no correct temperature for either the oven or the earth. The planet has warmed and cooled considerably many times in the past and we're still here.

True, there is no temperature the earth is supposed to be. The only thing that matters is the range of temperatures at which can maintain our current way of life or our life all together.

Even if the temperature doesnt move outside that range... if it shifts somewhere else inside the range too fast, it could cause humanity some major major suffering... something of which we don't lack.

Evidence suggests we are adding to a warming trend... not that we cause all of it. Once the climate shifts one way, feedbacks tend to keep it shifting that direction with increased momentum till it hits an extreme at which point we may or may not be very comfortable.

SarasotaRepub
09-03-2008, 01:50 PM
Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed.



That really says it all.
:rolleyes:

Troll
09-03-2008, 03:13 PM
That really says it all.
:rolleyes:

I haven't completely discounted global warming, but what you bring up is one of my biggest reasons for maintaining a healthy skepticism - we just haven't been examining the data long enough. My BS-o-Tron registered about a 9.6 when I found out that the World Government has proposed taxing our way out of this 'problem'. See also: Poverty.

To anyone wanting a fair look at the 'other side' of this debate, I suggest this series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 04:48 PM
Who panicked?

Gullible , credulous fools like you.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Gullible , credulous fools like you.

Do you ever post anything you can back up with facts?

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 05:02 PM
Do you ever post anything you can back up with facts?

I have posted facts. I have posted the fact that there has been a prediction of the end of the world of one kind of another for close to a hundred years.

None of them have come true.Witness the sun rising outside, the birds singing, and the lack of Armageddon.

It is a fact that people like you fall for them, hook line and sinker, every single time.And then parrot the memes and garbage to all and sundry in hopes of "converting us"

I didn't believe it then, i don't believe it now..and I note you have done none of the things I mentioned earlier.

If it is the crisis you believe it to be...why aren't you doing anything about it?Or is this a case of "do as I say not as I do?"

Do you own a car, Owl? Flown recently?

If the answer to either one of these is yes, your credibility just went bye bye. (oh wait...what credibility?)

LogansPapa
09-03-2008, 05:19 PM
Gullible , credulous fools like you.

Reefs will be dead within 30 years, expert warns

The Australian, Australia - Aug 31, 2008

The world's reefs, including Australia's Great Barrier Reef, will be dead within 30 years unless human activity changes quickly, a leading researcher says.

Addressing the 11th international River symposium in Brisbane, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said it was crunch time for the world's reefs.

"Let's say we delay another 10 years on having stern actions on emissions at a global level, we will not have coral reefs in about 30 to 50 years," he said.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, from the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland, said rising CO2 levels and melting ice caps meant the ocean was becoming uninhabitable for reefs.

This worldwide change in climatic conditions was in addition to land-based pollution spilling from Queensland's coastal river systems, a symposium session into the impacts of river systems on the reef was told.

"We're rapidly rising to (CO2) levels which will be unsustainable for reefs in the very near future," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

"If you ask the question, `Will we have coral reefs in 30 years' time?', I would say at the current rate of change and what we're doing to them, we won't. But it's all up to us right now.

"We're at the fork in the road. If we take one road - the one we're on right now - we won't have coral reefs.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24275259-11949,00.html

Teetop
09-03-2008, 05:25 PM
When are the sea levels going to effin rise?! I live at almost 3,600' asl and I want my beach-front property soon. :rolleyes:

marinejcksn
09-04-2008, 02:37 AM
Reefs will be dead within 30 years, expert warns

I hear the "scientist" who warned of this tragedy fills his organic compost heap with actual bullcrap.:D

Sonnabend
09-04-2008, 04:53 AM
They said this 30 years ago.

It's still here :rolleyes:

wineslob
09-04-2008, 10:58 AM
Reefs will be dead within 30 years, expert warns

I hear the "scientist" who warned of this tragedy fills his organic compost heap with actual bullcrap.:D

Actually it's HORSE SHIT. :p

What I find interesting is the people who keep crying "the sky is falling" are the same ones who benefit from the endowments to "study" the reefs.

LogansPapa
09-04-2008, 11:02 AM
They said this 30 years ago.

It's still here :rolleyes:

So technology is the same as it was three decades ago? My latest T/I scientific calculator has more computing power than the original Space Shuttle. Say hello to the current century.

:rolleyes:

wilbur
09-04-2008, 11:17 AM
Actually it's HORSE SHIT. :p

What I find interesting is the people who keep crying "the sky is falling" are the same ones who benefit from the endowments to "study" the reefs.

Yeah!! Rabble rabble rabble! Those researchers make the big bucks.... begging for grants, with only a very small % actually receiving any at all! They manufactured all of this to perpetuate their fat cat lifestyle!!

Nobody profits from AGW denial... especially no one with any money! Yea!

Sonnabend
09-04-2008, 05:04 PM
So technology is the same as it was three decades ago?


No, you fool.

Panic over crown of thorns starfish. Non event.
Panic over bleaching. Non event.
Panic over nuke testing in the seventies. Non event
Panic over global cooling. Non event.


My latest T/I scientific calculator has more computing power than the original Space Shuttle. Say hello to the current century.

Say hello to decades of doomsaying that amounted to a big fat zero.

Then AND now.

Sonnabend
09-04-2008, 05:07 PM
They manufactured all of this to perpetuate their fat cat lifestyle!!Al Gore certainly did.


Nobody profits from AGW denial... especially no one with any money! Yea!They're the ones taxed out of sight to pay for AGW panic merchanting, "Cap and trade" plans, taxes, "green taxes".....AGW is about money and little else.

I don't see the IPCC people giving back the money that came with the prize they should never have received

I dont see Gore handing back the millions he has made from all of this gallivanting around , public speaking and sales of everything in sight.

(His "carbon footprint" must be the size of China by now..he flies everywhere in his private jet. For a man concerned about emissions he doesnt seem to have heard of teleconferencing.)

Then again no one would be in this global warming bullshit if it didn't involve five star hotels, exotic travel destinations and fistfuls of government dollars.

I wonder how many would be involved if they were not going to Bali or to Malaysia or Paris.

Hypocrisy, moneymaking and profiteering.

But it's to "save the planet"....riiighttttt...:rolleyes:

Troll
09-04-2008, 05:23 PM
http://www.pinkdome.com/gorecaptplanet.JPG

Nubs
09-04-2008, 05:32 PM
Once again,

melting sea ice will not raise sea levels 1 inch.

or 2.54cm if you are metrically inclined

wilbur
09-04-2008, 05:39 PM
Al Gore certainly did.

They're the ones taxed out of sight to pay for AGW panic merchanting, "Cap and trade" plans, taxes, "green taxes".....AGW is about money and little else.

I don't see the IPCC people giving back the money that came with the prize they should never have received

I dont see Gore handing back the millions he has made from all of this gallivanting around , public speaking and sales of everything in sight.

(His "carbon footprint" must be the size of China by now..he flies everywhere in his private jet. For a man concerned about emissions he doesnt seem to have heard of teleconferencing.)

Then again no one would be in this global warming bullshit if it didn't involve five star hotels, exotic travel destinations and fistfuls of government dollars.

I wonder how many would be involved if they were not going to Bali or to Malaysia or Paris.

Hypocrisy, moneymaking and profiteering.

But it's to "save the planet"....riiighttttt...:rolleyes:

Still confusing Al Gore, politicians and lobbyists with scientists. I don't like Al Gore, nor have I watched, or care to watch his stupid little movie. It doesnt change the science.

Three statements that go together:
9/11 was an inside job!
Karl Rove likes to eat babies!
Global warming is all a massive conpsiracy!

The science points to AGW. The science doesnt point to government programs and spending. Those would be guided by your political views... AGW IS NOT A POLITICAL VIEW. Thats a whole seperate issue.

The Night Owl
09-04-2008, 06:03 PM
Huge ice shelf breaks loose in Canadian arctic
'Shocking event' another sign of warming in polar frontier, scientists say

TORONTO - A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday.

Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.

"The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under cloud for a bit during our research and when the weather cleared up, all of a sudden there was no more ice shelf. It was a shocking event that underscores the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic," said Mueller.

...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26529937/

Can we exile the GOP to the Markham Ice Shelf once Barack Obama is president?

marinejcksn
09-05-2008, 01:30 AM
Al Gore certainly did.


(His "carbon footprint" must be the size of China by now..he flies everywhere in his private jet. For a man concerned about emissions he doesnt seem to have heard of teleconferencing.)


Bingo. Gore's put out more carbon this year then I'll create over my entire life.

I also love how the GW Cap & Trade lovers never spell out for the average American that in order to theoretically lower the temperature 2 DEGREES CELSIUS the project would cost the world between 2.4 and 26.5 TRILLION DOLLARS. :eek:

Wonder what that cash could be used for instead? Elliminating poverty and genocide in 3rd World Countries? Curing cancer, AIDS and other diseases? Nah...greenies don't care about people.

Also, I love how elite liberals so quick to bash Bush for the way the government lumbered to New Orleans after Katrina think that the same government will be able to manage a nation wide system of caps limiting emission of an invisible gas.:p

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 04:59 AM
Still confusing Al Gore, politicians and lobbyists with scientists. I don't like Al Gore, nor have I watched, or care to watch his stupid little movie. It doesnt change the science.

The science says there is dispute as to whether or not Man is involved, and I take the stance it is not.


The science points to AGW

The science points in every direction. There are no hard and fast conclusions and there is no conclusive proof that AGW is indisputable fact.

It is not and if you say it is, then you are lying.


The science doesnt point to government programs and spending.

The "spending", actually taxes, and that means taking money off ME is based and predicated on the bullshit predetermined conclusions of the IPCC, who cant even tell us what the proper temperature of the earth is and whose conclusions are based on theoretical models that wont be confirmed for a hundred years.

They are models. Got a time machine? Because thats the only way you will ever be able to tell us with any degree of certitude if these models are based even loosely on fact.

I can think of another reason for "climate change"...that big ball of fire in the sky called the Sun. And if you are going to sit there and tell me that the Sun has no effect on this planets climate, you're an even bigger fool than I imagined


Those would be guided by your political views... AGW IS NOT A POLITICAL VIEW.

Yes it is.

If I find I am being taxed more heavily, if my bills go up, if my electricity costs go up, if fuel goes up, if fuel goes up, if I find I am being taxed and taxed for "green things" then that is political and therefore I AM PAYING FOR IT out of money I earned for questionable "green projects" and "renewable energy" projects that in fifteen years will cost billions and return NOTHING.

Governments are campaigning on "climate change"...our new shithead Prime Minister, Rudd the Dudd, was elected with help from Al Gore who directly interfered in the electoral process of a sovereign nation to promote his "Inconvenient Truth"...you lot helped get him elected..guess what, dipshit, thats politics and that is socialism becuiase it is "wealth redistribution"..tax, tax, and more tax.

One of YOUR politicians intervened in our elections..if that isnt politics I dont know what is. P.S Australia wishes to thank you, and asks that you keep that bloviating bullshit artist in America for the time being.

The economy is in the shitter thanks to Rudd...and believe me, Gore's part in this fiasco wont be forgotten for a long time. One of the first thngs Rudd did was ratify Kyoto..which will cost us BILLIONS....and now he wants to have an emissions trading scheme which will see taxes go through the roof.

Wind power? Is a joke.When the wind dont blow, the power dont flow

Solar energy? For an entire city?? Dont be ridiculous

"Cap and trade"?..is a communist ideal designed to tax the average person to death to "save the planet"...and governments will get rich on taxpayers money which will then be handed to other bodies like the UN (Kyoto) ..hey thats a great idea, hand it to the UN so they can sympathise with more terrorists, send more of their "peacekeepers' to sodomise little children and kiss the Pali's butts whilst they fire morr rockets into Israel.

AGW is a politicians dream..a licence to tax and tax and tax and tax and charge and tithe and add fees and surcharges and levies and "green funding"...great, so they can help finance eco terrorists like the Sea Shepherd....AGW is 100% political, it is 100% bullshit, the "science isnt settled", there is no "consensus" and in a few years time there will be a lot of very angry people who will realise that they have been sucked into yet another government mandated Ponzi scheme

Here endeth the lesson.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 05:31 AM
AGW isnt political? (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24298488-2,00.html)

* Garnaut urges 10 per cent emissions cut by 2020
* Says Australia should do less than other countries
* Warns world running out of time on climate change


ELECTRICITY prices will increase by 40 per cent by 2020 under economist Ross Garnaut's greenhouse target. Professor Garnaut has recommended the nation cut emissions by 10 per cent in 12 years' time in a report released today.

Translation: "we will take things off you for your own good"


While a 40 per cent increase would be a "big hit" for households, revenue from emissions trading could compensate for that. Petrol would rise by five cents a litre in 2010 if it was included in the trading scheme as he recommends.

With an election in 2011, Rudd's politics will be on his re election based on policioes on so-calld "climate change" which will have political ramifications.

I.e we will kick his ass OUT.


However even with these measures Professor Garnaut says Australia is a special case and should reduce its emissions by less than every other developed country. The reason is a high level of immigration, which he says means Australia cannot realistically cut emissions as much as other wealthy nations.

Garnaut is an economist...not a climatologist. So by your standards, he has not part in this matter...yet here he is, recommending policies to cripple the economy and tax average Australians to death


And Professor Garnaut thinks Australia should soften its target to a 5 per cent cut, based on 2000 levels, if an international climate pact is not forged. The 10 per cent target will be a disappointment to the environmental lobby, which has called for a cut of up to 40 per cent.

We think he should shut the fuck UP.


But it will allay the concerns of business that emissions trading, which is due to start in 2010, will cost profits and jobs. The 2020 target will be a crucial factor in determining how much households and businesses will pay under emissions trading.

Watch the unemployment rise.....


The Federal Government has yet to set a 2020 target. Professor Garnaut also recommended emissions trading start in 2010 with a fixed carbon price of $20 a tonne, indexed for inflation plus 4 per cent each year.

We're talking hundred of millions of dollars.


The latest instalment of his advice to federal and state Governments on what should be done about climate change doesn't make for happy reading. He is pessimistic about the ability of the world to tackle climate change, and says there is "just a chance" that dangerous global warming can be avoided.

Yet he isnt a scientist...I wonder if his study was "peer reviewed"


The problem of climate change is "diabolical", "intractable" and "daunting", and the world is rapidly running out of time, he says.

Who is this guy...Blofeld?


Other developed nations should do more than Australia to cut emissions, Professor Garnaut says.Canada should slash its emissions by a third, Japan by 27 per cent, the European Union by 14 per cent, and the US by 12 per cent.

Canada and other nations do not have this desire to commit economic suiicide.


Professor Garnaut has recommended Australia adopt a more ambitious 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The Government has committed to a 60 per cent target by then.

Rudd will be unemployed in 2011.

wilbur
09-05-2008, 07:13 AM
Good grief, you still bring up the same refuted points over and over again.

Mentioning the sun YET AGAIN, does not change the fact that its been only a small portion of the warming trend. We know what the suns affect is because it can be measured. And the measurements don't support the idea that the greater portion of the warming trend can be attributed to it.

I don't care if politicians find AGW to be a 'convenient tool'. The only reason it works as a tool for their purposes is because of irrational crazy zealotry.... and its matched on the AGW denial side. AGW denial is now just as convenient of a tool.

Whether or not a politician finds AGW (or denial) to be a wonderful tool has absolutely no affect on whether the theory is accurate or not. No the science doesnt point in every direction, it points in one direction. The waters have been successfully muddied because of AGW lobbyists, and their extreme counterparts on the other side.

For those of us not in crazy zealot town, one can acknowledge the reality of AGW without it being a political decision, as it should be.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 08:24 AM
Good grief, you still bring up the same refuted points over and over again.

Mentioning the sun YET AGAIN, does not change the fact that its been only a small portion of the warming trend. We know what the suns affect is because it can be measured. And the measurements don't support the idea that the greater portion of the warming trend can be attributed to it.

Dr Freeman Dyson begs to differ. Maunder minimum.

And this (http://www.ccnmag.com/article/lack_of_sunspots_and_the_mini-iceage)


Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700.

Oh dear. (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html)


The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.

Translation: They dont know, which means you dont know, whicj means you CANT discount that possibility, because you do NOT have the definitive facts on the matter which means the science is NOT settled which give the lie to


We know what the suns affect is because it can be measured

Doesnt it?

And here (http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2008/06/poll-most-britons-doubt-cause-of.html)


Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

Global warming on Neptune (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html)

Other astronomers who participated in this investigation are MIT research assistant Heidi B. Hammel and technical assistants Michael J. Person and Stephen W. McDonald of MIT; Otto G. Franz, Lawrence H. Wasserman, John A. Stansberry, John R. Spencer, Edward W. Dunham, Catherine B. Olkin and Mark W. Buie of Lowell Observatory; Jay M. Pasachoff, Bryce A. Babcock and Timothy H. McConnochie of Williams College.
This work is supported in part by NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society.



I don't care if politicians find AGW to be a 'convenient tool'. The only reason it works as a tool for their purposes is because of irrational crazy zealotry.... and its matched on the AGW denial side. AGW denial is now just as convenient of a tool.

The deniers aren't the ones organising massive taxes and tithes and levies. The deniers (oh that word is soo liberal.

Try the non panickers..I like it more) aren't the ones saying no to new power stations, no to nuclear power, they arent the ones chaining themselves to power stations, or trying to blow up coal stations


Whether or not a politician finds AGW (or denial) to be a wonderful tool has absolutely no affect on whether the theory is accurate or not

When this "theory" (and thats all it is..a. theory...you just admitted it.) is proven to be bullshit, those "tools" will be the source of a lot of anger. Especially the people whose lives have been wrecked "to save the planet"


. No the science doesnt point in every direction, it points in one direction.

No.




(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas)Chris de Freitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas), Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Auckland): "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#cite_note-51)

And here (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html)

There are a lot of scientists who disagree with the AGW theory


The waters have been successfully muddied because of AGW lobbyists, and their extreme counterparts on the other side.

And people like you who tell us to shut up and not argue, the "science is settled" and those that disagree are "deniers""..when in fact they are as credible as the AGW scientists.

Go drink Gore's kool aid. I won't.


For those of us not in crazy zealot town, one can acknowledge the reality of AGW without it being a political decision, as it should be.

Ah, so the scientists that disagree are "crazy zealots" now.

Got it.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 08:36 AM
Global warming on Neptune (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html)



1998.

:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 08:38 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 08:45 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

You're citing outdated work. The recent warming on Mars was found to be due to changes on Mars, not a change in the Sun...


Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

Lori Fenton at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and colleagues used a computer model to study the effect that winds have had on Mars's climate.

...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

April 4, 2007

Doc Savage
09-05-2008, 08:53 AM
What drives weather? If solar activity increases, output increases, energy absorbed by the planets increases. Energy becomes heat, which drives weather.

Google soal activity for last month. You will find that the sun for the first time in a long time had no solar flares. The solar cycle is going into a downward curve. In a year or 2 or maybe even this winter, temps at the pole will decrease and ice will come back.

The last time that this happend the earth experienced a mini ice age. And, FYI, cold is worse for crops than heat.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 08:53 AM
And people like you who tell us to shut up and not argue, the "science is settled" and those that disagree are "deniers""..when in fact they are as credible as the AGW scientists.

Wilbur acknowledges that AGW might be wrong. You, however, won't acknowledge that AGW might be happening. You just can't bring yourself to say it. Wilbur is reasonable. You're dogmatic.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 09:02 AM
Wilbur acknowledges that AGW might be wrong. You, however, won't acknowledge that AGW might be right. You just can't bring yourself to say it. Wilbur is reasonable. You're dogmatic.

Oh?


For those of us not in crazy zealot town, one can acknowledge the reality of AGW without it being a political decision, as it should be.


The science points to AGW.


No the science doesnt point in every direction, it points in one direction.

Doesn't sound it to me.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 09:10 AM
Oh?


http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=36888&postcount=5

Again I ask... Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening? Yes or no.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 09:23 AM
The right wing (talk radio in particular) has slowly but steadily fostered and encouraged a fear and mistrust towards science when it's inconvenient for their desires and agenda.

No.

They see and hear scientists who say"I disagree" and come to the natural conclusion that there is still debate and doubt. As I have.As I will continue to do until i am presented with incontrovertible, unshakeable, 100% proveable proof that AGW is real.

Shock horror..I make up my own mind.

It does happen you know


This is most obvious when it comes to global warming... The biggest lie that is pushed on a daily basis by the talking heads is that if you side with science (ie you believe global warming is probable) than you necessarily are committed to a certain political agenda, namely socialism or extreme liberalism

Problem is that if you are on board with AGW then you are part of the rest of the agenda.


Heck, even some of the left wing socialist environmentalist crazies might say the same thing... but this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Left wing are socialists.


I don't think we should counter the environmental extremists with an equally hysterical, yet opposite reaction in the form of global warming (aka climate change) denial... its just as bat shit crazy as the envireligionists at this point... just in at the opposite pole. False dichotomies arent a good thing.

It is not extreme to say bluntly "I dont believe it, it has not been proven to me conclusively, there have been too many doomsayers and end of world panic merchants before, so until I see said proof, far as I am concerned, its just another panic merchant...out to make money."

And by the way, if you dont practise what you preach, then you're a hypocrite..and guess what..I dont listen to hypocrites.Or liars.

Lie to me and you have zero credibility. Lie to me once and how do I trust you to tell me the truth later? I don't.

Thats my position. It is 100% peer reviewed.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 09:34 AM
They see and hear scientists who say"I disagree" and come to the natural conclusion that there is still debate and doubt. As I have.As I will continue to do until i am presented with incontrovertible, unshakeable, 100% proveable proof that AGW is real.


Absolute certainty is never an option in science. Science is a search for evidence, not proof. Proof is obtainable only in mathematics.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question...

Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening? Yes or no.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 09:37 AM
Again I ask... Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening? Yes or no.

Answer: Until I see incontrovertible proof and there is NO dissent?

No.

Been lied to far too often.

Y'see, Owl..thats what the Left gets for being such a bunch of lying dickheads. I have been lied to by the media, by the UN, by the IPCC, by Gore, by a huge load of AGW proponents...that quite frankly, I dont trust you to lie straight in bed.

IPCC is part of the UN. "Credible UN source" is an oxymoron. The IPCC is part of a political agenda, their findings have also been debated, disputed, and in some places retracted as wrong..some of the IPCC scientists didnt want their names appended to that report and said so.

Trust anything the UN puts out?? You're kidding , right?

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except
for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences

"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only thing
we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr. Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast
the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT
and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866)

And here (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024)

And this


Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

Far as I am concerned, jury is still out.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 09:42 AM
Absolute certainty is never an option in science. Science is a search for evidence, not proof. Proof is obtainable only in mathematics.

Wrong.

The absolute scientific proof of gravity can be demonstrated quite easily.Go to the top of any skyscraper and jump off. Then come back and argue with me.

The evidence of gravity will be the fact you will not come back to argue with me, being as you would be a thin red smear on the sidewalk after hitting the ground at terminal velocity.

Going to tell me that if you jump off a 500 foot building, it is not an absolute certainty you will not live to talk about it?


By the way, you still haven't answered my question...Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening? Yes or no.

NO.

FlaGator
09-05-2008, 09:48 AM
You're citing outdated work. The recent warming on Mars was found to be due to changes on Mars, not a change in the Sun...


Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

Lori Fenton at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and colleagues used a computer model to study the effect that winds have had on Mars's climate.

...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

April 4, 2007

Once again, competing studies that each side assumes that the one that agrees with their position is the correct one. This is a most amusing behavior to observe.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 09:50 AM
Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening? Yes or no.

No.



And there we have it. You wrongly accuse Wilbur of claiming that the science is settled when in reality you are the only one who claims that the science is settled. Well, you and Al Gore.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 09:55 AM
Once again, competing studies that each side assumes that the one that agrees with their position is the correct one. This is a most amusing behavior to observe.

I have posted links to 4 very recent peer reviewed studies which indicate that the Sun is not the cause of global warming.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 10:04 AM
Wrong.

The absolute scientific proof of gravity can be demonstrated quite easily.Go to the top of any skyscraper and jump off. Then come back and argue with me.



That objects dropped from skyscrapers fall to Earth is an observation, not an explanation.

We don't know what gravitation is. We don't even know why objects have mass. We have, thanks to Albert Einstein, a really good theory about gravitation but we don't have proof that the theory is correct.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 10:15 AM
That objects dropped from skyscrapers fall to Earth is an observation, not an explanation. We don't know what gravitation is. We don't even know why objects have mass. We have, thanks to Albert Einstein, is a really good theory about gravitation but we don't have proof that the theory is correct.

Are you demented?

If I drop a hammer from my hand at 500 feet it will fall to earth. That is a scientific FACT.


We don't know what gravitation is

Yes we do


The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the fundamental forces of physics responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, for the formation of tides; for convection (by which hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena that we observe. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other.


We don't even know why objects have mass.

Yes we do.


We have, thanks to Albert Einstein, is a really good theory about gravitation but we don't have proof that the theory is correct.

I cordially invite you to leap out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute as an empirical experiment.

It should be fascinating...until the sudden stop at the end.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 10:29 AM
And there we have it. You wrongly accuse Wilbur of claiming that the science is settled when in reality you are the only one who claims that the science is settled. Well, you and Al Gore.Man, that's almost an Olympic contortion. Way to misrepresent every word I said. Typical liberal.


I have posted links to 4 very recent peer reviewed studies which indicate that the Sun is not the cause of global warming.

..and I can show you a dozen that say otherwise. So as far as I am concerned, AGW is a theory. An unproven one at that.

"Peer review" that.

wineslob
09-05-2008, 11:05 AM
Man, that's almost an Olympic contortion. Way to misrepresent every word I said. Typical liberal.



..and I can show you a dozen that say otherwise. So as far as I am concerned, AGW is a theory. An unproven one at that.
"Peer review" that.

And that IS fact.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 12:05 PM
Are you demented?

If I drop a hammer from my hand at 500 feet it will fall to earth. That is a scientific FACT.

Observations are evidence, not proof. Observations can be extremely strong evidence but they are not proof... at least not in the scientific sense of the word. This is a really important aspect of science and you really should get it down.


Yes we do.

If you have proof of what gravity is, physicists would love to see it...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/105633_gravity24.shtml


Yes we do.

No, we don't know why particles have mass. In fact, scientists are just about to begin an experiment which might provide strong evidence to support one theory about mass...

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/Higgs-en.html

More about the mystery of mass...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-mysteries-of-mass

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Man, that's almost an Olympic contortion. Way to misrepresent every word I said. Typical liberal.

I didn't misrepresent what you wrote. If you won't acknowledge that AGW might be happening, then I must conclude that you think the science is settled.


...and I can show you a dozen that say otherwise. So as far as I am concerned, AGW is a theory. An unproven one at that.

No one here is claiming that AGW is more than a theory or that it is proven.

LogansPapa
09-05-2008, 12:17 PM
Did we talk about 'dark matter' yet?;)

Teetop
09-05-2008, 04:09 PM
Global Sea-rise Levels By 2100 May Be Lower Than Some Predict, Says New Study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145113.htm)

So much for that meme of 20 foot rise in sea levels. :rolleyes:

Global warming does happen just like global cooling. The Earth has warmed and cooled since Earth was formed.

It's not man-made.

Teetop
09-05-2008, 04:09 PM
Did we talk about 'dark matter' yet?;)

No need to bring eyeshit's name into this. :D

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 04:22 PM
Global Sea-rise Levels By 2100 May Be Lower Than Some Predict, Says New Study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145113.htm)

So much for that meme of 20 foot rise in sea levels. :rolleyes:

Global warming does happen just like global cooling. The Earth has warmed and cooled since Earth was formed.

No one refutes the claim that Earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles.


It's not man-made.

The article you cited does not support the claim that global warming is natural.

Bongo55
09-05-2008, 05:39 PM
Owl, your fucking a dead horse here.

You are totally free to believe whatever you like, just like the rest of us are.

Few here buy into the notion of GW. That doesn't mean that we don't love this planet, it just means we don't buy into the GW bullshit.

Some day mabey your great great great great great grandchildren can say I told you so, but I doubt that too.

The Night Owl
09-05-2008, 07:19 PM
Owl, your fucking a dead horse here.

You are totally free to believe whatever you like, just like the rest of us are.

Few here buy into the notion of GW. That doesn't mean that we don't love this planet, it just means we don't buy into the GW bullshit.

Some day mabey your great great great great great grandchildren can say I told you so, but I doubt that too.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just stating my position.

Sonnabend
09-05-2008, 07:31 PM
Observations are evidence, not proof. Observations can be extremely strong evidence but they are not proof... at least not in the scientific sense of the word. This is a really important aspect of science and you really should get it down.

Fallen off any skyscrapers recently? Dunce.


I didn't misrepresent what you wrote.

Yes you did.


If you won't acknowledge that AGW might be happening, then I must conclude that you think the science is settled.

I think its 100% bullshit, I'm a skeptic and a doubter and I have been lied to so often by the Left and by people like you that I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue.

The bottom line are the words: No one knows for certain. Nothing is settled.

wilbur
09-05-2008, 11:51 PM
Fallen off any skyscrapers recently? Dunce.

Yes you did.

I think its 100% bullshit, I'm a skeptic and a doubter and I have been lied to so often by the Left and by people like you that I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue.

The bottom line are the words: No one knows for certain. Nothing is settled.

How many times have you and others called me a liberal or a 'the sky is falling catastrophist' now for having the gall to say AGW is a well supported scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence? I havent spoken a single word about what the possible political policies, legislation, or even consequences of AGW should be, yet the second I don't deny it vehemently with an idiotic, trite, quip proves I'm a commie liberal trying to destroy America and must think we are going to drown in a year from rising sea levels.

One can't make a comment about the science without a reply of what kind of laws liberals want to pass, or new taxes etc etc... this tells me people here still can't separate the politics from the science.

wilbur
09-05-2008, 11:58 PM
Fallen off any skyscrapers recently? Dunce.

Your confusing the effect with the reason.

That things fall towards the center of the earth is an observation... and a fact... its an effect. What we don't actually know is why... the reason. We know things fall, but we don't exactly know why. The theory of gravitation is the proposed explanation.

That the planet is warming is an observation and a fact.... and that it's warming faster than it has in the past.. this is the effect. Possible reasons for the fast warming could be because of the rise in greenhouse gasses caused by the use of fossil fuels, raising of livestock, etc... human causes; those are the reasons. And there is plenty of evidence to support those reasons.

Sonnabend
09-06-2008, 12:56 AM
That the planet is warming is an observation and a fact.... and that it's warming faster than it has in the past.. this is the effect. Possible reasons for the fast warming could be because of the rise in greenhouse gasses caused by the use of fossil fuels, raising of livestock, etc... human causes; those are the reasons. And there is plenty of evidence to support those reasons.

....and there is plenty of evidence to say it is not the case.

Yet here we are again, with this thread started by another Chicken Little pronouncement

"Arctic ice is at tipping point" :rolleyes:

marinejcksn
09-06-2008, 01:10 AM
....and there is plenty of evidence to say it is not the case.

Yet here we are again, with this thread started by another Chicken Little pronouncement

"Arctic ice is at tipping point" :rolleyes:

All about the dollars, always about the dollars. It's going to be so much fun in 10 years to laugh and say I told you so to all the lemmings buying in to this.:cool:

wilbur
09-06-2008, 02:00 AM
All about the dollars, always about the dollars. It's going to be so much fun in 10 years to laugh and say I told you so to all the lemmings buying in to this.:cool:

Yes, it is. Fanaticism on both sides is heavily motivated by dollars. The denier movement especially is driven entirely by fear of profit loss and political loss. Little science, however.

Posts all over these threads are excellent examples of the fear mongering and opinion shaping that has been taking place. And people call those who accept AGW as the panic merchants. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
09-06-2008, 02:43 AM
Yes, it is. Fanaticism on both sides is heavily motivated by dollars.Communism, socialism, green fascism and excessive taxation generally do not make people well intentioned to listen to you...especially when they know that you are lying and using a political agenda for your own gain.

Many of the "green movements" are based on socialism and communism. We call 'em watermelons..green on the outside...RED on the inside. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380895/posts)


The denier movement especially is driven entirely by fear of profit loss and political loss. Little science, however. There is no "denier movement", just a lot of people who can tell when they are being lied to by vested interests. How do you tell when a reporter is lying to you? His lips are moving.

How do you tell when a greenie is lying to you? He or she is breathing.


Posts all over these threads are excellent examples of the fear mongering and opinion shaping that has been taking placeY'know, here we are again with this same meme that people make up my mind for me or I am "following a movement".

You ARE a liberal if you cant get it through that thick skull of yours that NO ONE tells me what to think. Now , then, ever...why is it anathema or so hard for you to understand that we are individuals who are quite capable of making up our own minds, independent of what others say?


. And people call those who accept AGW as the panic merchants. :rolleyes:I call 'em as I see 'em.

Stop posting alarmist threads with panic merchant headlines, and threads on "global warming catastrophes" and maybe we'll listen to you.

Keep up this string of "the sky is falling " headlines and you'll get more of the same.

I find it laughable that you can claim to know what will happen in a hundred years, and yet cant tell me with 100% certainty what the weather will be like in Brisbane at 0300 tomorrow morning.

I do not accept in any way or form as fact, an unproven, unproveable, and highly questionable theory based on theoretical models that cannot be verified for a hundred years.

Teetop
09-06-2008, 12:35 PM
All about the dollars, always about the dollars. It's going to be so much fun in 10 years to laugh and say I told you so to all the lemmings buying in to this.:cool:

BINGO! We have a winner! :D

marinejcksn
09-07-2008, 02:09 AM
I find it laughable that you can claim to know what will happen in a hundred years, and yet cant tell me with 100% certainty what the weather will be like in Brisbane at 0300 tomorrow morning.

This made me lol. Seems that the local weatherman never can get it quite right doesn't it? They're absolutely dismal if it's the 5 day forecast.:cool:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; trusting a government who can't handle the budget to handle the regulation of an invisible gas is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.