KD in CA Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 I don't begrudge the issue being political, I'm wondering why it's so distinctly partisan. Because the left wing is attempting to use the issue as a means to exert even greater control over people's money and lives. Simple as that. Of course there is "climate change". There has been climate change every friggin second for the last 5 billion years. Pretending it's something new so they can invent excuses to tax people for the purpose of creating even more political graft isn't going to stop the planet from evolving.
Magox Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Of course, what I just typed was an unnecessarily long way of saying: But you retorted that with the same thing, so I thought if I repeated it back maybe you'd understand better. Oh, thanks
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Fair point. And I don't think there has been any dispute that the planet has warmed considerably over the past 130 or so years. I think the question is why. Were we going through an usually cold spell when records were being kept? Perhaps because of major volcanic eruptions like this one or this one. Are humans the cause? I don't know the answer, but spending trillions because well-maybe-we-caused-it doesn't seem like a prudent use of resources. Actually, there's plenty of dispute of planetary warming over the past 130 years.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 There is a big difference between not being able to convince me because you are an idiot, and not being able to convince me so far, because I haven't heard anything convincing. And, you have to admit you have real problems now that all of the ALGORE, inc. stuff has come out. At this point, this looks a hell of a lot more like scam than "science". To wit: 1. Al Gore can in no possible way be considered irrelevant to this issue. He has been the leader of this entire movement, and they gave him, not somebody else, a noble prize which proves that. 2. There is nothing ad hominem about my attacks on him, because he represents the movement itself, as its leader. I can see if I was trying to discredit him about something like taxes. But, buying a house on a coast that the movement believes will be under water in a short period of time if their policies aren't followed is a direct contradiction of the movement's policies by the leader of the movement. So, no, by definition there can be nothing ad hominem about my attacks. 3. Where exactly is the non-sequitur in: a. Global Warming says California will be under water b. Al Gore is the leader of Global Warming c. Al Gore gets his info from "science" d. The vast majority of Global Warming acolytes recognize Al Gore as their leader, and gave him a Nobel Prize as such e. Al Gore buys a house in California f. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore does not buy a house in an area that will be under water. g. If the "science" is true, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will be under water. h. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water. i. If the "science" is false, and, Al Gore is not an idiot, then Gore may buy a house in an area that will NOT be under water. The only case that bears out what you are saying is: g. And, if g is true: why on God's green earth are we listening to an idiot? Moreover, why has the Global Warming movement chose him as their leader/gave him a nobel prize? And since Al Gore is an idiot, we should feel free to disregard anything he has said, especially the supposed "science" in his idiot movie. This of course implies that there is some non-Gore science that you can show me that proves Global Warming. And we have already heard about the 400 year small ice age that preceded this 400 years NSF study. So don't include that either. 1. Apparently Al Gore could use a restraining order. 2. God is dead and no one cares. If there is a Hell I'll see you there. 3a. You should join the debate club at your school. 3b. You may want to abandon project management and become a trial lawyer. You win. Yeah!
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 This is one of the times when not caring is totally the way to go. Anyone arrogant enough to think that they can change the weather shouldn't be allowed to leave a room with white padded walls. If history were filled with attitudes like this we'd still be roaming the plains instead of landing on the moon.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 You said that already. Every issue is political, I can't believe you're trying to make an exception out of global warming. Gravity is not political. Climate Science should not be either. Nor should Evolution, but that's a whole other goddamn mess.
Alaska Darin Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Climate Science should not be either. Wherever there is massive money, there will always be politics. Global Warming has ALWAYS been a scam and it is taking serious resources from dealing with the true environmental problems we face.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 What the heck did you try to say there? Lemme break it down for you: Corporations bad! Halliburton! Nose Pick! Flightsuit!
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Wherever there is massive money, there will always be politics. Global Warming has ALWAYS been a scam and it is taking serious resources from dealing with the true environmental problems we face. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Climate Science should not be either. But it is. That's why it hasn't truly been science for quite some time.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 But it is. That's why it hasn't truly been science for quite some time. The external debate isn't science. I don't think the actual researchers are doing junk science based on political ideology. I expect your view of this is more cynical.
Magox Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 I don't think the actual researchers are doing junk science based on political ideology. Many are.... And that's the sad reality
Magox Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 link? link to what? That they are basing their opinions behind political idealogy? Good one....
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 link to what? That they are basing their opinions behind political idealogy? Good one.... Yes, is asking proof of your claim out of bounds? I'm supposed to just accept it because you say it? Sounds like religion...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 The external debate isn't science. I don't think the actual researchers are doing junk science based on political ideology. I expect your view of this is more cynical. Two years ago I read a study (don't have the link, sorry) by climatologists that suggests that the planet is entering a 50-year cooling phase. The study concluded that the cooling was the result of global warming. That is quintessential junk science (when cooling proves warming, the theory of global waming becomes unfalsifiable, hence unscientific). And the reason for it was entirely political - if the researchers didn't reach a conclusion that supported global warming, they couldn't get their research published or funded, since it would have gone against "scientific consensus". So yes, it is happening. Quite a bit, in fact.
Magox Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 Sounds like religion... Or an overzealous climate advocate, who ignores historical natural warming and cooling patterns of this earth.
Recommended Posts