truth on hold Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) http://bfy.tw/MQV http://bfy.tw/MQ8 http://bfy.tw/MQb You see hippie, where there is smoke there is fire. Gore is a liberal. Clinton is a liberal. You are an idiot because you can't see them for what they are and continue to blindly worship every single piece of crap they shovel at you. But hey everyone, the Pope is on board! Even though we think religion is a gigantic load we're going to cite him because he agrees with us! Forward! Fail to see how calling out someone's hypocrysy justifies dismissing science on what could be an existential threat to humans. Its completely unrelated to the rational, responsible response for us from a cost/benefit analysis. Chomsky spells this out starting just after 2:00 min mark Edited June 17, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Fail to see how calling out someone's hypocrysy justifies dismissing science on what could be an existential threat to humans. Its completely unrelated to the rational, responsible response for us from a cost/benefit analysis. Chomsky spells this out starting just after 2:00 min mark Has anyone ever met anybody who references Chomsky and has an opinion of their own? Because everyone I know who references Chomsky only parrots Chomsky's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Has anyone ever met anybody who references Chomsky and has an opinion of their own? Because everyone I know who references Chomsky only parrots Chomsky's opinion. Do those people also parrot Jerry Sandusky's lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Fail to see how calling out someone's hypocrysy justifies dismissing science on what could be an existential threat to humans. Its completely unrelated to the rational, responsible response for us from a cost/benefit analysis. Chomsky spells this out starting just after 2:00 min mark Because the "fixes" being proposed by liberals aren't fixes and the problem can't even be properly defined because of how it's been sold since the initial Hockey Stick Graph. As I've stated before, every single dollar that's been wasted on this Global Warming horseshit could have been spent actually doing good things in the environment and we'd be well on the way to a better future. Instead, we get the same tired "Sky is Falling" garbage from the same people who've brought you all the other "non-catastrophe's" that have lined their pockets and kept them in power. Good luck selling that pile to anyone with half a brain. We don't trust you because you're not trustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/ The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say: Kind of a small sample https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/un-climate-change-1000-scientists-say-no/ 100% disagree. Edited June 18, 2015 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Pope lays the smack down on 'em.... VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis demanded swift action on Thursday to save the planet from environmental ruin, urging world leaders to hear "the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor" and plunging the Catholic Church into political controversy over climate change. In the first papal document dedicated to the environment, he called for "decisive action, here and now," to stop environmental degradation and global warming, squarely backing scientists who say it is mostly man-made. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OX1LW20150618?irpc=932 Edited June 18, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 He also said other stupid things, like: "A peroleum driven economy is inherently unfair to the poor." I assume he feels an agrarrian economy, relying on fuedalism, the Devine right of Kings, and ultimately Papal Fealty; more in line with the Church's historical preferences; to be more desirable. The Red Pope is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 The wealthiest church on the planet who hid money from their victims lecturing others? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Since you asked me...Dude - you are clearly, clearly so bent out of shape there is no data, no nothing, is going to register with you - you are clearly convinced that it is all some conspiracy- and I mean all - the whole world....good luck with your life...it looks from here to be a miserable experience.... I have done nothing in this thread but cite data, and cite inconsistencies in data. Every single argument I have made is based on science, logic, and common damn sense. I have also used my extensive background in observation of human and organizational behavior. As time has gone on, my observations have been proven by events, and, those same events have overtaken the blind supporters of global warming. Miserable? Dude, ask anybody on this board who has met me: my life is far, far away from miserable. If that is your conclusion, then once again, we see that your approach and reasoning skills suck. Now, I will ask you again: WHY does an 18-year "hiatus" in global warming need an explanation if it doesn't exist? WHY are half the theory's supporters denying the hiatus, and the other half explaining it, at the same time? WHY is this guy, who created the AGW "story" 26 years ago, when he was the Chief Science Editor at The Economist, now calling himself a "lukewarmer"? You know what's miserable? The backpedaling, side-stepping, and, now, claims of victimhood by the guy who spawned the AGW media hysteria, in the link. You know what else is miserable? Your chances of answering these questions with any degree of scientific or intellectual honesty. i don't understand why this is such a partisan issue. if it were really about the science, then one would expect that conservatives and liberals would be similarly divided on the issue (discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates). but they clearly are not. i wish someone could tell me why conservatives lean so strongly towards instinctively denying this. do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses? doesn't make any sense. This is hilarious irony and hypocrisy, rolled up around a creamy center of self-unawareness, and candy coated with Choice-Supportive Bias! What is the relationship between the Democrats of 1850 and today? Oh, God. Are we really gonna do this one again? EDIT: No, I see LA has handled it quite efficiently. I will add the infamous LBJ quote "[With the Great Society and War on Poverty], we'll have these !@#$s voting Democrat for the next 50 years!" You'll be damned if that relationship didn't play out exactly like LBJ predicted. It became a partisan issue once the bright ideas of taxation and wealth distribution were introduced into the scheme as a panacea for Global warming/Climate Change. I guarantee you that if these "solutions" hadn't been put out there, the belief that the earth is warming would be much greater than it is today. As I've said often about this: "Forget the words: Look at the behavior". You are right: The very first thing that tipped me off to this being yet another "introduce and enforce socialism on a world that has roundly rejected it" vehicle, was the immediate jump to the same, old, not-solution before any of us had time to understand the problem. And, again behavior: The immediate demonizing of anyone who said "I see a problem with X, can you explain this?"...into being on par with a neo-nazi. It's hilarious that these clowns don't realize that every single time they use the word "denier", especially now, they knock themselves back another step. It tells us just how disingenuous the entire argument and those making it are: they were never serious about convincing anyone of anything. They knew damn well that this was a political issue from the get go, and they have BEHAVED as such. You don't decide who your enemies are, and start attacking them BEFORE anyone has had a chance to understand the problem, if you are merely an honest broker of science and real problem solver. Edited June 19, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If global warming alarmists want an example of why the general public is rather indifferent to their great cause, they should look in the mirror. An eminent scientist–(good grief, he eliminated smallpox)–claims overpopulation and global warming are going to make us extinct. From the Phys.Org story: http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change. Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts. Now why did he have to go and save so many lives who would have otherwise died from smallpox? If only he’d only known that progress = doom! Well, that’s it, then: Eat, drink, be merry, and burn carbon for tomorrow we die. #Science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Pope lays the smack down on 'em.... VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis demanded swift action on Thursday to save the planet from environmental ruin, urging world leaders to hear "the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor" and plunging the Catholic Church into political controversy over climate change. In the first papal document dedicated to the environment, he called for "decisive action, here and now," to stop environmental degradation and global warming, squarely backing scientists who say it is mostly man-made. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OX1LW20150618?irpc=932 Something not mentioned in your link was the Pope's contention that AGW and abortion are interrelated: "Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion," http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-and-abortion-are-interrelated-20150618 That ought to take the wind out of a few liberal sails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) If global warming alarmists want an example of why the general public is rather indifferent to their great cause, they should look in the mirror. An eminent scientist–(good grief, he eliminated smallpox)–claims overpopulation and global warming are going to make us extinct. From the Phys.Org story: http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html Now why did he have to go and save so many lives who would have otherwise died from smallpox? If only he’d only known that progress = doom! Well, that’s it, then: Eat, drink, be merry, and burn carbon for tomorrow we die. #Science! He Fox Buttefielded himself! Something not mentioned in your link was the Pope's contention that AGW and abortion are interrelated: "Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion," http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-and-abortion-are-interrelated-20150618 That ought to take the wind out of a few liberal sails. Yes, I can't wait to hear how the Pope is both highly educated and conscientious, and, absolutely backward and dangerously ignorant, at the same time. Edited June 19, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Something not mentioned in your link was the Pope's contention that AGW and abortion are interrelated: "Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion," http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-and-abortion-are-interrelated-20150618 That ought to take the wind out of a few liberal sails. "Take the sails out of their wind." Gotta save that one for the hearing, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 "Take the sails out of their wind." Gotta save that one for the hearing, too... Considering that the age of sail is attributed to European exploration and colonization, you may want to avoid that sarcasm or be accused of micro-aggession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-study-electric-cars-may-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered/article/2566847 Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors. The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Although the typical assumption is that electric cars are cleaner than gasoline-fueled cars, the power for electric cars has to come from somewhere, and it's often from coal-fired power plants. "Rather than simply accepting the assertion of environmental benefits from electric vehicle use, this paper conducts a rigorous comparison of the environmental consequences of gasoline and electric powered vehicles, specifically by quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles," the authors write. Edited June 25, 2015 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) from bush's epa chief: http://weather.climate25.com/project/william-k-reilly/ “I really have to question,” says William K. Reilly, “how a candidate for national office now, can deny that the climate is changing…and still be taken seriously.” Reilly, who served as EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush, sees hope, though, in potentially unlikely places. Edited June 26, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) from bush's epa chief: http://weather.climate25.com/project/william-k-reilly/ “I really have to question,” says William K. Reilly, “how a candidate for national office now, can deny that the climate is changing…and still be taken seriously.” Reilly, who served as EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush, sees hope, though, in potentially unlikely places. well that's some progress from this ... A Republican congressman hoping to chair the powerful House Energy Committee refers to the Bible and God on the issue of global warming. Representative John Shimkus insists we shouldn't concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn't happen again after the great flood. Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in March, 2009, Shimkus quoted Chapter 8, Verse 22 of the Book of Genesis. He said: 'As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.' The Illinois Republican continued: 'I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation. 'The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html#ixzz3eARnnOTu Edited June 26, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 It became a partisan issue once the bright ideas of taxation and wealth distribution were introduced into the scheme as a panacea for Global warming/Climate Change. I guarantee you that if these "solutions" hadn't been put out there, the belief that the earth is warming would be much greater than it is today. missed this til now. a really interesting but terribly flawed argument. distilled to its essence it says: ignore weighing evidence if a potential conclusion from that evidence will conflict with your political beliefs. wow. that's the thinking i see here repeatedly in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 well that's some progress from this ... A Republican congressman hoping to chair the powerful House Energy Committee refers to the Bible and God on the issue of global warming. Representative John Shimkus insists we shouldn't concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn't happen again after the great flood. Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in March, 2009, Shimkus quoted Chapter 8, Verse 22 of the Book of Genesis. He said: 'As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.' The Illinois Republican continued: 'I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation. 'The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html#ixzz3eARnnOTu I'm not worried about the planet being destroyed I'm worried about a degradation of the planets ability to support human life- the way these people think it's like they know nothing of the Dust-bowl, which is clear evidence that human activity can cause massive environmental degradation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts