More liberal hypocrisy?

[UBinVA]

I can find scientist who claim tobacco has no bearing on cancer. What's your point? The majority of scientists accept the theory that global warming is a real problem for the planet.

 

Have you found anybody who admits to economic destruction as the reason for the for the global warming theory?

 

It's about power and control. First you convince the masses there is a problem, then any action you seek can be related to controlling or solving the problem. Almost any industry, government policy or action and be viewed through this lens of Global Warming and then be subject to control by the very same people pushing the agenda. These people will tax, regulate, limit, control, and drive the economy down with it as a result of their actions.

 

So it's not about economic destruction per se, it's all about power.

 

The earth has been going though periods of cooling and warming for millions of years. We should all be good stewards of the earth and eliminate all pollutants to a maximum extent. But to create bogus claims and fear mongering about a global catastrophe if we don't act now is just ridiculous.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

It's about power and control. First you convince the masses there is a problem, then any action you seek can be related to controlling or solving the problem. Almost any industry, government policy or action and be viewed through this lens of Global Warming and then be subject to control by the very same people pushing the agenda. These people will tax, regulate, limit, control, and drive the economy down with it as a result of their actions.

 

So it's not about economic destruction per se, it's all about power.

 

The earth has been going though periods of cooling and warming for millions of years. We should all be good stewards of the earth and eliminate all pollutants to a maximum extent. But to create bogus claims and fear mongering about a global catastrophe if we don't act now is just ridiculous.

 

This post makes you sound really paranoid. That is your take on the people in government who are involved with the global warming movement. So how do you explain that 99% of meteorologists, climatologists, and other weather-related scientists agree with them? Are they all being paid off?

[TheMadCap]

It's about power and control. First you convince the masses there is a problem, then any action you seek can be related to controlling or solving the problem. Almost any industry, government policy or action and be viewed through this lens of Global Warming and then be subject to control by the very same people pushing the agenda. These people will tax, regulate, limit, control, and drive the economy down with it as a result of their actions.

 

So it's not about economic destruction per se, it's all about power.

 

The earth has been going though periods of cooling and warming for millions of years. We should all be good stewards of the earth and eliminate all pollutants to a maximum extent. But to create bogus claims and fear mongering about a global catastrophe if we don't act now is just ridiculous.

 

That's about the only thing you said that has credibility in your entire rant.

 

Fact: CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and absorbs in the infrared region.

Fact: We pump MILLIONS of metric tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year.

 

Therefore, human sources of CO2 DO contribute to the warming of the planet. The fact that we have been doing so for a very short time on the geologic timescale means little, when the overall effect is clear. The Earth just doesn't have the mechanisms to compensate for this added influx, but, since we've only been doing it for a short time, we don't have the data to show the exact effects on the planet or how soon the effects can be catastrophic.

 

The problem the idea that "it can't be proved right now so let's just wait and see" attitude, is that added CO2 to the atmosphere does not change the Earth's climate immediately, rather, it takes about 100 years for about 2/3's of the effect to be felt. So if we completely eliminated all CO2 and other inputs into the atmposhere today (absolutely impossible and inpractical), we would continue to experience the effects for a century. This is why scientist such as myself and others have a great mistrust of the so called "wait and see" approach to the issue. I fail to see how this amounts to "fear mongering" and "bogus claims".

 

I think a larger problem is the short sighted nature of people in general. When gas prices are four bucks a gallon, the sheeple cry out for help and alternative fuels. Now that they've gone back down to an admited high, but someone more reasonable price, I bet demand for a comprehensive energy plan goes in the toilet. "Ding" your hot-pockets are done...

[/dev/null]

It's about power and control. First you convince the masses there is a problem, then any action you seek can be related to controlling or solving the problem. Almost any industry, government policy or action and be viewed through this lens of Global Warming and then be subject to control by the very same people pushing the agenda. These people will tax, regulate, limit, control, and drive the economy down with it as a result of their actions.

 

So it's not about economic destruction per se, it's all about power.

 

The earth has been going though periods of cooling and warming for millions of years. We should all be good stewards of the earth and eliminate all pollutants to a maximum extent. But to create bogus claims and fear mongering about a global catastrophe if we don't act now is just ridiculous.

 

First you get the money, then you get the power. Then you get the women

[elegantelliotoffen]

It's about power and control. First you convince the masses there is a problem, then any action you seek can be related to controlling or solving the problem. Almost any industry, government policy or action and be viewed through this lens of Global Warming and then be subject to control by the very same people pushing the agenda. These people will tax, regulate, limit, control, and drive the economy down with it as a result of their actions.

 

So it's not about economic destruction per se, it's all about power.

 

Sort of like convincing the masses that a certain country possesses non-existent WMD's and then using this fear to...well you know the rest!

[gmac17]

So how do you explain that 99% of meteorologists, climatologists, and other weather-related scientists agree with them? Are they all being paid off?

 

link?

 

Because I know a meteorologist and he is far from in that 99% camp. Are things getting warmer? Yes. Are we to blame and can anything be done? Who knows.

 

And as for google, they buy a fighter jet as a toy for themselves, and then let NASA use it (or say they will use it) for experiments - because I'm sure NASA really needs a fighter jet for experiments.

[Gene Frenkle]

So just because I don't follow the party line and I believe that a "scientific consensus" is a proven theory then I'm a heretic?

 

I am an engineer and I do know a lot about scientific studies and simulation models that the global warming theorists all rave about. The problem is that they can't prove it. That's why they have to call it "scientific consensus". I posted here many times on the subject on global warming and I just don't buy it. I don't care if Ronald Regean himself said he believed it it wouldn't change mt mind. I think we should be good stewards of the earth and cut down on pollution as much as we can but not at the expense of peoples rights and the good of the economy.

 

Read this article if you can, it's long and I know most liberals are not tolerant of opposing views and not intellectual honest but give it a try. You might actually learn something.

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_...e_viscou_1.html

So you're relatively uneducated opinion about global warming trumps the scientific consensus of 90-95% of actual scientists who are experts in the relevant fields. Got it. Sounds more like you have a strong opinion that you're too invested in to let go of. Science is ever-evolving and the best you can ever do is base 'what we know' on the current observations and resulting analysis and theories. It is non-biased, has no preference of outcome and is always quick and happy to change based on new observations and data.

 

Your 'I don't buy it' is a common logical fallacy called the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Further, your opinion is driven solely by your world view. You offer no competing theory, but instead link to a ridiculous fringe article from an incredibly biased Conservative publication whose political ideals benefit from the debunking of human-caused Global Warming. Really credible. Please go stick your head back in the sand with the rest of the retards who this there is still any sort of real debate about this, given what currently know. On the outside chance that you're right, that you actually threw some sh-- to the wall that stuck, it is for all the wrong-headed, blindly ignorant reasons.

[Gene Frenkle]

link?

 

Because I know a meteorologist and he is far from in that 99% camp. Are things getting warmer? Yes. Are we to blame and can anything be done? Who knows.

 

And as for google, they buy a fighter jet as a toy for themselves, and then let NASA use it (or say they will use it) for experiments - because I'm sure NASA really needs a fighter jet for experiments.

Wow, not to be too skeptically nerdy, but TWO Arguments from Personal Incredulity in a single thread. Unfortunately not surprising. Incidentally, I know a guy who is far from 99% that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Guess that's not a sure thing either.

[gmac17]

Wow, not to be too skeptically nerdy, but TWO Arguments from Personal Incredulity in a single thread. Unfortunately not surprising. Incidentally, I know a guy who is far from 99% that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Guess that's not a sure thing either.

 

 

Ok Gene, how about this - show me something to backup the statement that: 99% of meteorologists, climatologists, and other weather-related scientists think global warming is man made. I'll be waiting, while al gore takes his 100 foot houseboat for a spin and while Larry and Sergei go for some fun rides in their new toy all the while "doing no evil"....

[Gene Frenkle]

Ok Gene, how about this - show me something to backup the statement that: 99% of meteorologists, climatologists, and other weather-related scientists think global warming is man made. I'll be waiting, while al gore takes his 100 foot houseboat for a spin and while Larry and Sergei go for some fun rides in their new toy all the while "doing no evil"....

I never made such a statement. As for the rest of it, does the fact that these people do these things or are even possibly hypocritical mean that man made global warming does not exist? Are you more interested in the truth or winning an argument?