An Inconvenient Truth

[DrunkMonkey]

southern_freethinker wrote

Also, folks might not be aware of it (or even care, since it contradicts the holy sacrament of their Global Warming religion) that Mars is also undergoing a global warming of its own:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html
...and to my knowledge there are no SUVs or smoke-belching factories there. Could the Sun be putting out more solar energy, thereby affecting both planets? There HAS been more solar activity in the past few years. Hmm...

The sun's intensity does vary. In the late 1970's, sophisticated technology was developed that can directly measure the sun's intensity. Measurements from these instruments show that in the past 20 years the sun's variations have been very small. Indirect measures of changes in sun's intensity since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun's intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.PDF

But I am sure you know more than those alarmist scientists who actually study this stuff. We all know there would be huge problems if we tried to cut down on global carbon dioxide emissions.

You remind of Cobra. That is not a thing to be proud of.

southern_freethinker wrote

Also, folks might not be aware of it (or even care, since it contradicts the holy sacrament of their Global Warming religion) that Mars is also undergoing a global warming of its own:
...and to my knowledge there are no SUVs or smoke-belching factories there. Could the Sun be putting out more solar energy, thereby affecting both planets? There HAS been more solar activity in the past few years. Hmm...

So if we have increased solar activity combined with a greenhouse effect, what then?

psik

psikeyhackr wrote

So if we have increased solar activity combined with a greenhouse effect, what then?

psik

IT MEANS WE'RE ALL GONNA (SOB!!) DIE !!!!! Oh gawd, we're all gonna DIIIIEEEE! Oh wait, no that's a bit overblown, sorry....sort of like Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie. Here's what another environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, said about the issue:

"Wondering how all this might go over with Al Gore, I ask Mr. Lomborg if he'd seen the former vice president's new film that warns of a climate-change disaster. He's planning to, but notes he wasn't impressed by the trailers: "It appears to be so overblown that it isn't helpful to the discussion." Not that Mr. Lomborg doesn't think global warming is a problem--he does. But he lays out the facts. "The proposed way of fixing this--to drastically reduce carbon emissions now and to solve a 100-year problem in a 10-year time frame, is just a bad idea. You do fairly little good at a fairly high price. It makes more sense to solve the 100-year problem in a 50-year time frame, and solve the 10-year problems, like HIV-AIDS, in a five-year time frame. That makes sense, and is the smart way to spend money."

Slipping into his environmentalist's shoes, he also says people need to get some perspective. "The U.N. tells us global warming will result in a sea-level change of one to two feet. It is not going to be the 30 feet Al Gore is scaring us with. Is this one to two feet going to be a problem? Sure," he says. "But remember that this past century sea levels rose between one-third and a full foot. And if you ask old people today what the most important things were that happened in the 20th century, do you think they are going to say: 'Two world wars, the internal combustion engine, the IT revolution . . . and sea levels rose'? It's not to say it isn't a problem. But we fix these problems."


So er....maybe we're all NOT gonna die after all, at least from Global Warming. C'mon folks, bring the same rationality that you bring to atheism to the new religion of Global Warming. I'm just saying you need to apply the same skepticism you already have to this new religion.

Oops, forgot to cite the above quotation...here 'tis:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008626

So, regarding Global Warming as a religion aside, here's a bigger question. If we can have only scant effect on global warming no matter what we do, is it worth the trillions of dollars and higher taxes and curtailing our behaviors for only a token mitigation of the effect? Or maybe we can just (as Bjorn Lomborg says) just work around it and go on with our lives. After all, the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all the effects of the Industrial Age combined. Whatever global warming there is is vastly due more to nature (volcanoes, solar effects, etc.) than the puny amount we humans are contributing. Capitalist Pig that I am, I don't want to see any more of my income or savings diverted to lofty but unattainable goals...tilting at windmills or "fixing" global warming. Tell it to China and India...they're pumping out WAY more CO2 than we are. What do you think their reply would be? "OH, so sorry...OK, we stop now." Yeah, good luck.

[Professor Chaos]

The biggest skeptic in the world is convinced.

You're using INHOFE as a citation? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Hmmmm, look where most of Inhofe's money comes from.

AP finds virtual unanimity among scientists agreeing with Gore's data.

[Professor Chaos]

And get your facts straight on CO2 emissions.

Nobody touches the U.S.

Professor Chaos wrote

The biggest skeptic in the world is convinced.

You're using INHOFE as a citation? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Hmmmm, look where most of Inhofe's money comes from.

AP finds virtual unanimity among scientists agreeing with Gore's data.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
You're using the Gore movie as a citation?

[Professor Chaos]

southern_freethinker wrote

So, regarding Global Warming as a religion aside, here's a bigger question. If we can have only scant effect on global warming no matter what we do, is it worth the trillions of dollars and higher taxes and curtailing our behaviors for only a token mitigation of the effect? Or maybe we can just (as Bjorn Lomborg says) just work around it and go on with our lives. After all, the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all the effects of the Industrial Age combined. Whatever global warming there is is vastly due more to nature (volcanoes, solar effects, etc.) than the puny amount we humans are contributing. Capitalist Pig that I am, I don't want to see any more of my income or savings diverted to lofty but unattainable goals...tilting at windmills or "fixing" global warming. Tell it to China and India...they're pumping out WAY more CO2 than we are. What do you think their reply would be? "OH, so sorry...OK, we stop now." Yeah, good luck.

Every post you've made on this topic is teeming with bullshit. What makes you say that we can have "only scant effect on global warming no matter what we do?"

I'd love to see your sources for this. Let me guess, "Concerned Oil Collecting Knights of Science?"

Professor Chaos wrote

And get your facts straight on CO2 emissions.

Nobody touches the U.S.

So? As Lombord says, we'll work around it. Oh wait, I forgot the Global Warming holy mantra:

"WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE!! OH NO!!!!"

...there, does that make ya feel better?

[Professor Chaos]

Southern Freethinker wrote

a bunch of incorrect information

professor chaos wrote

calling him out on it.

Southern Freethinker wrote

So! You're a poopy!

Way to go, douche. :rolleyes:

The Global Warming fundamentalists do carry on, don't they? What's next? ...preaching on streetcorners? Oh wait, they already do that. How about door-to-door campaigning? Oh wait, some of them do that too. OMG, we've seen the birth of a new religion right here in our own lifetimes!! Somebody mix up the kool-aid.

[Professor Chaos]

southern_freethinker wrote

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
You're using the Gore movie as a citation?

Here's a tip. The blue colored letters are what are known as "links." If you scroll your mouse (the plastic thing that moves the little arrow on your monitor) so that the arrow goes over the letters, the arrow will turn into a hand (the only thing that will have sex with you.) Then, "click" the left button, and you will find that you can learn some stuff by "reading" the articles you'll wind up looking at.

[Professor Chaos]

southern_freethinker wrote

[Philboid Studge]

SFreeT wrote

If we can have only scant effect on global warming no matter what we do, is it worth the trillions of dollars and higher taxes and curtailing our behaviors for only a token mitigation of the effect?

A false choice, of course. A real capitalist would recognise two things: the opportunities to develop all kinds of new industries and the necessity of doing so before the oil runs out.

S.FreeT, why do you think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists -- from all sorts of backgrounds, political systems, etc -- have come to a consensus on this, whereas a handful of skeptics (such as Lomborg [who is not, I hasten to add, a climate expert but a statistician]) deny the science? Are the majority of climate experts around the world beholden to the 'religion' of climate change? That doesn't strike you as slightly cuckoo-bananas?

Really, now: why? Do you think there's a vast leftscience-wing conspiracy to redistribute wealth (as numbnuts like Inhofe suggest)?