I contend from Billkyle's post below, that the main argument given against global warming are simply the arguments against global warming have not been heard.
So, why don't the sources like Bill Grey just give the arguments? I mean, they have somebody there to quote them. Then would be the time to let us see the counter-arguments, but they don't. Why?
It's really this simple -- since that first hairy knuckle-dragger way-back-when figured out that it's a pretty good idea to keep this fire thing going continuously, man's collective activities have had an effect upon the natural environment.
The more mankind there is, the more effect it has. The more advanced mankind becomes by way of maing tool and whatnot, the quicker and more intense the effect becomes.
I think in the end these guys who deny global climate change, either instigated or acelerated by mankind, kid only themselves. IMHO, the best they can do is argue about the direction and speed and intensity of that change.
As for me, point me to the Middle East.
Thanx. I'm too lazy to do any research, but I wonder how this correlates : skepticism about global climate change and/with advocacy of Creationism/Intelligent Design?
Several aspects of global warming science fly in the face of Biblical history, if you accept the scientific evidence then you virtually admit the Bible if a false accout of creation...
I'll admit I am in the camp of seeing the Biblical time-line as true and science as flawed...
Nothing on this planet "evolves", but "devolves" with the passing of time.
While in these end days it is prophecied that "knowledge will greatly increase", it does not say that "wisdom" will... Al Gore's ideas for being "CO2 neutral" are foolish and laughable! The perfect example of knowledge without applied wisdom!
(The planet will get warmer with out without human interference, but BILLIONS will be gained in corporate-profits as we try to spend our way to lower CO2 emissions... Absolutely assinine!)
Your not informed by facts, Ben. You're informed only by ancient literature. That literature is contradictory even from its own point of view. It was badly written by semi-literates, mis-translated, and then compiled into the Bible by a church you now oppose.
The Bishops who compiled it had their own agendas, and this is a matter of record. While it was being compiled, they were buggering each other and young boys with the same zeal fallen ministers do it today. Meanwhile, they came up with the Trinity-- which is not found in the Bible, simply to explain why Jesus's existence was eternal and how to reconcile a second god with monotheism.
Yet you believe this literature, and to preserve that belief, you will deny facts presented, and will lie to make it sound like rational doubt.
This is simply corrupt, Ben. A corruption of belief, a simple mental process, into "belief in," a moral standard.
Believe the literature despite everything if you must, but stop the arguments there. You don't really care for the facts. You consider denial to be a test to your belief. Play that game alone or with Creationists support groups.
... But I am no where near ready, I'll start it as a new topic someday when we've over-hashed these current threads and are ready for a new fight...
I must say, You greatly under-estimate the amount of knowledge I have on both sides of the issue, perhaps you should consider that I only take in TERin 5 minute gulps throughout the day and I do it from a PDA-phone! I don't exactly have the luxury to cut-n-paste from "Wik-fuckin'-pedia" like so many of the rest of you,,, And yes, I openly admit, I shoot posts from the hip, I usually only turn to researching and quoting sources after the 3rd rebutt... This is a "discussion-forum", not a "science-journal"... however, both perspectives are welcome...
As to your brief history re-cap ofhow the Bible way brought to it's current form, that is a cute little story, that roughly follows the timelines and some facts, but it's incredibly simple-minded, and about on par with the "global-warming cartoon" done by the Simpson's art-team for Inconvenient truth is to the actual science!
One day I'll get into all that... Since this is now the politics AND religion board, ROTFL!
"Simple-minded." That was the short-form, Ben. I too have limits on my time.
From the Princess Bride: "I'm not really left-handed either."
And while there is no evidence from that time-period that the Cathholics were fucking each other and fondling little boys, we agree that it was probably happening... After all they were "Romans" prior to becoming "Christians", lol!
I noticed that you did not seem to show up here till you were moderator; you don't seem like the type of guy who uses an alias. Or perhaps you lurked, but I don't think so, otherwise you would have noticed the "pattern" to my posts sooner.
I also notice that you try to dominate this board more than any other moderator I've ever seen. Then you change the name to "Politics and Religion."
You might try to look whimsical, Ben, but there's a pattern to what you're doing here. I can't wait for your grand opus to bring everyone here to their knees in awe at your spiritual and intellectual enlightenment.
I already know that if it is a matter of switching subjects to engines or even swallows, you will kick ass.
This board has been leaning HARD to the left for years! (And guess what! I figured out why!!)
It was TMT!, being a strong liberal himself would not ALLOW all sides of an issue to be presented, AMAZING how "selective" the prosess of who was moderated and who wasn't!
I've attempted to post in here a few times in the past, but MY posts were REMOVED, because my viewpoints were either to brash or outside his "threshold"...
Why is it that you think I am "Dominating"?? That would imply that I am withholding posts that do not agree with my views, I am not and have not...
Only jack0 has been held back by me (only because he couldn't control his BEHAVIOR!)
The pre-approved post folder for this board is EMPTY! (mainly because I unmoderated everyone the day I moved in)
I allow ALL sides to speak as much as they want, shout "fuck you" a often a they want, say any nasty thing about Jesus, Bush, Israel, Republicans, ect. as they want, I don't censor anyone!
AND with that "freedom" I brought here, I also exercise it and speak my opinions, which you may notice, NOBODY LIKES! LOL!
How is it "dominating" to completely throw open the floodgate of free speech on a discussion board in a way that it NEVER approached prior??
Or is it that this "domination" really is within YOU?? Can you only cope when your team holds the floor and the gavel??
Is it your goal to rant unapposed?
When have I told you to "shut up"?? Which is in essence what you are telling me...
I have no desire to contain you, convert you, change you, or "dominate" you, but I am also under no obligation to AGREE with you either!
However, I will admit this to you: If anyone on this board stretches my thinking, causes me to re-examine a belief I hold, or refine my opinion on a topic, it's you!
Iron does sharpen iron... You continue being you, and I'll continue being me...
(I don't intend to "bring anyone to their knees" with any "grand opus", Infact I rather hope they fly into furious rebuttal, 'cuz I'm a pain-slut... If I wanted an amen-chorus, I'd go preach to a choir!)
So go ahead, attack anything I say, any claim I make, any level of faith I express, any facts I quote... If I wanted my opinions to "dominate", I'd just moderate you and everyone else, and delete all posts but my own, but what good would come of that? I may as well lock myself in the bathroom and rave at the shower-curtain...
QUOTE:
"This board has been leaning HARD to the left for years!... being a strong liberal himself would not ALLOW all sides of an issue to be presented, AMAZING how "selective" the prosess of who was moderated and who wasn't!"
Being one of those that had been strongly moderated, I had known this for a long time but was powerless to do anything about it (at least here anyway).
That was something I could not see. I apologize for judging you wrong. Without knowing that Ben, you looked like a mouse who gets the head of a lion when given a little authority.
I might recoil at your views or wretch over your humor, but Ben I don't have any complaints about your moderating style. None so far.
The board has been much more active and interesting. That is a clear sign of a hands-off approach. I like it.
Of course, I can't know exactly how tightly a board is moderated. I've never been moderated myself and I've seldom had a post removed. There have been complaints I've heard from others over how some boards are moderated and who it happens to. There are posts and threads that "go away" but I don't see them and then not see them very often.
I did not think you were going to use your authority to censor. However, not knowing that you were previously totally moderated, I was really believing that you had no interest here until you were given authority. That did not bode well.
Not that you would have moderated people who opposed it, no, but you might spam the board with it, and you might just turn this into a non-stop flame-war yourself. That's what I was thinking.
I am a Minnesota native and that is my home-board. We had one of the worst over-moderated boards on TER! About 1 out of 5 posts I'd attempt would make it to the board, but I have one of those bull-dog personalities that just don't give up, so I set out to "take over" and started a new user-account (that is why the "Ben Dover" name doesn't have much history on the boards, even though I was a charter paid-VIP member for years under a diffent username)
Long-story-short, I caused a ruckus, got banned from here, talked it out with David, abd he let me back in and made me moderator at the same time, lol! Not tne Minnesota board is BY FAR the most open-minded and highest read regional board on TER (yes, I'm shamelessly blowing my own horn, lol!)
To be perfectly clear about this poli-board, I stumbled into it. TMT quit on short notice and I took it by default, I actually wanted Vegas, but another story...
Anyway, I had been dis-enchanted by the "politics" of this boarc (pun intended) along time ago and had wrote it off due to not being "free" to express myself...
At first, I may seem a bit over-bearing, (actually, I "am" over-bearing, lol!) but as time rolls on and people start to discover they have a mainly "unrestricted" voice in here, I start to blend into the crowd...
Do I have an agenda?? Yes, I do... But it's not to convert or control. It is simply to hold open the door in the market-place of ideas, which mean protecting things I hate with the same zeal I project the things I believe... Too bad they won't give my the program-director job @ Fox-News... ROTFL!
I've not been able to find a study as to the pros and cons of limited-scale tactical nuclear war and it's impact on global warming...
I think we ARE going to see a "man-made rise in surface temperature" out in the sand region long before any of Al Gore's theories come to pass, So I think the "environmental impact" of THAT event should be factored in to these studies... What say you?
Carl Sagan and a number of collaborators released some studies and more popular accessible essays re that very possibility, of global enviromental impacts of nuclear war. As I remember it, the outcome would be global cooling because of the enormous amounts of dust and dirt and smutz throw up into the atmosphere by X number of above ground nuclear detonations. The smutz would form a mass opaque cloud over the atmosphere, blocking sunlight, and you can figure out the rest. As i remember it, it was termed Nuclear Winter. Go online, prowl the archives for Foreign Affairs, and it will turn up somewhere between mid-1982 and the start of 1984.
I i remember my basic science, CO2 is not combustible, so it wouldn't be consumed by the heat effects of a nuclear detonation. Sorry, not able to guess at a mechanism by which a nuclear explosion might produce CO2.
And it was concern over the aggregate effects on the atmosphere of above-ground nuclear testing which contributed to the 1963 Limitd Test Ban Treaty, which restricted the signatories to below-ground nuclear testing.
I'll have to study up on that...
I was actually still in "highschool science class" in 1982, lol!
I realize that CO2 isn't flamable, but it must break down at some temperature extreme... I'll have to dig out my 1982 science book, lol!
Perhaps the effects of "nuclear winter" and "global warming" can balance eachother out?? Maybe more scientific-study should be put into how many nuks need to be exploded over Iran, Syria and North Korea to "cool the planet" just enough to counter the effects of global warming and allow the glaciers to re-freeze... Then we'll have 1000 years of peace AND mild weather!
You are a mind reader.
I was jotting down some notes for a satrical post re that very idea after I posted the above. I thought, what a crazy idea. NO ONE ELSE could possibly think of something this stupid! Some misguided politically liberal scientists concoct a scheme to do that exact thing. Just like countercyclical Kenysian economics. And you know how well we've mastered that opaque science.
But you've selfishly jumped the gun and stolen my thunder and my glory.
They say the great minds think alike. Alas, so do the lesser ones it seems.
BTW, some articles in Scientific American and Science [which I think is peer-reviewed] around that time.
In HS in 1982? You miserable litle young punk kid[LOL!].
...Multiple pops too, ROTFL @ you old guys!
I just hope I don't become as cynical and gullable on my old age as the rest of you,,, ROTFLMFAO!
(Useless "Ben Dover trivia: It was on my 18th birthday when I had my first experence in this hobby, it was at a local AMP that I stumbled into after leaving a coin-operated peep-show. I was put in a room with a beautiful asian girl who was probably 20-25yo. I had $500 party-dollars in my pocket and I left sometime the next afternoon pennyless, but happy, lol! -- Side-note trivia, that is also the only time in my life I've fucked a girl older than me, lol!)
-- Modified on 12/30/2006 7:34:48 AM
I too thought it would go on forever, and I held out until about 49. Sigh.
Give us an upate on 12/30/16.
So I can maintain my stamina, keep my hair and continue at my current hobby level well into my 70's... hehehe! Let's start testing expermental-drugs on baby-boomers now, so they'll be perfected by the time I need them, lol!
Carcinogenic.
Ironic Downside : Libido Reductive/Destructive.
Of the secular or religious sort?
Personally, I'll be very happy to reach 70 knowing that there are other people alive. Call me a pessimist. Of course, if that's met, I will consider it unbelievably fortunate if my cock still gets hard.
...A low-wattage florescent bulb will actually SAVE more production of CO2 that is created during the production of the bulb!
Al Gore's lame-ass logic for becoming "carbon-neutral" fails to consider the by-product of manufacturing 5 florescent bulbs for every household in America! That's some "inconvenient" flawed-logic!
And you fucked up your syntax.
Do you even know HOW a fluorescent bulb is made??
Do you realize how argon, krypton, or neon are isolated to be used in the bulb??
Do you realize there's mercury used? and what it takes to prosses that?
Do you have any idea the components used in the capasitive-discharging circuts and how they are made? and the manufacturing prosesses involved in electroletic capacitors??
How about even the simple prosses of forming the glass tubes and the plastic/bake-lite base??
Of course you DON'T!! Otherwise you'd have see what an ABSLOUTE ASS you were before answering me!
LIKEWISE, you can't smell your own shit when you re-tread the worn-out tires on the global-warming wagon with your noxious arguments based on Al Grores simpleton-views of what's happening to our planet!
Go screw a compact-fluorescent lamp in your ass! It will do just as much good at preventing global-warming as any of the rest of your half-brained ideas!!
For the skeptics, what about this? Click on the link.
Think of all the sad children that wouldn't get presents next year while the elves relocate! A tragedy for sure!
The Nancy had better hold a special session to increase welfare-spending on toys for the under-privileged! I only hope there's enough time for Democrats to SAVE Christmas '07!
And I'm bloody glad. I've shelled out plently of $$$ this year and many other years past for Toys For Tots, Women In Need, and suchlike groups.
I'm cursed, I know it will end up exactly this way : one of the criminogenic "underprivledged" illegitimate welps of fatally-fetrile underclass women, who has enjoyed the generosity of my guilty white conscience, will grow up and mug me. Probably beat me to within an inch of my life in the bargain! There's no other possibility!
When you give to "Toys 4 Twats" we put viberators in the stockings of those "fatally-fetrile underclass women", so they can be empowered to pleasure themselves, rather that need a "jobless thug" to come by and breed them... Hopefully within a couple generations we won't need toys4tots anymore, lol!
These women take their pleasure in solitude because their men are in solitary? Hmmm?
That would stop the growth of the dependency-class in America in one generation...
Plus, AIDS would quickly reduce the poverty statistic in 14 years... It's sad to watch, but it seems to be working in Africa, I highly doubt Al Gore's predection that we will to 9 billion world-population in 25 years... Mother Earth has a way of defending herself, but Big-Mother-Gov will have to go broke before it can run it's course... However, perhaps it's good long-term stratagy to give life-extending drugs to AIDs infectees, the longer they stay alive, the more of their kind the can infect before they die... Maybe I should consider supporting a charity that sends AZT to Africa??
Like polar bears are now.
The Apocalypse. 
Its things like this that are happening practically every week. At this rate 1 out of ever 80 people on earth may end up as refugees.
-- Modified on 12/30/2006 9:21:01 PM
Those left-leaning liberal-bribed scientists have the nerve to tell us that sea levels are rising! No evidence, I tell you! No evidence that sea levels are rising!
Now they tell us that some island that had 10,000 people has sunk, and they claim this is evidence. Ridiculous! I want to see proof. How do they even know that island even existed? I mean, you have to look at who funded that study!
Out of character now: As I said, there's a study and/or an event coming out every week that confirms anthropogenic global warming.
-- Modified on 12/31/2006 10:19:18 PM
if our environment was so unstable that a little CO2 would send us spinning into uncontrolled global warming? Compared to Krakatoa, Pinitabo and other natural events our man made contributions pale by comparison. And the Earth survived. It's not so fragile. If it were, we'd be long gone, or more correctly, never would have been!
All the models that predict dire consequences depend on scientists guessing on positive feedback mechanisms. All the models fail when compared against empirical data. Damn, these same sceintists told us last January that we were facing the worst hurricane season in centuries. Can you name one hurricane that hit the US this year? I'll help you -- Ernesto.
When scientists can accurately predict what will happen tomorrow I'll start worrying about their predictions of what will happen the next day and beyond.
You Californians are so gullible.
-- Modified on 12/30/2006 10:59:38 PM
His "graph" showing CO2, where levels were when there was "a mile of ice" over New York", where it is now, and where it's projected to go in the next decade or so... according to his graph, a substantially greater CO2 climb has occurred from 1970 until now, than from the peak of the ice-age until 1970!! Yet there was substantially MORE effect on climate from ice-age to 1970, than we've had from 1970 to now... Hmmm...
He kept using "alarmist-style" projections showing the difference between ice-age and now, yet stating "5 degrees C°" as the dangerous change in temp., which fools the brain so when you hear "5 degrees", it doesn't register that C° and F° are so non-linear...
If global warming was such a pending disaster, then why did they pick such a dis-credited fool as their spokes-person?? Poor marketing at the very least...
To your first paragraph is a very good objection: recent findings have indicated that other forms of air pollution, such as soot, exhaust, sulfur dioxide actually reduced the effect of greenhouse gases in the late 19th to early 20th century. These pollutants reflected light. Once they pollutants began to be cleaned up, the temperature began its climb again, and they fit predictions much better.
I am sure you see the irony in this, and it does present a way to reduce global warming-- simply take off regulations and re-pollute the air! It may poison people and other life, but it prevents 1/80th of the population from being displaced.
If we get desperate enough, that might be an option. If we could figure out how to manufacture "safe" pollutants economically, all the better.
It's like Woody Allen's "Sleeper" where cigarettes and junk food have turned out to be the best things for people's bodies.
Your second paragraph: of course, when you say that degrees of temperature aren't linear, you forgot that same principle in your previous paragraph. That comparative graph did not look linear either, but it established an approximate correlation over millennia that was difficult to ignore. The ups and downs correlated very well, though I noted there were lags. I can't call it "alarmist style" if it is a simple correlation of one number against another.
You don't have to play with a graph, put several side-by-side and decide which one looks scariest. You don't have to play with derivatives. One number is seen to vary directly to the other. One set of numbers is ppm of CO2, the other is temperature measured. Pretty direct measure here. How could that be manipulated to be alarmist?
-- Modified on 12/31/2006 10:24:31 PM
The thing about human activity is that it is continuous and growing, and growing by orders of magnitude.
The hurricane season: it's easy to see what happened there. The heat fell across the continents and not the oceans. Instead of huge hurricanes, we had an amazing heatwave.
I'd take the heat wave over the hurricanes any day, but we don't have that choice. Some years it will fall on the continents, other years it will fall on the oceans.
I don't know where you pulled the factoid that the models have failed. From a right-wing Exxon funded organization? From what I have gathered, the empirical data across the board has either been met or surpassed. I have heard scientists say this.
Finally, you are very careless when you dismissively say the earth will survive. That is not even debated one bit is it? What is posited is that the earth will change greatly in the short term-- and it will not be favorable to people and many nations. IMO, its not a change that will likely favor the US. It is likely to be greatly detrimental.
In the long term, what will almost definitely happen is that something on earth will happen to bring the changes back into balance.
The big question there is whether the "re-balancing" will entail human survival.
We cannot think ahead that far, though, at least not yet. Our concerns should be in the short-term-- short term as in 60-100 years.
-- Modified on 12/31/2006 10:26:38 PM