you don't reduce your carbon footprint This is in Australia.

You have got to be kidding me.  Has it come down to this?  Scare our kids and have them live in fear about something that isnt happening?

The following letter signed by five physicists was sent to all 100 U.S. Senator's on October 29, 2009. The letter is reproduced in full.

CO2 has little effect on climate

Polluters should be punished as murderers?

Absolutely, says Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Heinzerling. And she is willing to wipe out half of the world’s population to prove her point. Given her way, she would turn into murderers every manufacturer in America who had any inkling of an idea ahead of time that their actions had even the remotest statistical chance of causing a pollution-related death. And she is determined to give her view the force of law.

Face the facts.  THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE.  

90% of scientists agree that global warming is ocurring.

82% agree that humans have affected the climate.

Is it time to trust the minority?  Or is it all agenda driven.  LOL at the fact that petroleum scientiests disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Originally posted by Sabiancym

90% of scientists agree that global warming is ocurring.

 

82% agree that humans have affected the climate.

 

 

Is it time to trust the minority?  Or is it all agenda driven.  LOL at the fact that petroleum scientiests disagree.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Notice you didn't say humans have affected the climate significantly as compared with natural global  cooling/warming cycles.

The "majority" is as agenda driven as the minority. There is more money backing the man-made global warming scam (billions of government dollars are behind it as well as corporate money vs just some corporate money on the other side).

However let us see YOU make the case. Prove man is a significant factor. That's hurdle one. Next, prove it is BAD that the planet warms (previous global warming periods were GOOD for humanity, bringing about expansions in the food supply due to more arable land).  Next, prove that anything anyone is talking about doing will do any good and that it is worth the cost.

You've got three hurdles. Good luck.

I've had this challenge out to this forum for over a year now. No one has provided any evidence. Let's see some.

Humans have been affecting the climate in HUGE ways since we've started farming(all types) as our primary food source.

We've been affecting the ecosystem even longer.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

90% of scientists agree that global warming is ocurring.

 

82% agree that humans have affected the climate.

 

 

Is it time to trust the minority?  Or is it all agenda driven.  LOL at the fact that petroleum scientiests disagree.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

I was going to retort, but its useless. All I will say is your numbers are way, way off. You may also look at the man who started the whole "global warming" movement. Even he is stating the earth is beginning to go into a cooling cycle. Global warming nuts...just as fanatic as religious nuts.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

90% of scientists agree that global warming is ocurring.

 

82% agree that humans have affected the climate.

 

 

Is it time to trust the minority?  Or is it all agenda driven.  LOL at the fact that petroleum scientiests disagree.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

I was going to retort, but its useless. All I will say is your numbers are way, way off. You may also look at the man who started the whole "global warming" movement. Even he is stating the earth is beginning to go into a cooling cycle. Global warming nuts...just as fanatic as religious nuts.

"My" numbers are off?  I didn't just make them up.  I pulled them from the survey.

So why is the survey wrong?  Explain it.

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

Methane42 could probably help you out but I haven't seen him around in forever.

Also they don't call it "global warming" anymore they call it "climate change" that way if the temp goes up or down they will be right.

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

 

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

Show me any science done anywhere where they don't depend on funding from someone. Either it's corporate or government or both. there is bias built into the system.

However I look forward to seeing you prove anything you are saying here in this thread. Thus far you have ignored all challenges.

No proof of manmade global warming (surveys prove nothing but reflect people's opinions). No proof that if there IS manmade global warming, it's a bad thing. No proof that measures suggested will have any effect on the supposed problem.

Now you need to  prove there is unbiased science.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

 

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

 

Show me any science done anywhere where they don't depend on funding from someone. Either it's corporate or government or both. there is bias built into the system.

However I look forward to seeing you prove anything you are saying here in this thread. Thus far you have ignored all challenges.

No proof of manmade global warming (surveys prove nothing but reflect people's opinions). No proof that if there IS manmade global warming, it's a bad thing. No proof that measures suggested will have any effect on the supposed problem.

Now you need to  prove there is unbiased science.

All I've said in this thread is that scientist overwhelmingly agree that global warming exists and that man has had something to do with it.

I figure the only way I could "prove" it to you is if I spent the next 10 years of my life getting an environmental science degree, investing millions of my own money, and publishing the results.  And even then you would claim bias.  It's a nice little tool that you always have available.  You said in your own words that you believe all science has a bias, and now you're asking me to prove the exact thing you said is always biased?  Isn't that a little contradictory?

Here's proof for global warming.  It's impossible to refute that global warming exists unless of course you don't understand the fact that a higher average temperature = warmer.

There are plenty of arguments that could be made to argue that man has had an effect on this rise.  Gases released directly proportional to rise in ocean temp, expansion of the oil industry, etc.  All of which I'm sure you've seen, claimed bias, and left screaming "OMG HOAX"

So I guess it comes down to opinion.  And people are overwhelmingly supporting the stance that man-made global warming is real.  And guess what?  If temperatures drop in the next 30 years, the global warming side will say that us acting solved it, and those against it will claim it was going to do it either way.  Good luck proving either one.

I for one believe in man-made global warming, but even if I was unsure, I'd want to err on the side of caution.  Doing something about it when you didn't need to is just a waste of time and money, the earth got along just fine before we started polluting so us reducing that pollution certainly won't hurt.  However, doing nothing when you should have could be catastrophic.

Ahh global warming.  So two thoughts,

For the people that believe in global warming, Are humans just nasty evil creatures that don't belong on this world and the cure is to remove us?

And, what is your solution?  Tax us back to the stone age so the only agency that can do anything is the government? 

Because the only thing I ever see a leftie tout is carbon tax and breaking the global economy so hard that the effects of that are going to be worse than the global warming itself. 

So why would I want to listen to you? 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

I for one believe in man-made global warming, but even if I was unsure, I'd want to err on the side of caution.  Doing something about it when you didn't need to is just a waste of time and money, the earth got along just fine before we started polluting so us reducing that pollution certainly won't hurt.  However, doing nothing when you should have could be catastrophic.

 

And so what?  Global warming is partly through human interaction.  But how much? 

In the 2002 NRC report**, natural seepage was the largest
single source of petroleum in the worldwide marine
environment, contributing over 4 MMbbl/yr, 47-percent of
total inputs.   Link

It is thought that because we are drilling the oil out of the ground, we are releasing pressure therefore there is less sepage.  O.o

Originally posted by Sargoth

Ahh global warming.  So two thoughts,

For the people that believe in global warming, Are humans just nasty evil creatures that don't belong on this world and the cure is to remove us?

And, what is your solution?  Tax us back to the stone age so the only agency that can do anything is the government? 

Because the only thing I ever see a leftie tout is carbon tax and breaking the global economy so hard that the effects of that are going to be worse than the global warming itself. 

So why would I want to listen to you? 

And all I ever see a righty tout is that we should drill more, use more, and innovate less because of it.  Running us into even more of a resource drought and having nothing to substitute it with because we were told we had plenty.

If you think a carbon tax will hurt the economy, imagine what will happen in a hundred years when we start running out of the stuff that powers damn near everything we do.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

 

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

 

Show me any science done anywhere where they don't depend on funding from someone. Either it's corporate or government or both. there is bias built into the system.

However I look forward to seeing you prove anything you are saying here in this thread. Thus far you have ignored all challenges.

No proof of manmade global warming (surveys prove nothing but reflect people's opinions). No proof that if there IS manmade global warming, it's a bad thing. No proof that measures suggested will have any effect on the supposed problem.

Now you need to  prove there is unbiased science.

 

 

All I've said in this thread is that scientist overwhelmingly agree that global warming exists and that man has had something to do with it.

 

I figure the only way I could "prove" it to you is if I spent the next 10 years of my life getting an environmental science degree, investing millions of my own money, and publishing the results.  And even then you would claim bias.  It's a nice little tool that you always have available.  You said in your own words that you believe all science has a bias, and now you're asking me to prove the exact thing you said is always biased?  Isn't that a little contradictory?

 

Here's proof for global warming.  It's impossible to refute that global warming exists unless of course you don't understand the fact that a higher average temperature = warmer.

 

There are plenty of arguments that could be made to argue that man has had an effect on this rise.  Gases released directly proportional to rise in ocean temp, expansion of the oil industry, etc.  All of which I'm sure you've seen, claimed bias, and left screaming "OMG HOAX"

 

So I guess it comes down to opinion.  And people are overwhelmingly supporting the stance that man-made global warming is real.  And guess what?  If temperatures drop in the next 30 years, the global warming side will say that us acting solved it, and those against it will claim it was going to do it either way.  Good luck proving either one.

 

I for one believe in man-made global warming, but even if I was unsure, I'd want to err on the side of caution.  Doing something about it when you didn't need to is just a waste of time and money, the earth got along just fine before we started polluting so us reducing that pollution certainly won't hurt.  However, doing nothing when you should have could be catastrophic.

 

Nothing you are showing proves man is a significant factor. Global warming and global cooling have been happening scince the dawn of time. You need to prove WE are actually doing it, which you can't. You need to then prove that it is bad. You mereluy say it could be catastrophic, while all other warming periods have been good for man.

In other words, you take all this on faith with no proof. You are willing to bankrupt the planet and destroy the earth's economy all based upon that faith. Hmmmm. Interesting. I am seeing a pattern here with you on a great many things.

Sorry I don't have the same faith as you. I believe in reason, not votes by people who get more money from governments if they vote your way.

I base my decisions on science, not the land of make believe or the land of government money.

However if you can ever find some proof for what you believe in, I'll be happy to give it a look-see. Until then, I'm calling BS on what you say.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Ahh global warming.  So two thoughts,

For the people that believe in global warming, Are humans just nasty evil creatures that don't belong on this world and the cure is to remove us?

And, what is your solution?  Tax us back to the stone age so the only agency that can do anything is the government? 

Because the only thing I ever see a leftie tout is carbon tax and breaking the global economy so hard that the effects of that are going to be worse than the global warming itself. 

So why would I want to listen to you? 

 

 

And all I ever see a righty tout is that we should drill more, use more, and innovate less because of it.  Running us into even more of a resource drought and having nothing to substitute it with because we were told we had plenty.

If you think a carbon tax will hurt the economy, imagine what will happen in a hundred years when we start running out of the stuff that powers damn near everything we do.

In a hundred years we will have new sources of power and we are liable to have colonies on all the planets. Most manufacturing will be in zero gravity and we will be able to shoot all our garbage into the sun. Look back 100 years. Look at how much has changed and how much we have advanced. My God how narrow-minded and visionless you are. It's scary.

I know if you have your way, all we have gained will be destroyed and billions will starve.

yeesh. such backward thinking you have.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Ahh global warming.  So two thoughts,

For the people that believe in global warming, Are humans just nasty evil creatures that don't belong on this world and the cure is to remove us?

And, what is your solution?  Tax us back to the stone age so the only agency that can do anything is the government? 

Because the only thing I ever see a leftie tout is carbon tax and breaking the global economy so hard that the effects of that are going to be worse than the global warming itself. 

So why would I want to listen to you? 

 

 

And all I ever see a righty tout is that we should drill more, use more, and innovate less because of it.  Running us into even more of a resource drought and having nothing to substitute it with because we were told we had plenty.

If you think a carbon tax will hurt the economy, imagine what will happen in a hundred years when we start running out of the stuff that powers damn near everything we do.

So what do you propose then?

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

 

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

 

Show me any science done anywhere where they don't depend on funding from someone. Either it's corporate or government or both. there is bias built into the system.

However I look forward to seeing you prove anything you are saying here in this thread. Thus far you have ignored all challenges.

No proof of manmade global warming (surveys prove nothing but reflect people's opinions). No proof that if there IS manmade global warming, it's a bad thing. No proof that measures suggested will have any effect on the supposed problem.

Now you need to  prove there is unbiased science.

 

 

All I've said in this thread is that scientist overwhelmingly agree that global warming exists and that man has had something to do with it.

 

I figure the only way I could "prove" it to you is if I spent the next 10 years of my life getting an environmental science degree, investing millions of my own money, and publishing the results.  And even then you would claim bias.  It's a nice little tool that you always have available.  You said in your own words that you believe all science has a bias, and now you're asking me to prove the exact thing you said is always biased?  Isn't that a little contradictory?

 

Here's proof for global warming.  It's impossible to refute that global warming exists unless of course you don't understand the fact that a higher average temperature = warmer.

 

There are plenty of arguments that could be made to argue that man has had an effect on this rise.  Gases released directly proportional to rise in ocean temp, expansion of the oil industry, etc.  All of which I'm sure you've seen, claimed bias, and left screaming "OMG HOAX"

 

So I guess it comes down to opinion.  And people are overwhelmingly supporting the stance that man-made global warming is real.  And guess what?  If temperatures drop in the next 30 years, the global warming side will say that us acting solved it, and those against it will claim it was going to do it either way.  Good luck proving either one.

 

I for one believe in man-made global warming, but even if I was unsure, I'd want to err on the side of caution.  Doing something about it when you didn't need to is just a waste of time and money, the earth got along just fine before we started polluting so us reducing that pollution certainly won't hurt.  However, doing nothing when you should have could be catastrophic.

 

 

Nothing you are showing proves man is a significant factor. Global warming and global cooling have been happening scince the dawn of time. You need to prove WE are actually doing it, which you can't. You need to then prove that it is bad. You mereluy say it could be catastrophic, while all other warming periods have been good for man.

In other words, you take all this on faith with no proof. You are willing to bankrupt the planet and destroy the earth's economy all based upon that faith. Hmmmm. Interesting. I am seeing a pattern here with you on a great many things.

Sorry I don't have the same faith as you. I believe in reason, not votes by people who get more money from governments if they vote your way.

I base my decisions on science, not the land of make believe or the land of government money.

However if you can ever find some proof for what you believe in, I'll be happy to give it a look-see. Until then, I'm calling BS on what you say.

You didn't even fucking read what I wrote.  I clearly said that I have plenty of facts that prove to me that man-made global warming is real.  You would need god himself to come down and tell you that it is real in order for you to believe it.  You said it yourself that all science has bias, so why should I bother posting what I see as proof when you'll just claim it's biased.

And I have to laugh at the "I believe in reason" from the guy who believes in a a supreme deity but has no proof of him.

I get so sick of playing your games.  It's always "Prove what you just said, I won't prove mine, but you have to prove yours."

At least people who I disagree with like Sargoth and Faxxer aren't overwhelmingly arrogant in their posts.  Which is why I respond to them and ignore you even when you are arguing the same point.  I broke that rule in this post.  Won't happen again.

I'm sure you'll claim victory.  Your mom will be proud.

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Ahh global warming.  So two thoughts,

For the people that believe in global warming, Are humans just nasty evil creatures that don't belong on this world and the cure is to remove us?

And, what is your solution?  Tax us back to the stone age so the only agency that can do anything is the government? 

Because the only thing I ever see a leftie tout is carbon tax and breaking the global economy so hard that the effects of that are going to be worse than the global warming itself. 

So why would I want to listen to you? 

 

 

And all I ever see a righty tout is that we should drill more, use more, and innovate less because of it.  Running us into even more of a resource drought and having nothing to substitute it with because we were told we had plenty.

If you think a carbon tax will hurt the economy, imagine what will happen in a hundred years when we start running out of the stuff that powers damn near everything we do.

 

So what do you propose then?

Middle ground.

We dont' need to start hugging trees and making everything out of hemp, but we can't just keep piling plastic bottles in landfills and having 2 mpg cars driving around.

I believe in capitalism and believe that someone somewhere looking to make a buck will come up with some form of clean alternative fuel, but if the massive oil companies aren't kept in check they'll be able to buy that innovation up and hide it.

Middle ground has always been how we get things done.