Here's the period to the "Global Warming is a scam"

[murra]

Cancer happens normally, also. Therefore cigarettes don't cause cancer. See, its easy to be a corporate tool!

 

Oh that's right, corporations are not government so they are always right

 

Corporations

 

What the heck did you try to say there?

[drnykterstein]

You are genuinely bad at this. Note that most are not arguing the fact the Earth is warmer (we really aren't sure, since the record has been discredited). They are arguing that the science is bad or are at least biased. They are noting the advocates (in many cases) are making money off this. You will not address any point made. Instead you say Nasa can prove it. When they are discredited to a certain degree, you fall back to ice core samples. There are articles out there showing they can be off a bit.

 

You would advocate your religion better if you managed to try and incorporate ideas and not just spout out what you read. Just my advice.

 

As if anything you've said is not something that Rupert Murdoch does not want you to say. That guy has you like a puppet. No, no NASA was not discredited to some degree. Sure there is some variance in data, and a level of degree of error. That is perfectly natural. The variance does nothing to discredit the theory, and the rising temperatures that NASA is reporting over the last 20 years only corroborate the predictions made by the theory.

 

It seems to me that the *only* people denying global warming all fall under the Rupert Murdoch sphere of influence of right wing USA politics. Globally this is a well accepted theory. However, if you watch Fox News, then you do what the corporations tell you to do instead.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As if anything you've said is not something that Rupert Murdoch does not want you to say. That guy has you like a puppet. No, no NASA was not discredited to some degree. Sure there is some variance in data, and level degree of error. That is perfectly natural. The variance does nothing to discredit the theory, and the rising temperatures that NASA is reporting over the last 20 years only corroborate the predictions made by the theory.

 

It seems to me that the *only* people denying global warming all fall under the Ruptert Murdoch sphere of influence of right wing USA politics. Globally this is a well accepted theory. However, if you watch Fox News, then you do what the corporations tell you to do instead.

 

Even you gotta admit Conner... Al Gore is sure a scam. Don't even get me started on those CFL's! You think people are 100% compliant about recycling those bad boyz? If you do, I have some nice swamp land in FLA to sell you!

[OCinBuffalo]

It seems to me that the *only* people denying global warming all fall under the Ruptert Murdoch sphere of influence of right wing USA politics. Globally this is a well accepted theory. However, if you watch Fox News, then you do what the corporations tell you to do instead.

Yes, idiot, of course it is, because they stand to make lots and lots of $$ off of our hard work if the Kyoto crap passes. And that's not coming from Rupert Murdoch, that's coming from me! I figured this out all by my lonesome based on reading what these idiots have been saying. So I AM YOUR BOOGEYMAN! Stop giving Murdoch credit for my evil deeds.

 

Your problem is: these facts were finally exposed at the latest conference in Copenhagen. And, when they were called out on the carpet, they didn't deny any of it. In fact, they literally said it doesn't matter if the science is flawed, because the social/economic policy was more important. So there you go. The science takes a back seat to the reality that this is about taxing the hell out of us and giving that money to 3rd world countries because "it's fair". In reality the science only matters to them if it supports taxing us, and spending on them.

 

Do you get it? These people, especially Europe, are trying to destroy our overpowering production capacity and economic power...but since they can't do that directly via competition or war, they are using a giant canard, that we weren't supposed to be able to argue against. Well, too bad for them, their BS got exposed.

 

You keep talking about the science, which in and of itself has been proven dubious, and pretending the bald-faced economic agenda doesn't exist. You live in fairy land, where 800lb gorrillas in the room don't exist.

 

But go ahead, tell me about the "science" one more time and keep ignoring the blatantly obvious economic agenda. That's real convincing. It is possible for you to understand that more than one factor is driving this? Give me one piece of evidence that disproves the economic agenda, just one. I f'ing dare you.

[drnykterstein]

Yes, idiot, of course it is, because they stand to make lots and lots of $$ off of our hard work if the Kyoto crap passes. And that's not coming from Rupert Murdoch, that's coming from me! I figured this out all by my lonesome based on reading what these idiots have been saying. So I AM YOUR BOOGEYMAN! Stop giving Murdoch credit for my evil deeds.

 

Your problem is: these facts were finally exposed at the latest conference in Copenhagen. And, when they were called out on the carpet, they didn't deny any of it. In fact, they literally said it doesn't matter if the science is flawed, because the social/economic policy was more important. So there you go. The science takes a back seat to the reality that this is about taxing the hell out of us and giving that money to 3rd world countries because "it's fair". In reality the science only matters to them if it supports taxing us, and spending on them.

 

Do you get it? These people, especially Europe, are trying to destroy our overpowering production capacity and economic power...but since they can't do that directly via competition or war, they are using a giant canard, that we weren't supposed to be able to argue against. Well, too bad for them, their BS got exposed.

 

You keep talking about the science, which in and of itself has been proven dubious, and pretending the bald-faced economic agenda doesn't exist. You live in fairy land, where 800lb gorrillas in the room don't exist.

 

But go ahead, tell me about the "science" one more time and keep ignoring the blatantly obvious economic agenda. That's real convincing. It is possible for you to understand that more than one factor is driving this? Give me one piece of evidence that disproves the economic agenda, just one. I f'ing dare you.

Wow. This is an impressive level of conspiracy theorism. You are so jaw droppingly detached from reality that I don't know where to start in attempting to correct you. Additionally, I'm not at all convinced that any amount of effort on my part would back you down from the ledge. I think you are beyond hope of return to the world of reality on this topic.

 

 

These people, especially Europe, are trying to destroy our overpowering production capacity and economic power

Yes, the scientist are out to get you. They want to take your children from you and sell you into slavery. The IPCC is hell bent on world domination. Pick out any internationally renown scientist, without doubt he wants to see nothing but the collapse of the American Empire.

 

Long live the IPCC, they will be our new overlords!

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I love how the global warming theory has somehow turned into a partisan issue. Every liberal I know blindly believes that global warming is destroying everything because that's what their masters tell them. Every conservative I know blindly refutes global warming because that's what their masters tell them. Sure, both libs and cons try to produce bogus "evidence" to support their "side", but in reality they probably don't understand the first thing about climatology.

 

I'm a Democrat, and I believe in global warming. Just look at this movie by Al Gore.

 

I'm a Republican, and I don't believe in global warming, because Rush Limbaugh told me how it's all a big liberal conspiracy.

 

And the beat goes on.

 

If somebody could give me one good reason why political leanings have ANYTHING to do with views on climatology, I'll be impressed.

[/dev/null]

I love how the global warming theory has somehow turned into a partisan issue. Every liberal I know blindly believes that global warming is destroying everything because that's what their masters tell them. Every conservative I know blindly refutes global warming because that's what their masters tell them. Sure, both libs and cons try to produce bogus "evidence" to support their "side", but in reality they probably don't understand the first thing about climatology.

 

I'm a Democrat, and I believe in global warming. Just look at this movie by Al Gore.

 

I'm a Republican, and I don't believe in global warming, because Rush Limbaugh told me how it's all a big liberal conspiracy.

 

And the beat goes on.

 

If somebody could give me one good reason why political leanings have ANYTHING to do with views on climatology, I'll be impressed.

 

Climate science has been hijacked into political science by people looking for a new avenue of wealth transfer

[/dev/null]

It seems to me that the *only* people denying global warming all fall under the Rupert Murdoch sphere of influence of right wing USA politics. Globally this is a well accepted theory. However, if you watch Fox News, then you do what the corporations tell you to do instead.

 

Heretics! Burn them!

[Magox]

I love how the global warming theory has somehow turned into a partisan issue. Every liberal I know blindly believes that global warming is destroying everything because that's what their masters tell them. Every conservative I know blindly refutes global warming because that's what their masters tell them. Sure, both libs and cons try to produce bogus "evidence" to support their "side", but in reality they probably don't understand the first thing about climatology.

 

I'm a Democrat, and I believe in global warming. Just look at this movie by Al Gore.

 

I'm a Republican, and I don't believe in global warming, because Rush Limbaugh told me how it's all a big liberal conspiracy.

 

And the beat goes on.

 

If somebody could give me one good reason why political leanings have ANYTHING to do with views on climatology, I'll be impressed.

It's largely about regulations, taxes and control.

[Magox]

Cancer happens normally, also. Therefore cigarettes don't cause cancer. See, its easy to be a corporate tool!

 

Oh that's right, corporations are not government so they are always right

 

Corporations

You are a wonderful parrot...

[murra]

You are a wonderful parrot...

 

I thought parrots were at least able to recite everything they were told accurately?

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

It's largely about regulations, taxes and control.

 

No, it should be about regulations, taxes and control. What it is, is a giant partisan pissing contest.

[murra]

No, it should be about regulations, taxes and control. What it is, is a giant partisan pissing contest.

 

You said that already.

 

Every issue is political, I can't believe you're trying to make an exception out of global warming.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

You said that already.

 

Every issue is political, I can't believe you're trying to make an exception out of global warming.

 

I don't begrudge the issue being political, I'm wondering why it's so distinctly partisan.

 

What's happening physically with the climate has pretty much no relation whatsoever to social or economic convervatism or liberalism...and yet everybody seems to have aligned themselves based on their political identities.

 

Many liberals have themselves convinced the world is being destroyed. Many conservatives have themselves convinced the entire global warming theory is completely bunk. The truth is likely between these two ridiculous extremes, but hey, we all have to pick a side right?

[Magox]

No, it should be about regulations, taxes and control. What it is, is a giant partisan pissing contest.

No, it's exactly what i said it was.

[kegtapr]

A local met had a good blog the other day regarding the melting ice caps.

 

 

http://rochesterhomepage.net/weather/weatherblog - Last one at the bottom

 

Written by: Bob Metcalfe

 

So why the heck have I included a picture of a navy submarine above the water in a weather blog post? Well, I thought it was a very nice picture. We all love a little history right?

 

It goes beyond that and here's why: the caption from this picture on a navy picture archive says "surfaced at the north pole, 17 March 1959". Re-read that date. March 17, 1959. It's LIQUID, not ice!

 

What am I getting at? Well, I'm a firm believer in oceanic cycles. A few that have an impact are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). They both have a "warm" phase and a "cold" phase. The PDO is now exiting its warm phase and will soon be cool. The AMO is sort of in the middle, but just past the hump going towards cooler.

 

What's interesting is this: That date in 1959 coincides with a warm signal from both the PDO and AMO. When satellites were first used in the 70s, we were in the middle of the cool phases for both, and as would be expected a relatively high point for ice concentration. Get what I'm hinting at here?

 

I know this is quite opinionated, but I feel strongly that our climate perspective is merely in its infancy. While its true that ice concentrations in the northern hemisphere are decreasing, wouldn't you know that they're INCREASING in the southern. Remember, the world is a lot bigger than we sometimes think it is. It's like that lovely little law of physics: for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

[bills_fan]

Can I see a link to the trillions we are spending on this research?

 

 

Not trillons on research, but a cap and trade system would cost trillons.

[murra]

I don't begrudge the issue being political, I'm wondering why it's so distinctly partisan.

 

What's happening physically with the climate has pretty much no relation whatsoever to social or economic convervatism or liberalism...and yet everybody seems to have aligned themselves based on their political identities.

 

Many liberals have themselves convinced the world is being destroyed. Many conservatives have themselves convinced the entire global warming theory is completely bunk. The truth is likely between these two ridiculous extremes, but hey, we all have to pick a side right?

 

Again, the politicization is rooted deeper than picking a side. There is political theory as to why conservatism* or liberalism aligns itself. There is no direct relation within the ideologies as to what's happening physically within the climate. There is however a strong correlation of beliefs between money and spending, and political identities.

 

Why would it be considered strictly and absurdly partisan for a conservative, someone who almost always says no to unnecessary spending, to be applaud and against the plan to stockpile funds and allocate them towards trying to do something as outlandish as changing the weather. Of course it digs deeper. It now has become a government regulation issue. Why would that conservative agree to allow the government to restrict the rights of business output based on what has yet to be concretely proven. Then it comes down to restricting chemical outputs and then taxing companies that go over their limited annual amount.

 

Those three issues are on the other end of the argument, and you're only looking at, "Many conservatives have themselves convinced the entire global warming theory is completely bunk."

 

Its painfully deeper than that.

[murra]

Of course, what I just typed was an unnecessarily long way of saying:

 

It's largely about regulations, taxes and control.

 

 

But you retorted that with the same thing, so I thought if I repeated it back maybe you'd understand better.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't begrudge the issue being political, I'm wondering why it's so distinctly partisan.

 

What's happening physically with the climate has pretty much no relation whatsoever to social or economic convervatism or liberalism...and yet everybody seems to have aligned themselves based on their political identities.

 

Many liberals have themselves convinced the world is being destroyed. Many conservatives have themselves convinced the entire global warming theory is completely bunk. The truth is likely between these two ridiculous extremes, but hey, we all have to pick a side right?

If only the issue were as simple as this. It becomes increasingly humorous to me watching so many people these days mock opinionated people as sheepish drones who echo the talking points of their fearless leaders (Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh), while in doing so, also echo the sheepish drones who honestly believe that to be true.

 

That said, if you take a closer look, you'll find that you, yourself, are wrong in your beliefs in this matter. While the left has the market cornered on extreme environmental views, most conservatives I know don't automatically throw trash out their car windows or drive to the lake to dump their month-old George Foreman Deep Fryer Daddy cooking fat. In fact, your average lib-on-the-street is right; we need to take care of our planet. Most conservatives believe the same thing. What you apparently fail to see is that the issue most conservatives have with the Goretastic freaks of the world is the belief that there is a significant effort to create a problem that may not exist to create legislation that may not be needed to increase taxes that most companies can't afford to pay to grab more control of industries the government should not be controlling.

 

Neither of us needs Bill Nye to explain that while highly publicized, the data on global warming is also excessively flawed...not because it's proven wrong, but because of how the data is collected, cultivated, examined, compared, contrasted, whatever. And our government is trying to create policies, laws and taxes BASED on this flawed data.

 

What doesn't help the problem is when people like yourself try to boil global warming down to two simple concepts of Leftists = Goretastic Junkies vs. Righties = Limbaugh Autobots, typically all for the sake of thinking that this somehow makes you the smartest of all idiots. In other words, you think your position is explaining part of the problem, when you position is actually part of the problem because you see only what is easiest to digest.