The Global warming blow-hards...

[Agrajag]

Reduce what? The environment?

recycle, use proper insulation in their homes, drive smart, and be a pioneer. Or as in the words of Gandhi, "Be the change you want to see in the world".

While we cannot all be pioneers, we should all certainly do as you suggest; I know that I do.

Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page . If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.

Well, then.

There is the fly-in-the-ointment.

You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.

Wikipedia we need not even discuss.

As to the other, what attracted you to it?

I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.

But I digress...

I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.

So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.

In a nut-shell, then:

While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.

All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".

I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.

I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.

By way of informing myself in order to argue with you, I will cite a lifetime of reading and listening and watching and experiencing things in order that I may think about them, an endeavor that is, for me, without end.

I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.

I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.

How can you even be bothered to put that much effort in mate.

You must know that they don't bother reading it, far less think about it.

[j2k4]

Reduce what? The environment?



While we cannot all be pioneers, we should all certainly do as you suggest; I know that I do.

Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page . If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.

Well, then.

There is the fly-in-the-ointment.

You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.

Wikipedia we need not even discuss.

As to the other, what attracted you to it?

I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.

But I digress...

I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.

So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.

In a nut-shell, then:

While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.

All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".

I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.

I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.

By way of informing myself in order to argue with you, I will cite a lifetime of reading and listening and watching and experiencing things in order that I may think about them, an endeavor that is, for me, without end.

I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.

I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.

How can you even be bothered to put that much effort in mate.

You must know that they don't bother reading it, far less think about it.

If you read it, then I am gratified.

If not, well, I'll have it to refer to when others misquote me.

It wouldn't be the first time.

I know someone who'd best read it, or else shut-up.

[kazaaman]

Reduce what? The environment?

Correction* Reduce their impact on the environment .

You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.

Wikipedia we need not even discuss.

As to the other, what attracted you to it?

I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.

But I digress...

Ok, you've got me there. Wikipedia isn't always accurate but usually it is pretty accurate. The site has many devotees who update and correct their article daily and personally I love it.

So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.

I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.

I did answer the question to the best of my ability but was a little confused.
In a nut-shell, then:

While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend,

Slight? Open your eyes man. Check the link below
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalcha...arming/03.html

there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.

I am in no way this type of memeber as the tactics below are completely foolish. Global Warming is happening though and we must reduce it as fast as possible so we can help the Earth.

BTW, look at the link again, current trend of global warming is unnatural. I think after you look at the chart you'll see.

All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".

The above is unfair. Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....

Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)

I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.

I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.

I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.

I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.

What?

[j2k4]

Slight? Open your eyes man. Check the link below
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalcha...arming/03.html

BTW, look at the link again, current trend of global warming is unnatural. I think after you look at the chart you'll see.

Open my eyes?

For God's sake, if all it took to debate effectively was a bunch of links "clicked", then WTF are we doing here?

There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.

We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.

Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.

Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?

I think not.

Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....

Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)

The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.

Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".

What, then, about China?

India?

I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.

I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.

What?

I hereby What? your "What?"

Man should be as practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.

Is that not simple enough?

[Ava Estelle]

There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.

According to the oil companies.

We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.

25%, and you refuse to take the other 75% into consideration.

Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.

They still tell us 4.5 degrees in the next 100 years.

Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?

I think not.

Have you? I think not.

Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....

Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)

The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.

Bullshit, the USA is increasing it's polution.

Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".

Yes it is ... WAY ahead!

Kazaaman, you're wasting your time with j2k4, his opinions on climate change are funded by the oil companies, the site you mentioned was funded by Exxon Mobil.

His claims that there is no 'proof' of unnatural activity at work here, if it weren't so tragic, would be laughable.

Just to show how weak his argument is, read the first post in this thread again.

"The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."


Another trick from j2k4 is to post links to articles like THIS, not read them, then lie about their conclusions, as in, "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."

In conclusion Kazaaman, don't waste your time, if you want to change j2k4's mind you'll have to change the minds of the oil companies, whose very existence is threatened by global warming.

.

[j2k4]

There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.

According to the oil companies.

We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.

25%, and you refuse to take the other 75% into consideration.

Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.

They still tell us 4.5 degrees in the next 100 years.

Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?

I think not.

Have you? I think not.



The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.

Bullshit, the USA is increasing it's polution.

Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".

Yes it is ... WAY ahead!

Kazaaman, you're wasting your time with j2k4, his opinions on climate change are funded by the oil companies, the site you mentioned was funded by Exxon Mobil.

His claims that there is no 'proof' of unnatural activity at work here, if it weren't so tragic, would be laughable.

Just to show how weak his argument is, read the first post in this thread again.

"The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."


Another trick from j2k4 is to post links to articles like THIS, not read them, then lie about their conclusions, as in, "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."

In conclusion Kazaaman, don't waste your time, if you want to change j2k4's mind you'll have to change the minds of the oil companies, whose very existence is threatened by global warming.

.

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that I am a paid spokesman for the oil companies, and I toil away here in the hopes of misleading all of you.

[Ava Estelle]

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that I am a paid spokesman for the oil companies, and I toil away here in the hopes of misleading all of you.

Is this new found honesty a New Year's Resolution, or are you temporarily drunk?

[maebach]

I watched 'the Inconveniant Truth' by Al Gore, and it was the best documentary I've ever seen. rly.

[lynx]

There has been more garbage spoken and written about Global Warming this year than has ever been recorded. Fact.

The same was true for the last 10 years at least, and will probably be true for the next 10 years.

[ilw]

j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?