Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Thank you for your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GepperRankins
if we both agree that we should do something about it, why do you keep insisting that we shouldn't? why do you keep posting stuff to try and make out the scientific process is completely useless. why act like it's an attack on republicans?
If you'd taken the time to notice, every one of my posts (close to fifty in this thread, only 2 C & Ps, and one link) has as it's main thrust the idea that we cannot be at all sure of the precise reasons we should be alarmed, nor whether being alarmed will be of any use, in and of itself.
Personally, I feel it to be of little use.
If it is happening, I suspect it is happening alongside, and in spite of, any trespasses of man.
In one case, we fight the effects of our own excesses.
In the other, we're choosing off God, Mother Nature, Allah, or any other force to which you would attribute the warming trend.
In the first instance, perhaps we can have some effect.
In the latter?
Tell me how we can even try?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GepperRankins
an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.
No.
It is merely a piece of land which has become less hospitable to/compatible with human existence, at a time when lands previously inhospitable/incompatible (think polar) would become viable.
Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GepperRankins
i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.
You are correct, Britain is indeed a small island when compared with Saharan Africa, which is a bit dryer, I think you'll agree.
Hot weather evaporates water?
Right again!
The water rises into the atmosphere, where it re-condenses as vapor, forming clouds, which release precipitation, and also, uh, cools the Earth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GepperRankins
right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.
So there's no hope whatsoever for Africa, is there? :(
Terrifically reasoned, really... :whistling
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GepperRankins
change really would be quite a bad thing
Yes, in fact, I'm sure the dinosaurs thought so, too.
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
You didn't read it?
Who's ignorant, then?
BTW-
If I have had
"nary a word" to say about global-warming, then where have all these global-warming threads come from?
Find for me such a thread in which I have not participated.
Honestly, I have to give you credit...merely being wrong isn't enough for you, you're always willing to go that extra mile, aren't you? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
71 degrees today in the DC area.
Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.:dabs:
I'll bet you won't, though, 'cuz it would be out of season. :rolleyes:
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Here's a question:
What if the polar ice caps
start to melt, but then stop?
What if the "carnage" of our impending inundation claims nothing beyond the odd island here or there?
Lake Superior is waaaaaaaaaaay down...I have heard that a few eskimo entrepeneurs have started a huge new glacier, with the aim of ransoming it Bush for large cash.
As you are closer to the Halls of Power, I was wondering if you'd heard anything?
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
Oh I need to rephrase then. You have participated but now you trumpet a CNP as "proof".
Btw, one dresses for the weather, not the season.
There was this dumbass lady on the subway all wrapped up in a scarf and skull cap telling me that I should have coat on. I told I don't need one, she said it's fall season. I said so what it's 75 degrees outside. I asked her that if it hit 80 in the winter would she still wear a coat.
She said yes cuz it would be winter.:dabs:
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2k4
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.
Already there.:unsure:
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
Well, if it gets hot enough, it gets really cold, apparently.
Melt enough of the glaciers of our poles and the colder water released from them will mess up the gulf stream and eventually prompt a new ice age.
I don't know how far off we are tho', too many nutters on both sides messing with the facts.
As for history, well, I don't suppose people in venice getting closer to losing their homes matters much.
I think there needs to be a middle ground.
There are those that would have us totally go green in a heartbeat with no care of any other consequences.
On the flip side, you've got the big corporations who don't follow the current regulations. You've got politicians who are working too slowly in affecting change and pushing for enforcement of those regulations.
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2k4
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.
:lol::earl:
I'm really hoping Kev hadn't thought that thro'. The alternative would be appaling.
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...
How do you gauge "truthiness", osmosis not being an option? :huh:
Re: The Global warming blow-hards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...
Indeed
It is kind of throwing words on the page and see how it works out.
However you have to bear in mind that to wish someone to attempt decent spelling, grammar and syntax in now frowned upon. Apparentement.
The Global warming skeptic blow-hards...
...are reassessing, huh?
Quote:
Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.
Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.
Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.
For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now.
source
I would like to see the actual ExxonMobil statement instead of this article, but if accurate.................
