The Global warming blow-hards...

[j2k4]

Somewhere in cyberspace, a a small cartoon-type violin is being misused and abused.

[vidcc]

Well stop playing the victim.

It's not a conspiracy to attack conservatives.

[kazaaman]

Damn jk24, you repeatedly keep gettin' pwned by people and refuse to admit it.

Oh well, the first step is always denial.....

[Ava Estelle]

It's not a conspiracy to attack conservatives.

Are you sure? Do you have documented proof?

[j2k4]

Oh well, the first step is always denial.....

This, as opposed to what you do.

You still haven't figured out what I think.

[Busyman™]

Oh well, the first step is always denial.....

This, as opposed to what you do.

You still haven't figured out what I think.

Maybe no one cares to figure that out.

I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.

Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.

Shit or get off the pot.

[kazaaman]

This, as opposed to what you do.

You still haven't figured out what I think.

Maybe no one cares to figure that out.

I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.

Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.

Shit or get off the pot.

Ditto

[j2k4]

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.

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

Is that not simple enough?

This, as opposed to what you do.

You still haven't figured out what I think.

Maybe no one cares to figure that out.

I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.

Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.

Shit or get off the pot.

Ditto

I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.

Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.

[vidcc]

Originally Posted by j2k4
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".

All of this is an argument based on politics as to what can be done, and is also a misrepresntaion of what most are suggesting taking worst cases (from your viewpoint) and suggesting that if one thinks global warming is real then they think that is the only solution..playing the victim again

So given that the scientist are not actually saying that man is the only cause of the warming global trend (remember it's overall global warming not local examples) but that man is speeding up the process.

do you deny that man has any effect whatsoever?

Because it always seems that "conservative skeptics" always bring up "the cost issue" and "why should we do something when other pollute as well"

[j2k4]

Uh-oh.


http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2116873.ece