It's cold outside, it's Global Warming!

[bigboab]

That is the same in almost every low country, again they ignore history in favour of commerce. It does not preclude the fact that these floods have been happening down the years. Tsunamis have been happening since the beginning of time, it just so happens that people are ignoring this fact and building on the beaches and low lying ground near beaches.

I can only think that you are trying to say that climatologists are ignoring natural cycles.

One of the biggest actual myths or at the very least biggest strawman in the whole non scientific side of the "debate" is that those "global warming believers" attribute it solely to man.

The whole thing is just another way os screwiing money out of the people who can't avoid paying it. Show me a chart with the average global warming since the ice age that proves the argument about the present hype. Going back to history, When I was young pollution was terryfying. In those days white shirts were the order of the day. They lasted about half a hour, then they were covered with soot that came from everyone burning coal fires and industrial discharge. Yes we had industries back then.

Compared to those days the U.K. is now like an operating theatre. It is time that climatologists attacked the combustion engine and all the oil and gas pollution that it causes. They won't do that though, that would mean taking on the 'big boys'. I've said it before it would be better to tackle the 'litter' on the ground and in the oceans that is killing off wild life. That is the biggest ecological disaster of today.

Back to history. When I was young cases of Asthma were thin on the ground. They were family orientated, generally missing a generation. Did you know that inhaling Car fumes can mimic Asthma and it is very hard for doctors to know the difference. Enough of this, I am ranting.

[devilsadvocate]

[

The whole thing is just another way os screwiing money out of the people who can't avoid paying it.....

I agree governments (ab)use it as a cash cow, certainly appears that way in Europe with your fuel tax. That however changes NOTHING about the scientific evidence.
Your tobacco tax is a cash cow, doesn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer does it?

Compared to those days the U.K. is now like an operating theatre. It is time that climatologists attacked the combustion engine and all the oil and gas pollution that it causes. They won't do that though, that would mean taking on the 'big boys'. I've said it before it would be better to tackle the 'litter' on the ground and in the oceans that is killing off wild life. That is the biggest ecological disaster of today.

Greenies are always highlighting cars. How could you possibly have missed that? Why do you think they push for fuel efficiency standards? Climatologists do the science bit, environmentalist do the bit that points out which human activities are detrimental. I think the internal combustion engine would be included in the whole "fossil fuel" thing, don't you?

Back to history. When I was young cases of Asthma were thin on the ground. They were family orientated, generally missing a generation. Did you know that inhaling Car fumes can mimic Asthma and it is very hard for doctors to know the difference. Enough of this, I am ranting.

Can't argue that, the bit about asthma or you ranting .

[999969999]

When I saw the video with Diane Sawyer for the first time, I was watching the news with my family, and we all laughed when she started saying how these record low temperatures were caused by Global Warming and that "scientists agree" that "this is the new normal." That's a very vague way of saying it. How many scientists agree? What's normal when it comes to weather? It's constantly changing. And how in the hell do these scientists expect to be taken seriously when they think that record low temperatures are somehow caused by Global Warming? I know they have to say these things or they won't get paid. They will lose their government funding. But that doesn't seem like very sound science if they have to make the data fit the Global Warming mantra just to keep getting their government checks.

A few winters ago, it was a mild winter and they were saying how that was proof of Global Warming. Now it's a very cold winter and that too is proof of Global Warming. And no one in the general media balks about it. Why?

It reminds me of religion.

When some people I know pray to "God," if they get what they wanted, they claim that "God" answered their prayers. If they don't get what they wanted, they say that "God" still answered their prayers, but his answer was "no." Either way, in their minds, it is proof that this mythical "God" exists and answers prayers.

Now here's where I'm going with this. Religion was created to control people. I think it is safe to assume that the majority of Europe and perhaps nearly half of America is post-Christian. In other words, a large part of the population no longer strongly believes in any religion. So, religion is starting to lose its grip of control over the western world. But the powers that be still want something to control us. So, why not make up a new modern scientific religion called Global Warming? Eventually they can use it to control the masses who will go along with whatever the new priests [scientists] say, and the government and media will help spread the propaganda as well, to help reinforce the edicts of these new priests.

I think there's the potential for a sci fi movie here, what do you think?

[devilsadvocate]

2878_tinfoilhat_1.jpg

Instructive fabrication diagrams are available in an easy-to-print PDF format for non-commercial use by concerned educators and paranoid posters.

[999969999]

Well, I think it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe in Global Warming. I don't believe in either one.

They're both myths.

And should be treated as such.

[999969999]

Here's more proof of Global Warming!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/brav...ezing-12752168

[clocker]

Well, I think it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe in Global Warming. I don't believe in either one.

And yet you believe Glenn Beck.

At any rate, belief in a god does not compare to acceptance of human influenced global warming...the first requires complete suspension of proof (hence the need for belief), the second an examination of accrued data and scientifically reviewed extrapolations/conclusions.
Most of us are unqualified to examine raw climate data (this would include any/all Fox News pundits) and thus, must rely on the conclusions drawn by those more educated in the field.

You make this same "leap of faith" thousands of times daily (for instance, every time you turn on the TV or board an airplane), yet single out this one issue to haggle about.

It's ironic that the very same elite scientists who make it possible for Fox to be on the air at all, are the ones targeted once they've done their jobs.
Essentially, Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly don't believe in the same science that puts their doughy faces on your living room wall every night...a conundrum always present when one filters fact through a political filter.
Accepting global warming as fact would be completely unacceptable politically for the right (and massively inconvenient for the corporate backers) and since they haven't the science to back them, the only option is to frame the issue as one of "belief" instead of "comprehension".

One can choose beliefs but not facts.

[999969999]

I see what you're saying.

But it still takes a leap of faith for me, a will suspension of disbelief for me to believe that Global Warming is somehow causing record low temperatures.

It just doesn't make sense.

Record high temperatures, maybe.

Record low temperatures, come on!

And then even if there is such a thing as Global Warming, I think it takes even more faith to believe that it would have more to do with puny little humans than it does with our sun simply going through normal cycles.

And then in the worst case scenario, let's say humans are causing it. What then? Would you rather kill off a large percentage of the human population just to stop Global Warming, or would rather than just wait and see what happens with it? With the exception of nuclear energy [which is unthinkable to econuts] energy policies that restrict the use of fossil fuels and the production of carbon are inefficient and will ultimately lead to everything costing more, which in the end will end up causing the lower rungs of societies throughout the world to fall through the cracks, become homeless, and die off. I think it is better to use what we know works, such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and keep society moving forward. Econuts seem to want to go back to a caveman standard of living to save mother earth. Ridiculous!

[devilsadvocate]

just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

So any time your gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant

[clocker]

... in the worst case scenario, let's say humans are causing it. What then? Would you rather kill off a large percentage of the human population just to stop Global Warming...
Who is suggesting this?
Please provide a single example of a reputable climatologist promoting mass murder as a viable solution.
Just one...
...or would rather than just wait and see what happens with it?
Wait for what?
You've already decided to reject the entire concept based on a belief system instead of fact, so what's the point of "waiting" on you?
With the exception of nuclear energy [which is unthinkable to econuts] energy policies that restrict the use of fossil fuels and the production of carbon are inefficient and will ultimately lead to everything costing more...
Everything already costs more, in case you hadn't noticed.
In addition, oil is only "affordable" when you ignore the costs of the subsidies/protection afforded the oil producers.
... which in the end will end up causing the lower rungs of societies throughout the world to fall through the cracks, become homeless, and die off.
Oh, I see.
Big Oil is good for the third world.
The very people who are not consumers of the products they sell.
Those pesky people who live on the land that Big Oil needs to despoil in order to produce.
Oh, think of the indigenous!
I think it is better to use what we know works, such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and keep society moving forward. Econuts seem to want to go back to a caveman standard of living to save mother earth. Ridiculous!

Staying dependent on fossil fuels ain't gonna be moving anyone "forward" for long.
Increased competition for dwindling supplies will see to that.