joedirt 0 #26 May 16, 2007 I should write a book titled "GEORGE BUSH IS AN ASS". It would probably sell a couple million copies just for the title and I'd be rich. They hate him for everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #27 May 16, 2007 If global warming is not caused by humans then what is the motive for so many scientists to claim that it is caused by humans? Or are they simply mistaken?"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #28 May 16, 2007 >That just shows that you are not very informed in this debate. Personally I'll go with NCAR and NOAA scientists over a guy who read a denier blog. But that's just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #29 May 16, 2007 QuoteIf global warming is not caused by humans then what is the motive for so many scientists to claim that it is caused by humans? Or are they simply mistaken? According to rushmc you can tell which side is lying by "following the money". And of course we know that tree-hugging hippies have far more money than the oil conglomerates. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 May 17, 2007 MONEY It is very simple if you really look at it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #31 May 17, 2007 Quote >That just shows that you are not very informed in this debate. Personally I'll go with NCAR and NOAA scientists over a guy who read a denier blog. But that's just me. Hey, I will go with some of the NOAA scientists too!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #32 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf global warming is not caused by humans then what is the motive for so many scientists to claim that it is caused by humans? Or are they simply mistaken? According to rushmc you can tell which side is lying by "following the money". And of course we know that tree-hugging hippies have far more money than the oil conglomerates. Are you purposly missing the road or are you so invested in your opinion you can't afford to consider the money path?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #33 May 17, 2007 >Are you purposly missing the road or are you so invested in your >opinion you can't afford to consider the money path? You are arguing against your own thesis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #34 May 17, 2007 QuoteAre you purposly missing the road or are you so invested in your opinion you can't afford to consider the money path? Hey, I have a question. Can you tell me what my opinion is? You seem awfully sure of SOMETHING. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #35 May 17, 2007 QuoteMONEY just who exactly is making money, the researchers, cmon thats just silly. if they're so desperate for research money then why not get it for something thats real or something that they care about? The idea that thousands of scientist are falsifying research just to get research money is absurd. if anyone is motivated by money its the people in power who might lose money if our wasteful society wasn't so wasteful. here in canada the government made sure to make exceptions for the tar sands operations from the new environmental laws. otherwise they would have lost money. so there is a clear and strong motivation to deny global warming."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #36 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you purposly missing the road or are you so invested in your opinion you can't afford to consider the money path? Hey, I have a question. Can you tell me what my opinion is? You seem awfully sure of SOMETHING. Hell, if you don't know how would I? I only respond to your posts"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #37 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteMONEY just who exactly is making money, the researchers, cmon thats just silly. if they're so desperate for research money then why not get it for something thats real or something that they care about? The idea that thousands of scientist are falsifying research just to get research money is absurd. if anyone is motivated by money its the people in power who might lose money if our wasteful society wasn't so wasteful. here in canada the government made sure to make exceptions for the tar sands operations from the new environmental laws. otherwise they would have lost money. so there is a clear and strong motivation to deny global warming. No it is not silly. In fact it is scarry. Research who is pushing the man made GWing the hardest. Then, find out what the solutions are they offer. See who started and who is making money off of the carbon credits scam. Look at who preaches this bunk and what THEY will do to combat the danger they say exists. Then take a look at which side it really trying to stiffle debate. Look at what side says the science is a done deal, man is the cause and lables the "deniers" and tries to shut them up. Look at what side is claiming "consensus" in the scientific community. Then look at how the "denier" are interpeting the SAME DATA differently than the alarmists. Then come back and we can talk"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #38 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteHey, I have a question. Can you tell me what my opinion is? You seem awfully sure of SOMETHING. Hell, if you don't know how would I? I only respond to your posts Then where in my posts have I expressed an opinion about which side in the global warming is correct? (In fact you're NOT responding to my posts. You're responding to your own guesses about me. But then again you're also convinced by your own guesses about lots of things including your opinion about global warming.) First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #39 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHey, I have a question. Can you tell me what my opinion is? You seem awfully sure of SOMETHING. Hell, if you don't know how would I? I only respond to your posts Then where in my posts have I expressed an opinion about which side in the global warming is correct? (In fact you're NOT responding to my posts. You're responding to your own guesses about me. But then again you're also convinced by your own guesses about lots of things including your opinion about global warming.) Show me where I am guessing"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #40 May 17, 2007 QuoteShow me where I am guessing Sure! Here's a short list of the posts you've made where you were guessing instead of using clear reasoning and sufficient information to form your opinion: Rushmc's guesses First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #41 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteShow me where I am guessing Sure! Here's a short list of the posts you've made where you were guessing instead of using clear reasoning and sufficient information to form your opinion: Rushmc's guesses HHhhmmm, these prove where I am guessing? Interesting"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #42 May 17, 2007 >Research who is pushing the man made GWing the hardest. NOAA. NASA. The IPCC. >Then, find out what the solutions are they offer. Many of them are climate scientists who do not offer solutions. They simply do research on (for example) the effects of higher water concentrations in the atmosphere. Other scientists model what will happen in several scenarios, such as reductions of CO2 emissions. Engineers can come up with solutions like CO2 sequestration and reduced automotive emissions. It's up to politicians to make decisions about "solutions." >See who started and who is making money off of the carbon credits scam. No one. >Look at what side says the science is a done deal, man is the cause and >lables the "deniers" and tries to shut them up. Look at who is truing to turn a scientific discussion into a battle between two political "sides." >Look at what side is claiming "consensus" in the scientific community. The same "side" that is claiming consensus on the dangers of cigarette smoking, the validity of darwinian evolution, the idea that the earth is round etc. Science. Like I said, it's not a "side." It's what scientists do. >Then look at how the "denier" are interpeting the SAME DATA differently >than the alarmists. Indeed. Why do you think that is? Now I have a very simple question for you. Who has more money to spend - UCAR or Exxon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #43 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteThat just shows that you are not very informed in this debate. If I browse a blog can I become omniscient like you are? No, not a chance, but you might start reading something about climate change from the scientists doing the work instead of the hype in the popular press. Although it appears from your comments that you have been brain washed beyond repair. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #44 May 17, 2007 Quote >That just shows that you are not very informed in this debate. Personally I'll go with NCAR and NOAA scientists over a guy who read a denier blog. But that's just me. Oh the irony of it all. realclimate.org is not a denier blog Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #45 May 17, 2007 QuoteAlthough it appears from your comments that you have been brain washed beyond repair. What comment are you talking about? All I said was that you were talking confidently about knowing more than the general scientific community. I asked you where you got your info. You said you read a blog. How again does that exchange reflect that I'm "brainwashed"? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #46 May 17, 2007 Quote>Research who is pushing the man made GWing the hardest. NOAA. NASA. The IPCC. I don't think so. >Then, find out what the solutions are they offer. Many of them are climate scientists who do not offer solutions. They simply do research on (for example) the effects of higher water concentrations in the atmosphere. Other scientists model what will happen in several scenarios, such as reductions of CO2 emissions. Engineers can come up with solutions like CO2 sequestration and reduced automotive emissions. It's up to politicians to make decisions about "solutions."Eco moralists are pushing this. We are spending money to allow instalation of CO2 sequestration equipment when the tech and store solutions do not even exist yet and what is worse, a solution for NO PROBLEM is being created >See who started and who is making money off of the carbon credits scam. No one. You are fooling yourself if you truly believe this (and I don't think you do) >Look at what side says the science is a done deal, man is the cause and >lables the "deniers" and tries to shut them up. Look at who is truing to turn a scientific discussion into a battle between two political "sides."It has always been political. The alarmists can't afford to have the debate cause they can not win it with fact >Look at what side is claiming "consensus" in the scientific community. The same "side" that is claiming consensus on the dangers of cigarette smoking, the validity of darwinian evolution, the idea that the earth is round etc. Science. Like I said, it's not a "side." It's what scientists do.This is a reoccuring analogy you like to use that does not mean anything in this perspective >Then look at how the "denier" are interpeting the SAME DATA differently >than the alarmists. Indeed. Why do you think that is?Because they see the data as a scientists and researchers, not eco moralists Now I have a very simple question for you. Who has more money to spend - UCAR or Exxon?The UN has more money available to them than all BIG OIL combined (exageration intended) Again, you cloud the point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #47 May 17, 2007 >>NOAA. NASA. The IPCC. >I don't think so. You don't think what? Are you really saying that the IPCC is not discussing climate change? They are the research body DEDICATED to climate change reporting! >Eco moralists are pushing this. Making up smear terms again? It sort of shows your angle on this issue. >We are spending money to allow instalation of CO2 sequestration >equipment when the tech and store solutions do not even exist yet and >what is worse, a solution for NO PROBLEM is being created What are you talking about? CO2 sequestration demo systems have been built. They are like concept cars - they prove the idea works and you can look at them and see what to improve. >It has always been political. The alarmists can't afford to have the >debate cause they can not win it with fact See, that's your basic disagreement with me. You think it's all a political argument. I see it as one over science. If you want to "prove" to me that climate change is not caused by man, you could do it by showing that man did NOT burn X tons of carbon-containing fuel, or that combustion does not release CO2, or that some as-yet undiscovered mechanism is sequestering it, or that CO2 does not cause any heat forcing by preventing re-radiation. Because that's the science behind what's happening, and it's pretty simple. And when it comes to science, I have an open mind. If new angles on combustion are discovered, I'd be happy to consider their effects on the climate change issue. But you don't do that. You call people names. You claim it's all politics. When you talk about science, all you ever do is quote some guy. When I ask you about the details, you reply with some political statement. For you it's a political battle. For scientists it's science. That's why you'll always disagree with them (and me) because you are talking about two different things. >>Now I have a very simple question for you. Who has more money to >>spend - UCAR or Exxon? >The UN has more money available to them than all BIG OIL combined. The UN has a budget of about $20 billion a year. That's not profit, that's how much money they go through, total. Exxon's PROFIT (not budget, PROFIT) is $40 billion a year. Their budget for oil exploration alone is $21 billion a year. You could not be more wrong. One oil company (Exxon) has way more money than the UN - and that's assuming that we pay our UN dues, which we don't. Want to try again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #48 May 17, 2007 QuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #49 May 17, 2007 Quote>>NOAA. NASA. The IPCC. >I don't think so. YEs they study it. Some of the NASA members and many of the (group you once used) NOAA members do not agree with statements saying man is causing GWing and that it is a natural cycle. But you must not want to use them anymore You don't think what? Are you really saying that the IPCC is not discussing climate change? They are the research body DEDICATED to climate change reporting! >Eco moralists are pushing this. Making up smear terms again? It sort of shows your angle on this issue.Not a smear term at all. But if you take it that way maybe you should get out of the frying pan. Taking what is dished out is important >We are spending money to allow instalation of CO2 sequestration >equipment when the tech and store solutions do not even exist yet and >what is worse, a solution for NO PROBLEM is being created What are you talking about? CO2 sequestration demo systems have been built. They are like concept cars - they prove the idea works and you can look at them and see what to improve. Sure it can be removed. What do you do with it. I am involved with some power plant construction. The process is not yet here. >It has always been political. The alarmists can't afford to have the >debate cause they can not win it with fact See, that's your basic disagreement with me. You think it's all a political argument. I see it as one over science.If you had never spoke of "concensus" I may be more inclinded to acept this statement. It took me a while to figure out that sound bites like " most scientists" are pure bs. That is the political side of the argument. Speaking to the data really showing that temp increases lead CO2 not visa versa is a data based debate. If you want to "prove" to me that climate change is not caused by man, you could do it by showing that man did NOT burn X tons of carbon-containing fuel, or that combustion does not release CO2, or that some as-yet undiscovered mechanism is sequestering it, or that CO2 does not cause any heat forcing by preventing re-radiation. Because that's the science behind what's happening, and it's pretty simple. And when it comes to science, I have an open mind. If new angles on combustion are discovered, I'd be happy to consider their effects on the climate change issue.Answered above. CO2 is a result of temp increases not a cause. But you don't do that. You call people names. You claim it's all politics. When you talk about science, all you ever do is quote some guy. When I ask you about the details, you reply with some political statement.I am a name caller??? Now that is good one. But if a desriptive term (that you don't like) is name calling then I must be one. For you it's a political battle. For scientists it's science. That's why you'll always disagree with them (and me) because you are talking about two different things.If it is not for you then I beleive you are fooling yourself. If the changes you support do not have major life style effects then I stand corrected >>Now I have a very simple question for you. Who has more money to >>spend - UCAR or Exxon? >The UN has more money available to them than all BIG OIL combined. The UN has a budget of about $20 billion a year. That's not profit, that's how much money they go through, total. Exxon's PROFIT (not budget, PROFIT) is $40 billion a year. Their budget for oil exploration alone is $21 billion a year. You could not be more wrong. One oil company (Exxon) has way more money than the UN - and that's assuming that we pay our UN dues, which we don't. Want to try again? YOu forget the under the table money laundering in programs such as the media ignored oil for food program. That program (and a contrived GWing tax) is where the money they care about comes from"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 May 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteThen come back and we can talk It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping. what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
