Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's pretend that an asteroid was hurtling itself toward earth. Would you imagine that someone would look at it and sniff and say "Well it isn't a man made disaster, so we shouldn't spend any money to fix it."> That's a false analogy. At this point, we're not sure if any amount of money can "fix" global warming.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Good grief, even these aren't his own words!" Well, what did you expect? All he does is parot what he hears without any understanding as to why. He's STILL going on about his thousands of scientists, after that has been repeatedly been shown to be basic nonsense. So, with every post, these guys just show more and more they really are not able to understand any of this. Fortunately, people are realizing that these sorts are not who you listen to, and that hopefully something will start to get done about it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. >>>>>> Good grief, even these aren't his own words!>> I never said they were my own words. I said they were from the link I provided earlier in the thread. Here is what I said... <<To summarize the link I provided on this thread that seems to get ignored by people like jon who insists Al Gore is the man.>>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << So, with every post, these guys just show more and more they really are not able to understand any of this. >> Uh no Jon. What we are seeing is that you have zero proof to PROVE my SUV is causing the earht to heat up and that that heat is going to flood Frisco. You have a bunch of leftist people who want to push this THEORY as a way to push their leftist agenda. It's that simple. When confronted with the actual science of how CO2 gas works and how much is actually in the atmosphere, you start into you little act of saying the other side is " out of touch and they don't understand ". <<He's STILL going on about his thousands of scientists, after that has been repeatedly been shown to be basic nonsense.>> You bet I'm still going on about them because these guys have actually produced evidence that shows man made global warming is a fantasy. You havn't debunked a single thing they have said and don't think we don't see it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Hmmmm... let's see what the President of teh United States has to say... <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news /releases/2002/02/climatechange.html</a> And here's news from today's San Francisco Chronicle... Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Wednesday setting California on course to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, a major political victory for the governor and a step that environmental and political leaders predict will have worldwide ramifications. So, Arnold and the President must be fantasizing. They've been signing legislation and discussing climate change (President Bush has made dozens of speeches on the topic for 6 years now). Yep, members in good standing of the GOP. Recognizing that climate change isn't a fantasy at all. For those bored with science, this may be less taxing: <a href="http://www.hasbro.com/playdoh/" target="_blank">http://www.hasbro.com/playdoh/</a>
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Yes Tigger, all of these organizations have inside groups that get BILLIONS of dollars for funding if they say man made global warming is real.>> Bull. None of these groups are withheld funding if they do not say global warming is real (which they don’t say FWIW). Most of these are government organizations which derive the budgets from the Congressional budget committee. Do your homework before you make such wild accusations. <<CO2 gas does not cause the earth to heat up. I have provided a very long and detailed link to how CO2 gas works and how humans don't produce enough to cause any climate change.>> You are wrong and a fool for saying it. Even Mr. Milloy actually admits this. Or perhaps you could understand what he was saying either. That is most likely the case. You simply don’t understand how the atmosphere works don’t you and how greenhouse gasses work the make this planet a more temperate climate. Keep going Beau...the more of a fool you make of yourself, the more fun this gets! <<Now you are telling me the report is garbage?? Really?? Tell us why?>> Which report are you referring to? <<I know you have explained your understanding of CO2 gas in the past. Thank you. But you never proved the man made global warming theory. ( of course )>> I’ve never set out to “prove†global warming†in the sense of Al Gore or his ilk. Only to show how greenhouse gases and CO2 work to warm the planet and how an increasing surplus of CO2 and other such gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. And I’ve done that quite well if you are interested in actually reading the links I presented. <<So there is no " shtick " going on here. I have thousands of scienitsts who prove my point using rock solid science. I have produced their evidence on this thread. I have read their report many times. I have thousands of scientists who back this up There is indeed a shtick. And you wouldn’t know “rock solid science†if it came up and bit you square on the arse. .<<…Scienitsts with no political or financial agenga like yours.>> ROTFLMAO!!! *Please allow me a couple minutes to pick myself of the floor after laughing so hard.* I seriously have to show this statement to the gentlemen in the other room. You are going to become a byword for idiocy is a few minutes Beau. You such be proud. <<Now we see their are no hurricanes this season for the global warming people to exploit. Awwwwwwww. What happened? They promised a killer hurricanse season since global warming is here to destroy the world.>> I already explained this if you would but open your eyes and listen for a minute. Everyone here understands this but you.
Originally Posted By DlandJB That's a false analogy. At this point, we're not sure if any amount of money can "fix" global warming. >>>>>>>>> So we shouldn't do any research? We shouldn't see what can be done? We certainly were able to do something about pollution and rivers that caught fire and smog and soot that made London day into night. We don't know what we can and can't do. And if we don't spend the money to try, some say and show us we'll be spending more on disaster relief. So why not see what we can do instead of throwing up our hands?
Originally Posted By DlandJB <<To summarize the link I provided on this thread that seems to get ignored by people like jon who insists Al Gore is the man.>> It wasn't a summary -- it was another screed. To say you are summarizing one link would infer that you are using your own words to summarize what was in that link. Instead you simply c/p another link without attribution. If you are going to use other people's words, at least give them credit and/or provide a link. You had to go there anyway to c/p, so bring the link over too. Otherwise it appears that you are trying to pass it off as your own.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo You know Beau. I’m just going to ignore you from now on. It such a waste of time to debate with you as nothing anyone says to you will ever make a difference. If you disagree with what they say, you simply pass it off as “liberal†or whatnot. Its intellectually lazy and not worth my effort. You have your lock head locked in cruise control and nothing will ever detour you. Seriously anyone who would claim that NOAA, NASA, the EPA, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, U.S. Geological Service, the EPA, American Geophysical Union, the Energy Information Administration, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, et al…, are political and fiscally bias, yet refer to advocacy sites as not politically or financially motivated must be a complete moron. I think that statement alone by Beau may have been the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written in my lifetime. So what’s the point debating with such idiocy?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<So we shouldn't do any research? We shouldn't see what can be done? We certainly were able to do something about pollution and rivers that caught fire and smog and soot that made London day into night.>> I don’t believe that’s what Douglas is saying. He has in other threads stated that we should do what we can to curb greenhouse emissions, even if there is no change in mean global temperature. There's just such an enigma regarding the driving force behind global warming that even if anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were halted completely, that the Earth may continue to warm due to natural events. Then again, it might reverse. Who knows.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "ROTFLMAO!!! *Please allow me a couple minutes to pick myself of the floor after laughing so hard.* I seriously have to show this statement to the gentlemen in the other room. You are going to become a byword for idiocy is a few minutes Beau. You such be proud. " You too? He's already a byword for idiocy in the LA legal community. His definition of legal "standing" got passed around to so many people I lost track. I'm not kidding. It became one of those chain mail things included in those lawyer joke things that get passed around. It was a hoot. What makes it funny yet very sad at the same time is how in the face of overwhelming evidence to the cotrary, he still seriously believes his own crap. "You know Beau. I’m just going to ignore you from now on. It such a waste of time to debate with you as nothing anyone says to you will ever make a difference. If you disagree with what they say, you simply pass it off as “liberal†or whatnot. Its intellectually lazy and not worth my effort. You have your lock head locked in cruise control and nothing will ever detour you." Bingo. My battles with him over gay marriage and church and state, to name two, have taken up far too much space here. Lately, I've watched him and his uninformed self try and tell guys like Road Trip and Vbdad that they're wrong about the jobmarket, even though that's essentially what THEY do for a living. Now you've had the fun over global warming. Even though we all have extensive training and backgrounds in these areas, a guy who sell widgets knows more about all those areas than we do. He's simply too stupid to be embarrased. There's no other conclusion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So we shouldn't do any research? We shouldn't see what can be done?> Of course we should. But we shouldn't destroy our economy or standard of living for a negligible change, just because some alarmists think we should.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>If you are going to use other people's words, at least give them credit and/or provide a link. You had to go there anyway to c/p, so bring the link over too. Otherwise it appears that you are trying to pass it off as your own. << To be fair to Beaumandy, it was quite apparent (to me at least) that he was attempting to extract what he thought was the meaty parts of the article he had linked to earlier. That was what he meant by saying he was summarizing the link, even if he used the wrong term for it. I really don't think he was trying to pass it off as his own writing. >> I've watched him and his uninformed self try and tell guys like Road Trip and Vbdad that they're wrong about the jobmarket, even though that's essentially what THEY do for a living. Now you've had the fun over global warming.<< Darn. Why doesn't he ever get into the esoterics of software design and engineering?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Darn. Why doesn't he ever get into the esoterics of software design and engineering? << No!! We don't need someone telling us that Edsger Djkstra was full of it and that goto shouldn't be considered harmful at all.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Of course we should. But we shouldn't destroy our economy or standard of living for a negligible change, just because some alarmists think we should. >>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. How are we going to destroy our economy or standard of living? I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm not widely read on this subject so I'm still trying to understand the bigger picture.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Dijkstra was a commie liberal who tried to take our gotos away from us. But he had no proof - PROOF, I SAY - that gotos were harmful. We had a petition signed by _thousands_ of programmers that didn't agree that goto had to be avoided. It was also signed by people who didn't know how to program. And there was no provision for experts to remove their endorsement if, after studying the issue further, they concluded that Dijkstra was right. But that doesn't matter. The Institute for Liberal Application of Goto had those signatures and we were right!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>We had a petition signed by _thousands_ of programmers that didn't agree that goto had to be avoided.<< 100,000 BASIC coders can't be wrong!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm confused. How are we going to destroy our economy or standard of living? I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm not widely read on this subject so I'm still trying to understand the bigger picture.<< I think that perhaps what he means is that the cost of overhauling our economy to not depend on fossil fuels would bankrupt us. FWIW, I don't see an easy way to replace the internal combustion engine. Even if we are able to perfect low cost hydrogen base fuel cells, we will still need a lot of hydrogen to put into our futuristic cars. Some believe that the market will force these changes: as demand for oil continues to grow its price should continue to rise ove the next decades, creating a market for possibly lower priced hydrogen. Time will tell.
Originally Posted By DlandJB We will be beholden to hybrid cars for the forseeable future, but that isn't so bad. Better emissions and lower fossil fuel needs aren't a bad place to be. The university near me is currently testing hydrogen vehicles. They are big suvs and they need that much room for the tanks and protection for the tanks. It will take an estimated 15-20 years to make it smaller and more cost efficient. We are not wise to ever be completely beholden to one form of energy for our transportation needs. We have so little control over the price of gas and it is a rope around our necks. But no one is asking for a complete overhaul of our way of life...I mean its not like we are trying to make the US got to the metric system or something
