Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What is the consensus of climate scientist regarding global warming?<< I Googled that phrase, and the first sentence in the first link I got is from Wikipedia. "In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability." Does that answer the question?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder No, because IPCC stands for Inane Politically Correct Consensus. Sorry, knee jerk reaction.
Originally Posted By jonvn Thing is he never asked me that question anyway. And he knows the answer. It's basically common knowledge at this point.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Toonie - the original question was whether global warming is somehow related to the use of the word "scrotum" in juvenile literature. Try to keep up with us from now on.
Originally Posted By Mr X I just found this on a GOP website and HAD to copy/paste it...THIS poster has a lot of interesting things to say. Funny, Doug, he doesn't seem hung up on arguing what is basically common ground for all but a few whacko's, and yet manages to bring some interesting NEW points to the discussion. You could learn a thing or two from your brother, here. Posters comments start below............................ Global warming is nothing more than a liberal political campaign by leftists and socialists as a means of selling population behaviorial control based on false, partial, and biased enviro-political activist alarmism. The fact that overall global temperatures are rising is not in dispute. Ever since the end of the last ice age, about 18,000 years ago, overall global temperatures have been rising. Such temperature moderation is what allowed human civilization to advance in the first place. Also, the fact that man-made industrial pollutants and their byproducts add to global climate/temperature changes, up or down, are in dispute only as to their relative magnitude and cumulative impact compared to naturally occurring processes. However global warming is being sold as a purely man-made phenomena and furthermore as a problem created and exacerbated solely by modern, advanced western industrialized nations. That is the basis for the presumptive and one-sided Kyoto Protocol (Treaty). The problem with global warming advocates, is that the same environmental alarmists who warned of the crisis of global cooling and deforestation from cutting down forests to heat homes thus leading to more surface reflectivity and further cooling due to the smog, fog, and atmospheric haze generated by burning; are the same individuals who now rant about rising global temperartures, higher rainfall levels, hurricanes, coastal flooding, and plant and animal disease epidemics brought about by warm winters and an overabundance of wetter environments conducive to insect and disease proliferation. Yet global warming's most fatal flaws don't lie in its junk science and presumptions, but its illogical, biased conclusions, and its ludicrous "remedies" culminating in the nonsense of the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Protocol is nothing more than a punitive declaration on western civilization and an attempt to hamstring and cripple American and European commerce in favor of rival non-western nations. In other words, Kyoto seeks to punish American and western industry while excusing and even endorsing foreign industry, particularly China and India, by classifying them as "emerging" economies and declaring them exempt from the same kind of restrictive and punitive environmental regulations the US, Europe, and western nations must abide by. Since the stated goal of the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental initiatives is a reduction in or prohibition of global pollutants that lead to warming and environmental contamination, Kyoto's one-sided, biased, and hypocritical parameters makes it not a global environmental health proposal, but a vested and fraudulent political agenda which is designed to reward the world's worst polluters and environmental criminals while punishing the modern advanced western nations that have pioneered pollution control technology, "green" laws, and comprehensive conservation legislation. In fact, the very last nations that should be granted free rein on pollution levels and industrial expansion are China, India, and other third world nations that have little or no environmental regulations, safeguards, or limits. The fact that in the last 30 years the US and Europe have de-industrialized to a massive degree while also initiating and implementing comprehensive environmental legislation and strict controls on industrial output, does not seem to impress the fabricators of the Kyoto Protocol in assessing collective guilt for global pollution and warming. If any nations should be granted greater allowances for industrial manufacturing and expansion, it should be precisely those nations which not only pioneered such conservational technologies but also those who implemented them on their own volition. The morons who worship at the altar of political correctness, multiculturalism, and anti-western bigoted stupidity have also forgotten that the biosphere of planet Earth has no political boundaries and the lethal contaminants and noxious pollutants produced in China, India, and elsewhere in the third world inevitably end up here regardless of whatever clever documents reality detached liberal idiots compose.
Originally Posted By jonvn Skimmed it. It's political blather that falls in the face of the actual science that is being done. That's where all these deniers all fail. There is direct and actual evidence to indicate what is happening, and there is no credible evidence saying anything else. So we're left with people yelling about leftists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Could somebody please repeat whatever the question originally was? 100 posts of back and forth have gone by since then, and I honestly would like to remember what it was.> The original question was about the consensus on climate change, but the "liar" back-and-forth seems to have come about because Douglas claimed jon said "X" in another thread. Jon pasted everything he said in that thread, and showed that "X" wasn't in there. "Liar" may be a bit strong, and perhaps Douglas was simply mistaken, but if so, he should own up to it like a man and perhaps we could get THAT sub-thread of unpleasantness out of the way.
Originally Posted By Mr X I agree, Jon. But at least it was ORIGINAL blather. I did find intriguing the stuff about 3rd world countries getting a "pass" and the most successful countries being left to bear all the burden of "fixing" things. There is a grain of truth to that, I think.
Originally Posted By jonvn "and perhaps Douglas was simply mistaken" I would think that too, if it were not a constant pattern. It just showed his dishonest behavior. It is one thing to twist what public people say. They are politicians and such, and that's their game. But when it starts coming down to flat out lies about the people posting here, and what they have had to say, then that's another thing entirely, which I simply do NOT take kindly to. I can say what I think quite plainly. I don't need another poster here to tell others what I have said, when that representation is plainly and easily show to be completely false.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I did find intriguing the stuff about 3rd world countries getting a "pass"" You have to look at how much they are producing compared to first world countries. I don't know the exact figures. But the truth is that the entire world needs to change its ways, not just the main countries. If the post you put up actually did have valid information in it, it simply does not do the writer well to couch it in terms of climate change denial and right wing polemic. You're not going to get listened to like that. Even if he had something that I'd agree with, I just stopped listening to him, because it's simply mostly crap. These people need to learn to work with the scientific community and political leadership regarding this thing, so that their ideas are heard in the context of reality, and not in the realm of political extremism which is where they are falling now. If no one listens to them, they have only themselves to blame.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability." Does that answer the question?> Not really. The IPCC doesn't speak for a majority of scientists, and the summary the Wikipedia writer is drawing from wasn't drawn from the majority of the scientists of the IPCC. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16 948233/site/newsweek/</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Funny, Doug, he doesn't seem hung up on arguing what is basically common ground for all but a few whacko's, and yet manages to bring some interesting NEW points to the discussion.> I've made many of the points this guy did in debates about global warming over the last few months, only I did it without as much rancor and without as many insults.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There is direct and actual evidence to indicate what is happening, and there is no credible evidence saying anything else.> That's not true. The credible evidence is all over the map. The primary cause of global warming, how bad it may get, and what that means to us are all being debated by scientists citing credible evidence.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The original question was about the consensus on climate change, but the "liar" back-and-forth seems to have come about because Douglas claimed jon said "X" in another thread. Jon pasted everything he said in that thread, and showed that "X" wasn't in there. "Liar" may be a bit strong, and perhaps Douglas was simply mistaken, but if so, he should own up to it like a man and perhaps we could get THAT sub-thread of unpleasantness out of the way.> I'll admit that I probably should have gone back and reviewed the thread before I wrote what I did, and I might have said it a little differently. But I'll stick by my assertion that Jon often states or implies that the scientific concensus on man-made global warming is something other than what it is. I'll also say in my defense that when I said "Jon said X", he didn't come back and say, "No, I didn't", he claimed he said something other than what he actually said. I welcome anyone to go back and read our exchange in the Richard Branson thread, and in this one, and see who is more interested in honestly discussing the issue, and who is not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But I'll stick by my assertion that Jon often states or implies that the scientific concensus on man-made global warming is something other than what it is." And I'll stick by my assertion you're dishonest. For example: "I'll also say in my defense that when I said "Jon said X", he didn't come back and say, "No, I didn't", he claimed he said something other than what he actually said." I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "No I didn't," or whatever, was the required phrase. I would have thought that since I posted word for word exactly what I did in fact say, that would have been sufficient. But since you're now trying to lie some more and spin this to some other crap, who cares. Liar.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "No I didn't," or whatever, was the required phrase. I would have thought that since I posted word for word exactly what I did in fact say, that would have been sufficient.> What you claimed in this thread was, "The only thing I said in that thread about Richard Branson is that he wasn't the only one saying that." What you actually said in the other thread was, "It's not Richard Branson who is saying this." So not only was that not the only thing you said, it wasn't the thing you said, so please stop trying that you only speak the truth, and I only lie. We're both guilty of occasionally misquoting someone, or remember conversations incorrectly. The difference is I don't automatically call someone who does that a liar, or ignore honest questions. The question from that other thread remains, if Richard Branson isn't the one saying all these alarmist things about global warming, who is? And regarding your claim that I never asked you what the consensus of climate scientists was, you are correct. However, on this thread, DlandDug did ask you to "please provide specific arguments about the scientists and organizations that have been preented". You declined his request.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
