I would encourage anyone who puts alot of stock in algores bullshit piece of film to spend some time on this site.
Why do I not hear from these scientist in the MSM?
No global crisis = no major government regulation = no huge tax increases = same old boring crap = serious lack of alarmist news = global crisis.
I think it’s fairly obvious what’s really going on.
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid[/quote]
[i]On Earth there was a plague. Three billion years after the planet’s formation there came a virulent mutation, a form of life that used sunlight directly.
The more efficient energy source gave the mutant a hyperactive, murderous vigor; and as it spread forth to conquer the world, it poured out a flood of oxygen to poison the air. Raw oxygen seared the tissues of the Earth’s dominant life and left it as fertilizer for the mutant.[/i] -Lucifer’s Hammer
6 billion strong and climbing, if anything, we aren’t killing each other fast enough. Would you really welcome another visit from the Spanish Lady?
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid[/quote]
How do you figure? We spend more and more very day cleaning our air and water.
We could do better with community planning, mass transit etc but I think we are a far cry from killing the planet. Generating eyesores, yes. Doing real damage. No.
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid[/quote]
lol…
people are so fucking dramatic. DRAMA QUEENS!
The earth has “gone under” several times, due to meteor strikes etc, it is natural, let it happen! In the long run, noone will ever notice that we were here, mkey? STFU!
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid[/quote]
Okay, listen, someday there will be a massive supernova 93,000,000 miles from here, then everything will be nice and tabula rasa. I promise. But, until then, you just have to sit tight and be patient, m’kay?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I would encourage anyone who puts alot of stock in algores bullshit piece of film to spend some time on this site.
Why do I not hear from these scientist in the MSM?
http://globalwarminglies.com/MoreFacts.html[/quote]
I don’t know, but that was the most crappy layout I have seen for a while.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I would encourage anyone who puts alot of stock in algores bullshit piece of film to spend some time on this site.
Why do I not hear from these scientist in the MSM?
http://globalwarminglies.com/MoreFacts.html[/quote]
Uhmmm…sweet jeebus, just dumb.
Your degree, does it involve climatology?
See the thing is 99.99999% of the experts (i.e.: not you) say it’s happening.
These percentages are remarkably similar to say experts who agree on how your t.v. works, or experts who agree on how to make airplanes fly, so on and so forth…
It may be hard for you to understand some of these concepts (perhaps you thought it was magic), but some people are smart enough to know better.
[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I would encourage anyone who puts alot of stock in algores bullshit piece of film to spend some time on this site.
Why do I not hear from these scientist in the MSM?
http://globalwarminglies.com/MoreFacts.html
Uhmmm…sweet jeebus, just dumb.
Your degree, does it involve climatology?
See the thing is 99.99999% of the experts (i.e.: not you) say it’s happening.
These percentages are remarkably similar to say experts who agree on how your t.v. works, or experts who agree on how to make airplanes fly, so on and so forth…
It may be hard for you to understand some of these concepts (perhaps you thought it was magic), but some people are smart enough to know better.
[/quote]
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?[/quote]
Sooo…you also believe in magic?
Since scientists(experts) weren’t quacking in scientific journals about global cooling in the 70’s, one would assume you must believe in magic/and or anything wingnuts tell you.
(In otherwords a newsweek article in the seventies doesn’t equal science.)
Nice try…hilarioulsy this yarn is quite popular amongst wingnuts…they just get dumber and dumber.
[quote]100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?
Sooo…you also believe in magic?
Since scientists(experts) weren’t quacking in scientific journals about global cooling in the 70’s, one would assume you must believe in magic/and or anything wingnuts tell you.
(In otherwords a newsweek article in the seventies doesn’t equal science.)
Nice try…hilarioulsy this yarn is quite popular amongst wingnuts…they just get dumber and dumber.
[/quote]
They certainly were warning of global cooling in scientific journals in the 1970’s.
I don’t follow your lack of logic here.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid
How do you figure? We spend more and more very day cleaning our air and water.
We could do better with community planning, mass transit etc but I think we are a far cry from killing the planet. Generating eyesores, yes. Doing real damage. No.[/quote]
Do you really think that Humans have not done any real damage to the the Earths environment?
I agree that we may be a far ways from outright “killing the planet”, but any serious study into the basis of the fossil fuel civilization we find ourselves in shows it to be dangerously unsustainable in a variety of ways with no clear and viable alternative.
The problem with this debate is that one of the sides tries to take on the moral high ground, “we know best”. When you realize that many of the “experts” that talk about it are antrophologists… you go “wops, why is HE talking about global warming…? Maybe he has an agenda…”.
People should learn to know an agenda when they see it… 
Watch the movie:
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
The problem with this debate is that one of the sides tries to take on the moral high ground, “we know best”. When you realize that many of the “experts” that talk about it are antrophologists… you go “wops, why is HE talking about global warming…? Maybe he has an agenda…”.
People should learn to know an agenda when they see it… Watch the movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170[/quote]
Oh, gosh your posting a response to “anthropologists” from paid by big oil companies fake scientists. Nice! That’ll show em.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?
Sooo…you also believe in magic?
Since scientists(experts) weren’t quacking in scientific journals about global cooling in the 70’s, one would assume you must believe in magic/and or anything wingnuts tell you.
(In otherwords a newsweek article in the seventies doesn’t equal science.)
Nice try…hilarioulsy this yarn is quite popular amongst wingnuts…they just get dumber and dumber.
They certainly were warning of global cooling in scientific journals in the 1970’s.
I don’t follow your lack of logic here.[/quote]
Err…uh
Newsweek, Natl. Geographic, and Science News aren’t peer reviewed science journals are they…? (apply logic now!)
Also George Will and Micheal Crichton aren’t scientists. (logic again). Just because they say something happened in the seventies doesn’t make it so.
For the record there was no imminent ice age predicted by scientists in scientific journals in the seventies. (Or more accurate–this isn’t what the vast,vast,vast majority of scientists were saying 30 years ago.)
But doesn’t it make you mad to have been duped into believing it by your fellow wingnuts?
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dennis3k wrote:
Whether its real or not we as a race are still killing the world we live in and ourselves in the process, and its stupid
How do you figure? We spend more and more very day cleaning our air and water.
We could do better with community planning, mass transit etc but I think we are a far cry from killing the planet. Generating eyesores, yes. Doing real damage. No.
Do you really think that Humans have not done any real damage to the the Earths environment?
I agree that we may be a far ways from outright “killing the planet”, but any serious study into the basis of the fossil fuel civilization we find ourselves in shows it to be dangerously unsustainable in a variety of ways with no clear and viable alternative.
[/quote]
Republicans do not believe in cause and effect. The world works by magic and magic alone. Poison put into a glass of water does not poison the water. It is still magically clean water.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?
Sooo…you also believe in magic?
Since scientists(experts) weren’t quacking in scientific journals about global cooling in the 70’s, one would assume you must believe in magic/and or anything wingnuts tell you.
(In otherwords a newsweek article in the seventies doesn’t equal science.)
Nice try…hilarioulsy this yarn is quite popular amongst wingnuts…they just get dumber and dumber.
They certainly were warning of global cooling in scientific journals in the 1970’s.
I don’t follow your lack of logic here.
Err…uh
Newsweek, Natl. Geographic, and Science News aren’t peer reviewed science journals are they…? (apply logic now!)
Also George Will and Micheal Crichton aren’t scientists. (logic again). Just because they say something happened in the seventies doesn’t make it so.
For the record there was no imminent ice age predicted by scientists in scientific journals in the seventies. (Or more accurate–this isn’t what the vast,vast,vast majority of scientists were saying 30 years ago.)
But doesn’t it make you mad to have been duped into believing it by your fellow wingnuts?[/quote]
What the fuck are you rambling on about? In the 1970’s many scientists though we were going into a period of global cooling and it was due to mankind.
Now many scientists are saying the opposite. I do not understand what Newsweek has to do with it.
Please explain in English. I do not read all the leftists bloggers so you are going to have to explain in detail and make sense. I cannot follow your train of thought when you skip around like this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?
Sooo…you also believe in magic?
Since scientists(experts) weren’t quacking in scientific journals about global cooling in the 70’s, one would assume you must believe in magic/and or anything wingnuts tell you.
(In otherwords a newsweek article in the seventies doesn’t equal science.)
Nice try…hilarioulsy this yarn is quite popular amongst wingnuts…they just get dumber and dumber.
They certainly were warning of global cooling in scientific journals in the 1970’s.
I don’t follow your lack of logic here.
Err…uh
Newsweek, Natl. Geographic, and Science News aren’t peer reviewed science journals are they…? (apply logic now!)
Also George Will and Micheal Crichton aren’t scientists. (logic again). Just because they say something happened in the seventies doesn’t make it so.
For the record there was no imminent ice age predicted by scientists in scientific journals in the seventies. (Or more accurate–this isn’t what the vast,vast,vast majority of scientists were saying 30 years ago.)
But doesn’t it make you mad to have been duped into believing it by your fellow wingnuts?
What the fuck are you rambling on about? In the 1970’s many scientists though we were going into a period of global cooling and it was due to mankind.
Now many scientists are saying the opposite. I do not understand what Newsweek has to do with it.
Please explain in English. I do not read all the leftists bloggers so you are going to have to explain in detail and make sense. I cannot follow your train of thought when you skip around like this.[/quote]
Wingnuts (george will, crichton, instapundit idiots, etc.)base the “global cooling in the seventies myth” on a couple of unfortunate articles in newsweek and national geographic (i.e. the media)
For the third time the scientific consensus (scientists printed in peer reviewed science journals) didn’t say there was imminent global cooling. (10,000-50,000 years is not soon).
Example (commonly abused):
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways.
First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model.
When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
from: JD Hays, J Imbrie and NJ Shackleton, Science, v194, #4270, p1121, 1976/12/10
note these predictions exclude human actions, and that 20,000 years is not something that raises alarms.
Now you can see how stupid this comment was:
“Are these the same experts that were quacking about “global cooling” in the 70’s or is this a whole new group of experts?”
just spinning yarn with that line of crap.