Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[Nash]

Originally posted by lukster
Believe what you want. You don't push your religion on me and I won't mine on you.

Hole smokes....  

You guys are hilarious with your constant attempt to equate science with religion. I don't know about anyone else, but personally? It's a crack-up. How you manage to take the two most disparate things and struggle to reconcile them as being the same thing is absolutely bizarre.

Republicans are the anti-science, pro-fundamentalist party. Get used to it, if you haven't already.

And just because y'all drink cool-aid doesn't mean that when you say that my orange juice is actually kool-aid too, well, it doesn't mean I'm going to take you all that seriously. Get used to that, as well.

Republicans want to replace science in schools with fairy tales. They hate stem cell research. They think some chick in Florida with about 80 percent of her brain being liquefied will suddenly wake up one sunny morning and order scrambled eggs and hash browns off the hospital menu.

I'm sorry if you feel such disdain for those in your party who believe these things to the extent that you wanna brush some of that insanity off on the rest of us... but you're stuck with it.

Science aint religion, life aint fair, and one day we will all die. These are the sad but true facts that grown-ups have to come to terms with. No go clean your room before your mother gets home.

[Mr Big]

Nash, you are like a pre-programmed robot.

Republicans = bad

Democrats = good.

You seam very simplistic and naive.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, you are like a pre-programmed robot.

Republicans = bad

Democrats = good.

You seam very simplistic and naive.

everyone knows:

Republican = good

Democrat = bad

It is pretty simple really ...

[beet1e]

LOL Nash!

You have to remember that the camp which denounces the claims being made following scientific research includes guys who believe they know more about cars than carmakers themselves, and who will tell you that said carmakers "know nothing" about their own vehicles!

I'm with Nash on this religion claim. I'm not an environmentalist - I don't do kerbside recycling, I have my house at the temperature I want it, and I drive and fly where I like. But... I do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which, when present in the atmosphere in excessive quantities, will lead to rising sea levels, more severe storms and flooding and loss of low lying land, concomitant with global warming. How anyone can get "religion" out of that is beyond my powers of reasoning, and I am led to believe that "reason" is the wrong mental faculty to deal with such a claim.

In short, twaddle!

[Hangtime]

I'll see yer "twaddle!" and raise..

POPPYCOCK!

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nash
Hole smokes....  

You guys are hilarious with your constant attempt to equate science with religion. I don't know about anyone else, but personally? It's a crack-up. How you manage to take the two most disparate things and struggle to reconcile them as being the same thing is absolutely bizarre.

Republicans are the anti-science, pro-fundamentalist party. Get used to it, if you haven't already.

And just because y'all drink cool-aid doesn't mean that when you say that my orange juice is actually kool-aid too, well, it doesn't mean I'm going to take you all that seriously. Get used to that, as well.

Republicans want to replace science in schools with fairy tales. They hate stem cell research. They think some chick in Florida with about 80 percent of her brain being liquefied will suddenly wake up one sunny morning and order scrambled eggs and hash browns off the hospital menu.

I'm sorry if you feel such disdain for those in your party who believe these things to the extent that you wanna brush some of that insanity off on the rest of us... but you're stuck with it.

Science aint religion, life aint fair, and one day we will all die. These are the sad but true facts that grown-ups have to come to terms with. No go clean your room before your mother gets home.

Science? You're really reachin' callin' what you're practicin' "science."

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hangtime
The scientific community is staffed by an overwhelming number of folks that practice junk science on the government payroll.

It's how they get to keep their jobs. Toe the line.. or your out.

That's not a scientific community.. it's a freaking government orfice finishing academy.

Hang, you can't believe that... you know that government employees are altruistically motivated and always come up with the right answer.  

Unless they work for the CIA or FEMA.

[lazs2]

you got to understand that nash has a stake in the EPA growing... it means bigger government and more restrictions.... more democrats.

Not one person, scientist or not has explained how much we are affecting the natural global warming and cooling cycles... the "EPA" doesn't even try... they just act like they have the answers.

Not one so called scientist can explain what needs to be done to stop this so called  man made global warming (except to give them money) or.... even if we all died of next week.... how many minutes it would save before the global cooling started.

Using nature and natural phenomina like the natural cycle of heating and cooling or the globe and the natural changes in the sun are....

Very much like the scientists taking on "high priest" roll and using nature to scare the faithful.

The parellel with the worst of religion is inescapable.... right down to the faithful elite not living by the rules the priests come up with.

lazs

[midnight Target]

So ....

If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, but can't tell you exactly when you'll die... you must not have cancer....




got it.

[Nash]

Originally posted by lazs2
you got to understand that nash has a stake in the EPA growing... it means bigger government and more restrictions.... more democrats.
lazs

That's absolutely right! I just LOVES me some big government!

I know it's irrational, and I don't even know what for..... but give me some more government! The sooner the better. I wanna see big tall government buildings being constructed on every block. I want my mailbox jammed full of governmet flyers, I want governemt employees to wear nametags and I want to see those nametags on every dang street I walk!

I WANT BIG GOVERNMENT, AND I WANT IT NOW!

(wtf are you talking about? do you know how ridiculous that claim is?)

[lazs2]

not exactly MT... a better analogy would be..

A doctor tells you that a lot of people get cancer and so you must change your lifestyle completely or die of cancer in 10 years..... without even looking at you.

That would be more like it.   Even that is not good... it would be more like..

doctors saying that...cancer never existed till people started driving cars.  Now...everyone will get cancer in ten years.

Oh and... it can only be prevented by electing them to office and or.... giving them huge grants to "study" the "problem".

lazs

[lukster]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So ....

If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, but can't tell you exactly when you'll die... you must not have cancer....




got it.

I'd get a second opinion. Hmmm, seems the second opinion is that the tumor is not malign.

[lazs2]

So nash... you believe that there is man made global warming but you don't want government to do anything about it?

Talk about ridiculous sounding...

lazs

[midnight Target]

Sorry lazs, but your wrong.

What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.


What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."

[indy007]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry lazs, but your wrong.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

Not saying we shouldn't be environmentalists at heart. We should take care of this planet, it takes care of us. However, co2 is the rallying cry of activists and zealots. It takes attention away from real local and regional problems that can be addressed.