Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on September 26, 2006, 11:51:04 AM
-
Very long, but very enlightening. Which ever side of the debat you're on, the point about media bias (read as "advocacy") on the global warming alarmism is hard to ignore. Especially impactful are the media headlines and quotes from different times in the last 100+ years.
Link:
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
-
Interesting read, thanks for the post.
I am sure the Fanatics on both sides will be here soon though
:D
-
Good read!
I think the biggest thing that sticks out with me reguarding this issue is there's one side that's convinced it's going to happen and there's the other side that just wants "honest science" to prove it either way.
-
My dog looks more tired lately, I naturely assumed it was global warming....
-
Originally posted by T0J0
My dog looks more tired lately, I naturely assumed it was global warming....
:rofl
-
Hardly Guns. Both sides take up the issue with the idea that the other side is ****ing crazy.
The truth is we don't know. Nor does it really matter. The amount of temperature drop or raise over the last century is insignificant compared to what earth and life has gone through in the past.
-
Point is that there is absolutly no harm in assuming that we are causing problems and doing something to reduce all emitions. If we are wrong, and we are not causing them then no harm done.
If we are assuming that we are not the cause of the rise in temperature etc and are wrong about then we are truly screwed.
Better to be safe than sorry.
-
James Inhofe for President... I like him, he pissesoff leftys :D
-
"Point is that there is absolutly no harm in assuming that we are causing problems and doing something to reduce all emitions. If we are wrong, and we are not causing them then no harm done."
Economic harm?
Harm to standards of living?
There's plenty of harm caused by over-reacting to an issue you don't understand.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Point is that there is absolutly no harm in assuming that we are causing problems and doing something to reduce all emitions. If we are wrong, and we are not causing them then no harm done."
Economic harm?
Harm to standards of living?
There's plenty of harm caused by over-reacting to an issue you don't understand.
J_A_B
Always has been plenty of money to make in new things. The world is a changing and evolving place and we cannot expect that everything is the way it always has been. Tough luck as always for those who wont change. We cant live in the comfort of our parents home until we die and we cant expect that everything we know and do now will last forever. By doing things the way we are we are only risking the future of our kids and grandkids.
Huge difference between reacting and over-reacting.
-
check this (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,542,00.html) pictures out, some are 100 years old and are compared to today pics. (press WEITER for the next pic)
Glaciers melting,
global warming a hype?
-
all those pictures prove is that the climate on this planet changes. Show me some pictures of the same areas in 900AD, 1300AD, 1700, and 1800.
-
Anyone who says we're we're not negatively affecting the enviroment is just nuts. We're poking holes in our own raft for bucks. It's insane.
Substantive discussion revolves on what to do. That is a mare's nest.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
all those pictures prove is that the climate on this planet changes. Show me some pictures of the same areas in 900AD, 1300AD, 1700, and 1800.
sorry i doubt anyone have pics from that time, do you have?
but what we have are pics from our life-time.
-
That's another thing which intrigues me: How can everyone be so sure that any climate change must be bad?
Granted, if sea levels rise we would lose some coastline and oceanside infrastructure (there's that pesky economic issue again), but in terms of overall land we'd also gain as currently useless areas become habitable. Siberia could probably stand to warm a bit.
I see this same sort of issue with the animal lovers--all extinction *must* be bad, regardless of how some amount of extinction has always happened. I think we're gettiong along just fine without the dodos, and I also think we'll get along just fine if the Earth warms a couple degrees.
Fearmongering and overreaction sells more papers, though.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry i doubt anyone have pics from that time, do you have?
but what we have are pics from our life-time.
Nope I dont have any pictures either, but then I'm not trying to use 80 - 100 year old photographs to prove global warming either ;)
What I do know that in the life of the planet it has been alot warmer and it was a lot colder. And all without the influnece of man.
-
I kinda doubt some of you guys read it.... If it does not make you wonder about the issue you need to rethink things.
This little bit alone should make your mind churn.
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
Or this whole section.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE:
Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.
Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”
A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Here is a quote from Time Magazine:
“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”
All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html
They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.
Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age.
In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:
“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.
Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.
Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.
In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.”
BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES
There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.
Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.
“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.”
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.
A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”
By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:
“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.
Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled “Fire and Ice” from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp
Some of you have claimed you can't trust the science of guys backed by the oil companies, but if you think you can trust the info coming out of the envirnmentalist movement you are fooling yourself.
They have as money to lose as well, far more then the oil companies do in the short term.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Point is that there is absolutly no harm in assuming that we are causing problems and doing something to reduce all emitions. If we are wrong, and we are not causing them then no harm done.
If we are assuming that we are not the cause of the rise in temperature etc and are wrong about then we are truly screwed.
Better to be safe than sorry.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that (a) that humans are causing a global rise in temperature, (b) that the cause is solely (or even primarily) CO2 emissions, and (c) enacting potentially economically disastrous measures will do no harm. How do you measure "harm"? Sometimes doing something when you don’t need to can have disastrous consequences. Taking medication where you’re sick can save your life. Taking it when you’re not can have both short-term and long-term deleterious effects on your health (antibiotics comes to mind as one such example). And if purchasing that medicine you weren't even sure you needed causes you to default on your mortgage, what then? I suggest you re-read the section on the potential economic impacts of Kyoto-like measures, when weighed against other problems facing the world. With so many problems facing the world, and such a potentially heavy cost, don't you think it best to perform a cost benefit analysis? Heck, shouldn't we first establish that that we have a problem, and that that problem can be solved by the proposed action?
As a final example of applying a pound of cure at the wrong time, think about the examples the Senator noted of the ice-age scare back in the 70’s (to name just one of the periods where environmental alarmism swung that way). I was in high school in the 70’s, and remember reading articles about this. If CO2 is thought to cause global warming, and you’re worried we're headed for an ice-age, what is a logical possible action to take? Why, pump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as possible, of course. After all, if we’re wrong, what harm will it do? If we’re right and do nothing, then we are truly screwed (and frozen).
One final point. Dogmatically accepting the (tenous) explanation of CO2 emissions as the cause of (debate-able) global warming may very well blind you to other explanations, explanations that we might have a better chance to affect. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reducing our dependance on fossile fuels, especially imported fossil fuels, but global warming has nothing to do with that support. Remember the sage words that grace the cover of that wholy remarkable book, the "Hitchhiker's Guide": Don't panic!
-
Originally posted by Sabre
It is a logical fallacy to assume that (a) that humans are causing a global rise in temperature, (b) that the cause is solely (or even primarily) CO2 emissions, and (c) enacting potentially economically disastrous measures will do no harm.
It is a logical fallacy to not assume so.
I guess all the crap we put in the atmosphere just floats into space and the rainforests (ex) starts growing on the moon and starts beaming oxygen back to earth via plasma cannons.
As to economy... well.. the economies will collapse if we continue as we do anyway. Taking pre-emptive measures will give us the chanse to improve future economies in a viable way.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
check this (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,542,00.html) pictures out, some are 100 years old and are compared to today pics. (press WEITER for the next pic)
Glaciers melting,
global warming a hype?
I think you kinda proved the point of the speech reguarding propiganda.
Is september generally a warmer month here like it is in the states?
(http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,349058,00.jpg)
Pasterze-glacier on the 13 September 2003: Only a thin stream
I can post pics of my back yard in Nebraska....one in January the other in september and they will be not so surprisingly different. The only thing that would prove is season change....not climate change.
Again the science geeks need to get in there and look at this from an un-biased objective viewpoint(IE: Scientificly) and duke it out. I see too many from both sides with good points but 180 degree conclusions.
In addition the economic impact is a valid point. Those that didn't actually read the speech missed the great parts about the 3 world and developing countrys. While the US economy would take a major hit, global reforms would literally wipe out countrys that are currently developing.
-
ok .. lets use the Ozone Layer as an example of how 'badly' man has been in using up our entire Planet.
Umm.
Mt. St. Helens eruption put more gases into the atmosphere that are considered 'harmful' to the ozone layer .. more smog, more metric TONS of *stuff* into the atmosphere than man has since he's been around.
Guess what? .. it rained a few days later .. all better now.
On a scale of volcanic eruptions, Helen was a minor player.
Krakatoa was the most violent in the history of man .. it was literally heard around the world and darkened the entire planets skies .. guess what?
Man .. yup .. still here.
(Well .. except for anyone near Krakatoa . . guess no Virgins were handy.)
It rained .. again.
All better.
Frankly the entire idea of 'man' using up the Planet is ludicrous .. it will be here long .. in geological epoc terms .. after we are all gone.
You really wanna scare yourself silly, read 'The Hab Theory' .. everything else in the headlines today is just no big deal if that theory is true :)
-GE (and it's got some valid points you can verify your own self )
-
Glaciers don't (aren't supposed to) change drastically with the seasons. That's why they are glaciers and not just snow.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Some of you have claimed you can't trust the science of guys backed by the oil companies, but if you think you can trust the info coming out of the envirnmentalist movement you are fooling yourself.
Gto, yup. Makes assessments difficult.
hap
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
It is a logical fallacy to not assume so.
I guess all the crap we put in the atmosphere just floats into space and the rainforests (ex) starts growing on the moon and starts beaming oxygen back to earth via plasma cannons.
As to economy... well.. the economies will collapse if we continue as we do anyway. Taking pre-emptive measures will give us the chanse to improve future economies in a viable way.
Now you're just being glib. We were talking about mankind's CO2 emissions' impact on global warming, not on pollution in general. If you want to talk about deforestation and its impact on global oxygen levels, start another thread. As for your statement on economy, I'm not sure what you mean by "economies will collapse if we continue as we do", or why you think Kyoto-type measures will improve future economies. Can you explain? And may I suggest you read the Senator's speech in full and discuss where exactly you feel he got it wrong?
-
Very enlightening when you look at this:
Oil & Gas:
Top 20 Recipients
Election cycle: 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
List Top 20: All Recipients Presidential Candidates Senators Members of the House Senate Candidates House Candidates All Members of Congress
Rank
Candidate
Office
Amount
1
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Senate
$511,825
2
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
Senate
$241,258
3
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)
Senate
$221,405
4
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Senate
$174,100
5
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)
Senate
$164,658
6
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Senate
$154,130
7
Sununu, John E (R-NH)
Senate
$137,380
8
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Senate
$136,400
9
Thune, John (R-SD)
Senate
$134,650
10
Talent, James M (R-MO)
Senate
$130,450
11
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Senate
$127,229
12
Sullivan, John (R-OK)
House
$124,100
13
Young, Don (R-AK)
House
$121,950
14
Tauzin, Billy (R-LA)
House
$121,750
15
Barton, Joe (R-TX)
House
$120,898
16
Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr (R-MS)
House
$101,350
17
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Senate
$100,690
18
Pearce, Steve (R-NM)
House
$100,200
19
Bonilla, Henry (R-TX)
House
$98,950
20
DeLay, Tom (R-TX)
House
$92,800
Just follow the money in these things-easy2
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Very enlightening when you look at this:
Just follow the money in these things-easy2
Unless you do the same for the people who take money from environmentalist groups your post means nothing.
On top of that how does that list show anything about their stance on global warming?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Unless you do the same for the people who take money fromenvironmentalist groups your post means nothing.
On top of that how does that list show anything about their stance on global warming?
Tell you what, go and find that list and post it, as for your other point, ther'es not a lot I can say about it..........:huh
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Tell you what, go and find that list and post it, as for your other point, ther'es not a lot I can say about it..........:huh
Why did you post, you do know this thread is about global warming and the media hype behind it right?
I am not going to do your research for you. I will just take it as concession you have no clue about either, I already knew that anyway.
(granted I don’t either, but I didn’t make the pointless post in the first place)
:rolleyes:
-
zOMG(http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/orly_stfu.gif)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why did you post, you do know this thread is about global warming and the media hype behind it right?
I am not going to do your research for you. I will just take it as concession you have no clue about either, I already new that anyway.
(granted I don’t either, but I didn’t make the pointless post in the first place)
:rolleyes:
:rofl :rofl
That's funny!
"Hey look at me, look at all these republicans that oil companys gave money to!!!!!!"
Sleight of hand comes to mind
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Glaciers don't (aren't supposed to) change drastically with the seasons. That's why they are glaciers and not just snow.
And glaciers dont last forever either. If they did then Michigan and the Sahara desert would be under a ton of ice.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Very enlightening when you look at this:
Oil & Gas:
Top 20 Recipients
Election cycle: 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
List Top 20: All Recipients Presidential Candidates Senators Members of the House Senate Candidates House Candidates All Members of Congress
Just follow the money in these things-easy2
Hawco, of course you realize almost half (8) come from oil producing states, where did you think they would get contributions from? You're only painting a small part of the picture. How much money did they recieve total in contributions in the same period? How much did the enviromentalist contribute?
-
Reads like it was written by coultier.
I cant imagine any reasonably intelligent person would be reasured by reading it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Reads like it was written by coultier.
I cant imagine any reasonably intelligent person would be reasured by reading it.
I can't imagine a reasonably intelligent person being able to downplay what he says about hype and bias.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why did you post, you do know this thread is about global warming and the media hype behind it right?
I am not going to do your research for you. I will just take it as concession you have no clue about either, I already knew that anyway.
(granted I don’t either, but I didn’t make the pointless post in the first place)
:rolleyes:
Even some of the right wing death cult members on here can point you in the direction on this one, sometimes, even they are able to connect the dots.. sometimes..;)
-
I think that if everyone that feared for the life of the planet turned off their electricity and sold their car, then preached the end of the world, I might take them more seriously.
At Best, they would shave off a portion of the pollutants they are concerned about (can't do a thing about the Volcanos though, sorry guys, GEs post was spot on. More pollutants in a single eruption than the entire industrialized society has spewed since the steam engine)
Do any of you walk to work? Work in a pollution free environment? Got a Car? Have the Lights On at home? Use anything Plastic? Synthetic? Manufactured? Do you grow your own food? Buy only Organic Natural Veggies in Plastic Bags or Tubs? Those pesky farmers use Tractors. Oh the Humanity, wishing for the days of the Indian when life was Grand and oh so full of harmony. Guess what, they killed animals, yep, wore leather too (gasp) Fig leaves just don't keep out the snow very well. Oh, they killed each other alot also, but hey, it's only natural. Oh, wait, that won't work, they burned wood. Have to go back a bit farther.
What, a fireplace just wont do for you? A bicycle isn't good enough? You have, for some reason, a valid reason for burning fuel and using electricity but clearly the rest of us are the ones wasting?
Get over yourselfes :)
Go form an all natural commune, help do your part to save the world, put your money where your mouth is and get past this hypocricy. Remove 100% of those things that so offend you before you start in on what anyone else should do. Really, think about it. Think about all the Doctors and Farmers and Really Good People that wish for a utopian world. There are enough of you to just pool your resources and do it. Your valiant act of humanity and caring would save the world. Pool your money and go buy, oh I dunno, Idaho or something, go Commune all the way. Heck, you can have California for all I care. Go save it, quit typing, you are hitting a plastic keyboard that the manufacturing process caused some emmissions to leak into the air. Go make some Ink out of dead octopusses or something, use bark, and make your message heard loud and clear through Action, not keystrokes. You are typing on a computer that causes radiation, lighting a house that had to use burnt coal or damned a river to light, how can you live with yourself increasing the demand for these evil things? Don't you know anything? Demand causes More to be Made! Stop, Step Away, Save yourselves, save the planet.
Bet ya can't. But, you care, and that's what matters.
I feel better, that was fun
:D
-
ROC :aok ^^:rofl ^^
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Hawco, of course you realize almost half (8) come from oil producing states, where did you think they would get contributions from? You're only painting a small part of the picture. How much money did they recieve total in contributions in the same period? How much did the enviromentalist contribute?
If you do your research, you will find that the person concerned is also funded to the tune of 4.5m from a think tank that is in turn funded by the Oil companies, the purpose of said think tank is to spread debate such as this, go read and ask questions, educate yourself on these topics, follow the money, If you follow the money then you can find out where all these Senators are coming from.
-
All we really need is for a bunch of Hollywood dogooder wannabes to get together and have a fund raising concert to end global warming. They ended hunger in Africa didn't they?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Now you're just being glib. We were talking about mankind's CO2 emissions' impact on global warming, not on pollution in general. If you want to talk about deforestation and its impact on global oxygen levels, start another thread. As for your statement on economy, I'm not sure what you mean by "economies will collapse if we continue as we do", or why you think Kyoto-type measures will improve future economies. Can you explain? And may I suggest you read the Senator's speech in full and discuss where exactly you feel he got it wrong?
What he is saying is nothing new. He sais pretty much what the defenders of status-quo has said for a long time. You may belive it and thats fine, but I dont.
We can start a never ending link fest on the topic i guess, but thats been done before.
;)
-
I'm game.
BTW, nice glacier pics there above. Guess it's them hot springs and volcanoes melting them ;)
And as for the Hollywood guys, yeah, they should get on to the problem.
At least many of them are travelled, so they might have seen a problem like that one ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
What he is saying is nothing new. He sais pretty much what the defenders of status-quo has said for a long time. You may belive it and thats fine, but I dont.
We can start a never ending link fest on the topic i guess, but thats been done before.
;)
No link-fest necessary. I made some specific points, stated analogies and examples, and asked you some specific questions. What specific points and evidence the senator advances do you disagree with, and why? The flip-flopping media bias (and which alarmist position, warming or cooling)? The debunking of the hocky-stick graph? The relative ranking of world problems (with Global Warming listed at the bottom)? The evidence that suggests that this is part of the normal thermal cycle of the planet?
I'll admit that I'm skeptical of enviromentalist alarmism (the senator provides pretty good evidence of their poor track record). Did you believe the ice-age alarmists during the '70's? If so, what do you think about their being wrong on that? If not, why, and why do you believe them now, when their position is exactly opposite? I'm just trying to understand why you hold the position you do? Simply stating, "I don't believe him," is not likely to convince anyone. Your position seems to be grounded not in science, but in politics.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
If you do your research, you will find that the person concerned is also funded to the tune of 4.5m from a think tank that is in turn funded by the Oil companies, the purpose of said think tank is to spread debate such as this, go read and ask questions, educate yourself on these topics, follow the money, If you follow the money then you can find out where all these Senators are coming from.
I see your $4.5 million and raise you:
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
Connect the dots indeed :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I can't imagine a reasonably intelligent person being able to downplay what he says about hype and bias.
Well, how many fosil fuel burning internal combustion engines where there in the late 1930s when he proposes thier impact should have been seen on the climate if we are affecting the climate now? In the whole world there were not as many as there are in canada right now. His pretext is that if trends in the 1930s didnt show warming why should they now? Well look at the scale of the problem now compared to then. 1/200th of the world was industrialized then, 1/200th isnt now.
Yes grapes grew in England when the Romans conquored it. It was warmer then and then for several hundred years it got way colder. We are talking hundreds of years. Not dozens.
A bunch of quotes threw the ages"in december 1892 Dr so and so said its getting colder!" well that proves that those concerned are just nuts. Cause one guy said the oposite a hundred years ago!. Thats the coultier part.
I havent seen the movie he talks about.
But for a while last year you could SAIL to the north pole. Right to the pole!
Think that has been happening much lately? Coincidence?
They can track the occurence of volcanos for thousands of years by how the ash in the air lowered tempatures and stunted growth in trees. It was not unresonable to think in the 70s that all the smoke we are creating would lower tempatures. And maybe it should have, maby the haze from contrails is ballancing the increase in heat from green house gasses. Maybe if we shut down our SUVs we will have an ice age.
-
I think we should be much more worried about smog, polluted lakes/rivers... all that kinda stuff. We KNOW that's our fault. We don't know that global warming is our fault, as we aren't even sure if there actually IS global warming.
(yes, it's a little warmer at present, but what about 50 years from now? maybe it's colder...)
-
Who here was a Boy Scout? (I'm raising my hand...)
Generally I nice, conservative bunch, right? (http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/boyscouts.html)
I consider myself conservative, but not necessarily Republican because here is my major sticking point with this party: The environment.
See in the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts I remember distinctly the mantra when camping:
"Take only pictures; leave only footprints"
I like to practice this as much as possible in the rest of my life on this planet. Remember this is not MY planet or OUR planet. It belongs to our children and grand-children, too. I want to give them the best planet possible.
When in doubt, I'd err on the side of conservation and caution. But in a land where every man, woman and child is responsible for $28,000 of national debt (more or less), I hardly think that conservation and frugality are core values...
-
See Rule #7
-
All this talk of Climate change and glaciers melting got me worried, so I decided to do an experiment of my own to settle the matter once and for all.
(http://www.providencepca.com/photos/before.jpg)
Before
(http://www.providencepca.com/photos/after.jpg)
After
I hope all you skeptics will finally be persuaded by this irrefutable evidence.
As you can see, in a matter of only minutes, all the ice cubes have melted. Clear evidence that global warming effect is indeed underway, and that we need to implement the Kyoto protocols as soon as possible. If you don't understand the seriousness of what is going on, just consider that had this been say, an expensive single malt Scotch instead of merely a cup of water, my drink would have become overly diluted and unsatisfying in a matter of only a few minutes. When one multiplies the psychological impact of that kind of event by the total number of Scotch on the rocks served daily in the USA alone, its easy to see that we are headed for a crisis that could cause a worldwide depression. And its not just adults who are impacted, think of how quickly the Slush in ICEES and SLURPEES must be melting, the hapiness of our CHILDREN is at stake here people. Surely you can see why then we must assume that we are in complete control of the ecology of our planet and its destiny and act now to hand control of the global economy over to "third world and developing nations" like China who are not constrained by the Protocols.
Oh, and if you value the frostiness of your beer mug then you need stop driving to work. Start walking the night before.
-
That is some damned fine research Seagoon (pardon el language).
Want to join me on a trip with Greenpeace on the Rainbow Warrior? You could bless the life jackets. :aok
Any EOD experts wanna join us? I bet it will be a blast.
-
oh really seagoon, where is your documentation, for all we know the photos were taken months apart. we need our resident photo experts to examine the photos for change in lighting, camera angle, lens, exposure, etc.
-
And john9, dunt forget about the propane torch which was edited out of the pics.
EDIT: To the topic. He is a politician and someone believes him? LOL!!!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I see your $4.5 million and raise you:
Connect the dots indeed :rolleyes:
Unless I'm mistaken, I thought the thread was about the Senator Inhofe and the speech he made? I had no idea we would discuss the whole think tank thing.
I belive my post mentioned Inhofe ny name and how much cash he had recieved from oil and that's why he said what he said.
If you wish to connect dots on the wider issue, then I can help you with that.
But I'd be intrigued if you could find another Senator who has received more cash from the "Tree huggers" than Inhofe has received from big business.
Do you not agree that Inhofe gets cash from Oil to make certain speeches and to try and debunk certain issues?
Do you know that when this guy tried to ram the clean air act through ( at the behest of Chevron and Exonn) he tried to supena the financial information of all dissenters? not find this a bit odd?
This is not opinion, but fact
:aok
-
Originally posted by Hawco
But I'd be intrigued if you could find another Senator who has received more cash from the "Tree huggers" than Inhofe has received from big business.
Al Gore? :aok just guessing (and yes he was a senator first)
when I have more time http://www.opensecrets.org/
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Oil & Gas Industries ran to $25,652,689 in 2004 with individual contributions. $7,236,748 is just PACs.
Add in the Electric Utilities $15,740,833 ($11,415,013 PACs) to that total -- those guys have a vested interest in disproving global warming too. Coal mining's $2,340,118 ($498,850 PACs) might be germaine too.
Environmental PACs donated $87,589 (add that to the $19,019,166).
So it looks more like $43,579,490 vs $19,106,755.
If you just want to count PACs $19,150,611 vs $19,106,755
And technically the environmental 527s only spent $15,479,475 of the $19,019,166 they received.
Then there's the lobbying cash -- in 2004
Enviromental groups spent $7,837,517
Electric Utilities spent $89,141,466
Oil & Gas spent $50,787,527
$7,837,517 for the greens vs $139,928,993 for the "no global warming" guys
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Yes grapes grew in England when the Romans conquored it. It was warmer then and then for several hundred years it got way colder. We are talking hundreds of years. Not dozens.
UN Environment Programme
The mean global surface temperature has increased by about 0.3 to 0.6°C since the late 19th century and by about 0.2 to 0.3°C over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data.
Were still not talking dozens to get a chianti from Leeds.
-
Looks like the media didn't like being called biased by the good Senator. Here is Inhofe's reply to the MSM's response...
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
-
One main point that the "man is the devil" advocates are missing here is that....
If we are affecting the earth so much with what we are doing.... if we can change the natural cycles of warming and cooling so much.....
we better be very careful about any "cure" for global warming... By their logic we have probly averted the ice age that the "scientists" predicted in the 70's by our slovenly and wasteful ways...
If we all drove a prius and gave our money to world socialism and wore hairshirts as attonement....
We might easily trigger a global ice age.
Perhaps we are the balance! without us.... the earth would have been covered in ice like "Time" and all the "scientists" predicted in the 70's and any change needs to be carefully thought out....
It might be that we need to punch holes in all the air conditioning condensers and go back to r34 refrigerant... Might be that we need to remove all the catalytic converters on our cars and find some really dirty coal to power our power plants...
lazs