BoatBanter.com - OT IF BushCo Doesn't believe Global Warming

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - OT IF BushCo Doesn't believe Global Warming (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/39175-ot-if-bushco-doesnt-believe-global-warming.html)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an increase
in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice to melt.
It makes you think.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
Where did GWB say he does not believe in global warming theories?

Global warming is just another in the long lines of liberal bull****.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

********************************
The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are,
to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the
main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming
alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate is
an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control climate by
adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally
unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that
has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do
so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its
intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially
in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and
worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused
by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States.

The concept has been translated into a matter of faith, transcending "the
theoretical use of reason." For the good folk involved, following Kant,
global warming has become neither a matter of knowledge nor of opinion, but
wholly a matter of morality.

The threat of global warming has, as a result, morphed into the world's
public enemy #1, al-Qaeda notwithstanding. It is the ultimate product of the
Mordor of the present age, George W. Bush starring as Sauron, "Lord of the
Rings," with his genetically modified orcs and spouting smokestack
industries. It is the inevitable outcome of a Faustian pact with the devils
of capitalism, industrial growth, and profit. It is Christ tempted down from
the High Places to the ruin of the modern world. It is the "Shire" of Europe
against all the metal, mills and putrid production of an Erin Brockovich
America. It is Harry Potter versus the Quirrells of greed and gas guzzling.

Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto
Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a
"sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The
Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the
world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our
ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is
thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American
Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O.
Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead
of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable
and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser
developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable them
to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry.
By Philip Stott
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html

You're right. We should all double the amount of driving we do, leave our
lights on constantly, and leave the air conditioning set for 62 degrees when
we go on vacation for 10 days. Because carbon dioxide might be harmless,
it's safe to assume that all the other effluents of our luxuries are also
meaningless.

Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover the
earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that most
of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an increase
in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice to melt.
It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average
sea level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in
other words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any
reports *at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way
as the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and
the liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say
that most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so
that an increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to
cause the ice to melt. It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average
sea level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in
other words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any
reports *at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way
as the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and the
liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

About 1860, 20 miles of Glacier Bay, Alaska melted. Not refrozen since.
What did man do to cause this melting?

They elected Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. Don't you realize that
Republicans cause global warming?

"

Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that
most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

********************************
The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are,
to put it bluntly, horrendous. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the
main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming
alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate
is an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control
climate by adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally
unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one
that has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the
motive to do so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early
1990s its intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth,
especially in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is
both faster and worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural,
but must be caused by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be
the United States.

Dangerously, we have allowed all of this myth-making to lead to the Kyoto
Protocol, to the foolish assumption that we can actually create a
"sustainable," unchanging climate (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The
Kyoto Protocol is a scientific and economic nonsense that will cost the
world dear in economic terms while doing absolutely nothing the stop our
ever-changing climate. And the idea that climate change is bad for all is
thoroughly challenged in a new book, "Global Warming and the American
Economy" (Edward Elgar Publishing), edited by the economist, Robert O.
Mendelsohn, of Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead
of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable
and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser
developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable
them to cope better with change -- whether hot, wet, cold, or dry.
By Philip Stott
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121301M.html

I thought that's what the Kyoto treaty was designed to do. Cripple the
developed nations while giving a pass to the largest producers of greenhouse
gases, China and India. Pushed by France, a country that is 80% nuclear who
will become the dominant power in Europe if the treaty is implemented.

..

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Hehe!! Typical. I take it you don't believe the 100's of thousands of
research pages that say otherwise? Hehe!!!

Research pages, hell. All it takes a slight amount of common sense.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Some say that the poles are gong to melt and the sea is going to cover
the earth, Hollywood even makes a movie (water world) and others say that
most of the water in question is locked as ice at -50degrees so that an
increase in global temps of several degrees is not going to cause the ice
to melt. It makes you think.

Ever heard of the concept of 'thermal mass'?

Anyway, there are hundreds of reports in the past few years of average sea
level rising. Meaningless, right? What's a few inches here or there?

Now think for a second... any reports *at all* of sea levels dropping?

Hundreds of glaciers all over the world shrinking... ice melting, in other
words... in some cases by a little, in some cases by a lot. Any reports
*at all* of glaciers growing?

If these were just random events, you'd expect as much evidence one way as
the other. Instead, *all* the evidence is slanted one way...

It's a treasonous plot by those dadgum America-hating libby-rulls and the
liberal biased media, that's what it is!

DSK

The plot is the end of the world scenarios that are being put out as truth.
While I have posted that I believe that we might see an increase in the
average global temperature from greenhouse gases, some climate shifts in
marginal regions (a couple of inches less rain here and a couple of inches
more rain there) the doom scenarios require too much change in global
temperatures. Glaciers and Ice packs that were created during the last mini
ice age (due to the sun) 1000 years ago that have been melting at a steady
rate for the last 500 years (as the sun heats up) have accelerated their
melt. These areas were already melting and an increase of 1 degree has a
massive impact. It's been predicted that using the worst possible model
that within 50 years if all that ice melts the seas will rise 2 1/2 feet.
( The poles will still have ice caps as that ice is at -50 degrees).

It's more probable that the following will happen. Plant life will
flourish, 20 years from now the supplies of fossil fuels will become too
expensive and we will shift to other forms of energy. Less carbon dioxide
will be produced but the plant life will be converting more carbon dioxide
than is being produced leading to a short term swing to LESS carbon dioxide
in the air. We will then have a global cool down that will cause global
temperatures to drop below what we have today. The seas will start to
recede from the 8-10 inch increase at that point.

What you are thinking is who does this guy think he is, that's alot of
bull****. BUT what I described is more likely than what we have been
hearing from France and our press. ANYONE making wild speculations about
the future SHOULD BE treated with skepticism.