| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More on Global Warming
On Apr 3, 6:45�pm, Animal05 wrote:
Personalization of issues * * ** Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * * ** Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * * ** Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group who insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? Every other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land - as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than the global warming believers. The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem, while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the problem. This should never have been made into a political issue. The right wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low priority use of fossil fuel. We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-( However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away. It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not* scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction stops making this scientific question into a personal or political issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is somewhat hypocritical. If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up your hobby in a major way. |
More on Global Warming
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:47 -0400, BAR wrote: We can see that you are not interested in discussion just political points Did you see the article about the EU banning outdoor barbecues because they emit CO2? Apparently, it's going to be a 20 Euro permit for every BBQ session. It if is bad then it should be banned and not regulbated and taxed. --------- BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills. Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html ------------- The best part is that they are going to use helicopters to patrol neighborhoods for illegal barbecues. Let's see - 100 grams per BBQ for - what, hour and a half maybe versus a helicopter which emits a kilogram or so of CO2 per minute? Just another excuse to control people's behavior. You would think they could have a guy riding a bicycle through the neighborhoods on Saturday afternoon using his nose to ferret out those evil BBQ grills. It's not science or economics - it's religion, pure and simple. Worshipping at the altar of Global Warming. Bingo! |
More on Global Warming
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. To call anyone with a realistic mindset based on SCIENCE a twit points out your bias and lack of education. In the recently heard supreme court case Mass. would benefit from a 5 degree temp rise by 2100. They have not shown, to my knowledge, any loss or potential loss from current EPA policies. I thought from the little I know about the legal system that was a necessity for any legal case, you have to show damages. If I am correct we just had the legal system make a political decision, guess who voted for it.........Expect this to be overturned within 5 years. Florida and Texas MIGHT have a case in that insect life won't get a die off each year as temps don't reach freezing long enough. The other STUFF that usually accompanies carbon dioxide out of power plant smoke stacks is already being addressed. If you want stricter regulations go for it. If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't happen because the labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe. I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry Schiavo. Anti-science?????? OK, a question. How can the US affect the amount of carbon dioxide being produced globally. We account for 25% of the worlds total man made carbon dioxide, that's 5% of the total carbon dioxide produced worldwide. That percentage is going to drop as the price of oil increases while the world wide production is going to increase. Perhaps we could encourage India and China to build more nuclear power plants. opps..done that, Bush authorized funds for that and released technologies to both those countries to make sure those power plants were safe. Hmmm...what else. CAFE standards increase...opps, Bush is doing that. Build more nuclear power plants here...doing that. Release technologies for synthetic fuels ....doing that. Fund research...doing that. Higher efficiency for air conditioning systems..doing that. Higher standards for insulation in homes...doing that. Perhaps a small tax on carbon based fuel that goes entirely to subsidize retrofit insulation to existing homes. What more can be done? Please offer your suggestions. You can believe that Bush now believes in man made global warming or you can believe that the war on terror requires us to be less dependant on foreign oil. Anything that reduces the worlds dependence on "Arab" oil is good for the world and bad for terrorists. Jumping on the "global warming bandwagon makes him more in tune with the political climate and gets his agenda forward. For my part it's good for this country to be less dependant on foreign oil regardless of the reason you do it. I'd like to see sustainable renewable energy sources developed. |
More on Global Warming
On Apr 4, 7:16�am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote: In oglegroups.com, Chuck Gould sprach forth the following: The right wing's hatred for Al Gore "There are those who believe that global warming is manmade. *In Al Gore we apparently have found the man." - Dick Cheney has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. And Al Gore is the most guilty of not doing so. Thanks, Fred. I could not have asked or a more perfect validation of my point. :-) We need to accept that this really isn't about George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or Al Gore. It's about a climate trend that according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating glacial ice at both poles. Our prevailing winds and ocean currents depend on a large temperature differential at the poles vs. the equator. Screw up the winds and curents, and life on this planet will change so dramatically the survivors will be telling tales about life in the 20th and 21st centuries in way that will make conditions today seem like a mythical paradise. Somebody up thread commented, "Scientists have predicted that my particular section of the world will actually benefit from several degrees of global warming." Not really. We are each dependent on the health of the entire planet. The population shifts from areas that are only marginally inhabitable now and could become entirely arid or disappear under rising sea levels will have social consequences. Many of those social consequences could be violent, as greater numbers of people squabble over diminishing drinking water and other resources. The dominant life forms on earth have been largely eradicated by climate changes in the past. (Seen a T-Rex lately?) This could easily happen again. Would it happen without any help from man? Maybe.....but even if it were going to happen anyway does that excuse man for possibly accelerating the process? Even *if* this were an entirely natural phenomonon and modifyng the mixture of gas in the atmosphere can be shown to have no effect, why would we just sit back and submit to the will of nature without attempting to find a way to reduce the risk? The disappearing polar ice is a problem. Folks who don't understand how the winds and currents of the oceans dictate weather on this planet and how those winds are currents are dependent on a temperature differential between the poles and the tropics might do well to do some basic reading on that issue before concluding that a disruption in temperature and the elimination of polar ice is a non-issue. Any suggestion that the change will be *positive* is truly nuts. Those of us willing to pay $5-$7 a gallon for boat fuel a few years from now will be able to carry on in the face of steadily escalating fuel costs; but the political fallout from the global warming situation may find us all *ordered* off the water. Making a realistic, non-political evaluation of the situation at this point and (if necessary) taking some moderate precautions may prevent or postpone the day when recreational use of fossil fuel is banned, at least until most of us are either dead or too darn old to boat anymore. :-) |
More on Global Warming/ Liberal Satellite Conspiracy
A footnote:
There's apparently no limit to the devious devices liberals will employ to hype the global warming issue. They have even paid off NASA to Photoshop the ice away from satellite images of the north pole! :-) This link will bring up an interactive site where moving a slider under a satellite image of the north pole shows how and where the ice has disappeared since 1979. There is also some fairly objective scientific explanation included, along with a comment that we can't know whether or not, for certain, how much of an effect man's activities are having on the climate change. The site also discusses normal seasonal changes in the size of the ice cap and other useful facets of the issue. http://www.everybodysweather.com/Sta...lter/index.htm At the current rate of ice loss (about 9% per decade) the planet could soon be in serious trouble from disrupted winds and ocean currents and the resulting "weird weather". |
More on Global Warming
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:21:02 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:
If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't happen because the labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe. I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal, Wyoming has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's Clinton's fault. |
More on Global Warming
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. Unfortunately this happens even among scientists and others who should know better. The evidence that global warming is happening is fairly compelling. It has happened before however, and so has global cooling. What is not clear is why, and whether anything can be realistically done about it. |
More on Global Warming
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:21:02 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote: If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't happen because the labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe. I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal, Wyoming has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's Clinton's fault. There is low sulphur and extreme Low Sulphur called Super Compiant http://www.nationalguild.com/fridayreports/122796.html Three billion tons of SUPER-COMPLIANT coal President Clinton locks up major US coal deposit. In a pre-election move, President Clinton has created a controversial National Monument, which locks in an estimated **7 billion tonnes** of low-sulfur coal, said to be worth up to US$ 1000 billion. The 700,000 hectare Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the Utah desert includes coal leases which were to become a 6000 hectare underground mine exporting to East Asia. The leases, on Federal Government land, are not revoked but the new designation means that Washington will impose restrictions which prevent mining. A Republican Senator lamented that the President was locking up the most environmentally benign coal in the USA. The action did not require Congressional approval. AFR 20/9/96 |
More on Global Warming
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:11:59 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:
Let's see, Montana has 50 billion short tons of low sulfur coal, Wyoming has 25 billion. Utah? 1/4 billion short tons. Yup, it's Clinton's fault. There is low sulphur and extreme Low Sulphur called Super Compiant http://www.nationalguild.com/fridayreports/122796.html Three billion tons of SUPER-COMPLIANT coal President Clinton locks up major US coal deposit. In a pre-election move, President Clinton has created a controversial National Monument, which locks in an estimated **7 billion tonnes** of low-sulfur coal, said to be worth up to US$ 1000 billion. The 700,000 hectare Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the Utah desert includes coal leases which were to become a 6000 hectare underground mine exporting to East Asia. The leases, on Federal Government land, are not revoked but the new designation means that Washington will impose restrictions which prevent mining. A Republican Senator lamented that the President was locking up the most environmentally benign coal in the USA. The action did not require Congressional approval. AFR 20/9/96 Frankly, I prefer the governments estimates. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/re...hapter3p4.html |
More on Global Warming
On 4 Apr 2007 09:18:36 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: It's about a climate trend that according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating glacial ice at both poles Youi know - you guys are WAY too easy. The article was an April's Fools joke done by a Russian newspaper. And as usual, nobody even thought about the absurdity of the whole thing and charged into the fray with hardly a seconds pause. Way too easy. :) |
More on Global Warming
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 4 Apr 2007 09:18:36 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: It's about a climate trend that according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating glacial ice at both poles Youi know - you guys are WAY too easy. The article was an April's Fools joke done by a Russian newspaper. And as usual, nobody even thought about the absurdity of the whole thing and charged into the fray with hardly a seconds pause. Way too easy. :) The sad part is we have come to expect such stupidity from the politicians. |
More on Global Warming
On Apr 4, 12:04�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 09:18:36 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: It's about a climate trend that according to objective and scientific measurement is eradicating glacial ice at both poles Youi know - you guys are WAY too easy. The article was an April's Fools joke done by a Russian newspaper. And as usual, nobody even thought about the absurdity of the whole thing and charged into the fray with hardly a seconds pause. Way too easy. *:) What article? Did I miss some portion of the thread? My comment about polar ice melt doesn't rely in any way on an individual newspaper article. Check out the NASA satellite images of the North Pole, 1979-2005. http://www.everybodysweather.com/Sta...lter/index.htm Either NASA has been paid off by liberal propagandists or there is a measurable reduction of about 9% per decade in polar ice. |
More on Global Warming
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html Global warming doesn't fit into Herring's Republican twit mindset. Harry, calling carbon dioxide a poison as the supreme court just did is silly, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide and ammonia and water vapor (another greenhouse gas that's 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas). But global warming fits perfectly into harry's socialist mindset Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is "about levelling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that represents "the first component of authentic global governance http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id= "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC "Whether you believe the science [of global warming] or not is beside the point. Policy should be more about risk than proof." Jon Anda Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman "If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs." Philip Stott Biogeographer University of London "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists." John Christy IPCC contributor "So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University "We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC (1995) I'm royally ****ed at the ignorance and silliness of you and others on this issue. To call anyone with a realistic mindset based on SCIENCE a twit points out your bias and lack of education. In the recently heard supreme court case Mass. would benefit from a 5 degree temp rise by 2100. They have not shown, to my knowledge, any loss or potential loss from current EPA policies. I thought from the little I know about the legal system that was a necessity for any legal case, you have to show damages. If I am correct we just had the legal system make a political decision, guess who voted for it.........Expect this to be overturned within 5 years. Florida and Texas MIGHT have a case in that insect life won't get a die off each year as temps don't reach freezing long enough. The other STUFF that usually accompanies carbon dioxide out of power plant smoke stacks is already being addressed. If you want stricter regulations go for it. If Clinton had not made the low sulfur coal in Utah off limits (he made it a national park) then we could economically switch to that coal and at the same time reduce emissions with tighter standards. As it is, this won't happen because the labor unions (jobs for dirty coal mines in the east) and anti carbon dioxide lobby will block it. So you in the north above the US industrial belt get acid rain and yellow air to breathe. I hope you like our political system. I think it stinks. no pun intended I'm sorry, but I'm really not interested in reading any more anti-science Republican screeds. Save it for the believers in the awakening of Terry Schiavo. Anti-science?????? OK, a question. How can the US affect the amount of carbon dioxide being produced globally. We account for 25% of the worlds total man made carbon dioxide, that's 5% of the total carbon dioxide produced worldwide. That percentage is going to drop as the price of oil increases while the world wide production is going to increase. Perhaps we could encourage India and China to build more nuclear power plants. opps..done that, Bush authorized funds for that and released technologies to both those countries to make sure those power plants were safe. Hmmm...what else. CAFE standards increase...opps, Bush is doing that. Build more nuclear power plants here...doing that. Release technologies for synthetic fuels ....doing that. Fund research...doing that. Higher efficiency for air conditioning systems..doing that. Higher standards for insulation in homes...doing that. Perhaps a small tax on carbon based fuel that goes entirely to subsidize retrofit insulation to existing homes. What more can be done? Please offer your suggestions. You can believe that Bush now believes in man made global warming or you can believe that the war on terror requires us to be less dependant on foreign oil. Anything that reduces the worlds dependence on "Arab" oil is good for the world and bad for terrorists. Jumping on the "global warming bandwagon makes him more in tune with the political climate and gets his agenda forward. For my part it's good for this country to be less dependant on foreign oil regardless of the reason you do it. I'd like to see sustainable renewable energy sources developed. |
More on Global Warming
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Apr 3, 6:45?pm, Animal05 wrote: Personalization of issues * Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group who insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? What 'group' is this, Chuck? Every other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land - as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than the global warming believers. The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem, while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the problem. This should never have been made into a political issue. The right wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low priority use of fossil fuel. We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-( However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away. It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not* scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction stops making this scientific question into a personal or political issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is somewhat hypocritical. If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up your hobby in a major way. Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being contentious? -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!***** John H |
More on Global Warming
On Apr 6, 2:55�pm, John H. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: On Apr 3, 6:45?pm, Animal05 wrote: Personalization of issues * * Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * * Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * * Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group who insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? What 'group' is this, Chuck? Every other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land - as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than the global warming believers. The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem, while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the problem. This should never have been made into a political issue. The right wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low priority use of fossil fuel. We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-( However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away. It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not* scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction stops making this scientific question into a personal or political issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is somewhat hypocritical. If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up your hobby in a major way. Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being contentious? -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!***** * * * * * John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is bogus) group right here in this thread. |
More on Global Warming
On 6 Apr 2007 15:45:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: On Apr 6, 2:55?pm, John H. wrote: On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: On Apr 3, 6:45?pm, Animal05 wrote: Personalization of issues * Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group who insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? What 'group' is this, Chuck? Every other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land - as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than the global warming believers. The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem, while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the problem. This should never have been made into a political issue. The right wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low priority use of fossil fuel. We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-( However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away. It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not* scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction stops making this scientific question into a personal or political issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is somewhat hypocritical. If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up your hobby in a major way. Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being contentious? -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!***** John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is bogus) group right here in this thread. Ah. I thought maybe you'd found an administration source who denied global warming. In other words, you were just being contentious. Shameful. -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!***** John H |
More on Global Warming
John H. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "Chuck Gould" wrote: On Apr 3, 6:45?pm, Animal05 wrote: Personalization of issues * Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38] * Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39] * Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hmmm. Who has "personalized" global warming any more than the group who insists either that it isn't happening or that a polluted atmosphere is not scientifically different from a pristine atmosphere? What 'group' is this, Chuck? Chuckie ignores the demonization of anyone that is skeptical of GW by the alarmist crowd, being bought by Exxon, being "denialist" etc. Every other statement from that group seems to begin "Al Gore wants us to believe....." or "Liberals all want us to believe....." If personalization of the issue means that the argument is bogus (and I tend to agree that those without anything intelligent to say go straight to personalities every time), the folks living in GWB land - as in Global Warming is Bogus- have been far more guilty of that than the global warming believers. The global warming believers think the phenomenon is the problem, while the GWB- (Global Warming is Bogus)- faction more often seem to think that the folks with an opposing opinion are actually the problem. This should never have been made into a political issue. The right wing's hatred for Al Gore has caused a lot of people to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global warming, when in fact we should *all* be considering the entire body of evidence. As it is, it's almost like an election; dueling versions of the truth, and you get to choose which version you want to fight for. Too bad. As boaters we need to be nervous, indeed very nervous, about possible political and legislative fallout from the global warming concerns. As far as the 90% of the public who *don't* own a motorized boat are concerned, those "rich" guys in their 24-foot yachts are a low priority use of fossil fuel. We can get dumped on by the politicians, eager to show that they are doing something about the situation, and we're a perfect target because we don't have enough votes to make a difference. :-( However, just because it might be bad news for boaters, auto manufacturers, smoke stack industrialists, etc etc etc doesn't mean that we should categorically deny that a problem exists.......unless it can be conclusively shown (and it has not) that a problem really doesn't. Wishing and hoping won't make it go away. It's way too early in the debate to draw final conclusions, but "We hate the left wing in general and Al Gore in particular so therefore we think gobal warming has to be a pinko conspiracy", is *not* scientific reasoning. Until the GWB (Global Warming is Bogus) faction stops making this scientific question into a personal or political issue at every opportunity, criticism of the scientific methods used or not used by the folks who think that climate change is a problem is somewhat hypocritical. If you boat, fly a plane, drive an RV, etc- this issue could screw up your hobby in a major way. Do you have some information from your 'GWB' faction? Or are you just being contentious? |
More on Global Warming
On 07 Apr 2007 22:43:32 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote: In message ps.com, Chuck Gould sprach forth the following: There are several examples of messages from the GWB (global warming is bogus) group right here in this thread. Damn I just keep missing your responses to these two charts: http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...climate_3a.gif The northern hemisphere land temperatures are plotted with the solar cycle length (Friss-Christensen and Lassen; 1991). http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...climate_3b.gif The globally averaged sea surface temperatures are plotted with the sunspot numbers (Reid; 1999). Both sunspot number and solar cycle length are proxies for the amount of solar energy that Earth receives. The similarity of these curves is evidence that the sun has influenced the climate of the last 150 years. For something real interesting, go he http://tinyurl.com/2fpwdt and click on "House Hearing on Global Climate Change". Byorn Lomborg has written a great book entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He doesn't deny the occurrence of global warming, but he has some economist's ideas on approaches to the problem. -- *****Have a Spectacular Day!***** John H |
More on Global Warming
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:24:26 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. Provided without comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H ....and you also still believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Even if the CO2 emmissions aren't warming up the earth, they sure are poisoining the environment. We know...a lot of the garbage spewed south of the border makes it's way up here and dumps on us. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...-petition.html To whom are you writing? I didn't do the documentary, and you obviously didn't watch it. -- ***** Hope your day is better than decent! ***** John H If donnie believes that CO2 emissions are poisoning the environment, he needs to stop breathing to stop his contribution to the poisoning. |
More on Global Warming
On Mar 28, 11:03 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist. |
More on Global Warming
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 28, 11:03 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist. Look up sarcasm. |
More on Global Warming
D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 28, 11:03 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist. Look up sarcasm. Kevin is not the brightest bulb in the marquee |
More on Global Warming
Animal05 wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 28, 11:03 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist. Look up sarcasm. Kevin is not the brightest bulb in the marquee He's a lame troll who needs to go back to school for another semester of English 101. |
More on Global Warming
On Apr 8, 6:53 pm, Dan wrote:
Animal05 wrote: D.Duck wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message roups.com... On Mar 28, 11:03 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:43 -0500, John H. wrote: Does the fact that a liberal wrote a book make it unworthy of reading? I can't directly address that, but... There is still a ton of ice on Webster Lake - probably won't clear until at least Monday unless we get a real break in the weather. Also all the local ponds are still frozen over and the DEP is getting a little antsy about stocking for Opening Day April 14th - apparently it's the same all over the state. Global Warming my ass. :) Only a complete idiot think that global warming doesn't exist. Look up sarcasm. Kevin is not the brightest bulb in the marquee He's a lame troll who needs to go back to school for another semester of English 101.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And you're nothing but a stalker. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com