Members Crescent Seven Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 However, we should show much better stewardship of our planet and do everything within reason to reduce harmful emissions and pollutants from contamintaing our ecosyste whether it be in the air, land, or water. To me that's just common sense. just don't try and "scare" me into it with lies and misstated "facts". Right, but we need to legislate this as much as possible. This is why the alarmists are right; the American people have to be scared in order for laws to be inacted to protect them. It only confuses them when they're presented with all the information from both sides, that's why Algore doesn't {censored} around with debates, he just spits it like Talib Kweli. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 You don't?"Global warming IS caused by man!""Global warming IS junk science!""Is" denotes finality - "it" has been decided. It IS junk science. That doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist. that doesn't mean man is not causing it. It also doesn't mean man IS causing it. If he is, it doesn't mean HOW MUCH. It doesn't mean it DOES exist either. It means the science to try and prove it exists as many are claiming is junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 But this has nothing to do with global warming. Teaching chemistry classes at a junior college I was surprised how many students tie global warming together with air and water pollution, ozone holes, freon, and animal extinction. Actually I am not surprised, come to think of it. If we would all just pull the catalytic converters off our cars, the amount of poisonous CO2 would be reduced from automobiles and we could save the earth, Ozone hole be dammed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Kinda like calling everyone who disagrees with Bush a "communist". Or everyone who agrees with him a "neo-con". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Bingo. I agree wholeheartedly as well. I just object to the whole "junk science" of global warming and the alarmist nature of its advocates. There's a ton of money on the table that these people are scarfing up with their bogus claims. However, we should show much better stewardship of our planet and do everything within reason to reduce harmful emissions and pollutants from contamintaing our ecosyste whether it be in the air, land, or water. To me that's just common sense. just don't try and "scare" me into it with lies and misstated "facts". It justifies their existence and research money. Too bad but it's true. Some examples how the scares are being used. The fear is being used to force American auto companies to increase their MPG, and restrict our movements and activities. Another big sham (scare) is second hand smoke and its effect on health 'crisis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Another big sham (scare) is second hand smoke and its effect on health 'crisis'. My parents are both heavy smokers. My chronic bronchitis went away within 3 months of moving out of their house at 18, and I haven't had an incident since. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Some examples how the scares are being used. The fear is being used to force American auto companies to increase their MPG, and restrict our movements and activities. Except for the fact that mileage bills keep failing to pass, and no one's movements and activities are actually being restricted, you're absolutely right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 I haven't followed this thread, but... Shouldn't we be looking at this issue in a different way? Rather than debating whether it is real or not, shouldn't we be looking at whether we need to be doing something about they way we do things right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 My parents are both heavy smokers. My chronic bronchitis went away within 3 months of moving out of their house at 18, and I haven't had an incident since. C7 I am not saying you aren't bothered by it. Asthmatics are also bothered by it as are others who have upper respiratory ailments. What you have is a sensitivity not a disease from exposure. Moreover, you won't die if you remove the irritant, which you did. There is no evidence that second hand smoke will kill you. The stats on the studies used by the FDA were faulty. But look at all the bull{censored} regs that have been promulgated as a result of the scare tactics used by the anti-smoking Nazis. There are many more people who are not sensitive to it. Private businesses do not have the choice whether their establishment is smoking or non-smoking. It is this way in New York and Maryland is heading in this direction too. And they want you to keep buying them so children's healthcare can be financed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Except for the fact that mileage bills keep failing to pass, and no one's movements and activities are actually being restricted, you're absolutely right.Nice try. The reason they failed passage this time was because the American auto industries and your buddies in the UAW put pressure on Congress so they don't lump cars and trucks under the same category as cars. Not only is it technologically ridiculous but it will cost more jobs. I thought you would have learned this at your union cook out the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 It means the science to try and prove it exists as many are claiming is junk.According to who, though? The science on one side may (or may not) be "junk", and corrupted by agenda, but this assumes that the science on the other side is pure and without ulterior motive. There are people on both sides with impeccable credentials. So who's lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 I haven't followed this thread, but...Shouldn't we be looking at this issue in a different way?Rather than debating whether it is real or not, shouldn't we be looking at whether we need to be doing something about they way we do things right now? That's kind of the point of the whole thing, though. There are groups out there trying to pass legislation on all kinds of things to "do something" about the "problem" with no regard to economic impact, based upon their science which is in dispute. That's why they use the scare tactics. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Except for the fact that mileage bills keep failing to pass, and no one's movements and activities are actually being restricted, you're absolutely right. ...was absolutely correct. It did not pass, and movements and activities are not being restricted. Nowhere did I mention unions, or voting records in Congress, or lobbying influence. What does your statement have to do with my debunking of your post? Other than as a diversionary tactic, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 So... my statement: ...was absolutely correct. It did not pass, and movements and activities are not being restricted. Nowhere did I mention unions, or voting records in Congress, or lobbying influence. What does your statement have to do with my debunking of your post? Other than as a diversionary tactic, of course... Seems to be your primary focus. The legislation will pass as soon as they iron out that wrinkle. I never said the movements and activites were being restricted, yet. It's called incrementalism, my man. Being the lib you are, you should know that or are you just playin' coy with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 I haven't followed this thread, but...Shouldn't we be looking at this issue in a different way?Rather than debating whether it is real or not, shouldn't we be looking at whether we need to be doing something about they way we do things right now? I think that is the issue. If we're responsible for it then yes, we need to be doing something about it. If we're not responsible, then all of the legislation in the world isn't going to make the problem go away. Seems to me like this whole thing is little more than an excuse to force people to live more cleanly. Again, a fantastic result but the whole "ends justify the means" type thing doesn't really resonate too well with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 21, 2007 There are people on both sides with impeccable credentials. So who's lying?I don't think it's a matter of who's lying. I think it's more a matter of the overwhelming majority of mass media (include the weather channel here) have taken the radical position that we are causing Global Warming, when in fact there are studies that provide a counterbalance, yet few parrots want to recognize that. If science/scientists are always on the job questioning themselves, then why is that proper philosophy thrown out the window for Global Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mudbass Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 linky...A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant. Whoa! I guess these guys haven't heard about... ...the consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Seems to be your primary focus. The legislation will pass as soon as they iron out that wrinkle. This assumes that Dems will magically stop taking UAW money, and Republicans will stop taking money from Detroit. I never said the movements and activites were being restricted, yet.Yet you used the present tense: The fear is being used to force American auto companies to increase their MPG, and restrict our movements and activities. It's called incrementalism, my man. Being the lib you are, you should know that or are you just playin' coy with me. I know all about it. Things have been getting "incrementally" chipped off of the Bill of Rights for six years now. I would think that'd piss off a conservative. OMG... maybe you're the lib? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 If science/scientists are always on the job questioning themselves, then why is that proper philosophy thrown out the window for Global Warming? Benjigreens, what else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 Whoa! I guess these guys haven't heard about... ...the consensus. They who think with one brain...the Consensus. That settles it, the Global Warmists are really The Borg in disguise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 21, 2007 Benjigreens, what else? Well, I already knew the answer to my own question, but since you are partially correct, I'll take your Benjigreens and redistribute them away from you and the other haves of America and give them to the have nots throughout the rest of the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 I don't think it's a matter of who's lying. I think it's more a matter of the overwhelming majority of mass media (include the weather channel here) have taken the radical position that we are causing Global Warming, when in fact there are studies that provide a counterbalance, yet few parrots want to recognize that. If science/scientists are always on the job questioning themselves, then why is that proper philosophy thrown out the window for Global Warming?It's not just an overwhelming majority of media though... it's an overwhelming majority of scientists too. The studies to the contrary are by far in the minority, yet warming proponents are somehow "radical"? By the way, continued use of the term "parrot" doesn't help your case any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 I don't think it's a matter of who's lying. I think it's more a matter of the overwhelming majority of mass media (include the weather channel here) have taken the radical position that we are causing Global Warming, when in fact there are studies that provide a counterbalance, yet few parrots want to recognize that. If science/scientists are always on the job questioning themselves, then why is that proper philosophy thrown out the window for Global Warming? That's right. If you watch any of the news channels it presented as fact when nothing could be further from the truth. Again I say, there will be a whole lotta new regs comin' down from on high because the politicos are buying into this horse {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Share Posted August 21, 2007 By the way, continued use of the term "parrot" doesn't help your case any.Sure it does. A parrot is a mere imitator of which there are lots to go around. Plenty of unsuspecting people have taken the bait that GW is a man-made event, when in fact that has not been proven to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Share Posted August 21, 2007 It's not just an overwhelming majority of media though... it's an overwhelming majority of scientists too. The studies to the contrary are by far in the minority, yet warming proponents are somehow "radical"? By the way, continued use of the term "parrot" doesn't help your case any. Parrot, parrot, parrot. The overwhelming majority of media is one thing. The overwhelming majority of scientists doesn't make it fact. What part of that don't you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.