Oh my, its so cold and muggy outside, but you guys arguing seems to in a way, globally warm my body. Its so glorious...
Because we are talking about the science behind AGW, not what Michael freaking Moore thinks. I don't give a rat's patoot what MMoore or MMan think on this subject, what is important is what the scientists think. And, of course, pretty close to the ONLY voices including all of the most outspoken on the subject of denying AGW is an impending crisis are politicians and journalists, which is the reason that we need to look at the science, not the bullsh!t. LOL, when you start quoting scientific research instead of spouting the aforementioned bullsh!t, I will be happy to. Now, back to the question that brought on your factless opinion post... Please provide even a single example of a climatologist using a weather phenomenon to "prove" that AGW is real.
lol.. okayyyy.. Anyways I agree with one poster on here that said this thread is like Groundhog Day. I think he is right. It will never end and I think there is a lot of information out there from both sides that someone can logically come to their own conclusions. Just remember what you hear on TV isnt always the truth and be sure to question what you hear. Other than that I think I am going to stop responding to this thread. We can all agree to disagree
I don't believe this at all, it sounds like one of those lies that people like MojoMan repeat over and over again, hoping that eventually people will just believe it. Find me one example of a climatologist using weather patters to bolster their case for AGW. If you cannot find even one, then please consider that what I am saying might have some credence. I don't doubt at all that there have been some morons (AGW activists) that spouted off about how El Nino was proof of AGW. I heard some idjit say a few years ago (around the time of Katrina) that increased hurricane activity was a sign, but that person was an actor or musician or something and I didn't lend their crackpot theory any more credence than I give to MojoMan's idiocy. We are talking about the SCIENCE behind AGW, so now that the straw man has been completely engulfed in flames, can we move on to the science?
You also measure the severity of the risk, and the greater the risk the more resources you will spend to mitigate it. What would the consequences be if global temperatures rose, the polar ice caps melted, and sea level rose 1-2 meters? That would be catastrophic. That could destroy the world’s economy. I would say that that’s a risk we need to avoid at all cost. There’s also wind power, geothermal, and carbon neutral sources of fuel like biofuels. I’ve even seen proposals to make carbon neutral hydrocarbons from CO2 taken from a carbon capture operation. There are also significant advances in battery technology being made and we’re not far away from a time when commuter cars at least could be electric powered. Governments could be involved in this in some creative ways as well. Here are a few rough ideas to kick around. Many big cities are having problems with smog and congestion, and I believe London has banned private vehicles from parts of its downtown. What if London and other cities decided to allow only small, electric, commuter vehicles downtown, the size of a Smart Car for example? These cars are half the size of a normal car. You can put two of them in a normal parking stall, and if electric they would produce no emissions. There are some other significant details that would have to be dealt with as well, of course, but consider the impact of doing just that. If the commuter traffic in all the major cities in the US switched to electric vehicles what impact would that have on oil consumption and the amount of CO2 released? The answer would obviously depend on where the electricity came from, but we’re developing ways to deal with dirty electricity as well.
LIAR!!! http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp You would be funny if there weren't people out there willing to buy your absolute fabrications.
i actually had heard that for the longest time from so many people i believed it. interesting, now i know it isnt true.
Now you know the problem with Faux "News," they are willing to just fabricate things and then repeat them often enough that their viewers will believe bold-faced lies.
now I cant go and find a clip of NBC about this topic. It's not going to archived anywhere or on youtube because it is such a boring topic to most. But there was definitely interviews with people claiming to be to scientists regarding the whole Katrina and Warming in 98 that was referenced back to Global Warming. This is fact and I personally saw this on the news. I am not going to make anything up to support anything. You may be right that they are extremists and happened to go on the news to give their opinion. But they were on the news cause I remember thinking to myself what a load of bull.. Anyways i know i said i wasnt goign to respond anymore but thought i just wanted to clarify that point. What significance does it have? I don't think much other than my original point dont believe everything you hear on TV.
From running and starting up my own company I would have to weigh the PROBABILITY of that risk occurring versus the cost. So I started a company which is going to bring new technology to Gaming which has never been seen before. A lot of you will see this next year starting with the Wii. Anyways let's say I had 5million in private funding from investors and during the development life cycle I discovered a risk that could completely destroy the company but it has .01% chance of happening but will cost 4 million to address it. Do I put the 4 million in the company and thus destroying it financially anyways? I don't think any executive will make that decision. I know analogies can sometimes be irrelevant but what is being proposed could have the same effect on my company but on a large Global economy scale. very true on some of the technologies you listed. But none of it is ready which is why the Govt should not force it upon the people. More research needs to be done and I slightly disagree with you on the Govt's role. Govt just adds a whole layer of bureaucracy and inefficiencies to the whole process. Also if you have Govt forcing you and telling you what to drive what stops them from telling you what to do and how to live your life in other areas? Anyways I still do appreciate your thoughtful responses which is why I will only reply to you since I think this thread had gotten a bit off topic and decided not to post anymore. But your posts do deserve a response.
This is such a load or horse manure I hardly know where to start. What the eff - I'm bored: "Referenced back to global warming" (as you put it) is not equivalent to claiming a causal link, is not the same as providing incontrovertible proof, and definitely is not anywhere near as inflammatory as your prejudiced, neophyte, pseudo-intellectual dogma wishes it would be. No scientist ever claimed any sort of proof in this regard, merely a potential for cause-and-effect grounded in rather simplistic physics. Quite possible, albeit misinformed. Quite doubtful, albeit misinformed. Well golly gee, what a surprise that would be. It's high comedy that you can happily espouse a myriad of "liberal conspiracy theories" for why global warming is farcical, but you won't supply the same skepticism to the bloody news, long a punching bag for right wing ignorants more intent on controlling the message than dealing with the content. It's the height of hypocrisy, and a very, very obvious demonstration of your bias. Apparently you should amend your statement as follows:
Here is the quote from Al Gore, which he made during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, together with a link to the transcripts of the interview at CNN: [RQUOTER]Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition' BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now. Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process? GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead. [/RQUOTER] And before you "accidentally" misquote me, here is what I said in my previous post: You have born false witness against me sir. If you are a man of honor and integrity, you will apologize. If you are not, then you will refuse to do so. Once again, your penchant for name calling says a lot about you, but nothing much at all about anything else. And what it says about you is not good at all.
Again Al Gore never claimed credit for inventing the internet. Al Gore was instrumental in getting the internet out to the general public.
Seriously Mojo why must you always distort what others have said to make your point? It almost seems like you do it intentionally.
If you had chosen to follow the link I provided, it had the exact same quote, you didn't have to Google it. And, as the quote you dug up proves, Gore never said or implied that he "invented" the internet, which is what you claim that he said. No, you have proven with your own quotes that you are a liar. At best, you are quoting a gross misrepresentation of what Al Gore meant, which is that as a member of Congress, he has assigned funding for the growth of the (at the time) nascent technology that would evolve into the Internet. So, you lied or you intentionally misrepresented what Al Gore said. Which is it?
Your third grade tactics are highly intimidating. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V3SgOleq3Xw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V3SgOleq3Xw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
