sort of like people in talk radio.. they are not liars they are to stupid to be ..we can come together and agree on one thing after all..
Where in this thread did it say skeptics were interviewed to refute science?
If this mess of a post was all you were able to come up with after reading this thread then your observations are just as skewed as Gore's and your comprehension skills are in dire need of a makeover.
great ing mindset.
I haven't come to any hard conclusion either but it only serves to weaken the arguement for Global Warming when a politician does a do entary on the subject and his material is exposed as a pack of lies by the experts in the field.
there are just as many experts that would be backing up gore, maybe even more on his side if you were to do a poll of scientists in the field.
Agreed and that certainly adds to the confusion.
Absolutely, especially when it agitates you. Happy now?
Well, at least Rush has about 20 million listeners. But you and I, all we
got is each other. And he flys in a private jet to play golf. All I got is
a Mazda pickup and toll roads in the future. All for the life of the average
joe.
Experts in the field. What a joke. Bush has had experts in the field. Remember your "experts"?
Is there not one entree you won't order off the repug menu? Do you just eat whatever they shove in your face? Couldn't you at least place a side order of dignity?
Here's a good article IMO from Dr. Richard Lindzen
So what is the truth about global warming? Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, had much to say about this in his June 11, 2001 article in OpinionJournal.com ( led: "The Press Gets it Wrong: Our Report does not Support the Kyoto Treaty"). Dr. Lindzen served on the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change and co-authored its report. Here are important excerpts from his article:
Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, most important being water vapor and clouds).
But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us nothing relevant to policy discussions.
One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned about global cooling.
Before closing, I would like to clear up an issue that may be confusing. How can communism and National Socialism (i.e. Nazism) be compatible? Indeed, Colonel Qadhafi melded together Marxist Communism and National Socialism in The Green Book. However, let’s go to a much better book, The Black Book of Communism, for an answer:
By means of propaganda, the Communists succeeded in making people believe that their conduct had universal implications, relevant to humanity as a whole. Critics have often tried to make a distinction between Nazism and Communism by arguing that the Nazi project had a particular aim, which was nationalist and racist in the extreme, whereas Lenin’s project was universal. This is entirely wrong. In both theory and practice, Lenin and his successors excluded from humanity all capitalists, the bourgeoisie, counterrevolutionaries, and others, turning them into absolute enemies in their sociological and political discourse.
Just as Lenin and his successors excluded capitalists and others from humanity, Hitler and his henchmen excluded Jews, the infirmed, and others from humanity as well. Tens of millions of people were murdered at the hands of these totalitarian regimes. As written in The Green Book, Qadhafi clearly is attempting to exclude capitalists from humanity. Now do you see the connection?
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, environmentalists want people (especially those living in capitalist countries) to believe their conduct is causing global warming and, thus, destroying our planet. Therefore, environmentalism has capitalism in its crosshairs. It is those of us who benefit from the fruits of Western Civilization that are being turned into enemies in the daily sociological and political discourse of environmentalists. Americans, including President Bush, must come to understand that environmentalism is a serious threat. If we suc b to the global warming propaganda being thrust upon us daily (with our left-wing press wittingly or not being used as the primary tool of terror/propaganda), then Green Socialism stands a chance of dismantling Western Civilization and throwing us back into the dark ages. Our rights to life, liberty, and property are at stake here.
February 22, 2002
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html
^^Wont do any good Joch. The folks who support the "people are the cause of
everything" crowd don't want to hear the real facts. They love living in never, never
land.
I have been paying close attention to how you guys talk to each other. I imagine you gazing into one anothers eyes, getting all misty, hanging on every word, knowing you both agree with each others lies, sharing your love of the president, wishing everyone had what you two have...........and praying that ann coulter is not a man!
[QUOTE]What does this nonsense have to do with Global Warming!?
Last edited by jochhejaam; 07-02-2006 at 08:49 PM.
Jesus you guys are dense, global warming is as much a debate in the scientific community as evolution. Yes you find dessenters, but for christsake this is an accepted phenomenau.
The fact that the earth is warming is unanimous.
The assumption that man is causing some of it is accepted by an overwhelming majority.
The assumption that man is causing most of it is accepted by a large amount.
Practically no one agrees on the severity of the consequences. Way too many camps on that.
It's not even close to as immenent a threat as people like Gore portray, there is no "point of no return", and the earth can correct itself. We can take our time implementing changes to lessen our impact on global temperatures.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote