Global Warming Debunked

[frozencell]

[quote]Do you realise what would happen if the ice caps melted? There would be floods. On a large scale. Catastrophic floods. As in 'lots of people homeless and very poor' floods. I hope that was just a bad joke on your part rather than a serious attempt at reassurance.[/quote]

Of course it was a bad joke. I'm not dumb enough to actually believe that. I know that melting ice caps isn't good, but I also know that a few chunks of ice falling into the water isn't the end of the world either. I was only having some fun. But now that you raise the question of flood waters and such I pose the following:

Why would the ocean level rise when most, if not all, of the polar ice caps is already just kind of floating in the water. When your ice melts in your glass of lemonade it doesn't overflow all over the front porch steps does it? No, no it does not...

[quote]The weight of scientific opinion seems to lie behind the [i]theory[/i] of human-accelerated global warming. This is definitely the case where I study. (Cambridge.) And while an Oxford or Cambridge scientist's evaluation is not infallible, it usually amounts to more than just gross exaggeration. I'm ready to trust their judgment and their knowledge as my own is so weak in this area.[/quote]

Theory (as defined by dictionary.com):
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
7. guess or conjecture.

I suppose guessing is better than gross exaggerattion, but it still does not amount to "scientific fact". This what bothers me about the whole thing (and I think most people will agree). It's not the idea tha someone is concerned about the environment or that they want to do everything they can to make sure that we are good stewards of our resources. Not at all, because I also feel that way. I recycle. I don't litter. I do a fair amount of walking instead of driving everywhere. But to pass off a "guess" that happens to coincide with what you believe to the general public as a scientific fact is infuriating! You can't possibly support someone who is making a truckload of cash off of people who will swallow anything...or who will support you for ulterior motives.

[quote]Some people argue that it's not right for the so-called 'developed world' to start effecting change until the Third World is ready to do its share. But "Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?" is an argument I don't understand, as it is not applied in any other field of morality and ethics. Other people's questionable behaviour, whether they are morally culpable for it or not, is no excuse for me to abandon what I believe is right. So I will pick up the plastic bottles and tin cans that I find in our nice park and take them to the bottle bank, irrespective of whether or not a horde of people are going to come out of the nearest McDonald's and mess it all up again. Their apathy and/or inability to do something about the problem, no matter whether it is a local problem or near apocalyptic in scale, doesn't alter my responsibility by one iota.[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1356943' date='Aug 11 2007, 10:49 PM']Some people argue that it's not right for the so-called 'developed world' to start effecting change until the Third World is ready to do its share. But "Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?" is an argument I don't understand, as it is not applied in any other field of morality and ethics.[/quote]I don't think that's the argument, it's how it is politcally characterized. So you're saying it's a matter of economics?
Fact. It is not proven by ANY science that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming. It's a theory that's accepted by many, but there are many that have shown evidence that carbons actually contribute to global cooling. There is no evidence that absolutely proves that humanity is causing global warming.

With that in mind, consider what would happen if the developed world cripples their economy to affect 'global warming' protocols for unproven theories? What happens in the EU and US doesn't just affect their own standard of living, it affects the standard of living in many other countries as well. Russia, India, and China are phenomenol polluters and extremely inefficient at using their natural resources, yet they deserve a pass on having to clean up their act when the damage they are doing is more evident and real then theoretical man-made global warming?

There is an element of fairness involved. Why isn't Mexico as developed as the US? They have people, similar geography, a wealth of natural resources (#1 or #2 supplier of imported oil to US). It's because their government, society, culture, and economy is so corrupt that economic progress is stifled. That's why almost 20% of Mexico's workforce are illegals in the US. Could the UK, China, or the EU absorb 12million illegal immigrants without having their society and economy crash under the burden?

If actions should be taken, the choices and options should be based on reason, known science, with the intent that they are sustainable and do not destroy economies or bring down the standard of living for anyone, whether they're in a developed country, or developing country.

[Aloysius]

I'm just excited that Y2K is now officially back in the running for being the cause of the end of the world. Y2k geniuses climatologists, climatologists wage war against global warming, causes much panic so that finally some nutjob gets into a place of power and brings the end of the world about!

I'm rootin for Y2K to cause the end of the world... it just sort of fizzled out too much... totally needs a sequel. "The Y2K Strikes Back"

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1357172' date='Aug 12 2007, 03:04 PM']I'm just excited that Y2K is now officially back in the running for being the cause of the end of the world. Y2k geniuses climatologists, climatologists wage war against global warming, causes much panic so that finally some nutjob gets into a place of power and brings the end of the world about!

I'm rootin for Y2K to cause the end of the world... it just sort of fizzled out too much... totally needs a sequel. "The Y2K Strikes Back"[/quote]
And to think after seven years we all thought we were safe....

[Justin86]

[quote name='saint_wannabe' post='1356668' date='Aug 12 2007, 05:20 AM']but then why is it almost 40 C degrees out side??[/quote]
Ok, if I actually have to explain to you why just because it's really hot where you are does not indicate a [i]global[/i] warming trend you quite simply need rehab.

[kateri05]

justin, while i agree with your premise, that wasn't a very charitable way to say it

[frozencell]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1357172' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:04 AM']I'm just excited that Y2K is now officially back in the running for being the cause of the end of the world. Y2k geniuses climatologists, climatologists wage war against global warming, causes much panic so that finally some nutjob gets into a place of power and brings the end of the world about!

I'm rootin for Y2K to cause the end of the world... it just sort of fizzled out too much... totally needs a sequel. "The Y2K Strikes Back"[/quote]

I agree. It was like the end of a bad horror movie where the climax is built up for over 20 mins. and then the killer is put to rest with the business end of a garden shovel welded by a 12 yr. old parapelegic girl. All of the sudden, it looks like the parapelegic girl was just a ruse and the killer is back in a twist ending to kill off the rest of the cast right before the credits roll.

*Chanting* Y2K Y2K Y2K Y2K...

[Justin86]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1357187' date='Aug 12 2007, 03:39 PM']justin, while i agree with your premise, that wasn't a very charitable way to say it [/quote]
I didn't say anything that wasn't true....

[kateri05]

yea, but you know charity involves alot of how you say, not just what you say.

[Justin86]

So I can't tell someone they need rehab even if they do?

[kateri05]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1357183' date='Aug 12 2007, 12:26 AM']Ok, if I actually have to explain to you why just because it's really hot where you are does not indicate a [i]global[/i] warming trend you quite simply need rehab.[/quote]
And you still don't think you're condescending?

[Dismas]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1357172' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:04 AM']I'm just excited that Y2K is now officially back in the running for being the cause of the end of the world. Y2k geniuses climatologists, climatologists wage war against global warming, causes much panic so that finally some nutjob gets into a place of power and brings the end of the world about!

I'm rootin for Y2K to cause the end of the world... it just sort of fizzled out too much... totally needs a sequel. "The Y2K Strikes Back"[/quote]

Eh, Y2K was mostly a way for COBOL programmers to make enough money to retire early before the Dotcom stocks would crash. They did manage to swindle billions of dollars out of the hands of pretty much everybody before time ran out. Now let's look at the MMGW evangelists.

Now, I have to admit, I know a few things about university science programs. They are money whores begging for fat government grants that further the government bureaucrats' own careerism. There's no money in government for NOT solving a nonexistent problem, but there's plenty of cash for solving problems, especially ones that aren't really there. Therefore, I cannot justify looking at any publicly funded research without just as much distrust as one funded by ExxonMobil. Since research dollars have to come from somewhere, all research is bound to be tainted.

Next, I look at those who are on the forefront of proclaiming the dire news of MMGW. Now, if I had information concerning a catastrophe of global proportions, I would consider it in the best interests of myself and my children to take any and all means necessary to avert it. In the 50's, many people built fallout shelters, and some might have worked. Today, we are told to buy magical pieces of paper called "carbon credits". Seriously, how does this manage to stop global warming? I would think the best way to go about things would be to actually sequester carbon right now and blow all my wealth into doing so. Instead, the MMGW crowd just pushes their excesses off on someone else and let the profit slide right back into their own majority stock ownership.

Now, come to think of it, in time since I was born, Y2K was the seventh liberal "sure thing" end of the world scenario. Quite frankly, the record for liberals predicting the Apocalypse is worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses (7 failures in about 30 years vs. 5 failures in 133 years). Further, while the JW's may bother me every couple of Saturdays for about fifteen minutes every year and hand me free paper that lights bonfires fairly well, the Liberal "Do-Gooders" steal my money and waste my time daily.

So, all things considered, I place "Man-Made Global Warming" to be a religion below the JW, and perhaps even lower than Scientology and Pyramid Schemes.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1357322' date='Aug 12 2007, 12:15 PM']Eh, Y2K was mostly a way for COBOL programmers to make enough money to retire early before the Dotcom stocks would crash.[/quote]

Hey, how come I didn't get to retire?

[LouisvilleFan]

Regardless of whether global warming is actually happening or its causes, we cannot deny that human activity and development are detrimental to our natural environment. Even though I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios theorized by some, God did command us to be good stewards of this planet, so why not cooperate with envrionmentalists on these things?